Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
GJTASer2018 wrote:
I previously tried to improve the current submission for this game in BizHawk 2.3, but got stymied on the first "U-Turn" hover (on Level 8). For some reason, I couldn't get the player to "snap" to the ground at the end and had to manually land him instead, wiping out the previous gains I had accomplished. I gave up at that point because I assumed that the previous submission took advantage of an emulation bug (and that "proper" emulation would result in a slower submission as a result), so I would like to know if my initial conclusion was wrong or if there really WAS an emulation problem in that version...
I'm not sure exactly all the ways the emulation differences affect the run. What I do know for sure is only at the beginning of the run. There are 5 lag frames at the beginning in the old run. There is only 1 lag frame in the new one. This allows for a faster start in the new version.
As far as improving the old run. I copied the inputs from the old TAS and put them into the newer BizHawk version. I then went through every single screen making improvements everywhere I could (NYMX then found further improvements). So I don't even know if our improvements would carry over and work in the older versions of BizHawk.
I suppose it could be theoretically argued that all the frames we saved from minor movement optimizations could be attributed to emulation differences; but I strongly doubt that's the case.
In the comparison video, I dumped the current publication video from BizHawk 1.11.9.1 and the video for this submission from BizHawk 2.5. Even still, if you look close, it's possible to see some instances where the current publication gets closer than necessary to the rock walls before dropping bombs. So there was some optimization done beyond emulation differences.
All that said: Without seeing your inputs, I can't explain why you had trouble with the hovering "U-turn" in stage 8 on your attempts.
NYMX understands the flying mech a bit better than I do, so maybe he'd have some insight.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
>DrD2k9 & NYMX's Coleco H.E.R.O. in 09:20.42
>DrD2k9 & NYMX's A2600 H.E.R.O. in 09:48.27
>NYMX & DrD2k9's C64 H.E.R.O. in 10:07.03
This annoys me to no end.
The one who did the bulk of the work for each port was listed first.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Something else to consider with TASing a DOS game for TASvideos.org is that some DOS games need to be run at native CPU speeds in order to be eligible for publication.
Here is the pertinent rule.
In the youtube video linked above, DOSBox is set to Maximum 100% cycles for CPU speed. This means that the emulated CPU may be running faster than a CPU that was actually available at the time of the game's release. This could potentially be allowing for faster movement/actions in-game than could have been done on a proper era CPU.
All that said, it's possible that a JPC-rr TAS could match or even be faster than the video posted. Primarily, the RNG would be knowable and the inputs could be planned in order to eliminate any time loss from unknown RNG events. Also, it may be possible to manipulate the RNG; either through altered input or possibly by altering the emulated real time clock settings (as has been done in other DOS games published here).
Further, JPC-rr (with TAScript) allows for sub-millisecond precision with inputs, which may provide opportunity for an even faster run.
Sadly, I don't know of a way to convert what you have to a JPC-rr movie/input file. To TAS this game in a way that would be publishable using JPC-rr would likely require a complete redo.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Chakratos wrote:
EZGames69 wrote:
You need to get an NTSC console.
But then i had to rebuy all the expensive and "rare" games i already own :(
Isn't there any other way? Or maybe some PAL Tas M64 files?
While TASvideos.org is the one of the primary places regarding creation and archiving of TAS runs; console/hardware verification is not as big of a part of this particular community. We do mark runs that have been verified on consoles, but the actual work of console verification isn't heavily discussed here typically.
If you're wanting more information on running TASes on original hardware, look into the TASBot community. Individuals there are more heavily involved in running TASes on real hardware, and they can likely give you some good direction on how to proceed in achieving what you're desiring.
https://tas.bot/http://discord.tasbot.net/
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
psychicide wrote:
no... i know there's no game page, but what i''m asking is: how do i get a game page to be created?
It depends on whether you are wanting a publication page, or a resource page created?
Publication Page: Submit a TAS worthy of publication and the publication page will be created by a publisher.
Resource Page: A staff member can create the page for you, but it will be blank. It'll require editor rights to add anything to that page. If you don't have any pertinent info for the resource page, there's not much reason to create one.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
The biggest deterrent when it comes to various sports games is that many of them have a clock that runs for a preset amount of time. Thus there's no real way to "speedrun" them from the standpoint of two runners competing for the fastest time; because no matter what is done in-game, the final run time can be matched fairly easily.
