I think that this run probably stands a better chance then the example you cited there. A2600 emulation at the time of the current published run of this game was deeply flawed. It had several severe bugs that resulted in an emulator that did not well represent the A2600.
Maybe add BrunoVisnadi as a co-author if you would like, but I hope you uncancel this run and give it a chance. The old run really should be replaced for relying on innacurate emulation.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6449
Location: The land down under.
I had to check this side by side with the current publication.
What you did do is considered as an actual improvement at 25m.
Which forces 100m to act differently due to this.
You're not at an emulation fault that you think your are. You did everything correctly.
This TAS is fine, I'm giving it a solid Meh.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Spikestuff wrote:
I had to check this side by side with the current publication.
What you did do is considered as an actual improvement at 25m.
Which forces 100m to act differently due to this.
You're not at an emulation fault that you think your are. You did everything correctly.
This TAS is fine, I'm giving it a solid Meh.
Actually, the improvement in the first room is also due to emulation. The barrels are spawned in different frames.
Anyway, great job with this run! I think it can't be published because of the issues you said, but if we find an way to proof it was possible to manipulate better RNG in my old run, even with the poor emulation (and probably it is, I didn't test delaying the entrance of the room in more than... 2 frames :b), then it can be obsoleted by the site's rules. It's always good to obsolete movies that use poor emulation.
