You do not get to decide this. A single level submission can cut it if it aptly demonstrates that sloppy play is present throughout an entire submission.

I disagree with the current 'standard' that says that any shitty single level 'wip' nullifies someone's completed TAS. The two are different beasts. There's generally a reason why the single level 'wips' were not finished to completion and that includes known optimization issues and hurdles. The parts are not necessarily faster than the whole. I would agree with you if that's how you've been judging things, but from what I've seen any shitty single level wip qualifies. That's an issue especially when a TAS starts long before that shitty wip comes out. And it always raises the question for me, if it is improvable, why wasn't it? I usually get the following excuse, "I didn't have enough time to see the project through". Well, great. Authorship priority should go to the one who managed to finish the game, improvable or not. Right now any WIP nullifies all the work on the TAS which isn't really right. I'm happy with Frame wars! They are exciting! Improvements are part of what makes this site what it is. In terms of quality, I don't see that as the issue here. The movie is quite good.

You are actively discouraging criticism and thus communication. You are discouraging the creation of better TASes.

Dogs bark when they get hit. You're actively shouting down someone calling out unconstructive negative criticism. If it were about the movie quality... I'd be on board with you, but it's not. I'm a neutral observer here, I've not been associated with technickle in any way, but the concerns raised were over, "why didn't you do x the way we would have preferred you to do x" and not over the quality of the submission, etc. Those are user issues, not quality of movie issues. I personally don't really care that you find him a PITA. Great. Deal with it.

Nobody had even said the movie was bad

That does not seem to be consensus here. Consensus seems to share my opinion that this movie was not given a fair shake so that people could watch it first before you folks all levelled your criticisms at technickle. Why not wait a day to see how it's received? That would be reasonable to me. Y'all were up almost right behind the submission, which to me indicates prior issues between you and this contributor.

...but the concerns raised were over, "why didn't you do x the way we would have preferred you to do x" and not over the quality of the submission, etc.

When an established preferred way of having things done for publication purposes has already been standardized on the site, not doing things that way without a warranted reason is exactly a reflection of the quality of the presented submission. The quality of this movie itself may be fine on its own and may indeed be very entertaining for some; but for a submission that is being offered for publication on the site, the submission needs to adhere to the established/traditional quality standards of the site. So questions regarding methods employed for the creation and submission of this run are indeed questions of the movie's quality as a submission. Pointing out that this submission fails to match or beat the current publication on certain tracks shows that better is possible for those tracks. Unless there's a valid reason those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish a faster overall run, the criticism that this submission is sub-optimal is valid. If those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish the faster overall run, then it should be explained why to the best of the authors knowledge.

Well my concerns are there are several points where the car actually goes of the track in the course of a normal run when in every racing game I know that causes you to lose speed unnecessarily. Saw this a couple times just skimming through. Also normal driving techniques like cutting corners does not seem to be used properly. But this is a video game so maybe you could explain why?

Also normal driving techniques like cutting corners does not seem to be used properly. But this is a video game so maybe you could explain why?

The first Top Gear game didn't have such complexity like "proper driving lines." Think of it as a perfectly straight road, which occasionally pushes you to the left or right, and steering merely adjusts your position left or right without affecting forward motion. I don't care what the graphics say about how curvy the road is, it's still a perfectly straight piece that, again, occasionally adjusts your position. At least, that's the pattern I noticed when it comes to these types of false 3D perspective 2D racing games. I know Rad Racer did, and the first Top Gear game also did. The one last detail to confirm, then, involves the fact Top Gear 2 isn't Top Gear, so did it change things in the transition to the sequel?

That does not seem to be consensus here. Consensus seems to share my opinion that this movie was not given a fair shake so that people could watch it first before you folks all levelled your criticisms at technickle. Why not wait a day to see how it's received? That would be reasonable to me. Y'all were up almost right behind the submission, which to me indicates prior issues between you and this contributor.

Where is this consensus that agrees with you? I don't see any posts agreeing with you as such.

Pointing out that this submission fails to match or beat the current publication

What current publication? There is a WIP that doesn't complete the game.

shows that better is possible for those tracks.

Maybe. The parts do not necessarily add up to the whole, particularly when the whole is a much larger and longer body of work than the parts. I'd be very skeptical that the improvements would carry over to a full publication. Happy to be proven wrong though.

Unless there's a valid reason those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish a faster overall run, the criticism that this submission is sub-optimal is valid. If those tracks MUST be performed slower to accomplish the faster overall run, then it should be explained why to the best of the authors knowledge.

Could be as simple as RNG jitter. Top Gear has been known to have quite a bit of it. Sure, track 1 might be faster, but track 2 after track 1 has bad RNG and ends up slower.

Pointing out that this submission fails to match or beat the current publication

What current publication? There is a WIP that doesn't complete the game.

You love selective reading. Here's the full quote, emphasis mine cause apparently you failed to read a word in that quote.

Pointing out that this submission fails to match or beat the current publication on certain tracks shows that better is possible for those tracks.

Current Publication: [4060] SNES Top Gear 2 "all tracks" by Technickle in 2:23:40.99 The same publication that has been referenced. The same publication that has been as a comparator because the author has done decisions that haven't been explained yet. As for the two other comments you made, it just falls under the same point that I've already written, so it's not worth repeating myself.