watch the slowest belmont exploit the hell out of his game's behaviours and finish every level in the fastest way possible.
this run not only is a huge time improvement over previous attempts but it is also presented in the best way possible, both gameplay wise and visually.
the main time save comes from an overall cleaner performance over the whole run, but there is also a new found exploit that led to more than two seconds of saved time throughout the run. this new trick is not figured out enough to be used consistently but it works by crouching in any place at specific frames to somehow skip over seemingly random lag frames every now and then, which saves loading time and makes the game process less slow. since it is yet unclear how exactly this trick works, it is just spammed as much as possible at every place possible to hopefully maximize the chances of the effect happening.
other than this new trick, the whole run has been overhauled and every screen has been reconsidered to make sure it uses the most optimal strategies with current knowledge.
there are a few places where some frames could potentially been saved, however most of those cases are based on the current lag pattern and the global timer of the game, so even though there is potential on saving frames in one screen could mean that you lose some other frames in a later screen due to the same improvement, so it is hard to tell if or how much could be saved if everything would work out perfectly in every place and time.
the exact time of this run is 56651 frames of which 16720 are lag frames.
a huge thank you goes out to ThunderAxe31 who wrote a LUA-script to view RAM values while playing and who encuraged me to give this website one last chance for this submission...
Samsara: Your posting is disruptive and highly insulting and your version choice is unacceptable anyway. Either improve your attitude or just leave, you clearly don't want anything to do with our site anyway, and if you're going to keep acting the way you do, then we don't want anything to do with you in turn. Cancelling. This should be fine with you, since you only made vague threats toward the site if we REJECTED it.
EDIT: I'd like to clarify that the choice on whether or not to accept the movie was purely because of the game version used. The act of cancelling it early was due to the author's behavior. Better behavior would have simply led to a normal rejection, as this version of the game is strictly inferior to the version used in the published run, and the two are nearly impossible to compare because of how much poorer this version of the game is. I apologize for my last post in the submission thread being misleading, it was meant to be talking about the act of early cancellation and not the overall rejection.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6449
Location: The land down under.
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
If it means anything towards this, this movie beats the KC ver TAS by IGT.
Interestingly enough the IGT actually clocks down faster on the KC version.
Yes you can argue glitchyness or what have you but that's thrown out due to how different the two timers are.
Meaning there's not really a fair comparison to give this run to the KC version.
Bigbass wrote:
How is it a cleaner run by not despawning the eyeball? Would despawning it result in a slower time?
Also to quickly touch the eyeball example preventing the spawn is faster by 3 frames at least on KC.
I'm not going to look into the GB version since it's a completely inferior version by creating more lag and having slower movements all round.
(Also the eye falls faster in the KC version meaning that it will hit you no matter what on the way down so you have to make sure it doesn't spawn on top of you first.)
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
If it means anything towards this, this movie beats the KC ver TAS by IGT.
Interestingly enough the IGT actually clocks down faster on the KC version.
Taking a guess the KC version uses the same code, that's probably just a side-effect of double speed mode. Although I guess it could be argued that double speed mode gives half the lag and therefore it cancels out although probably not actually right so eh who cares lol
it's not that easy...
maybe at first glance it looks like a good option, but delaying [...]
Nice, thanks for the detailed explanation. :D This is the kind of information that would have been a great addition to the submission notes.
As a side note, I'm not a judge. While I'm sure they don't have bias against you, I certainly don't either. That said, I do share some of the same concerns that have been brought up, such as that eyeball question. And concerns about whether this is just a laggier version of the other game, or if there are distinct gameplay differences.
If the gameplay is too identical between the two games, then they might as well be considered the same game. As Nach pointed out earlier, there are differences in color and performance quality. If the gameplay really is identical, and there are no significant glitches that make this version unique from the other, then this is effectively an inferior version of the same game.
I guess one question that may help answer this simply is: Why did you want to TAS this particular version of the game? If there was no specific reason, then in terms of lag reduction, it makes sense to use the game version with the least lag.
