Unless I'm missing something, both are equally legit. If a game exists on multiple platforms, then it would make sense to be able to run it on any of the platforms, right? So whichever gives the more advantage.
Duping something is pretty much against the spirit of 100% which is to collect everything, so I don't think duping would be an option.
Either it's collect all pieces, or not. Not collect some and dupe some.
I apologize for not submitting yet. I've been spending some time on some special encoded with commentary and overlay + subtitles. It'll all be ready by Friday! :D
Awesome!
EDIT: And about 100% it's kinda hard to define, and it would be very long and boring because of Chuck Quizmo quizzes and recipes.
Then let's make a new 100% definition! Malleoz 100% definition =)
Skip the boring parts!
Nope, no 60 fps for me with latest firefox + flash with hardware acceleration enabled. Don't know what's what here. I tested the super metroid clip. Maybe there's a recent thing with newer videos?
are you really trying to revive the debate based on your interpretation of a post from a new member that thought they were helping by pointing to a zelda community-driven resource?
No, I am not. And I feel like specifically pointing out that my definition was not the only definition discussed.
There are no issues. Only differences in opinion.
You seem to imply that there is only "one" 100% definition and that that is ZSR's definition, though. Is this what you intended?
If it doesn't have to be "checkable" to contribute to the 100% definition, then do you want all permanent flags in the game to be triggered? Should we kill one of each enemy to contribute to an imaginary "bestiary"? Should one of every item be collected to see the dialogue? For that matter, should all dialogue have to be seen?
I already explained my definition of 100% (which, again, I really want to reinforce that is just MY OPINION, not an agreed definition by the community) that 100% means collecting colletibles, not raising flags or getting records. I simply stated that it doesn't need to be checkable at the end of the game.
z1mb0bw4y wrote:
Even in the metroid community, "checkability" is a huge part of the % definition. That's why there are separate categories for "all scans" in the prime games. If you want a category that doesn't match the current community 100% definition, then you're welcome to create it and TAS it. However, it doesn't seem like that would be the "100%" category, since a community standard for the "100%" category has already been established.
Listen. Someone asked for opinions on what a 100% definition is. I gave an opinion. That's all. I'm not arguing for a new category. I'm not arguing for changing a category.
That's all.
...and therefore do not in any way contribute to 100%.
That's just silly. Whether or not something can be checked at the end of the game has no relation to whether it contributes something or not. Whether it's part of the definition or not is another matter.
Synx wrote:
The only way to check for these items would be to go back to their respective dungeons (for keys, compasses, maps and bosskeys) or to watch a recording of the run for intermediate upgrades as they are unobtainable after u get the highest upgrade (at least I believe they are).
...Which is not very difficult or time consuming.
All one has to do is fast-forward a recording or emulator. Such a check would take but a few minutes if done properly.
As long as you collect all masks, you're fine. If, after you've acquired them all, you can change masks to any masks, then you should be free to do so and it shouldn't matter.
It obviously makes no sense to stop part-way through because you don't get all masks.
Eessentia, your request for the 100% definition seems both onerous and ill-defined.
As far as I can tell, your criteria is "collecting everything that the game keeps track of somehow." But unfortunately what's kept track of isn't really clear.
I will admit that there are cracks in every defintion, so I'm not saying there isn't in mine, but I have clear answers to all of your questions. It's not about what the game keeps track of. It's what you can collect in the game (regardless of whether the keep track record of it or not and where it tracks it or not).
Records? Not collectibles.
Completing minigames? Not collectibles.
Visiting rooms? Not collectibles.
Opening chests? Not collectibles (though the contents may matter, e.g. heart pieces).
Status of rooms and terrain? Not collectibles.
Talking to gossip stones? Not collectibles.
Using keys are not required because using stuff is not collectibles.
Number of rupees doesn't matter because rupees, while collectible, are infinite in number. The number of rupees is not a collectible, so should not be required.
The bottles question is a good one. It would seem to me like a bottle is a collectible, but filling a bottle is not. Therefore, it is up to the runner what to fill the bottles with.
As for fairies, activing them should not be necessary, but getting the upgrades that they give should be necessary as they're collectibles. So you would need to activate them all as a side effect of properly "collecting" the "collectibles" they're "guarding" (if you could get these upgrades without visiting them in a legal way in the game, they wouldn't need to be visited; otherwise it seems like it would just be "cheating" like RBA to get items).
Getting all masks seems like it would be necessary as they're collectibles and necessary to get the final mask anyway (again, assuming we're not allowed to RBA it).
That said, I love discussion. I may be completely and utterly wrong and completely insane, but the discussion is what's fun. So thank you for providing something to discuss about.
Well, good riddance. Apparently someone missed "my opinion."
I do not speak for the community.
Also, people reach consensus without necessarily always agreeing fully with one another.
I'm just offering opinions, not stating what's right or wrong. It's up to community to decide on something and I have no qualms with that.
I just picked super metroid because I couldn't figure out a better example. It's not perfect, but I'm just stating the whole "go about it" mindset. It's not perfect. But it's blatantly wrong either. You can pick over 100% items in super metroid, so you could just get some other items for offsetting the beams, if we temporarily disregard the whole "don't collect items that aren't supposed to be part of the game" rule.