This is one reason that it's difficult to get the TAS of a sports game eligible for vault publication. Moon tier publication would require a certain level of audience entertainment value for publication, but wouldn't be as restricted by the time factor.
If you can prove that there are indeed methods to reduce the overall time of this game somehow and prove that it's not trivial to do so, there MAY be a chance it could be published in vault.
But I think vault publication would be a very tough argument for Tecmo Super Bowl as it sounds like the only way to minimize time is to avoid clock stoppages. While it may not be exactly easy to accomplish (even in a TAS), the minimum possible time is still limited by the game clock. Thus, no matter what any TAS author chose to do in-game, as long as the clock never stops, the minimum possible TAS time will be achieved and is effectively pre-determined.
Ultimately, the decision would be up to the site's judging team (of which I'm not part).
So to answer your question as directly as possible:
A TAS of Tecmo Super Bowl may be rejected as un-publishable in vault if it doesn't attain a high enough entertainment response from viewers of the submission to warrant publication in the Moon tier.
EDIT: Please do not let this response deter you from TASing the game if it's something you want to do.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Arc wrote:
I'm just saying I think that the movie should be rejected because the gameplay lacks user creativity rather than rejected for not being a game at all.
Obviously you're not claiming this should be accepted, but your comments regarding considering this submission as a "game" did make me pause and think.
Disclaimer: I understand the site's current stance on the following topic. While I don't completely agree with it, I can respect the perspectives which guide the current rules.
I'm not looking to start a debate, I'm truly just curious.
So how do these intentionality and user creativity perspectives affect your thoughts regarding board game/edutainment titles validity for publication on our site?
They are currently not allowed, but many of them could easily offer an opportunity for user creativity.
Paraphrasing your own comments; because the software in this submission has been treated as a game, you believe that it can be considered a game.
While I can follow your logic, it does introduce a comparison point regarding intention of software like this submission vs. Board Game/Edutainment titles...Namely, what its intended use actually is. This submission's "game" is simply software intended to test a system and wasn't intended by the developers to be a game from the perspective of the user achieving some goal that challenges the player. Board game/edutainment titles, however, typically are intended to be games with defined challenges that must be overcome (even if the purpose of the game itself is to reinforce the learning of some educational topic).
End of curiosity question.
My thoughts regarding this submission.
I tend to lean toward a more inclusive perspective of what our site should consider publishing. However, when we are considering whether or not something should be deemed a game for the purposes of our site, I feel that a developer's intended purpose for a particular piece of software takes precedent over what the user actually does with that software.
In my opinion, this submission's ROM should not be considered a game by our site as the software wasn't intended to be a game by the developer. It is software designed to challenge the system, not to challenge the user who happens to be operating the software.
I have a copy of that run with both parts 1 and 2 combined together.
As best as I can figure...from power-on to the input for the final throw is actually roughly 56:14. Even adding the times of the two individual parts directly on the nicovideo site yields approximately 56:14 for the final input (so nothing was changed when I combined them).
I'm not sure how that author calculated the 53:46 time, but this submission is faster. While some of the stages in that run may beat the equivalent stage in this run, the two runs start with different RNG seeds/sequences which is visible as early as the 2nd stage (the fireballs jump the opposite direction out of the barrel).
For what it's worth, I believe I know the RNG value that the nicovideo run starts with. I also believe that it may be the same value that TiKevin83's hardware initializes to.
I've already begun working on a new version of the TAS which will use this starting RNG seed/sequence in hopes that it will console verify. Obviously that version wouldn't be able to be submitted because the RNG seed would need poked into RAM at the onset of the run (using GBC in GBA core mode).
There is a possibility that a run that syncs on the console could be converted to the SGB mode (as I believe the RNG seed for SGB core may match the console). If so, I may consider converting it and ultimately submitting an SGB run if the result happens to be faster than this submission. It is only that theoretical submission that could be directly compared to the nicovideo run.
As an interesting side note: I have no idea what emulator that the nicovideo run was made with. It appears to have been done in an emulator that uses the SGB border, but it doesn't have the SGB enhanced sound of Pauline screaming for help. It also lacks the non-enhanced tones that are used for her scream on standard GB or GBC hardware.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
So for those who would have rather had this TAS in Super GB mode (for the sound of Pauline yelling "Help!"), a simple conversion of movements isn't going to work.
The RNG is different due to the initial value in the RAM at power-on.
Thus, I can't do a simple conversion by converting frame inputs to the other format.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
Thanks for the info! Might be worth confirming this 150 seconds threshold for a potential future update though.
