Posts for Ramzi

1 2 3
18 19
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
I tried downloading an old version of Internet Explorer. It said it couldn't install on a 64-bit system. Then I tried downloading an old version of Shockwave. And it also said it can't install on my system. I'm wondering, could a Docker image be made with something like 32-bit Windows XP and an old IE and an old Shockwave, that could be easily distributed? Maybe not even Windows XP, but some version of Linux with an old IE that runs on it. There should be a standard solution to playing old Shockwave games.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
It didn't occur to me, since all the guides I found had directions for installing newer plugins on newer browsers. I suppose I could look for old versions of browsers and Shockwave, and hopefully that'll work. Thanks for the idea!
Post subject: Blix - An old Shockwave game
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
I used to play this great Shockwave game called Blix. It seems impossible to play now, or to find anything about it on the Internet. I spent hours trying to install Shockwave plugins for modern browsers. None of them run the game well at all. The game freezes or crashes randomly. The game can still be found by Googling for blix300.dcr. I think the only hope of playing it again is if someone has an old computer with an old version of Shockwave still installed. But it might not even work then, if part of Shockwave calls out to shockwave.com which is now dead. I don't know if such calls out exist though. I would like to recreate the game, but I can't find the level data anywhere. If there were screenshots or videos of the levels, then I could remake the game. One hope would be to somehow recover this level data from the blix300.dcr file, but I really don't know how to begin with that. There would be patterns to be found with a hex editor, unless the levels were procedurally generated, in which case writing a level editor for blix300.dcr would be a lot harder. The best hope would be that the levels were straightforwardly laid out, such that all of the levels' data could easily be recovered. If anyone knows how to play this game again, please inform me. I'd love to remake this game and bring this great game back to life. Thanks. Oh, and I tried contacting the creator of the game already, but he didn't respond back to me.
Post subject: Universal Level Editor
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
- Most of my thoughts on this board seem to revolve around Zelda 1. - In Mario 1, after you beat the first "quest", the spineys are replaced with the hard-shelled baddies. - This seems comparable to replacing Red Octoroks with Blue Octoroks. Or, even harder, to replace Octoroks with Darknuts. - My first idea was for a Universal Ontology Generator, but it seems to me that the leap to a Universal Level Editor is the logical next step. - I don't want to waste time telling a custom program or ROM decompiler what each enemy or resource looks like, to find every instance of it in the game. That is, I shouldn't have to go in knowing what Red, Blue, Octoroks, and Darknuts are. - Maybe it's an AI or a Machine Learning problem, but hopefully it is less difficult than that, if the ROM is written rather straightforwardly. - You should be able to give this universal program any ROM, and it will generate the Ontology for that game. For example, I don't know the game Castlevania very well at all. But if I fed the Castlevania ROM into this program, it should generate a list of all the weapons and baddies, as if I had run across a dedicated Castelevania fansite where that information was accumulated the old fashioned way. - After having the Ontology for say, Zelda, and let's also assume that we just already have a Level Editor to go with it... I should not have to fire up a GUI of a Level Editor and then by hand go replacing all of the Octoroks with Darknuts. - I should be able to write a very simple program, like, "Replace Octoroks with Darknuts", and then be able to print a new ROM where that is the case. - The ability to make Hybrid Games should fall out of this pretty easily, hopefully. - For example, let's say that I have a GoldenEye Level Editor. - Right now, at our state of technology, I would either have to hand-produce a data file (in XML or something), of all the Zelda 1 resources, their locations on the overworld and underworld maps, or I would have to go Internet searching to see if someone did this for me already. Like, right now, you can find elaborate overworld and underworld maps in GameFAQs, but they're not in a readily-consumable computer format like XML or something. Rather than having to write some custom program to take the hard work of the GameFAQs map creators', and turn those images of maps into XML or something, this process should be a lot faster with a program that scans the ROM and produces the XML for us. - Then, now that we have all of the level and enemy placement information of