Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
The actual rule doesn't necessarily disqualify this game, even though there is strong indication that it does.
This just confuses me. Is this game disqualified because of the current Vault rules or not?
I have no first hand idea on the matter. I haven't played the game nor seen the TAS. I'm only in this thread to clarify what the rules are.
Warp wrote:
You seem to be saying in your posts that this game could ostensibly be accepted, even according to the current rules, but it nevertheless isn't. So why exactly isn't it accepted?
A game with educational elements can be accepted if the educational elements are not the primary focus of the game. A judge has deemed that they are, and it looks like the senior judge concurs.
Warp wrote:
With all the discussion going on, I have missed the concrete reason for this. (The only thing I can see is, essentially, "it's an educational game, educational games are not eligible for Vault." If this is not the reason, the what is?)
The judge has ruled the game is non-serious due to being primarily about education and not gameplay. If there is a strong convincing argument for the educational elements being secondary, then the judges can reconsider.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
When that one mini-golf game (I think it was) was rejected because it was a "sports game", and Vault rules were against it, I contested that rule, it was discussed, and it was changed so that some sports games are now acceptable. I expressed back then how appreciative I am that here the people in charge listen to user feedback and make rules changes when it's reasonable, rather than obstinately consider them written-in-stone, absolute, and never-changing.
Indeed that's correct, hence why what I wrote contained the word "almost".
Warp wrote:
The majority of the arguments have been about whether this is an "educational game" or not, not whether it's a good rule to have as it is now (and enforced so strictly).
Since the rule is not a blanket ban on educational games, and everything is arguing about educational gamers, your arguments are falling on deaf ears. No one is going to listen to arguments, especially those asking to change rules when those arguing are expressing total reading comprehension failure.
Warp wrote:
I'm not saying to remove the rule. I'm just suggesting to loosen it a bit, just like with the sports games rule.
The rule already is loose. Those arguing are not taking advantage of its looseness and instead trying to alter it or make meaningless analogies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
"this is an educational game, and educational games are not accepted"
While that's the gist of the rule, that's not the actual rule.
Warp wrote:
As said, I'm suggesting to change that rule
The rule is not changing, even though "that" rule doesn't exist.
Warp wrote:
because it needlessly disqualifies perfectly good games like this one.
The actual rule doesn't necessarily disqualify this game, even though there is strong indication that it does.
Warp wrote:
The rule doesn't need to be outright removed, just fine-tuned to not be so broad.
The actual rule isn't so broad.
Warp wrote:
My suggestion is to change the rule so that games like this one aren't needlessly rejected.
Rules should not be changed to favor gamessoftware that don't deserve it. Of course it also helps to understand the rules.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Alyosha wrote:
Nach wrote:
If your argument is you don't like the rule, you're wasting your time. The senior staff very much likes the rule and will be keeping it.
I wish you just said this 2 pages ago.
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
People asked me into this thread for clarification for a rule, you got it.
If you want to see a different outcome, argue within the framework of the rule, don't try to get rid of the rule. I told you the criteria in the very first post of mine of this thread and reiterated it in different forms several times.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
For the purposes of this tier, a game which is a board game, educational game or game show game is not defined as a serious game. Fighting games such as Street Fighter are however, eligible.
Examples of unacceptable board games for this tier are Chess and Monopoly.
Examples of unacceptable education games for this tier are Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs.
A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible.
This is the full text of the rule being applied. There is one game cited as an example of an unacceptable educational title and it has little in common with this game.
Actually, there are two.
Bobo the King wrote:
There are zero examples of acceptable educational titles, even though they are alluded to.
If you want one, there was a Bible game mentioned earlier.
Bobo the King wrote:
That's the extent to which I wish to argue this. I'm sure that someone will come along shortly to take up my banner. I'm going to bed.
If your argument is you don't like the rule, you're wasting your time. The senior staff very much likes the rule and will be keeping it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
I don't see previous precedents (ie Carmen Sandiego, in the circumstances it was published in) holding enough weight to sway my decision on this case or on how the rule must be enforced.
I'd point out that not all Carmen Sandiego games are the same.
Some of them teach you stuff about places in the world over the course of the game, but the game is primarily a detective game, the details could be fictional and the game would be identical and still fun for those that like reviewing clues and following them.