Confirmed through testing.
I tested by poking values into the timer RAM address just before the end of stages.
The threshold does appear to be 150 across all stages. Even with ones that start with only 150 seconds on the clock; poking a value above 150 yields a shut door, poking anything below 150 yields an open door.
Whew! One less thing to worry about (multiple thresholds) on any future TAS.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
One thing I've always wondered about this game is what causes Mario to shut the door behind him sometimes at the end of a level. This appears to be a source of time loss, so I'm surprised to see it often in this TAS. Is that event not RNG-based?
So I feel like a bit of an idiot in not even noticing that those two options happen. That said, I've gone back and looked into it a bit.
There is no advancement of RNG for either animation, and I've googled and found a couple sites claiming the same as what fsvgm777 mentioned regarding it being related to the time left on the timer.
For what it's worth, the animation that closes the door is 38 frames longer than the one that doesn't. So the only potential improvements in this run would be stages that finish with less than 38 frames until the next timer tick that would break the threshold that determines which animation is played.
If that threshold is indeed always 150, then only levels that finished with a 150 remaining on the timer would be improvable.
I checked, and none of the stage times in this run were exactly 150 remaining; so I don't think trying to save time this way is worth pursuing further for this particular TAS.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
From my poking around, it seems like it does not track puzzles completed. The internal counter just goes up every time you go into the Time Trial puzzle. The game does not care if you actually complete the puzzle or not. ie if you give up right away, it will give you the next puzzle on the list when you go back to the time trial (and it will not re-randomize the list until you enter Time Trial 134 times).
Also just want to say (again), the "randomization" relies solely on what should be (what should be) non-deterministic data, both uninitialized SRAM and WRAM are used to create the "random" list (cough cough DK94 cough cough). Since Gambatte just FF's the entirety of uninitialized RAM, you will end up with a constant list 100% of the time. The fact that Sameboy got a different puzzle is simply because it does not have the same behavior regarding uninitialized RAM like Gambatte (SRAM is FF'd but WRAM is 00'd).
(tl;dr the list isn't really random just due to how emulators treat uninitialized RAM, for the purposes of a TAS, it shouldn't be considered random)
For me, this data actually does more to support my position that the unique puzzles need solved to consider the game complete.
If all the TT puzzles will be presented before any are repeated, then completion of all unique content could be performed without unnecessary repetition.
That said, if the puzzle counter simply repeats after all the TT puzzles have been presented once; the mode is not really a 'random puzzle' mode and the repeating sequence effectively makes this game a never-ending game. Therefore, based on movie rules for non-ending games, all unique content must be presented for the game to be considered complete.
This unfortunately complicates the issue with another question. If the player is able to give up on any given puzzle and still advance on to the next puzzle in sequence, is simple display of the blank puzzle & numbers enough to be considered having the content shown...or would it be more appropriate to require the puzzles to be solved?
In my perspective, the latter is more appropriate. With other non-ending games we tend to require reaching some completion point (i.e. beating the stage) AFTER the final unique content has been presented by the game; simply seeing the content isn't enough. Thus I feel that solving of the puzzles, not just visualization of the blanks & numbers, is necessary.
ALL THAT SAID, there is yet another thought that needs consideration in regards to game completion:
The only equivalent I can make to advancing the counter by quitting a puzzle to get through them more quickly would be along the lines of skipping a bonus stage in any other game. But these aren't bonus stages. They're legitimate new puzzles/content exactly like any other standard stage in the game.
Further, the normal puzzles in the other modes can technically be solved in any order (or also given up then continued with a different puzzle), and all puzzles in any other mode need solved to consider that mode complete; making order of completion a non-factor for any game mode. Therefore the order in which the TT puzzles are completed doesn't technically matter, but they all still need solved to consider the mode complete.
From this perspective which disregards order of completion, the only way to consider the entire game complete is to have all modes of the game completed. This requires all the unique puzzles in all modes to be solved.
Pseudo minor edit: The fact that the game itself doesn't track completion of the TT puzzles doesn't matter when determining if everything in the mode has actually been completed. It's still a measurable completion metric even if we have to measure it manually.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
RetroEdit wrote:
I would argue the time trial puzzle(s) doesn't count towards full competition at all. It's just a single record; it doesn't keep track of each individual puzzle out of the 64 possible puzzles that was done.