Zelda 1 already quickly produced for us... We should be able to write a simple program that maps Ontological Entities in Zelda and GoldenEye. For example, maybe each Zelda screen is a GoldenEye room. Each Zelda door is a GoldenEye door. And each Zelda Octorok is a GoldenEye Russian soldier. - Tada. By writing a simple program to replace the mapped Zelda entities with GoldenEye entities, we immediately produced a GoldenEye fan-game which mimics the level layout of Zelda. Part of the fun of the Zelda games is navigating the rooms in the maze-like dungeons, and collecting keys to get through certain doors. - Now we can generate mix-game hybrids with next to no human grunt work. - I think I had an idea a few weeks ago, which precedes this, but seems to me to be a lot harder and a lot more impractical. - I was wondering what game "genres" are. In general, I wondered what "genres" are. In music, you have jazz, and rock, and rap. But even within a genre, you have subgenres, like Heavy Metal, Black/Death Metal, Gangster Rap, or Chopper Rap, etc. In TV, you have genres like comedies, drama, but you also have late-night celebrity interview talk shows, and relatively new on the genre-scene was the invention of Reality TV shows. - I wondered, what makes a genre? If you make a subtle tweak to an existing genre, but it is too subtle, then no one meaningfully categorizes it as a new genre. - I think classic games were pioneers in genre creation or discovery. - Look at games like Tetris, Pac-Man, and Zelda 1. They all appear to me to be of the top-down variety. Look at games like Mario and Sonic. They appear to me to be of the side-scroller variety. Look at games like Wolfenstein and Doom and Quake. They appear to me to be of the first-person shooter variety. Look at games like Mario RPG or Diablo. They appear to me to be of the isometric game variety. - Like Reality Shows are new on the scene of TV genres, what video game genres have we simply not discovered yet? - Even talk of genres like music, TV shows, and video games, can be "meta" considered under the topic of genre creation. They fall under the genre of entertainment, where video games were the latest to the entertainment scene, far after music (and then TV shows), for probably-obvious technical reasons. Does it make sense to make hybrid genres with these? Music games? TV show games? What entertainment genre has not even been conceived of yet, like how likely Ancient Greeks could never have conceived of video games? - It almost seems to me like the discovery or invention of a new game genre is serendipity or something. Does God put into the minds of men the idea for a new game genre? How does one, (like id Software), even imagine a new genre, (like First-Person Shooter), when (let's say), all existing games before that were top-down? - It makes sense to me, that in the history of computing, that top-down games would be created before FPS games, just because of the amount of processing power required. Still though, my question remains... What is the scientific explanation for how those (id Software) computer programmers were able to imagine or visualize a new game genre, when they had never seen the first instance of it before yet? - Maybe 3D games are reasonable to infer, because our eyes/brains/minds operate in a 3D world or in a 3D way. - What about isometric games? What is their cognitive/neuroscientific explanation, if we don't see the world isometrically? Maybe a simple tabletop game like chess could inspire both the top-down view and the isometric view, because we could look at the chess board from top-down or at an angle. - Is all my talk of top-down, side-scrolling, 3D, and isometric games, simply a "brute-forcing" of geometrical categories, and I haven't realized what the geometry problem I'm solving for is yet? That is, are there actually just a limited, finite, small number of such rendering views, and we have already discovered them all, or at least we can mathematically (or brute-forcefully) discover them all? - But to go back to my "harder and more impractical" hyphenated point, and to relate it to all the much-easier hyphenated points above it: Maybe the discovery of a new game genre (or rendering?) is simply a matter of tweaking existing game mechanics by making hybrid games. Like, maybe I'm off-base here, but imagine that mating Zelda and GoldenEye reveals no new genre, whereas some more difficult mating, like mating Zelda and Mario Kart, somehow does. Maybe I'm just being silly. - I think game-creators like GameMaker Studio, are operating at a "meta" level. That is, they somehow looked at the process that game makers use to make games, and abstracted it. So rather than human grunt work programmers having to manually create games X, Y, and Z... the common elements to X, Y, and Z were analyzed and put into one game-maker, so that the X, Y, Z games could be generated with a minimal amount of human work. - My initial sense is that it is not very meaningful to take this "meta" thinking a step