Then there's others which are strictly educational games, that may have some fun aspects, but primarily test your knowledge about the world. You cannot beat them without remembering things you learned in school (or lookup on Wikipedia), and the game does not provide clues or detective work like the other kind.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
following a written rule that wasn't written all that carefully in the first place
The rule may have been ambiguous in its first edition. It no longer is. Don't argue the past.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
We definitely do not want non-serious games published, which is typical of those geared for education as the primary control of the game. The question for judges is not whether we are going to alter or enforce this rule, but whether the game in question is not serious due to its primary focus on education or whether the game is a serious game and just has some educational elements thrown in.
If this game used some kind of simple puzzles instead of math problems, would it be eligible for Vault?
If the answer is yes, then what exactly is it about math problems that makes it non-eligible? I think the principle of "no educational games" is being enforced too strictly here.
I'm not answering questions about this game.
Regarding our rules as I said in practically every post on this topic, it is about primary and secondary, which you seem to skip over in every single one of your replies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
I don't recall the exact circumstances of writing the rule or who was involved in it besides me, but I do know it came from this submission, which in its topic was nearly universally derided and the concept that it had to be published to the Vault was considered a joke by many in the thread.
That said, I don't think it was a new rule even then anyway - the Vault blanket-bans games that aren't considered serious games, and educational games are rarely considered serious games to begin with. The explicit mention of educational games would have been more of a clarification.
adelikat and I when discussing the vault rules for the site (on IRC) decided we did not want Sesame Street games published. IIRC, it was implied by something else we wrote on the site, but wasn't explicitly called out till you added your two words to the vault page. I further clarified it with the two lines I added the other day.
We definitely do not want non-serious games published, which is typical of those geared for education as the primary control of the game. The question for judges is not whether we are going to alter or enforce this rule, but whether the game in question is not serious due to its primary focus on education or whether the game is a serious game and just has some educational elements thrown in.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
In my opinion, the key difference between a tool and a game (educational or not) is that games have a purpose for progressing through the game; tools don't.
Let's take another example then. Say you have a math test program. The whole program gives you 20 random math problems. You do all 20 one after the other, and it tells you which are correct, which are wrong, what the correct answer was for the ones you got wrong, and displays your final score. Is this a game? It has purpose, it has progression, however we will not accept this as a game.
If you want to argue the above is a game, that's fine, but TASVideos will not accept such a thing as a game, as the staff does not see it that way.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Why is 'learn something' a less valid goal than 'save the princess', 'kill everyone else', or 'click on Waldo's picture' as a game goal?
As I said previously:
Nach wrote:
What it boils down to though is the focus of the application in question a game or a tool? If we can define it as a game and the educational aspect is secondary, then we can accept it as a TAS. If the education is primary, and the game aspect is secondary, we do not accept it.
If the game is primary, it's okay if you learned something along the way. It's okay if during a game there is some place where it made you use a calculator, answer a history problem, or something along those lines.
It's not okay if the application is some educational tool which tries to hide the fact it's a tool by adding some cute looking characters or minor game mechanics to utilize the math/spelling/history/whatever educational tool.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The problem isn't that it's extra thinking, the problem is that it requires you to exercise in school subjects (arithmetics in this case) as a primary gameplay element, and the game is clearly and explicitly designed for that purpose. That is what defines an educational game.
Essentially the root question is 'Why is education not considered a valid video game goal?'
Let's backup to something more basic. If a calculator program exists for a platform (and yes there are such things), would it be valid to TAS? Does it have a video game goal?
I think it's fairly clear that a calculator is not worthy of having a TAS.
But that brings us to the next stage, what if you dress up the calculator, and make it that instead of just pressing a button to put in a number, you have to move some cute looking character to it and somehow select it, does this make it more of a game and not a calculator?
Some of the Sesame Street and Elmo games consist of just pressing left and right to cycle some cute looking character through numbers and letters, then you press A/B to select, and if you got the math right, you proceed. This is just dressing up a calculator or dictionary, and it's not a game. There is nothing entertaining, and we want to reject this stuff.
Calculators and other educational tools can be dressed up in increasingly clever and complex ways. What it boils down to though is the focus of the application in question a game or a tool? If we can define it as a game and the educational aspect is secondary, then we can accept it as a TAS. If the education is primary, and the game aspect is secondary, we do not accept it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
Bobo the King wrote:
I anticipate what the answer will be, but what about RNG differences? Timer-based RNGs can and will be different across the three (or four?) platforms and there may be states that are only accessible on certain platforms.
