Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Based on the discussion, it appears to me this should be vaulted, with no specific branch name, and the description should mention that the game stops when score is maxed, and the sub is no longer controllable.
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
Cyber_Kun wrote:
So why is this not in the vault?
I agree with you it's not very entertaining, however, I used these two criteria to put it into moons:
1) For a movie under 30 seconds, it's entertaining enough.
2) A significant amount of people said they were entertained.
I generally put something in the vault if I find that interest in what is going on is lost very quickly, and users want to turn off the video or skip through, or a lot of people say they were bored by it.
jlun2 wrote:
Therefore, this run gets one ending displayed, what is usually considered by players to be the last ending (The Arena doesn't have a special ending), yet completes nothing, and doesn't show all the appropriate endings. As usual, this kind of run is problematic with its objectives and completions, and I dislike calling it game-end glitch. However it is interesting, and therefore accepting as whatever this branch ends up being called.
Well, since this is arbitrary code execution, can the input be extended for a frame or 2 to make it unlock everything?
Unlike most other games, this is a collection of games. So it becomes less clear what it means to complete it. If we define completion as reaching the credits scene, then one needs to get half a dozen credit screens to complete all of KSS, which is more than a moment's worth of additional input. If we are looking towards content unlocked, then we are looking for a 100% appearing on the menu.
As is, this run doesn't show all the credits, nor does it get a completion percentage. I personally think this is a demo showing off a glitch that can get some credits to roll, nothing more. It's why I dislike the term game-end glitch, it's misleading into making you think it completed something.
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
feos wrote:
And yes, skipping a boss still feels like the same glitchiness level as floating OoB.
Nach wrote:
BTW, adelikat said earlier, he believes that any run which skips the final boss, even if the final boss alone was skipped, and the other 99% of the game is played, the run should be branched as "game-end glitch".
If adelikat thinks a certain tag is the crux of an entire branch scheme, then it seems more than plain out of bounds.
As for the rest of the arguments you're making, they all seem to be based on some altruistic vision of the site you have which I'm not familiar with, or appear to me attack some other issue as opposed to the problem at hand.
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
feos wrote:
If you approach to it this way, these 2 tags express different things, different levels of glitch abuse.
This is the exact argument that subsets and supersets are not equal, thank you for making my point for me.
feos wrote:
What is your answer to this question: why wouldn't we tag all kinds of glitch abuse that exists?
If it's a significant kind of glitch abuse that is present in several runs, it should be subject to the 3 criteria I listed earlier. If it passes, it should be tagged.
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
To clarify my position better:
I don't accept the argument that a near superset means the smaller entity should be removed. If I did accept the argument, then I'd have to go one stop further and notice that Heavy glitch abuse is also a near superset of Major skip glitch.
Since http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3041Y.html is nearly included in http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3055Y.html does that mean we should remove it? I think we're all agreeing no, and therefore I'm going to focus more on what is best for the user, and not theoretical conceptual problems.
I don't accept the argument that we need to limit tags because of clutter, because that's an argument to improve the site interface, not cripple a useful feature we have. I agree that we need to improve the site interface.
Therefore, to me, whether we should have a tag or not boils down to the following:
1) Does it provide useful information that is not implied by other tags?
2) Does it improve the ability to find kinds of runs on the site which a user may be looking for?
3) Are the runs listed by the tag not nearly ubiquitous, meaning, it can be used to locate an important minority subset of runs that we have. (If it's ubiquitous / majority, just browse the site directly. One doesn't place the word "the" in the glossary of a book.)
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
Radiant wrote:
Yes, that's my point. They're basically asking the same thing but worded in a different way, so that they're both likely to get the exact opposite result. Not exactly practical ;)
Well, in feos's opinion, search abilities and the difference between equality and non-equal supersets are unimportant. He is trying to convince me that a superset implies redundancy, and that there are also clutter concerns.
To sway me, he created this poll built upon his bias.
It's for exactly reasons like this I don't take polls too seriously. One should read How to Lie with Statistics to understand these issues better.