further. There is no need to produce game-maker-makers. This is because: all game-makers will come out looking more or less the same, as there really are little genre-differences among them. In short, people have no use for such a variety of game-makers in the same way they have a love for such a variety of games. - However, were it the case that each genre-specific game-maker was such a distinct and elaborate tool, then maybe we would have a need or a want or a love for game-maker-makers. That is, if FPS games are so elaborate, and racing games are so elaborate, and top-down games are so elaborate, and side-scrolling games are so elaborate... It would be better for a (programmer or) (human) game creator to identify the genre of the game he wants to create, before selecting the right tool for the job... Rather than merely using one highly-abstract game maker which actually does have all the functionality to produce any type of game, but just with a lot more work. - I think I would like to resist some very narrowly-specific game-maker or level editor, like Mario Maker, which I've actually never played. And I haven't researched this, but is there a Sonic Maker? If so, to my mind at least initially, the Mario Maker and the Sonic Maker are basically the same maker, so there wouldn't be a point for a human game creator to identify his game as a Mario or a Sonic game before picking the right tool for the job. Rather, it seems to me that both Mario and Sonic would be subsumed under the more meaningful genre of sidescoller maker. - With the idea of game-maker-makers out of the way, dismissed as infeasible or undesirable, I would still like to focus on the idea of genre-discovery through hybrid game tweaking. - This probably goes without saying by now, but like there should be no need for a Mario and Sonic maker as they would be subsumed by the sidescroller maker, intelligent human programmers shouldn't have to sink tremendous amounts of independent efforts into producing a GoldenEye level editor, a Half-Life level editor, a Doom level editor, an Unreal Tournament level editor, etc. As these would all be subsumed under the FPS level editor. - Maybe closer-related things are more easily-imaginable to make hybrid. Like you can imagine an animal that has some features of a cat and some features of a dog, while it might be harder for you to imagine an animal that has some features of a cat, and some features of a rocking chair. - Maybe we can begin to imagine a list of new genres by just taking the names of existing genres and joining them together. Like, if Dance Dance Revolution is a rhythm game, and Mario Kart is a racing game, then maybe we can imagine a rhythm racing game and ask if this is a feasible hybrid. Maybe often times the concoction is so heinous that any efforts to create it should be aborted. (Like the cat / rocking chair creature.) - Still, maybe some of these combinations could yield something original and enjoyable. - Imagine my feeling of fear when I thought I accidentally closed this tab, after typing all of this, without yet submitting it. You just know that any attempts to recreate this post, while maybe covering all of the major and minor ideas, would still lack the feeling of genuine creation as my first motivated creation of it had. Fortunately, I didn't close this tab. - I am thinking, initially, that just some sorts of geometrical hybrids could yield a lot of original and fun looking games. Like, games where there are multiple views presented at the same time, like 3D and isometric and top-down. Or, where these views can readily be switched among. What comes to my mind is that 3DS Zelda game, where it is 3D, but you can become a 2D figure as a texture on the walls, to navigate a room. Or, and I think this was from some Mario fan-game I saw, but maybe it has already been implemented in the official Mario series: A 3D Mario world like Mario 64, where you can absorb into a wall -- (a 2D plane) -- and you're quickly back to playing a 2D Mario sidescroller like from the NES era, until you complete that room/area and are back to playing in the 3D Mario world. - I think there are a lot of good ideas here, but I fear maybe I spent too much time pondering about the most theoretical and infeasible of the ideas; whereas, I think that some of the most awesome ideas in this thread were quickly and efficiently explained in the first few shorter hyphenated items at the top. - That is, it actually doesn't seem that difficult to program an Ontology Generator, (unless I'm greatly ignorant about what went into classic game creation, with lots of smoke and mirrors to give the impression of unique baddies and items); and, if we had the Ontology for two games along with the game information (in XML or something), how easy it would be to produce a Hybrid Game with minimal human effort, as in my Zelda/GoldenEye example. - I hope the length of this post doesn't scare off replies. - I hope someone does this for me, so I don't have to. I'm looking at you @DeHackEd.