I see no sufficient reason to deviate from the rules I outlined in this case.
I concur.
Unless one of those states happens to be access to a whole game area not otherwise accessible.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
Good point, I'll add a bullet point for that too. (Shantae is the only example I can think of offhand, but it's notable nonetheless).
I just said Zelda. Oracle of Ages and Seasons specifically. There may be others too. And hobbyist developers may continue to make more.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
Fair. Can you give any instances of this scenario in particular?
Some of the Hudson Soft games has better colors in CGB mode but have multiplayer support in SGB mode.
Link's Awakening DX IIRC has some SGB support, but in CGB mode you get all colors and access to an extra level.
There can be others.
Also some CGB games have extra features in AGB mode. IIRC, the later CGB Zelda games have extra stuff too.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
• If neither Super Game Boy enhancements nor Game Boy Color's full-color graphics are supported, Game Boy mode should be used.
Agreed.
Mothrayas wrote:
• If Game Boy Color's full-color graphics are not supported, but Super Game Boy enhancements are available in the game (i.e. borders, dynamic palette changes, and/or other exclusive features within the game), then either Game Boy mode or Super Game Boy mode can be used. Both are accepted, but movies of the same game and category can obsolete one another based on whichever has the shortest total run time.
I dislike how the end is phrased. Actual game play time needs to be shorter to obsolete, not just total run time which discards timing differences.
Also uniqueness is each can turn what was thought of as the same category into two categories.
Mothrayas wrote:
• If the game has full-color graphics for Game Boy Color, Game Boy Color mode should be used.
Almost agree.
Some SGB+CGB games can have unique features in one that are missing in the other. Both should be acceptable.
Mothrayas wrote:
Alongside that, SGB Mode in VBA-rr is to be banned entirely, as it is purely an emulation hack and does not properly emulate a game inside an SGB at all. (Other Game Boy modes in VBA-rr also are set to be deprecated and eventually no longer accepted, but that's a separate discussion).
If we have alternatives that are deemed viable enough for regular users to get SGB mode with the borders, colors, sounds, SNES add-ons, multitap, and the other SGB extras, I'm fine with this.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
This game came out in 1992. It predates all Gameboy systems that came after the original.
It makes no sense to play it using SGB or CGB cores.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Grab Buster is US.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
dwangoAC wrote:
It has full TAS features, as well as a TAS Studio style input method referred to as the History Editor:
I really like it when software has things labeled clearly so anyone can know its purpose, instead of some marketing-hype name which doesn't have a clear or obvious meaning.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
We also have additional protection that Bisqwit did not mention.
The first couple of posts are monitored and if they trigger spam detection, the posts and user is deleted as well.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
xy2_ wrote:
As mentioned in IRC you can do tr -d "\r" on the file to remove the carriage returns but this is not really the best solution.
Indeed. You should use dos2unix instead.
xy2_ wrote:
When trying to download a file from a code tag via an user's profile, the file will get truncated to whatever the post preview shows.
This is intentional.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Yes. Very yes.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Regarding translated pages that involve rules, please add the following disclaimer translated into your language at the top of them:
The English language version of these rules/guidelines supersedes all translated versions of these rules/guidelines. Translations of these rules/guidelines into other languages are provided for informational purposes only.
I've already added this to the English version of the Site and Movie rules. Please add that to the translated versions and any other pages that are appropriate.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
The point isn't whether the crucial differences exist, the point is whether we can say with certainty there are no crucial differences with how the TASer is TASing the game compared to using an original console.
In openMSX you emulate a specific MSX machine. The goal of the emulator is to be as closely as possible to that original specific MSX machine. So, I don't see your point here...
The same MSX machine the player back in 1984 would have used to play a game in question?
Quibus wrote:
So, my point for MSX is: a run on any officially released MSX computer is always as legitimate as it can get.
That is your opinion. How do we know this is the opinion of the audience at large?
Quibus wrote:
Not related to region, but related to BIOS or other differences between the different MSX models (e.g. memory layout). But I don't know examples of this, other than games outright crashing. You never really know which exact model the game was developed on.
The fact that such cases exist show that concern for potential audience claiming illegitimacy of a particular combination is warranted.
