Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
An "as well as possible" run wouldn't be vault eligible then; assuming the qualification for 'beating' the game is the good ending. It would have to yield moon quality response.
If PikachuMan is pursuing this approach, I'd recommend he make a backup run which ejects everywhere possible while still yielding the good ending.
In the event the 'as well as possible' run doesn't get moon level response, the shorter run could be submitted with full intention of going to vault.
If the 'as well as possible run' does make moons, then the other run could still be submitted for vault publication.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
In my opinion, I think a TAS of this game would be acceptable even if you ejected on all the missions that aren't vital to get the "Good Ending." It'd almost be akin to death-warping to progress to later stages.
The key is to achieve the 'Good Ending' so that the game appears to be beaten.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Anyways, could we please stop considering putting a run in vault a "demotion"? I'm still rallying for the bad reputation of vault to be removed from the common consciousness. It shouldn't be considered a garbage dump where all the "boring" runs are thrown into. It shouldn't be a shame to get a run into vault. If you get your run published, that means that it's, essentially, the world record TAS for that game, and that shouldn't be something to be ashamed of. That should be an achievement worthy of pride.
I share your perspective on the value/achievement of vault runs. I enjoy creating TASes even when they are fully expected to land in the vault due to current guidelines.
Unfortunately (at least regarding the vault), the emphasis of the site is on entertainment. From an entertainment perspective, having a run moved to vault is indeed a demotion in perceived entertainment value.
While the vault does carry this inherent negative connotation when perceived from an entertainment perspective; a TAS having a reputation as being unentertaining does not necessarily equate to it having a bad TAS reputation. Example: Atari Dragster is vaulted and has poor entertainment value, but quite high technical ratings. Omnigamer and MrWint's work had a huge impact on gaming history and was a generally well received submission.
In my opinion, the fact that the vault exists proves that the community (or, at minimum, the current/past site staff) does place a value on these runs. The vault's mere presence honors these works for they achievement(s) they are.
That said, I doubt you're ever going to change the minds of those who do view the vault negatively.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I thought using debug rooms to get to the end of the game wasn't allowed. Or is that only in the case of using codes to access the debug room? Is it acceptable here because save corruption was used to access the debug room?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
There has been concern regarding some publications (some older, some newer) that they no longer meet current site rules/standards.
Discussion has taken place on such runs regarding whether or not they should be unpublished/identified/listed/etc.
As there is no current easy way to identify these runs, I've started this topic to house suggestions of runs that members feel are invalid.
If you feel there is a specific publication that doesn't meet current standards, list it here.
This topic is only meant as a launching point for obsoleting runs that may be invalid. No judges/staff are (currently) curating this topic, so it will be strictly member opinion.
The impetus on staff/judges to re-judge the current publication will only be after a new run (which attempts to obsolete the old one) is submitted.
The burden of submitting a new run longer than the current publication would be on the author; namely to note in the submission comments why they feel their longer run is more up to par with site rules than the current publication.
For those who care to help eliminate invalid runs, use this topic as a starting point to know which current publications to look into.
Just because a game is suggested here, does not mean that it's invalid; just that someone feels it is. If you agree with a particular suggestion and want to help the site, the impetus is on you to work toward obsoleting the current publication.
EDIT: If the staff finds this topic useless...please send it to Threaded Gruefood
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
This would not require re-judging
If a judge/mod/staff member agreed on a particular game/publication recommendation
Is it really so hard to see? Without staff member approval, this is just feelings of whoever is suggesting invalid publications. With approval, this is a re-judgment. Because how can a staff member approve this without re-evaluating everything? And potential infinite suggestion spam hasn't been worked around either.
I see your points.
But wouldn't the topic even without a staff-monitored list be beneficial? Even if it was only suggestions from other members, it'd still be a starting point.
I may be ignorant on this concept, but I don't foresee a ton of spam on suggestions.