This is in contrast to the clear way the other 192 puzzles are treated, each having an individual checkbox among other indicators showing each puzzle is complete.
With that perspective, we could potentially have a 2nd branch of this game:
This submission would be the any% branch.
A version that completes all the unique content would be a 100%/Full Completion branch.
My personal perspective: Given that this game (as presented) has no "end credits" with which to mark the end-point of game-play, the only other definitive end-of-game moment is to exhaust all unique content. The fact that the game uses the same high score (low time?) table for all the Time Trial puzzles is a moot point. The game, in my opinion, is incomplete.
I do not have enough experience with this game to know if there are credits offered after all the Time Trial puzzles are exhausted.
Something else to consider for a "full completion" run would be the "How to play" mode. If it's simply directions, then it may not be necessary. However, if there's any solving on the player's part that occurs in that mode, it could also likely be required for Full Completion.
EDIT: There is a potential consideration regarding if the game tracks completion of the Time Trial puzzles:
If all 64 unique TT puzzles must be completed before any are repeated, then it's likely tracked internally even if there's no indicator to the player that it's tracked.
EDIT 2: I just tested....after entering your name for the TT puzzle in this submission, the game continues directly on to the next puzzle. It doesn't go back to a menu of any type. Oops. It continues if you hit A, it goes back to a menu if you hit B. My mistake.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
Time Trial mode (the final mode unlocked) gives you a random puzzle from the Time Trial level set and notes the final completion time on the ranking board. Since all levels share the same leaderboard & individual level completion isn't tracked here I chose to "complete" this mode just by finishing the first level it gives me and registering the name "TAS".
Is the puzzle selected indeed random? Did you test if it was possible to manipulate RNG to yield a shorter puzzle for this mode?
EDIT: Are the Time Trial puzzles repeats of other puzzles in the game? If not, wouldn't all the Time Trial puzzles need completed to consider the game truly completed?
EDIT 2:
This page shows 64 puzzles are possible in Time Trial Mode. Scanning though them, there are unique puzzles in this mode compared to other modes in the game. Thus, I'd argue that all these unique puzzles also need solved to consider the game 'beaten' even if their order is randomized.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
SmashManiac wrote:
I would like to point out that a nonogram is technically a paper & pencil game. As such, the Vault eligibility of this submission, which is exclusively about solving nonograms, is questionable.
The issue here is that the current wording in the Movie Rules refers to "board games" instead of "tabletop games". This may require a revision for consistency.
While this could, indeed, be classified as a "tabletop game" because it's based on a paper & pencil puzzle, there still exists potential for optimization in a picross game; namely, what order the black squares are filled in.
This presents a "routing" challenge as the fastest sequence of filing the black squares is not immediately or trivially identifiable even when the answer to the puzzle itself is previously known. Different TASers may find different routes that could yield the same time, but there are surely some solution sequences that are faster than others. This presents not only a TASing challenge, but also potential for improvement.
I see this as an acceptable game (though I haven't watched this specific submission so I can't comment as to it's optimization or acceptability).
Creating a TAS for this type of puzzle is no less of a TASing challenge than any other puzzle based game (i.e. Tetris Attack's Puzzle Mode) just because it is derived from a puzzle that can also be done on paper.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Timing Issues
Given that the pink vehicle stops at obstacles when they are in the way (and doesn't wreck); these stages are more akin to having a frame-rule (minimum frame count) than they are to auto-scroller from a timing perspective.
Auto-Scrollers will always end in the same amount of time regardless of optimization quality through the stage (unless there's a boss battle or end trigger that the character has to hit at the end of the otherwise equally timed auto-scroller).
But a stage that has a minimum frame count can take longer to complete due to poor play.
So as the pink vehicle in Road Worker stops for obstacles instead of wrecking...this game's timing leans more toward frame-rule. The minimum number of frames being how many it takes the vehicle to get to the end of the road without stopping for any obstacles.
It is the optimization of play in the TAS that allows for unhindered travel of the vehicle, thus making this minimum frame count achievable.
Thus from a strictly timing perspective, optimization of input is what yields the shortest possible time (even if that's easily achievable).
Yes, the game is absolutely boring to watch!
But the boring waits alone don't disqualify it from acceptance. While the final time may be achievable by humans, the cursor movement/actions both in-play and menus are obviously superhuman. Thus the game meets acceptance standards from a superhuman and optimization perspective.
What may make this game un-acceptable?