I'm sorry that you feel like you're being attacked. I do not believe that is the intention of anyone on this forum. Sometimes, like in this case, the judges simply need more information about the TAS or the intent of the TAS, before deciding whether it should be published or not, while following the rules of the site. It's not about trying to hurt you or reject your hard work.
I've attempted a console verification of this TAS, but unfortunately it seems to desync on the first level. Looking at how the game polls inputs, it's all over the place with when in the frame it polls an input, so this is potentially a script issue rather than an actual emulation issue. Still, I'm not too sure, all I have tried still resulted in desyncs, so some hybrid model would probably need to be used to adjust the timing according to when the poll happens (under current Gambatte this isn't exactly possible, mostly due to https://github.com/TASVideos/BizHawk/issues/2710 so some hacky solution is possibly needed). Although, if it's an emulation issue, then syncing this to console is probably going to be RIP for a while.
honestly, i don't care too much if you gang up on me or not, so even if there was bias here, that's not really my point in the first place.
It's sad that you see it that way and it's even more sad hearing that you don't care. Here everyone just want to make you understand what there are reasons. In the staff of this site I've met the most nice people in my life, so I really think that there is a huge misunderstanding if you feel that you've being mistreated.
Mazzin wrote:
so maybe it will actuall help me if you can summarize again what tasvideos.org is even about? i always assumed it was a place that gathers the best TAS of each game and puts them out for the public for entertainment?
I will make a proper post about that today. For now I'll just summarize the situation about this rule...
I agree with you when you claim that the original version is a sort of "hard mode" of the Konami Collection version. And for that reason, it would make sense to obsolete the current KC publication with this new submission. There is only one issue though: a harder mode isn't always preferred for publication. In fact, sometimes it may actually happen the opposite, that is, a easier mode obsoleting a harder mode. Here are two opposing examples:
Harder mode obsoleting easier mode: [1807] Arcade Metal Slug X "2 players" by X2poet in 18:32.20
Easier mode obsoleting harder mode: [4036] PCE Ninja Spirit by CoolHandMike & EZGames69 in 08:51.14
But probably in the meantime other people will explain before I make my next post.
Edit: for now I'll just paste here the Guideline for difficulty choice:
When a game has multiple difficulty levels, it is preferred to play on the difficulty that would make the most interesting and entertaining run. Usually, this is the hardest difficulty, and as such it is the most preferred choice for a TAS. However, there are cases where harder difficulties do nothing but add repetition to runs, such as only giving enemies and bosses more HP, where the extra work required to kill them is uninteresting. In these cases, it is preferred to use an easier difficulty in the interest of reducing repetitive actions which do little to entertain upon frequent use.
it's so damn tiring to correct every small and insignificant detail, only to prevent it to attract the others in this forum to add their assumptions to it, which only makes things more and more complicated to revert back into a reasonable direction for this whole discussion.
i have to step in once again here!
Interestingly enough the IGT actually clocks down faster on the KC version.
Yes you can argue glitchyness or what have you but that's thrown out due to how different the two timers are.
Meaning there's not really a fair comparison to give this run to the KC version.
ingame timers running at different speeds in each version is absolute bullshit!
no matter the version, the ingame timer always ticks down every 32 ticks on the global timer! this means that relative to the games speed, the ingame timer always runs exactly at the same speed.
*edit*
wait a second... maybe i have misread your post.
did you mean the ingame timer actually using different global timer values to tick down? because that would be very interesting!