I created the other poll to counterbalance the bias presented in this one. I would be very surprised if they don't show opposite results.
In conclusion, don't trust the polls, see what people have to say, and weigh the strength of their arguments.
To me, strong arguments will go through user psychology, what their needs are, how certain things may help or hurt.
To me, weak arguments are ones which are based upon a current but correctable issues with the site's interface.
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
Radiant wrote:
Nach wrote:
It's specially referring to using a glitch of some sort to skip the final boss, such that the final boss is never fought, even though expectations by all normal players is that the final boss must be fought to win.
Okay, so if you actually enter combat with the final boss in any way, then it's not this tag?
Right.
However, an exception could be made where a boss has multiple stages. So skipping the final boss stage alone via a glitch could also claim the tag.
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
If there was near equality of the sets, then I would see logical redundancy. However, I do not see a near superset being a logical redundancy.
However, you are perfectly entitled to your opinion.
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:
I ask because I don't really understand why someone would oppose this.
I don't really understand it either. But feos is opposed to it because he thinks more tags means more clutter, and certain tags may be near supersets of other tags.
Radiant wrote:
Some clarity about this tag would be good here.
It's specially referring to using a glitch of some sort to skip the final boss, such that the final boss is never fought, even though expectations by all normal players is that the final boss must be fought to win.
The tag on the movies is currently referred to as Final boss skip glitch which may be illuminating. I'm not attached to the actual naming if people want it renamed. But the concept is somehow not fighting the required final boss and some how still completing the game.
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
Radiant wrote:
Wait, isn't this poll basically asking the same thing as that other poll?
No, they are not asking the same thing.
This poll is skewed towards viewing tags as clutter, and wants to claim that this particular tag can be swallowed up by another tag.
The other poll is skewed towards viewing tags as search options, and therefore, the only consideration is usefulness, with clutter and potential similarity ignored.
In my personal opinion, I also think the poll choices in this poll are highly biased towards a certain viewpoint, whereas the other poll is closer to neutral.
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.
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 allow one to see which movies skip a final boss using: Wiki: Movies-C3042Y
Do you think we should be keeping this feature or getting rid of 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
BTW, adelikat said earlier, he believes that any run which skips the final boss, even if the final boss alone was skipped, and the other 99% of the game is played, the run should be branched as "game-end glitch".
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
You mean like tagging runs which show an extreme level of resource management? I'm not against it. In fact, I love those kinds of runs when they're really extreme. So yeah, I'd love some kind of extreme resource management tag.
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
feos wrote:
What I'm saying is, skipping particular bosses is either part of major skip already, or part of heavy glitch abuse. We don't label all kinds of particular cases of glitch abuse. And again, look at how this movie module looks.
Heavy glitch abuse is nearly a super-set of major skip already, so lets delete major skip, since it's included. </sarcasm>
feos wrote:
This is a good example of why I need to implement the new movie module I'm envisioning, and not a reason why we should not be tagging runs with searchable tags that they deserve.
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
There are many games which employ major skip or whatever we're going to call it which do NOT skip the final boss, so no the two lists are not the same. Wiki: Movies-C3041Y
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.
I don't believe that we should be defining anything some way because it's what someone else does, unless they have some kind of official standing.
We can rename things, but only if our members think its an improvement, and the staff agrees that it's clear, and conveys what it needs to.
Zeupar wrote:
Also, I don't think the final boss of a game is special enough to warrant a movie class to inform the viewer it has been skipped in a run. Skipping the final boss of a game isn't much different from skipping the first or the third one.
I agree that it's not needed to identify when looking at a run in isolation.
However, say you want to search the site for all the runs where the final boss is never fought? Here you go: Wiki: Movies-C3042Y
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
feos wrote:
I support "major skip glitch" and "executes arbitrary code" movie tags. For skipping ONLY final boss, need more examples.
A key point is that the former two doesn't necessarily imply the latter, as you yourself have proven.
Because of that, we need to differentiate them, even if in most cases, the former two do imply the latter, and that the latter alone only has a handful of TASs so far.