Quibus wrote:
The question is, since the moment openMSX was approved: what do you want to do with all these different models? It is theoretically possible to make a faster TAS on a different MSX model.
That's why I then proposed to use a single standard machine, so runs can be compared (the Panasonic FS-A1WSX was then the proposal).
If there can be a definitive machine to be considered for games made to be sold in particular areas, I'm not against enforcing those.
Quibus wrote:
I think we need a rule something like this: if you want to obsolete/improve a run that already exists you MUST use the same MSX model with the same BIOS. Exception could be that the gameplay is obviously better (clearly no model differences are exploited).
Those are already the rules. Movies intended to obsolete something must always do more than just changing things which the players in-game have no control over.
Quibus wrote:
All in all, I still think that Zupapa's submission should not have been rejected. I see no argument whatsoever that would justify that. The above discussion only makes it clearer to me, as the rule that was referred to when it was rejected was not intended for this case, I think.
I don't know enough about that sub at the moment, but based on our discussion, if your depiction of the situation is accurate, then I agree.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MrWint wrote:
I presume your personal dislike is another instance of being in the minority then.
Yes.
MrWint wrote:
a better system may be to consider speed records a separate dimension orthogonal to the entertainment-focused Moons and Stars rather than a lower tier that exists alongside them.
Agreed. Those who came up with the tier thing in my opinion do not properly understand hierarchical organization and orthogonal concepts.
MrWint wrote:
but that doesn't explain why e.g. the SMB PAL run was ineligible (this too was not mentioned in the judge's notes), you already did all the work investigating it closely. Just because it's entertaining doesn't mean it can't be Vault (at least according to the current rules). It seems to fit well with the purpose of the Vault tier, even though I agree it's a shame to see it ending up there.
I just added a summary to the notes to clarify a few points, since some people seem to have a hard time sorting through everything.
Vault itself is only used when a run is deemed acceptable but not entertaining. Then at that point, further checks are done to see if it qualifies for Vault, and if so, is published there. Before anyone jumps on me, yes, the checking for Vault qualification was left out of my decision tree.MrWint wrote:
Suppose I submit a PAL TAS (any%) for a game which also has an NTSC version (released first, no prior submissions for either), and they are generally similar with only minor differences (both well made, etc.). I chose PAL because it had a minor neat trick I wanted to show off, I deemed it the more interesting version to TAS, or maybe it was simply faster (by some definition) than the NTSC version. Would you reject it just for being PAL and not substantially different from the NTSC version? I assume the answer is "maybe", depending on which is the "better" version (TASability, quality and such) and how the audience feels about it. I want the rules to reflect that, because currently they sound like a firm "yes, reject immediately" to me.
It basically is reject immediately unless the submission itself or the audience defend its reasons for publication explaining how it's unique or better for whatever viable reason.
MrWint wrote:
I get your point about clarity being important, but there has to be a balance between being clear and being overly restrictive.
I just don't want someone to work on something which they may feel is wasted effort. If they want to know if their particular case does not fall into the near-blanket-ban, they can ask, and explain why they feel like their particular case may be different before embarking on a potentially lengthy creation process.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Quibus wrote:
Nach wrote:
It is important to note though, that even if there is broad compatibility, it doesn't mean something intended for one area and created for what was popular in one area was intended in anyway for another area, especially if crucial differences are then involved.
I don't know any examples of such crucial differences. Do you?
The point isn't whether the crucial differences exist, the point is whether we can say with certainty there are no crucial differences with how the TASer is TASing the game compared to using an original console.
Quibus wrote:
All their following games didn't have this check either... but OK, we're speculating about concerns of companies here. Getting off-topic, right?
It's not off-topic, it goes directly to the point as to whether there may be crucial differences because companies did not do enough testing on enough hardware variation. But yes, my various point are speculation. The speculation is also what we want to avoid with our publications. We want to ensure they are as legitimate as they can be.
Quibus wrote:
The reason they made a version for Japan has nothing to do with NTSC vs PAL. That should be clear by now. It only has to do with packaging and the preferred format (ROM) for that market. This is proven by the fact that the game is just the same and the original release also runs fine on Japanese MSX computers. In exactly the same way as the ROM does.
That I agree. I'm not worried about television standards as much as I am worried about subtle platform differences that may delegitimize a submission which uses a configuration where there's a degree of chance was not anticipated by the creators of the software in question.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