If someone feels a particular game doesn't follow the rules, they are free to suggest it. Then it'd be up to whoever wants to redo the run to try to update the run.
Nothing would be needed from site staff on the front-end.
Then the impetus on staff/judges to re-judge the original would only be after a new run which attempts to obsolete the old one is submitted. Further, this re-evaluation of the original would only truly be necessary if the new submission was longer than the current publication (as a shorter run could just be judges by modern rule standards). The burden of submitting one such longer run would be on the author; to note in the submission comments why they feel their longer run is more up to par with site rules than the current publication. With this approach, the only additional work for judges/staff is on the back-end of a submission when the judging for a workbench item takes place.
I just feel that any collection/list (however it's generated) of sub-par games is a better launching point than not having a list at all.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Could we start a forum topic for games perceived as sub-par?
Members could recommend publications that they feel don't meet the current minimal requirements.
This would not require re-judging, but would still provide a starting point for those who want to work on getting the sub-par runs obsoleted.
If a judge/mod/staff member agreed on a particular game/publication recommendation; that game could then be appended to a list in the initial post to maintain a quasi-record of sub-par games. As these sub-par publications become obsoleted, they get removed from the list.
This adds minimal workload for judges/staff yet would still hopefully spur action on new TASes of those games.
The only thing it doesn't provide is an indicator on the publication page for current runs of sub-par quality.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
I tried to watch this on an older emulator version....seemed to sync through a couple missions, but then desynced as the main character stopped ejecting.
My thoughts/questions:
How is this 'Bad Ending' different than a 'Game Over'?
It fails the missions, which is akin to losing in my perspective.
In my opinion, this TAS does not 'beat' the game and is thus not acceptable for publication.
Also, button mashing by a human can achieve this ending result in a similar time.
Perhaps an encode would change my perspective, but I doubt it.
EDIT: FWIW, Encode didn't change my perspective. This game isn't beaten...it's lost.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
While I understand the reason (mediocre ratings) that a bunch of runs are being recommended for demotion to vault...it's still a bit discouraging to see that so many runs aren't considered very entertaining.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
Entertainment was not even the critical factor back then, at least not the one explicitly asked by the poll. People did find it somewhat entertaining back then, and voted YES IT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED, but then changed their minds and gave it shitty ratings. Nothing new here.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize the poll used to be based on publication worthiness as opposed to entertainment.
This is one of those games that I don't think should be dropped to vault simply due to less than stellar post-publication ratings. Even though the ratings aren't fantastic, the forum feedback and voting from when it was submitted was quite positive.
I believe the reason for this was because it was prior to the existence of vault. If a game did not get positive feedback for entertainment on the forums, it did not make its way onto the site. Therefore it might have received some inflated feedback while on the workbench as a result.
So if it was entertaining enough to be published before the vault existed, doesn't that automatically make it better than vault level entertainment?
Edit: If not, every current publication that was accepted before the vault existed needs to be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be demoted.
This is one of those games that I don't think should be dropped to vault simply due to less than stellar post-publication ratings. Even though the ratings aren't fantastic, the forum feedback and voting from when it was submitted was quite positive.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
feos wrote:
So I think for this game, a movie should complete 3 loops of mode B, so difficulty goes 2, 3, 4, and then it freezes gameplay-wise, even though the value of the address keeps increasing after new loops.
...
It checks if difficulty-1 is above 3, which indeed means difficulty caps out at 4.
NOTE:
If all the content of the difficulty 4 appears earlier, then it'd instead be the point to stop the movie after. I just haven't tested every difficulty thoroughly. But this video gives some idea, even though it's for mode A.
So does the above make this game an example of one where a future submission that completes all the proposed loops would obsolete the current publication even though the future run will be a longer time than the current?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Alyosha wrote:
If it were a situation of 'you must have this player rank to do this thing on the site,' then figuring out the best way to calculate it would obviously be more important, but it's not, it's just a number.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Nach wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
If we can't agree on criteria for determining a rating (of any type, not just technical), what value does the rating hold?