*edit end*
technically you could now argue that a higher ingame timer value would display a slower runtime, but unfortunately this is also not neccessarily true, especially in precise performances like a TAS run.
there is a hypothetical amount of minimum gameplay time that is needed to play through the game in the most optimal way (obviously not measurable) and there is a set amount of lag that always happens in relation to said gameplay time. those two parts of the runtime are 1:1 equal in every version of the physical games: KC EU, KC JP, GB EU, GB US, GB JP.
they could be comparable, but there is no way to isolate those parts from the rest of the run.
that rest consists of additional optional gameplay which itself causes additional lag in response (the amount might depend on the game version this time).
but there are also cases where you purposly want additional lag in your gameplay to do certain tricks or just finish a complicated room quicker in the end.
here also comes that linearity issue into play again:
the more lag your variable gameplay is connected with, the more options you have to work with it to play through a section optimally.
let's imagine you have 50/50 of gameplay and lag in the original version, that means that in theory you could reduce all lag and only use 100% lagless gameplay for your stategy or do all lag on purpose to achieve whatever things you need to benefit your route or every other combination of the mix, like 20/80 or 70/30 etc...
but if the game only gives you access to 50/0 of gameplay/lag then you have only one option to make it through an area. no variants of lag and gameplay, only bare linear movement without any possibilities to get closer to the never reachable optimal way of doing it.
(this is of course an extreme example and both versions have some wiggle room to play with, but obviously the original has way more options there)
ah damn, i can't explain this properly, it's weird af and anything but intuitive.
so if you didn't understand that last paragraph, then never mind, just ignore it.
Also to quickly touch the eyeball example preventing the spawn is faster by 3 frames at least on KC.
I'm not going to look into the GB version since it's a completely inferior version by creating more lag and having slower movements all round.
(Also the eye falls faster in the KC version meaning that it will hit you no matter what on the way down so you have to make sure it doesn't spawn on top of you first.)
and this is also very likely not true.
i don't know what you tested there with your 3 frames, but getting through the room itself is already hard enough, even without the eyeball problem, so i doubt you optimized every step down while also trying combinations of pause delays with different lag patterns... there is no way your test was accurate, at least not when it was done this fast.
and regarding the eyeballs initial spawn... :D
i already knew that aruk's run fucked up that part, because the fact that he even went for that strat is just a proof of how unoptimal the run is.
the eyeball spawns on the second multiple of 16 on the global timer after the first frame you load up the room. that means if you enter it at 0 you have 32 frames until the eyeball spawns, which is plenty of time to walk away from it.
if you enter at 15, you only got 17 frames of escaping time, which is not enough.
so, if you didn't plan out your previous rooms to end you up on a number that lets you walk far enough until the eyeball spawns in, your only option left is to pause delay it at least once so you get enough time to escape from under it.
i assume since the run was already fucked up at this point and he was already forced to used a pause delay to escape the eyeball,i think aruk just decided to go the unoptimal route and continue the pause delay since the first one now favoured this strategy for his position already being further than the other strat would be.
i hate explaining this madness to people who have basically no idea what im even talking... it feels so draining and ineffective to me, but yeah... there you have my big two cents.
It's sad that you see it that way and it's even more sad hearing that you don't care. Here everyone just want to make you understand what there are reasons. In the staff of this site I've met the most nice people in my life, so I really think that there is a huge misunderstanding if you feel that you've being mistreated.
i didn't mean that the people here are bad or whatever, i just came here for a simple reason to provide the worlds finest run, so the interaction aspect is not my main deal here.
and the part where i said this is the last chance i give for the submission, is also not meant to be threatening or dramatic, i moreso meant that i will not make any more runs after this, so if i submit it or not has no influence on my desicion to make no more runs in the future. (i wouldn't even have remade this run here if it wasn't for this new tool and the still existing pain of insult that i had to shove down from last time here...). that's why it sounded so dramatic, but it's not aaaas much meant to.
ps: if hard mode is a thing, then that's probably the case here.
this is basically what i tried to bring across all the time, i just didn't find the right words or thought about it in this context yet, but it's exactly that, hard mode.
so maybe it will actuall help me if you can summarize again what tasvideos.org is even about? i always assumed it was a place that gathers the best TAS of each game and puts them out for the public for entertainment?