Post subject: Anyone remember Boco?
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
I member.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Depending on the epsilon value, the moves or consequences a player has to face may be radically different. One couldn't simply submit a movie with a lower epsilon. They'd have to make it or produce it. If what into it was the pinnacle of computing power available at the time, or whatever, it would be hard to submit a movie with a lower epsilon.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
[/img]
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Maybe also a JSON specification for the game, such that the game can be run to advance the state for any given input, to test outcomes, to apply algorithms or AI to... that can be tested in any language. If your game is coded in X, and I am a Y programmer, why do I have to learn whatever limited variety of programming languages available that your game has an API for... Am I described a binary? A "JSON binary". A generic way of transmitting a game "blind" to any programming language that has a JSON library. That the algorithm generic in terms of State and Inputs, can have algorithms or AI run against it, without the human ever knowing what kind of game it is or what it looks like.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
I think a game like this, with levels as simple as these, and input options as simple as those, is or should be to have a TAS made for it which is provably optimal. Whereas, a game with exponential possibilities opening up in real-time with time constraits, that stresses computational power, exhibits real skill or expertise. A Starcraft 2 AI exhibits game intelligence better than intelligently designed TAS does. Can we generalize your game... Remove the graphics. Make it blind. No concept of orcs or axes. Or a 2D environment. Or enemies. Just. There is a state S which is transmitted via JSON. There is a legal set of inputs per each turn. The halt states or goal states are specified. Then a general AI may be able to beat or produce TASes for such games automatically, as they learn what the environment and physics and goals of the game actually are.
Post subject: Live TASing Competition
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
People volunteer for 50 imaginary bucks to at some date and time specified and agreed upon by all players, to livestream or not their attempt at making a TAS within one hour, of my specified arbitrary ruleset. So, for example, within 1 hour, someone should be able to TAS beat Zelda 1, while also burning 13 bushes. That latter condition needs to somehow be programmatically verified. Another programmatic verification I thought of, was to make sure that any axiomatic rules, (like in Lemmings a player can't move his cursor while it's the other players "turn"), aren't violated. Then, something like Lemmings can be discretized or made turn-based. I'm thinking, there could be: a) You submit AI which runs against another AI to see who wins in a multiplayer game. b) You submit a keypress file in advance, and so does your opponent, and you see who won based on the "blind"/anticipatory keypress file. For Lemmings, or Mortal Kombat. Think about what such a keypress file would look like. Lots of redundant hitting and blocking and building and rebuilding and digging and redigging. I imagine. Maybe I imagine it wrong, a priori. c) A turn-based competition, where through E-Mail, like chess, each person submits their next Lemmings move. Further rules can be invented, like, a player only has so much time to move, while the other person waits. Or, that a player has to announce their last move, so the other player can continue to play without their intervention. Which is essentially yielding their turn continuously... Until they renege on their "last term" claim? How can fighting games like MK or SSB be intelligently created in TAS form, to be human in this turn-based respect without past-revision, but to be free of human error like pressing the wrong button or pressing a button at the wrong time. We want to producing Crouching Tiger Hidden Dragon beautiful shit. Not limited by the idea of infinite-undo past-revision which stifles creation of beautiful multiplayer competitive TASes.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