I don't consider any definition of 100% to be what you collect, I consider it to be what you keep. There's no reason to go out of your way to collect items that you won't be keeping until the end of the game.
But then again, this is the point of 100%. It's to collect everything in the game, regardless of whether you're going to use it or not and regardless of whether or not you're going to keep it at the end of the game.
But that definition, we wouldn't collect any beam in super metroid because we lose them all at the end, yet we collect them anyway.
Stevmay09 wrote:
Samsara wrote:
I don't consider any definition of 100% to be what you collect, I consider it to be what you keep. There's no reason to go out of your way to collect items that you won't be keeping until the end of the game.
Very well said. I completely agree with you. This is why we should only collect the highest upgrade. I cannot stress enough how the TAS should just use the same rules as RTA. There would be no debate on what the TAS should or shouldn't do because we would already have an established and widely accepted set of rules to go by.
Or we could see it as a way for the TAS get the definition right, as opposed to just following someone else's ideals ;) Besides, TASes aren't real-time runs.
Stevmay09 wrote:
HHS wrote:
- If collecting something precludes the collection of something else, such that both would otherwise be considered part of 100%, then neither is included.
I'm not exactly clear on what you mean by that. Can you explain a little further?
My guess:
If getting item A prevents from getting item B and 100% means getting both item A and B, you should get neither.
Or getting either A or B prevents you from getting the other. This seems like a silly definition, though.
If you had the chance of upgrading your sword in two different ways, but getting an upgrade prevents you from getting the other upgrade, then it seems silly to say that we shouldn't get either upgrades. I'd say that it would simply be up to the runner to choose which upgrade to get.
Stevmay09 wrote:
HHS wrote:
About the cow, I think it should be regarded as a collectible. Same with compasses, maps and big keys, of course.
I never understood the point of the cow. What do you have to do to get it, anyway? I could understand the Maps/Compasses but i'm not sure about the cow.
Why is the cow different from keys? It's an item that you can collect in the game and it can only be acquired once. That goes along very well with the definition of 100%: to get all collectibles in the game.
Stevmay09 wrote:
That's where the debate comes from. I think we should use the ZSR definition.
The RTA definition never made sense to me. Why purposely skip getting collectibles? I'd like if TASVideos goes with the (in my opinion) "right" definition (i.e. get "everything" definition, not have "everything" at end definition).
So then should you have to buy the bombchu shop (in Hyrule Market, not the carpet salesman) out of chus, since they're collectibles and you can only ever make 8 purchases from it?
If chus are finite in number, it makes sense to get them all, just like beans. Changing the state of some location is not usually part of the 100% definition, so just selling out something of a shop wouldn't be considered a requirement.
Not collecting stuff because it won't be used is kind of arbitrary. How many different things collected in 100% aren't actually used? I do believe it sometimes accounts for a significant amount.
What does arbitrary mean in your context? I can't figure out if it means "don't collect" or "collect".
andypanther wrote:
Small keys: They are more arbitrary to include than map/compass/bosskey, since they're not permanently in your inventory. If you want to collect them for 100%, you might as well open all chests that appear on the map.
Keys are collectible and are finite in number. Chests are not items that can be collected, so opening them makes little sense.
Are you talking about boss keys or every normal keys?
All of them. They are a finite number of them in each dungeon.
Also, as for the extra heart pieces, I don't consider them in the 100%. I get the question about the intermediates upgrades, compasses and even the cow to an extent, but the heart pieces that aren't meant to be there should be required in the definition. I would even push it further and consider that they could technically replace another one of the "normal" ones.
You do have a point, but it's a TAS we're talking about, so including them could be... optional, I guess. Err, OK, so no opinion on the extra heart pieces then, I guess.
Well, if you'd like an opinion, I'd say that definition is silly. 100% is defined as collecting all the items (or upgrades) in a game. Things that fall into this category are things that can clearly be collected and of which there are not an infinite amount of. Therefore, the definition should be more around collecting all the items than making sure the inventory screen is "maximized."
So to add to that definition, all upgrades are required, including the intermediate (e.g. silver scale). All compasses, keys and maps should be collected. The cow should be collected. All heart pieces, including the extra ones in gerudo and the graveyard. Buying all beans. Duping would be allowed as long as you collect an item; requiring inventory to be "complete" is silly. Collecting stuff more than once is fine, but you must still collect all the individual heart pieces and skulltulas.
Ganon's trials are not required (except shadow for the golden gauntlets) because they do not actually give any items or pickups.
That's my opinion anyway.
Stevmay09 wrote:
I like that definition of 100%. The only problem I could see is that some speed runners argue that RBA/BA should be allowed as long as you collect the original item before you RBA it. (This would allow you to get more bombs/bombchus without having to deviate from the route too much). I don't really see an issue with that as long as the item is collected legitimately before RBA happens. That's all up for debate, though. I could see the TAS being made either way.
