Submission Text Full Submission Page Publication Page
Top Gear 2 is an arcade simulation racing game made and developed by the company Kemco for the Super Nintendo and was released on September 15th, 1993.
Here comes the new and improved version of the previously published TAS for Top Gear 2 "all tracks" that nobody asked for, but do deserve. In this iteration of the TAS, I skip 1 extra track and improve on other glitched tracks which in the process saves 3 minutes and 52 seconds comparatively to the other TAS movie with a final time of 2:19:48.15

Game Objectives

  • Emulator Used: Bizhawk 2.3.2
  • Heavy Glitch Abuse
  • Plays on Hardest Difficulty
  • Starts from a New Game file "start"
  • Aims for Notable Improvement
  • Aims for Fastest Completion

Upgrades:

Stock V-6 = I keep this same engine for quite some time.
Kemco Rain Slicks = I purchase these tires at Sydney as it's the first track to introduce rain. The tire upgrade does matter here, as it keeps the car from sliding about.
Kemco Racing Slicks (best traction), 5-Speed Overdrive (Holds speed longer), & Total Boost 600-R (Builds speed quickly) are all purchased before racing at Britain London. These upgrades are used to perform a wall glitch here which will skip me to the 3rd lap rather quickly.
Screamin' V-12 = I finally buy the best engine in Egypt: Hugh Sitton. This engine allows me to get a lot of speed rather quickly, and also will allow me to maintain the speed gotten overall.
6-Speed Race Tranny = Purchased at Germany: Bavaria (best gearbox upgrade possible).

Why Manual

Manual is Faster than Automatic transmission in this game, you get a quicker starting boost from a nitro at the beginning of races.

About the category

All Tracks "(100%)" New Game is a category that requires the runner to complete the entire game as quickly as possible while being able to use wall glitches.

About the run

This run is a full completion run of the entire game. The TAS skips 18 tracks leaving a total of 46/64 races completed. This run does reach the credits sequence.

Countries:

  • Australasia - Auckland, Ayers Rock, Canterbury Plains, Sydney
  • Britain - Loch Ness, London, Sheffield, Stonehenge
  • Canada - Banff, Niagra Falls, Toronto, Vancouver
  • Egypt - Abu Sunbul, Aswan, Cairo, Hugh Sitton(Giza Pyramids)
  • France - Bordeaux, Monaco, Nice, Paris
  • Germany - Bavaria, Cologne, Frankfurt, Munich
  • Greece - Athens, Meteora, Mykonos, Santorini
  • India - Amber Port, Bombay, Delhi, Taj Mahal
  • Ireland - Dublin, Galway, Killarney, Limerick
  • Italy - Florence, Pisa, Rome, Sicily
  • Japan - Hiroshima, Kyoto, Toyko, Yokohama
  • Scandinavia - Copenhagen, Helsinki, Reykjavik, Stockholm
  • South America - Chile, Mexico, Peru, Rio De Janeiro
  • Spain - Andalusia, Barcelona, Madrid, Seville
  • Switzerland - Geneva, Grunwald, Lucerne, Zurich
  • The United States - Los Vegas, Los Angeles, New York, San Francisco

Races Skipped Via Laps or Entirely

  • London = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Banff = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Hugh Sitton = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Bordeaux = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Meteora = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Santorini = Wall Glitch Spin Out + 3/3
  • Bombay = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Taj Mahal = Wall Glitch
  • Dublin = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Galway = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Pisa = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Hiroshima = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Mexico = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Peru = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Seville = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Geneva = Wall Glitch Spin Out
  • Grunwald = Wall Glitch 3/3
  • Los Angeles = Wall Glitch 3/3

Possible Improvements

Finding - Italy: Florance Wall Glitch/Spin Out
Maru: I will be looking into this. Judging.
Maru: It took me a while to make my decision with this one...
Note that I asked the author myself about the differences in purchases early on. It appears that the author purchased Nitro before Gearbox as a speed/entertainment tradeoff. Although I can't agree that it added to entertainment in the slightest, these types of tradeoffs do not technically go against our rules.
Besides, it's not the first time that we've accepted TASes that have used "slower routes" compared to a prior version. The best example I can think of is regarding the Super Metroid NMG TAS that used the underflow glitch. That TAS used a slower route compared to the prior version, but it was executed better and therefore was accepted as an improvement to that run. Some of those principles involved in handling that TAS can also be applied here.
While I still think the optimization is questionable, it's not noticeably sloppy. The author does not make obvious mistakes such as bumping into cars and what-not. Additionally, improving this game is non-trivial in itself. If anyone wants to go through the effort to improve it, go ahead and be my guest.
I'm accepting this as an improvement to the published run, although barely. Accepting to Vault tier.
feos: Pub.

Show more

Hide
1 2
Posted: 11/18/2019 3:23 PM
Quote
electricslide
Joined: 1/27/2014
Posts: 181
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.
Posted: 11/18/2019 4:29 PM
Quote
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1088
Location: US
Arcade TAS of 2023 Exotic platforms TASer of 2020 First edition TAS of 2020 Gameboy TAS of 2020 Exotic platforms TASer of 2019 Computer TASer of 2017
electricslide wrote:
...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.
Posted: 11/18/2019 4:41 PM
Quote
CoolHandMike
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Experienced player (895)
Joined: 3/9/2019
Posts: 693
First edition TAS of 2023 Sega TAS of 2023
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?
discord: CoolHandMike#0352
Posted: 11/18/2019 9:00 PM
Quote
FatRatKnight
Editor, Skilled player (1199)
Joined: 9/27/2008
Posts: 1085
CoolHandMike wrote:
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?
Posted: 11/18/2019 10:59 PM
Quote
Memory
She/Her
Site Admin, Skilled player (1553)
Joined: 3/20/2014
Posts: 1765
Location: Dumpster
GBA TASer of 2020 GBA TAS of 2020 GBA TASer of 2019 Exotic platforms TAS of 2018
electricslide wrote:
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.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Posted: 12/7/2019 10:01 AM
Quote
electricslide
Joined: 1/27/2014
Posts: 181
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.
Posted: 12/7/2019 12:16 PM
Quote
Spikestuff
They/Them
Editor, Publisher, Expert player (2638)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6437
Location: The land down under.
Flash TASer of 2022 PSX TASer of 2016
electricslide wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
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.
DrD2k9 wrote:
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.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account. Something better for yourself and also others.
Posted: 12/27/2019 5:03 AM
Post subject: Movie published
Quote
TASVideoAgent
They/Them
Moderator
Joined: 8/3/2004
Posts: 15569
Location: 127.0.0.1
This movie has been published. The posts before this message apply to the submission, and posts after this message apply to the published movie. ---- [4091] SNES Top Gear 2 "all tracks" by Technickle in 2:19:48.15
1 2