If the Hero of Hyrule does not have material access to a stronger sword, because it actually does not exist, why should he be prohibited from saving the princess? Likewise, if the Hero of Hyrule doesn't have material access to ANY sword, why should that prohibit him from saving the princess? Because if Link reaches Ganon and bombs and fires and arrows the hell out of him, you'd think fairly that's enough to kill him. Such that it can be honestly or honestly-enough said that, sure, why not, the Hero of Hyrule can be said to be potentially capable of saving the princess without a sword. So then, what does it mean, for a kid, for you as a kid, to have played or beaten a video game like Zelda? Is it POSSIBLE that you owned only one controller, making the Up+A save/warp impossible? Or are we disallowing quantum randomness to Up+A save/warp, or an as-of-yet undiscovered arbitrary code execution exploit to trigger the Up+A save/warp screen without a second controller? My point is, clearly, honestly, charitably, we think that a kid with only one control, which is "normal", as opposed to some exotic advanced super controller capable of magic and voodoo that only one copy of was ever made... can be said to have genuinely PLAYED the game... Then a category of TAS, in the spirit of choosing the hardest path with the unluckiest luck... We should say, that since the minimal conditions for playing Zelda 1 are one controller... as opposed to two controller, or playing with paperclips and magic and quantum weirdness... Then, in the spirit of playing the hardest path in the hardest way, which is still somehow not stupid or arbitrary... or against the "nature" or "spirit" of the game, at least as narrowly defined as the goal of that specific TAS by the author or authors... Then we should disallow the use of Up+A in Zelda 1, as it is not a natural feature of the game that can be fairly used by a kid who only has one controller, which is the minimum condition for playing (and beating?) the game. Beating, if it wasn't ridiculous that Ganon required a sword to die. Or, less violently, that we don't need a sword to win. Can't Link rationally talk Ganon into giving up the princess? Or, can't the princess do this herself? And how about royalty ruling Hyrule? Isn't that a little antiquated? And then, for any selected Axioms we want to apply to the run... Like, no Up+A, no screen warping, no deaths, 100% heart pickups, at least 85% door repairs hit, gets to Ganon / dies at Ganon, somehow triggers end sequence / will be said to have completed "real" goal of TAS... That this TAS should be automatically generated by a program that promises to TAS that game. When one human out does the TAS of the previous human, what algorithm is followed, most stupidly? I don't mean the most novel and genius innovations in a TAS record break. I mean the type of TAS record break where only few frames are saved somehow on a few screens, where no goals or subgoals are meaningfully altered or achieved, and which change is rather unnoticeable to humans. THAT type of tightening up, frames of subgoals, should be a standard feature of TAS Emulators, as opposed to "natural" emulators, where it is oddly presumed that natural emulation of consoles proves to be insufficient for what the TAS community truly desires a console/game hardware/software pair to be or to have been. Even for non-programmers. So this tedious process of frame precision, with guess work, which is repetitive... Should become easier for non-programmers... By being able to in natural-enough language specify goals or conditions for the next immediate subgoal, that the TAS emulator itself will do that tightening up work by itself, while the TAS creator goes on to the next subgoal to intelligently consider. But, for the TAS movie watcher, given his arbitrary selection of axioms, for which whichever permutation selection has never in the history of the universe been aimed for, on-the-fly a TAS should be producible by his TAS emulator, with the help of his Java program, (in conjunction with the ROM, of course... or, some more ideal ROM as chosen by the community for whatever reasons). Then, playing code golf, or aiming for fastest execution time, or some tradeoff of these for elegance, is the "true" TAS, as it can be said to be the most intelligent and most difficult and the most sincere production of an expert video game player, even under novel conditions. I don't mean to produce the best Zelda player which somehow automatically knows how to respond to some new character class never-before-seen in the game, as novel. I mean, rooms or game remakes where configurations of naturally occurring items and enemies, which are impossible or never before seen for whatever reasons in the original ROM, would be known how to be responded to intelligently by the artificial expert system. When someone thinks of a new goal set which would be intellectually interesting for viewers to watch, they can specify this goal set and have it get issued to a cloud computing network of dedicated TASers and their paid for resources... To donate some portion of that computational effort to solving the problem as defined and requested by the "game goal set" originator/innovator. Then, rather than attributing the produced TAS to human author or authors, the produced TAS would be attributed to the originators/innovators of the GAME GOAL SET and the ALGORITHM, (run with a specified emulator and ROM or as defined from a specified memory state), which (ultimately) produced it. In a shorter sentence: The "true" author of the TAS would be the pair, the human(s) who came up with the goal set ideas, and the algorithm (with associated meta details) that produced it.