The short answer is: the purpose of this site is to showcase what tool-assisted speedrun/superplay is. (more of this on the welcome page)
The slightly longer answer is... I joined the staff as a judge shortly before feos became senior judge. He taught me almost everything I know about how to judge, and why. He told me that when the site was at its beginnings, in 2004, TASing was still unknown for anyone, and for this reason it was necessary to restrict the contents to only the most surprising and popular movies, in order to attract interest of the mass. For this reason, the entertaining was the only requirement for allowing a movie to be published on the site. This means that almost all movies published were made on popular games, or at very least consisted in movies that looked very superhuman, even to people that aren't familiar with those games.
It's only at the end of the 2012 that it was decided to introduce the Vault tier, which allowed to publish movies that looked not as much entertaining to the majority of the audience. However, there are still some important requirements that are there, for good reasons. In particular, there is the need to avoid publishing movies that are too much similar to each other, for example this. It's for this reason that this submission you made has to be compared with the existing publication: there can be only one. The final decision will be to either obsolete that movie with your submission, or reject this submission in favor of keeping the current publication.
Now, we need to elaborate about which one of the two versions should be preferred. Since the only consistent difference between the two CVA versions is about the amount of lag, we need to asses how this exactly affects gameplay. For most games, a version that features more lag is usually considered just as a demerit, as it merely slows down the movie without affecting gameplay. However, for this game it indeed results in different gameplay! This simple quirk results in the need to come up with different play strategies in order to beat the game as fast as possible, effectively making the TASing challenge harder.
So at this point we get to ask ourselves, which mode is preferred by the rules, the easier or the harder? Well, as I mentioned in the previous post, it depends. Remember that the main goal is to produce a movie that results more impressive to look. This is clear the case for games where a harder mode results in more complex solutions in order to save time, which is the case that makes the harder mode preferred. However, for games where the harder mode doesn't add much to the challenge, but it just adds repetitiveness to the play, it's a case where the easier mode is preferred.
Now, I see that for this game it can be debatable. For some people, this additional lag may look meaningless, while for others may look intriguing. In order to get to the a conclusive solution, we need to understand better the criteria itself. As I mentioned before, the original purpose of the site was to maximize entertaining, which is something that usually is proportional to the amount of action and speed going on screen. And for this game, we have to note that the lag does mostly slow down the play, which is something that is generally detracting to the sentiment of entertaining for the average watcher. Not for all games, not for all movie goals, but we still can't ignore the trend.
However, despite that I just said, I think there is still a chance for this movie. The fact is... We can't talk about loss in entertaining, if the movie wasn't entertaining in first place. Yes, because the existing publication is already in Vault, so it shouldn't really matter if a new movie is made with a game version that makes it even less entertaining. At this point we need to focus just on the technical merits of the two movies. And since the game version used for this submission resulted objectively harder to play, it should by logic be considered preferred over the easier to play version.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that until now, version choice of any game was always made in order to pick the game that allowed to beat the game faster, doesn't matter how unfair the advantage looked. Some versions were picked because lagged less, some where picked because allowed more useful glitches... Historically, the slower version of a game was allowed only as an extra beside the faster one, and only if it resulted in more than 50% of gameplay differences. This may not look favorable for this submission, but we need to ask ourselves: why were the faster versions always preferred in the past? Was it for the sake of maximizing entertaining quality, or was it for the sake of maximizing technical quality? I think that in the end, the solution of this dispute just depends on answering this question. And if anyone doesn't agree that the core of the problem is in there, then I'd be curious to learn why.
My take on this is simple: the effort put into lag reduction might be of merit to some, but lag itself isn't. If the best way of reducing lag is to use the version of the game that lags less, than that version should be preferred.
It's also clearly a winning move in terms of entertainment for those who don't care about this game enough to analyze the extent of lag reduction and consider it something more than a self-imposed challenge.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11495
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
However, despite that I just said, I think there is still a chance for this movie. The fact is... We can't talk about loss in entertaining, if the movie wasn't entertaining in first place. Yes, because the existing publication is already in Vault, so it shouldn't really matter if a new movie is made with a game version that makes it even less entertaining. At this point we need to focus just on the technical merits of the two movies. And since the game version used for this submission resulted objectively harder to play, it should by logic be considered preferred over the easier to play version.