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
feos wrote:
It's a shame that you didn't appear in the first thread where glitched branch was discussed.
I didn't realize the issues till I saw this run, the terrific comments here, and then tried to put it in perspective with other runs we have.
feos wrote:
We tried all possible solutions, and from all of them "X glitch" is the most clear. Though, once we define game-breaking glitch like I defined it earlier, it can even go okay with the title "glitched" without further explanation, because that definitions considers relativeness of the label: glitched is a run that's dramatically faster than the fastest run without that glitch.
I have nothing against X glitch.
feos wrote:
I personally find only one problem with GEG label - it's a spoiler :) Looking at the label "glitched" you expect extreme WTF'ness, but have no idea what it is before watching, and still can be surprised. After GEG label, there's no surprise. So I'd call it so pedantic that it reduces the soul. But again, it's as pedantic as 40% of the audience wanted it to be. Maybe they are all wrong :D
I find it more of an issue that game-end glitch isn't clear as to what we're talking about. What kind of game-end glitching should we be expecting?
Would a run which completes every aspect of the game but skips the final boss somehow be game-end glitch?
Would a run which skips the majority of the game, say from level 3 until but not including the final boss be game-end glitch? (your older BT run)
Also, game-end glitch could mean that the game-end is glitchy, like gibberish is spewn all over the screen. Even though that's not our intention for it.
However, I think coming up with best branch labels is premature.
As Henke37 has reminded us, we need proper movie classes.
I think the following 3 logical movie classes should be added:
Executes arbitrary code.
Skips majority of the game via glitches (uses warp does not imply glitches, nor should it)
Skips the final boss via glitches.
This run here happens to be all three, as are many of our other runs of this nature. However we also have runs which are only one or various permutations of two of these three, and it'd be nice to be able to search according to any of these criteria.
Once we name each of these properly, I think we can then come up with proper branching names for each combination.
Not saying to use any of these, but food for thought: Majority skip glitch, Final boss skip glitch, Skip to credits glitch, Massive skip glitch, etc...
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
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
I personally tango to my own metal, and like to handle things in a shocking and most electrifying manner, although fairly so.
That's why. We all are wrong, Nach is right. Except there's nothing shocking or electrifying, it's just wrong.
*whoosh*
feos wrote:
adelikat wrote:
feos, It would be as incorrect to tag those movies as low% as it is to title this movie with low%
A fortiori we don't need what Nach's trying to enforce.
I don't think you understood what I was saying. I'm not trying to enforce tagging with low%, I want us to come up with clear labeling that uses what we currently call game-end glitch, that identifies that much of the game is being skipped, akin to what low% conveys.
If you're still not getting it:
1) I didn't say anywhere we must name this low% (in fact I told Guga to publish the run using "game-end glitch", really, check the encodes)
2) I don't think the label game-end glitch is ideal for what it is trying to convey.
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
feos wrote:
Was never a goal in any MM run.
It could not be a goal in any MM run outside of MMX5.
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
adelikat wrote:
We use the term low% only when achieving the lowest % completion is SLOWER than completing it at any%. Meaning, when the fastest possible solution is not also the lowest completion.
Metroid Fusion and Super Mario 64 would like to have a word with you. I also kindly remind you to see the addendum to my previous post and strongly refer to the last sentence in the judgment.
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
Dyshonest wrote:
Why is this labeled "low%"? If it has to be kept a separate branch from the current run that skips over a quarter of the game... why not "game end glitch"?
Please read the judgment.
To elaborate further:
In the course of seeing what was done here, it was realized two problems with game-end glitch alone:
1) It is not necessarily a clear tag.
2) It doesn't identify that the run is in fact low%, which in most cases is reported by the game with some completion number appearing somewhere.
Especially see the last sentence in the judgment.
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:
It's Super Metroid, obviously it's so important it has to be listed twice.
The real question is, why isn't it listed 3 to 5 times? Super Metroid is THAT awesome.
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
Spikestuff wrote:
C-c-c-c-c-combo breaker.
P-p-p-p-post breaker!
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.