Another question would be: Should the TAS get Epona? That's something that TASers in this thread have argued about every time 100% is mentioned. I think the TAS should skip epona (unless getting her would somehow be faster, which i doubt).
What is everyone's thoughts on this? I would LOVE to see a 100% TAS someday in the future. I wouldn't be able to contribute to it because i know nothing about TASing, but i would be in this thread all the time if it was being made.
Good point about RBA. I'm inclined to agree.
Getting Epona should be a must because she is clearly an "item" or "upgrade" that you collect in the game.
SDA only continues to accept runs from "official" emulators...
They do that, not because they dislike emulators, but because it's just too hard to prove non-cheating when using an emulator. SDA's rules does not allow the use of tools for speedrunning, which is a decision they've made and stayed to.
On the other hand, they do allow official emulators, because, again, it's just much harder to cheat on those.
Now TASVideos DO use tools for speedrunning, so in this case, it's expected to use savestates and other tools that SDA does not accept for speedruns submitted to their site. Of course, SDA is not against tool-assisted speedrunning either. It's simple that SDA focuses on hosting non-tool assisted runs. The community if very welcoming of any type of running, whether that be racing or tool-assisted.
They've also allowed our non-traditional arbitrary code execution and the gradius run which weren't the normal non-tool assisted runs. So I don't think it's a matter of not allowing emulators or stuff like that - I think that'd be very welcome. It's simple a matter of question about what stuff brings the most entertainment and donations.
So yeah, once again, all we have to do is ask the organizers.
These are all fair points. Attending an additional marathon does require someone with hardware and presentation ability to be present, however, and that introduces some challenges. There are very few people with replay boards at the moment, and while I hope that changes I anticipate that for the time being I will remain he primary keeper of TASBot and the most visible representative (ambassador?) of TASVideos to the broader gaming community. Having said that, I have a wife and kids I care about greatly who were substantially neglected in the months leading up to AGDQ 2015 and I need to ensure I find the right balance. I can certainly reduce the amount of roles I fill and reduce the duration of time I spend at GDQ's, which will substantially help. That leaves only one remaining issue - I need some way to pay for the extra plane tickets, SGDQ registration, hotel, and meals that I'm currently avoiding by only going to AGDQ. On the plus side, SGDQ is statistically probable to be physically closer to me and is likely to be cheaper overall, and for some reason people are willing to help me offset travel costs (for the donors that helped me to get to AGDQ, I again say I am in your debt and thank you for your assistance). All that to say I would love to be able to attend at SGDQ this year and will do so if it is feasible, but it will be
for a far shorter duration and with a less involved project.
I understand it takes time to plan, prepare and all of that stuff, and yeah, you guys who did this are amazing. But this much involved stuff is required because we're doing such advanced stuff as pulling off arbitrary code execution on the real hardware, which requires both the knowledge of doing so, knowledge of a hardware and replay unit and the unit that controls everything and, of course, having an actual replay board. Like you say, it's a bottleneck because so few have all these required skills.
But consider the normal runners on GDQs. They show up to show off their games, and while they practice, it's much less involved than doing what TASVideos have been doing the last two marathons. Why can't we just "send" some "normal" TASers and show off some TASing or just playing back some TASes? You know, the stuff that doesn't require so much involvement or planning.
That would significantly reduce the burden on everyone. But once in a while, the community can band together and create these awesome hardware hacking stuff that's much more involved and complicated. But it does not have to be every time. Especially now in the early stages. Maybe as time progresses, as more people get involved, as more people get replay boards and can operate them, TASVideos can pull off some greater shows, but until then, why not WOW the crowd with some awesome Super Mario 64 gameplay or the like?
Skipping SGDQ (at least this year) seems like the best idea, not only because organizing everything seems like quite the hassle already, but also to prevent the idea from getting stale. Having a full year in between would mean that there's twice the content to take your pick from and do something with, which would hopefully allow each presentation to feel new.
I disagree. Better to have smaller contents twice a year than a big once a year. Apparently GDQs themselves aren't getting stale, so why would TASes get stale? If games could just run on an emulator (something to check if it's OK), it would probably reduce the burden significantly while still providing for good speedruns, and indeed, a much larger selection of games. The TAS block does not always have to "WOW!" every year. The other blocks don't do that and they get by just fine.
It's nice to have a WOW-factor once in a while, but it doesn't have to be every time.
There are no problems with customs except that you may be required to pay toll. You could also declare it as a gift when shipping to reduce the chances of paying toll.
I realize C++ may not be the best tool for the job for a beginner. That said, I'm a bit biased and I knew of a tutorial that created a simple C++ game very quickly and with very little code and with little complexity, so I just recommended something to get away from javascript. There are probably better tools for beginners, though.
I realize javascript is great to get started, and the performance is good enough for small games, but the problem is that it really sucks when you start doing something more complex. Javascript doesn't even have the concept of a class and you can't even tell javascript to check that you're accessing properties you've created instead of accessing inexistant ones. It isn't even compiled, so you have to run the code and test all paths to find a lot of common problems.
So yeah, in the end, it is much better to transistion to a strongly typed language to do programming in, even for simple games. That's the reason I mentioned that.