On the other hand, I have to acknowledge that until now, version choice of any game was always made in order to pick the game that allowed to beat the game faster, doesn't matter how unfair the advantage looked. Some versions were picked because lagged less, some where picked because allowed more useful glitches... Historically, the slower version of a game was allowed only as an extra beside the faster one, and only if it resulted in more than 50% of gameplay differences. This may not look favorable for this submission, but we need to ask ourselves: why were the faster versions always preferred in the past? Was it for the sake of maximizing entertaining quality, or was it for the sake of maximizing technical quality? I think that in the end, the solution of this dispute just depends on answering this question. And if anyone doesn't agree that the core of the problem is in there, then I'd be curious to learn why.
First of all, the difficulty guideline isn't talking about game versions, only about explicit game modes. For game modes, here's the rule we have, but it doesn't mention difficulty. It talks about variety of factors to consider, and difficulty may or may not be among them.
Also to clarify the meaning of the difficulty guideline. The difficulty choice should make the movie more interesting and entertaining, even if it's in Vault. Harder to TAS does not necessarily mean more interesting and entertaining to watch. Even if the strategies are different, the main question is: do they look better now? And it doesn't mean "are they more optimized?" because that's already a requirement for obsoletion. It means "do they leave subjectively better impression than in the current movie?"
For this submission, we need to answer both of those questions though: "is it more optimal?" and "does this game version make the movie more interesting/entertaining?" Situation with lag may make it hard to compare, because an improvement means some trick has been found that could be applied to the old TAS and make it faster. Still doable of course. As for preferred game version, it's really up to the audience, and here's what audience preference looks like (the example there is also about difficulty of versions).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
an improvement means some trick has been found that could be applied to the old TAS and make it faster.
The trick that was found was a lag reduction trick, which means it wouldn't necessarily be able to be applied to the published run. It's kinda hard to reduce lag that isn't there to begin with.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
hmm.. this is a very hard debate on both ends, i admit :/
but maybe my story about this can give you an idea of my motivation:
you might or might not know that from the very beginning, i always only submitted runs that were played on the original version of CVA.
so the question is, how did i even decide for this version in the first place?
why not the KC version that was already used for the showcase?
and also, why did i never switch to KC even when i got rejected twice for it?
my reasoning is simple: quality!
i obviously watched all existing TAS runs of this game i could find back when i picked this game up to TAS it and i always felt like the KC version was kind of a fanmade hack or something, it never felt real even when it had flashy colors, i just couldn't take it seriously since it felt so cheap.
and after my first run got rejected for the reason of not being played on KC version, i went to investigate on it further and then i found out about the lag differences and that KC was somewhat cheating about the playtime.
it made me sad that only this tiny emulation difference seemed enough to justify this ugly version over the real deal, so i tried to find out why i even dislike it so much and if maybe i could just get over it and make another run on the KC version next time...
but upon testing and watching runs, i only got more and more turned away from KC because the audio sounded so much worse than the original and the visuals looked more dead without the hit detection part and a lot of the color choices never made sense to me.
the only true point i could not deny was the fact that it has colors and the GB version was just black and white or greyscale which is indeed a huge point for the viewability and quality of entertainment.
but even with that color argument, i was still not willing to prefer KC over GB, since i would rather watch a black and white run than having this tortured audio and lifeless objects with wrong coloring in my next project...
so i once more went with the original version and to outweight the color argument i had a lot of gamebreaking new glitches found and used in my second submission, so i thought when my gameplay and my performance would just be good enough to outshine the existing showcase, there is no way anyone would care for color when they can get a complete overhaul of the gameplay instead...
well, seems i was wrong again :(
my second run got rejected too and soon after, when everyone saw my crazy new tricks, arukAdo rushed a dirty ass TAS using the new stuff and that shitty thing got accepted just because of KC version, even when it was way worse than my rejected run... maybe there was some reasoning and voting involved, but it doesn't matter. to me it seemed like people give a fuck about quality and good presentation, they just accept the fastest emulation time, no matter the circumstances :(
i was very beat down and because of this realization i also saw no point in even trying to put any more work into this direction since there was seemingly no appreciation for actual quality whatsoever, the only person who seemed to try to ease my depression was ThunderAxe31 and he also created this LUA-script for me to test stuff in the game. he also guided me through a lot of settings and other stuff so i could start a new TAS on a GBC emulation.