Post subject: Programming TASes
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
From IRC: One idea I had was, there should be some TAS tool that allows you to, from a given state, reach a given condition, and then to use genetic algorithms or whatever, to try to find a better solution. On small sections at a time. Room by room in Zelda 1. Or next meaningful action by next meaningful action. Not only should the programming inclined be able to use this tool. It should be as easy for them as selecting from drop downs like, "Don't finish room unless received bomb pickup" Then there should be Relevant and Irrelevant factors. An Irrelevant factor is a RAM address that does not modify the final game state after the playback. Then, if Zelda "conditions" are made, randomly even, and people distribute computational resources to play these manufactured levels with their "conditions" Then in an actual TAS, you can specify the relevant and irrelevant conditions for completing that screen or the next relevant action. Then, for any existing human TAS, this Java TAS could on every screen or next meaningful action Succeed at achieving all the specified Relevant factors With either an equal to or lesser time This could be written as a highly specific program in Java, level by level, room by room, screen by screen. Which would look like what a human TAS maker actually thinks and decides and judges during some subjective decisions through the TAS creation. or something. A new category of TAS can be given. Which is a program to complete the game. I also thought, there should be a further optional principle for TAS creation. That, if an item drop, or something that can be seen to be beneficial, is achievable through luck manipulation, then you should choose the unluckiest route, to not get the pickup, or to get the worst piece in Tetris. Like, not only would that TAS be more like a human playing the game, blind to luck factors... But it would be playing the role of a very unlucky human, who always gets the worst of everything. It's like the Big-O notation of TASes. ... Shouldn't SOME TASes be provably optimal, at the Assembly level? If there is a game where there is an overall goal and subgoals, where the subgoals can be achieved in any order or in a specific order, and where the completion of one subgoal does not effect the required keypresses for completing a future subgoal or a past subgoal, then isn't it the case for such a game, that if each subgoal is provably optimal, then the achievement of the overall goal is also optimal? The only sort of Cartesian demon to thinking there can be a faster time, is if some new glitch is discovered. But I want to prohibit such glitches as against the spirit of the game. But more strongly, I want to say that it should be provable that there are no such glitches, through analysis of the Assembly or open source code. Rightly or wrongly, what conditions need to be met for the day to come that TASers refer to the "first" provably optimal game, (if it hasn't already happened?)? And what conditions need to be met or what possibilities are there, for that judgment to be proven premature? This is a "defeater" to the claim that the TAS was optimal. Can't we, as a community, decide what level the optimality is proven on? For example, if some TASes require exploiting quantum physics, or an NES falling into a blackhole, or something exotic like that... We can specify ahead of time that such exotic physics do not qualify for discrediting the claim of optimality. Rather, optimality is defined in terms of an abstract machine defined in Assembly, rather than on the physical reality of the NES and cartridge. Furthermore, there can be clearly defined axioms of the spirit of the game. Such that, for example, if wall-sliding or double-jumping, or hell even pressing B!, were prohibited, in Mario, maybe that would make it easier toward proving optimality of a goal. Rather than quibbling about what is or should be the goals of TASes, we should more clearly define and justify goals and axioms for any given TAS. Then we should work to scientifically or mathematically proving optimality, in a way that is somehow highly resistant to becoming a discredited claim under some hypothetical future controversy in the TAS community as-of-yet unconsidered. Even if the controversy is successful in getting everyone to switch to favoring a new movie over the discredited one, it should still be noted for historical interest how the first one somehow earned or deserved the title of being optimal. We can't just forget the mistake. We need to specify why the mistake was made. And maybe, rather than considering it as a mistake, if possible, we should just clearly explain that those were the standards or axioms under which the claim of optimality is made, such that, most hopefully, that narrowly-defined optimality is completely immutable from future change.