When you reach this point in your thinking, you ask yourself what's the point in ever voting for anything or anyone.
Nice strategy to avoid actually answering the question.
I repeat, without criteria what value does the rating hold?
In my opinion, there is little to no value.
If the site's only criteria for technical rating is based on the whim of what the watcher perceives to be technical at that point in their life, fine; at least that's a criteria. But if no specific criteria are established, no one has the right to discount anyone else's ratings, reasoning for said ratings, or definition of what is technically good/bad.
For the record, I don't rate published movies, because I don't care about the ratings. I watch what movies I want to watch regardless of what the general audience has previously decided about them. I don't use ratings or tier placement to help me decide what to watch. I'd be amazed if I'm the only one who make this independent decision on what to watch.
Also, voting is different than rating. To me, rating something is tying a degree of value to a comparison and thus needs some established criteria (or baseline) on which to assess that value. Voting is simply making a choice between two (or more) selections, not grading their degree of value. Polls (when worded appropriately) can take the purpose of either voting or rating. (When worded poorly, the purpose can't be deciphered between voting or rating and the results are of little use.)
So at least for the purposes of this site, I personally don't find much if any value in ratings or polls.
And now that I've thought more in depth on this topic, I will probably refrain from participating in future forum polls if I cannot decipher which purpose the poll has (choosing a specific option vs. rating). Unfortunately, I find the poll regarding workbench submissions to be poorly worded and will thus refrain from utilizing that feature.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
No. I don't think (as a group) humans are ever entirely objective on anything....polls included.
Certain individuals may have mastered the discipline of being more objective and less emotionally driven than others most of the time, but I don't believe anyone always takes the perfectly objective perspective on all issues.
I sure don't....and frankly, I'm thankful for some of the emotional decisions I've made in life that have led to what I believe have been much better outcomes than would have resulted if I had instead taken a strictly objective approach to the situation.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Nach wrote:
If people are rating on a global scale, and counting amount of techniques used in the run and how expertly it was made, then you end up with a score that becomes informative. If people just make up numbers that have no global bearing, then yes, in that case it wouldn't help.
Unfortunately there's no way to know which of these methods raters are using.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
If the primary concern is entertainment value, why do we care about perceived technical prowess in the first place?
If we're concerned about entertainment both of the following hold equal place:
If it's entertaining, who cares how sophisticated the techniques were?
If it's not entertaining, who cares how sophisticated the techniques were?
To me, when entertainment is the primary concern, a technical rating alone is nigh meaningless separated from the entertainment rating of the same video.
Thus, if technical rating is regarded as holding value separately from entertainment rating, a movie's technical rating shouldn't affect the player points that are intended to indicate who's entertaining the audience.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
TASeditor wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
2) If the run is obsoleted by a different author, the author of the obsoleted run gets the point value of the shorter run which in theory should always be equal to or lower than the published run (some obsoleted runs may actually be shorter due to publication prior to site clarification of game endpoints--in these cases, the author of the longer published run deserves the higher point value than the author of the shorter obsoleted run).
Aren't obsoleted runs usually longer or do you mean how long since the movie has been published?
Yes, obsoleted runs are usually longer. But with now clarified rules on when a game ends, it's possible that the obsoleted run could be shorter. It's not going to be a common thing though.
But all my recommendations (which are geared toward indicating general TASing experience) are moot since Nach clarified the purpose of the player points to be an indicator of who's doing the most entertaining of the audience.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Nach wrote:
Player points tells you who is doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied.
Thank you for the clarification on what the site wants/uses the number to represent.
That being the case, I now feel similar to Alyosha with player points being a mostly useless number for me.
I don't say this to be offensive, but I personally don't care who is or isn't entertaining/satisfying the audience (others may).
I started TASing for my own enjoyment and continue to do so for that reason. If what I accomplish entertains others, great! If it doesn't entertain others, great!