and that kinda sparked my hopes again, i could use this crazy LUA tool for precise movement and data on everything going on in the game, so that i could make an even more polished run than my other attempts without the tool.
and on top of all that, i now had colors too in my run since the GBC adds colors to GB games when you play it on that system, so i now had the ultimate version of this run, unmatched gameplay, good audio, good visuals with hit detection, colors, everything! the only single thing left was the runtime itself, but they would certainly not care for such an insignificant detail, would they...?
what im trying to say is that i always believed in quality.
and until now i only got pushed aside for having that ceed.
this whole submission thing here is not about my run or my pride or whatever, i already know i'm unmatched in this game in every aspect, so i need no confirmation on that.
for me this submission is more of a last attempt to convince you guys here that in the long run quality holds more value than other aspects of a product.
you are now at a point where you only have 1 single argument of a few seconds of faster runtime on one side, against basically everything else on the other.
in the end there is still nothing i can do, you will have to decide for yourself and for the representation of this website, so im fine with whatever happens.
i did what i can, the rest is up to you i guess.
hope that helps to understand my position.
and again sorry if i accidentally insulted anyone with anything, i didn't mean to.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Mazzin wrote:
arukAdo rushed a dirty ass TAS using the new stuff and that shitty thing got accepted just because of KC version, even when it was way worse than my rejected run...
and again sorry if i accidentally insulted anyone with anything, i didn't mean to.
Y'know what, I'm done. I don't think you've accidentally insulted anyone here, it seems more like you've very much intentionally done so in every post you've made in every submission you've given us. Between the stubbornness, the bullshit, the hypocrisy, the complete lack of understanding, the egotistical rambling, the passive-aggression, the complete dismissal of the site, and the lowkey threats, I've already made my decision on the fate of your run.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mazzin wrote:
but upon testing and watching runs, i only got more and more turned away from KC because the audio sounded so much worse than the original and the visuals looked more dead without the hit detection part and a lot of the color choices never made sense to me.
Can you pinpoint an example to compare between two videos where the audio sounds worse?
I agree with you that some of the color choices make no sense. A lot of CGB updates have this issue. They added color to the game, picked some pallets for different areas, but didn't go out of their way to redo the sprites and stuff to really look good.
Mazzin wrote:
but even with that color argument, i was still not willing to prefer KC over GB, since i would rather watch a black and white run than having this tortured audio and lifeless objects with wrong coloring in my next project...
I prefer the original version as well, but I think that's because I grew up with it.
Mazzin wrote:
so i now had the ultimate version of this run, unmatched gameplay, good audio, good visuals with hit detection, colors, everything!
How do you have unmatched gameplay? I see you say that multiple times, but I don't see it watching the runs.
Mazzin wrote:
what im trying to say is that i always believed in quality.
I do too, and it's why I think in certain areas, arukAdo makes better quality decisions in the presentation of his run. For example, in the third level with the spikes coming up from the floor, he doesn't try to get to far away from the floor, so he has several near misses which look really entertaining. In this run, I just see you try to stay far away from them, and don't have any moments where I think "oh no he's about to be killed, *nail biting*, whew..., that was a close one".
See http://tasvideos.org/Guidelines.html#Fashion for more comments on things like this.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
thanks for your understanding...
i see someone is really tollerant here -_-
i tried my best to stay reasonal and this is how you picture it, thanks a lot.
only because someone's way of talking doesn't please your ears, does not mean the person has bad things in mind. i was and still am open for every question and i always try to answer to my best knowledge.
Can you pinpoint an example to compare between two videos where the audio sounds worse?
for example you can watch aruk's run from about 0:25 until 0:45 and then watch the same part in my run, if you hear no difference in the audio there, then i can't help you.