Post subject: Lemmings multiplayer, Forced wins, and a new Metric
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
It seems to me I disappear from these forums for a long time, to come back with the hope of a new way of brute forcing games, only to relearn the basic math which shows the computational infeasibility of the exponential explosion of brute force. Well, it's that time again. If we have X frames per second, and Y possible inputs per frame, then we have too many to brute force. But if we make Lemming's turn-based, and imagine axioms like that cursor movement was free time. (Instant.) That their "move" was choosing a Lemming at whatever it's location is, and choosing the Action to apply to him from the available application actions. In Game Theory, games are often studied to find if they can offer first-player wins, second-player wins, or draws, that are forced, given that an "optimal play" is made by both sides. If someone watched an "optimal play" of Lemmings multiplayer where (hypothetically) a first-player win is forced, to the "untrained eye" they could ask something like, "Why didn't Player 2 just do such and such? How do you know Player 2 wouldn't have won if he had just done such and such?" The point of such a game is that ANY course of action Player 2 took would have been met with a corresponding defeating action by Player 1. But the TAS isn't of Player 2's worst and stupidest game, to quickly cause Player 1's victory. There is still a metric of intelligence, for how to prolong the game, or for how to cause a "close" game. For example, a forced-win which gets down to only a few remaining pieces in chess, (from a given state, for example.) I think this is a category of TAS that doesn't exist but should. But I don't know because I don't really hang out here so much. Now, with Lemmings, I was thinking... Instead of imagining it as "turn-based", we could imagine it as "discretized". So instead of players having to "take turns", they just have some delay between when they can issue actions. This delay can either be presumed to make cursor action like "instant" or not. If there is an exponential explosion that is computationally infeasible... Then by discretizing the game, we can bring the permutations down to the level of our current state of computational feasibility. In the case of Lemmings multiplayer, this would mean only allowing the issuance of actions every Epsilon time unit. At first, Epsilon can be very large. 5 seconds? 1 minute? 10 minutes? What difference does it make mathematically? In the case of Lemmings, cycles can occur in game states, but of course levels can be contrived where each game state is new for a very long time. Then, as computational resources increase, or as financial commitment to the TAS increases in terms of computational resources, Epsilon can be decreased. Now Epsilon is 1 second. What might have been a provably second-player win when Epsilon was 1 minute might become provably a first-player win when Epsilon is 1 second. Where categories such as "fastest time" are classic of TASes, we can have the new categories of forced plays and forced plays according to Epsilon, where Epsilon is at its level due to the reality of computational resources at the time period.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Bouncing off turtles. Bullets. The first Mario 3 TAS was the shit. All down hill from there. (Negatively, not positively.) ------------------------------ Novelty. Some TASes belong to very common classes of TAS, like aims for fastest completion time. But some TASes may be one or only of a few of a kind, like that which executes arbitrary code, or something. Controversy. This goes along with novelty. Is it at all distinct from novelty? Is art what is novel? Is science what is novel? Is philosophy what is novel? We do not submit two TASes which are identical, and label them differently, and watch them twice. That is repetitive. Unnecessary. We collect the TASes which are unique. Unique according to whatever guiding principles or novel principle. ------------------------------------- Strategy guides. I like TASes as a resource for a game, rather than a collection of glitches I have no hope of or interest in performing. -------------------------------------- Beautiful. Aesthetic. I'm thinking of those Mario music levels, made with a SMW editor. Just genius, imo.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
