• 10 - The epitome of the TAS as an art form. Superb entertainment value, a perfect blend of amazing optimization possibilities (fractal art) and entertainment (human art). Everything I want in a TAS. Most games do not have potential for 10 movie.
• 9 - Extremely entertaining. The movies that are easy for me to watch multiple times in their entirety. Many of these movies are helped by a large amount of familiarity with the game (but not always). These movies are very superhuman both on a superficial and more in-depth level.
• 8 - Very entertaining movie. One that I can watch several times easily. It shows many several entertaining TAS elements such as glitches, physics abuse, luck manipulation, route planning/resource management. Fine movies that show off the site and TASing as an artform well.
• 7 - Entertaining movie. A solid contribution to TASVideos.
• 6 - A good movie. Solidly above the "gray" area that's so hard to judge.
• 5 - The gray area. 5's signify that it isn't a _bad_ movie but I don't want every 5 to make it through the queue. These movies are usually suffer from TAS simplicity and very repetitive uninspiring play. Some games just aren't cut out for anything above a 5. The 'average' TAS in this world is probably a 5. This includes rejected submissions, random youtube & nicovideo movies. TASVideos strives to be above average.
• 4 - On the bottom end of the gray area. Anything sub 5 signifies that I don't think it should have been published and I probably voted no (or would have). Some 4's on the site isn't too bad, and are usually there because of some niche following.
• 3 - A bad movie, whether from poor game choice for TASing, or poor TAS quality. I don't enjoy watching 3's
• 2 - Something went wrong, why was this published? These movies suffer from more than just boring. Some major aspect is horribly wrong with this TAS. Perhaps a really bad game that's annoying to listen to or watch or poorly optimized.
• 1 - Like a 2 but even worse. It probably grates on me to even watch it.
• 0 - I'm embarassed it is on my website.

Most of my tech ratings are from a past rating scale. I largely based them on "how close to perfect" the movies were. This wasn't just frames, but also how much more the TAS could have been pushed towards being impressive in general. I also mixed in arbitrarily the factor of "how much work was put into this".

Now I try to represent the technical level not based on if it can be obsoleted but more on the 'TAS techniques' it represents. A high tech movie would demonstrate a lot of bizarre, crazy, creative, and counter-intuitive solutions. TAS techniques include luck manipulation, glitches, tricks, doing things the programmers certainly never intended, route planning, resource management (health, weapons, etc), and various other standard TAS techniques. Even better if it shows non-standard techniques, or something that is rarely (or never) represented in other movies. In summary, the less it resembles an average human play-through the greater potential for high technical ratings.

About 1% of my ratings follow this new system.

---

Adelikat/Ratings last edited by Nach on 2012-08-13 21:08:43
Page info and history | Latest diff | List referrers | View Source