1) Triviality - Given the slow movement of the vehicle, there isn't only 1 possible fastest way to complete this game. There may be many variations in the TAS actions/solutions that could yield the same final time, thus no matter what someone does while TASing (so long as the vehicle isn't delayed) the final time will be equivalent. There's little to no opportunity for beating this run's time unless a glitch is found to end stages faster.
2) Bootleg - Held to higher standards than officially released games. I'm not familiar with all the requirements necessary and will thus defer to the judges.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
For some reason any kind of bread I bake comes out bitter... :( can anyone tell me what am I doing wrong?
Possibly too much baking soda. Bases can have a bitter taste.
Try baking a bread that uses yeast as a rising agent instead of one that uses baking soda.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Preface: I'm not a judge.
r-bin2 wrote:
The all bosses category seems to have the messiest rules, and they aren't even spelled out on speedrun.com. To my knowledge they are based on whether or not encounters had boss music, fanfares and loot.
You'd recommend to beat all these once? Or just actual bosses?
Don't confuse speedrun.com rule sets with what we look for here. While there are often similarities, our rule set is independent of what speedrun.com does. Our definition of 100% or full completion may be different than theirs. Theoretically, the respective definitions of any% between the two sites may vary as well for any particular game.
feos already linked to our requirements for full completion runs.
I'm not familiar with the game in question, but I'd agree with Patashu that all bosses would likely be necessary to fulfill those requirements.
The rules on full completion state:
Full completion can only consist of optional one-time, irreversible, or otherwise strictly limited accomplishments that can be objectively measured and maximized.
If the otherwise skippable bosses can only be fought once (or a unique reward is only given for fighting them the first time), they would fall under this sub-point in the rule.
This sub-point may also impact what needs to be collected vs what doesn't. It could be argued that only the items which can be collected only once need collecting. For example; if there are multiple places to get a particular piece of armor, and there's no restriction to re-acquiring it once it's already been acquired, it may not need collected to fulfill the requirements for a full completion run.
Part of the concept of full completion is to actually do measurable things that could otherwise be skipped, and thus add more content to the viewable result.
As far as determining a definition for what our site would require for a 100% run of the game, you might have a better chance of getting a community consensus by asking in the thread for the game.
EDIT:CoolHandMike wrote:
Maybe use a category like "all items"? or "all equipment"?
If full completion was deemed to require more than either of these options, the resulting video would have to warrant good enough reception for moon tier publication as the run wouldn't qualify for vault.
After a lot more discussion, private and public, it looks like my take on how similar these two games are wasn't shared by other judges, nor have my arguments convinced them. It was important in this case, because these games look at the very least borderline similar to me, so I needed more educated opinions.
The main argument is that the rules of the games are rather different. Not as different as "one has fighting and it's heavily used, while the other one doesn't"; mostly in how they tweak the basketball rules. Since the sports are played by different rules, and in-game controls are also different, they are most logically not the same game. Which means both this game and 1 on 1 can be published in Vault separately.
I don't know if re-skin was ever the main argument, pro or con, and I don't think we should invent a list of strict definitions, because it will mean we'll be adding more and more as new situations appear. Though if you guys have any other insights on how to make sure they are different enough, feel free to post. Difference in game rules is not always enough either, because it can vary.
Your judgement note does clarify how the rule is being applied for the 1-On-1 games, and judges could use your judgement note to better understand how to apply the rule in the future; but it doesn't do anything to clarify any perceived ambiguity in the rule's wording itself (which is my understand of what Thunderaxe was wanting input on). My post was in response to the request for input regarding the rule as it is written. I only referenced the 1-On-1 games as examples of my thoughts on the current rule. It was not my intent to suggest that you had done anything incorrectly, or that your judgement didn't make sense.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the 1-On-1 games in my examples and just stuck with the other game references I used.
As far as changing the rule or adding definitions: I can see where things could potentially get quite complex if we tried adding various definitions for each possible situation. I was simply posting my thoughts in response the request for input on possible clarification of the current rule's wording. I apologize if the examples I used to demonstrate this perspective made you feel that I didn't understand that your judgement note says both 1-On-1 games are indeed acceptable.
Truly, specific discussion on this rule might be split into a separate thread instead of being attached to this submission.
I think it would be valuable for the staff/community to discuss/answer the following questions (some reiterated from my previous post) before potentially rewording the rule. These are not meant to be a comprehensive list of ideas that need discussed regarding this rule, and further discussions doesn't necessarily need to be in the forums; but if it's possible that this discussion ultimately improves the readability of our rules, I feel it's worthwhile.
