This is the story of a man who goes on a little trip...

WARNING: Contains swearing and sexual references. Definitely NSFW!

Note: Movie has subtitles

I've always admired Heisanevilgenius's Family Feud TAS. So, when I found out that Jeopardy! uses the same broken word recognition algorithm, I just had to try my hand at it.

When I began making this TAS, I had planned to do it like Heisanevilgenius did, namely, come up with silly answers to the questions asked. I decided to throw in a little story at the beginning to set up the piece. Since I was concerned the story bit might not go over well, I published a one-round WIP to get some feedback. I was completely surprised when everyone said that they loved the story bit but, once it got to actually answering the questions, the TAS became dry. So I reworked what I had to make the entire TAS story-driven, completely ignoring the questions (answers?) altogether. What came out of this is a curse-laden bashing of the game and everyone in it. Oh, and also a surprise twist at the end. :)

The rerecord count for this TAS completely off. There are two reasons for this. First, I had planned to use the making of this TAS as a way to learn lua scripting. To that end, I wrote a lua script that would play through the entire TAS from start to finish. There are numerous points where luck manipulation occurs. This includes manipulating the questions in each round to be the ones I want, manipulating the daily doubles to in the highest rows possible, and manipulating the other players so they don't jump in before I'm able to. Most of this I did using script recording the specific button presses needed to get my desired result. Then I added those button presses to the master script so it didn't have to go hunting for the right outcome. The most extreme example of this was when I tried to force both daily doubles in the second round into the top row. I had a script pounding at it for over a month before discovering that the game won't allow it.

The second reason why the rerecord count is off is that I didn't realize in FCEUX you need to start recording your movie before you begin TASsing. Luckily, since the entire TAS is run using only one lua script, I lost almost no work in the end.

Even with all the scripting and luck manipulation, the hardest part was writing the answers to the questions (or is that the questions to the answers?). There are two lines of 18 characters, and the answer requirements range from very easy (two letters) to quite strict (10 letters). Trying manipulate each question into something funny (and I'm certainly no comedian), that fits into a story and meets both the answer requirements and the space limitations, was easily the most difficult part of making this run.

Apart from pauses in answering questions for readability (and the fact that the answers are longer than they need to be), and entering a non-blank name, all other play in this TAS is done as quickly as possible. Speed could be improved by manipulating away any clapping after questions are answered and any animation showing other contestants trying to buzz in.

One final note: You'll notice at the beginning I choose Quarter-Final instead of Semi-Final or Final Round. This is because, when it comes to TASsing, there is no change in difficulty in each of the rounds. The Quarter-Final round pits you against three other opponents (instead of only two for the other rounds), which gave me more people to bash. Also, you need to use a password to get to the Final Round, and there was simply no justification to do so.

feos: #2166: Heisanevilgenius's SNES Family Feud in 06:46.71 has the highest entertainment rating of all non-speed-oriented movies on our site. This submission refers pretty much to the concept showcased there, but I don't know what exactly made it deserve such a bad feedback. Maybe the length has something to do with it, maybe the overall quality of the game. Gameplay similarity throughout the run, or failing to present the concept in an authentic way... I don't know what to propose for future. Try coming up with more innovative concepts.

Rejecting this playaround for bad feedback and unvaultable goal.