How do you have unmatched gameplay? I see you say that multiple times, but I don't see it watching the runs.
i have no idea what you are looking at but it must be something else but my submitted run here... if you can point me out even 1 part in the run that is worse in my video, then i can take this request seriously.
im not claiming it is perfect, i only said it's the currently cleanest performance yet.
and im quite confident that there will be nothing better for decades if ever...
but feel free to talk me down.
I do too, and it's why I think in certain areas, arukAdo makes better quality decisions in the presentation of his run. For example, in the third level with the spikes coming up from the floor, he doesn't try to get to far away from the floor, so he has several near misses which look really entertaining. In this run, I just see you try to stay far away from them, and don't have any moments where I think "oh no he's about to be killed, *nail biting*, whew..., that was a close one".
you guys are fucking twisted, on one hand you only care for speed, but out of a sudden, you care for entertainment tradeoffs?! how does that fit together?
i obviously have no playful tradeoffs in my run because there is no place where it wouldn't lose time, hence why it's a tradeoff...
if entertaining gameplay was the objective i would have made a run that was twice as long. or maybe i would rather just make a TAS of 102% instead of any%, that's way more entertaining by default. (btw that is still up for grabs if anyone is interested)
but in a serious any% there is no room for playing around, that's why you don't see it in my run obviously.
Okay, enough. Feedback has been given, decision has been made. You don't have to agree with it, but please go play a passive-aggressive victim elsewhere.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mazzin wrote:
for example you can watch aruk's run from about 0:25 until 0:45 and then watch the same part in my run, if you hear no difference in the audio there, then i can't help you.
I listened to both side by side, and yes now I hear a small difference. However, I didn't notice it till you point it out. This is why it's helpful to describe something specifically.
Mazzin wrote:
How do you have unmatched gameplay? I see you say that multiple times, but I don't see it watching the runs.
i have no idea what you are looking at but it must be something else but my submitted run here... if you can point me out even 1 part in the run that is worse in my video, then i can take this request seriously.
im not claiming it is perfect, i only said it's the currently cleanest performance yet.
You'll have to elaborate on what your measurement here is, because I don't see how it's the cleanest performance yet. As for something that's worse, it's exactly what I mentioned in the next part:
Mazzin wrote:
I do too, and it's why I think in certain areas, arukAdo makes better quality decisions in the presentation of his run. For example, in the third level with the spikes coming up from the floor, he doesn't try to get to far away from the floor, so he has several near misses which look really entertaining. In this run, I just see you try to stay far away from them, and don't have any moments where I think "oh no he's about to be killed, *nail biting*, whew..., that was a close one".
you guys are fucking twisted, on one hand you only care for speed, but out of a sudden, you care for entertainment tradeoffs?! how does that fit together?
This is an auto scrolling section. There is no trade off, you are supposed to act as entertaining as possible during these sections. This is described in the sub-section of the Fashion section in the guidelines I mentioned earlier: http://tasvideos.org/Guidelines.html#CreateArtEvenWhenWaitingMazzin wrote:
i obviously have no playful tradeoffs in my run because there is no place where it wouldn't lose time, hence why it's a tradeoff...
If being entertaining in the auto scrolling section would somehow slow it down, then you need to describe that. No one else here made this TAS. We don't know what you did and did not test. We don't know why you made the decisions you made. We cannot read your mind. Looking at it from the outside, it looks like you took an easier approach to an auto scroller instead of trying to make it look as entertaining as possible.
Mazzin wrote:
serious any% there is no room for playing around, that's why you don't see it in my run obviously.
This line right here goes against the entire philosophy of what a TAS is all about. There is always room for playing around, you have to be able to find it and present it. You have to look at multiple equally fast options and craft the one which entertains the most. We're here for the entertainment. If it was just about a speed record, you could've just wrote down your time, and no one would ever bother to watch the video because that's not relevant to the fact of some record. Our end result is always a video because it's about producing something watchable and enjoyable to the broadest audience possible, not just some low number.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