1) What qualifies as significantly different game-play?
2) Is this even definable in a way that would cover the majority of situations?
3) Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play from a mechanics perspective? (or some other differentiation).
4) If this a problem where we can't establish a more clearly defined/worded rule that would cover most situations, should we require a multiple judge consensus on whether a particular situation is applicable to the rule? (This may already be a common practice, at least as it seems to have been demonstrated with the 1-On-1 situation.)
I want our site to be the best it can be and am willing to discuss my opinions with anyone who wants them. I feel that asking questions (even when I may not have an answer myself) holds value in prompting the thoughts of others. Questions that don't get asked don't get answered.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
...it doesn't change my point about the fact that the rule is actually regulating games that propose variations that don't strictly involve gameplay mechanics. Maybe we could even suggest a better wording for the written rule itself, and I'd like anyone to share their opinion, if there are.
Regarding the current rule:
As I understand it, the spirit of the rule is to prevent publishing of multiple games that are little more than re-skins of one another; games where (as already mentioned) a team name or player image is different, but the game is otherwise played exactly (or almost exactly) the same way. This would be the case for many serialized sports games (examples: the Madden football series, NBA 2k series, MLB 2k series, Tiger Woods Golf, etc).
In these games, rosters change from year to year; but most of the game-play, modes, and mehcanics are similar (if not identical). For these type of games, this is a good rule.
Occasionally a particular year's release will have a new mode or a significant change in game-play/mechanics that warrants considering it different enough to be a 'different' game from a publication standpoint.
As an example, when considered side by side, John Madden Football released for the SNES in 1990 is a drastically different game than Madden NFL '21 released in 2020 for the Xbox One; yet they are technically part of of the same series published by EA Sports. These two iterations of the same series are comparably different and would be considered different enough to warrant two publications (assuming they were both TASable and all other rules were followed). These kind of differences are covered by the current rule. More thoughts regarding the current rule:
As written, the rule says that two games in the same series require significantly different game-play.
The distinction we need to decide is, what qualifies as significantly different game-play. Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play?
These two 1-on-1 may not appear to have very different game-play to a viewer; but the actual mechanics of game-play are different. Thus the challenge of TASing each requires a different approach between the two runs; not simply doing the same thing for a new set of skins.
If this submission had simply been a different skin, then it wouldn't be acceptable alongside the other version...however, it's not a re-skin, the primary mechanics of play are new. In my opinion, as the mechanics are significantly different, both should be acceptable publications regardless of a similar viewer experience.
The primary game-play portions of NFL 2k1 and Madden NFL 2001 look strikingly similar in game-play, but both would be acceptable (assuming all other rules could be followed for vault publication) because they are from different series. The mechanics of the primary play are also likely quite similar.
TL:DR
Arguing that two games from the same series (when they have different primary mechanics) can't both be accepted simply because they are from the same series, makes about as much sense to me as arguing that two games from completely different series/publishers can't both be accepted because they have nearly identical mechanics/game-play.
Rule Re-Wording Idea: (added italicized portion)
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. This is to prevent multiple games that are little more than re-skins with the same game-play mechanics from being published along side one another.
For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
*For games with different characters/groups/countries with different statistics, only the fastest run is accepted. Runs using suboptimal characters are not accepted.
Side Note: Grammatically speaking, the last sentence above is acceptable; but I'd consider rewording it to one of the following (simply because these all sound better to me while maintaining the same idea):
1) Runs using suboptimal characters will not be accepted.
2) Runs using suboptimal characters are not acceptable.
3) Runs using suboptimal characters will be rejected.
Side Note #2: I'm hoping someone actually has determined that PGA Tour II and PGA Tour III are little more than re-skins before using these two games as an example. Does the latter introduce anything new that would warrant consideration as a new mechanics/modes?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2088)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1026
Location: US
Patashu wrote:
So a slightly MORE interesting question would be to additionallyrequire every mine to be adjacent to a clue (so no mines entirely surrounded by mines/out of bounds). On a 15x15 board I get 96 (pretend the 1s are the appropriate numbered clue):
All bombs touch a number 8 somewhere.
EDIT: Sorry I somehow missed the requirement to have an instant win in one click.
EDIT #2: I'm guessing that 96 is the max possible, but there are other patterns that could still yield that number of bombs.