> The SNES's controller ports can read 16 bytes of data at once, but the controllers themselves only transmit 12 bytes (4 face buttons, Start and Select, L and R, 4 directions, each taking 1 byte.) Since the controller ports can read more than the controllers can transmit, that means the 4 "blank" bytes can be used for other purposes; in the case of the recent glitched SMW submission, in combination with memory corruption, they help brute-force the game into running the ending sequence. I think this is a really interesting example of splitting an issue. In classical logic, there are: a) the principle of bivalence, and b) the law of the excluded middle. We often think in binaries. Here is my abstracted interpretation of this Mario issue, possibly modified to fit my philosophical needs: The TAS community has to vote on a Proposition S: Should TASes be able to press the Secret Button which automatically causes a game's end sequence or <goal>? Without knowing the meaning of S, some natural approaches to it are: Yes, No, Maybe, I Don't Know. "Yes and No". Someone might think you can only be For or Against S. The community decides it is against the spirit of how the game was to be played with all mass produced or commonly used or marketed official or 3rd party controllers. The community decides that such a Secret button is not academically interesting. So the held truth of the world is that ~S is the case. Then one day someone discovers that there is E: Extra RAM (or whatever) that allows some Exploit to trigger the end sequence or <goal> which can be programmed in with only "natural" or "naturally intended" input. This Extra RAM "belongs to" or is designated for the prohibited button. (Prohibited according to community-decided ~S.) However, E is technically different than S. And E can be exploited without making S the case, (aka violating the ~S prohibition.) It's important to note that at the time of the community deciding ~S, (or any conclusion on any topic), it had never crossed their mind of the difficult-to-conceive-of or not-readily-obvious "splitting-case" of E. Discussion of E may sway votes on the S issue. But at the time of the vote, say, the E issue had never crossed anyone's minds. The answer to "Shall all or any of our TASes merely press the Secret button?" had previously had a definite "No" answer. But now, upon discovery of the thought E, it gets weaked to a "Yes and No" or a "Maybe". There are some, call them Conservatives, who think that in the Spirit of the established ~S, the Extra RAM (or whatever) ought be prohibited, as it is just not in the Spirit of the intended game. Or that that RAM being there is a necessary but unwanted consequence of there being the Secret button, and part of our prohibition on the Secret button should be the prohibition of that Extra RAM (or whatever). Then there are some, call them Liberals, who think that the Spirit of ~S is regarding "commonly used or marketed controllers" as opposed to "naturally inputted glitches exploiting the Extra RAM (or whatever)". For the Liberals, the Spirit of ~S is regarding what is or is not "natural input". For the Conservatives, the spirit of ~S is or is not "what is intended as the game." This difference in values might not have even been known, noted, or discovered, at the time of the vote for ~S. It's only at the discovery of new thought E that a civil war can start in a community, where everyone had thought that they had shared value on ~S, but it turns out the community was split on underlying principle (which had caused the consensus on ~S). People who flip from ~S to S on account of E are called unprincipled liberals with loose morals by Conservatives. People who stay true to ~S regardless of E are called old-fashioned [conservatives], stuck in their ways, anti-progress, on the wrong side of history, by Liberals. > Some people think TASing isn't playing the game fairly too. I think here is a clear example of a "linguistic dispute". There are Person A and Person B. They are asked some ambiguous question, or some question currently thought to be unambiguous. This question is like, "Q: What do you think of TASes?" A answers, "They're cheating" and B answers, "They're clever." If they were to vote For or Against "T: TASes", some hold to T and others ~T. Apparently. There might actually be anger or hostility between the groups, as there actually was when TASes were first being invented, with speedrunning groups like SDA or TG. It's only because there is the hidden Condition of "C: Trying to pass it off as a human play" which A thinks is the case or entailed by Q, whereas B obviously agrees with A given C but entirely disagrees that C is at all entailed by Q. Q becomes deconstructed into something subtler, like, "Is a TAS cheating even if it is clearly marked as a non-human TAS?" And then general consensus is reached between the at-once-warring groups. I think the case of whether to be Conservative or Liberal on ~S given E is exactly analogous to whether the speedrunner is to initially hold to ~T, (or to even hold to ~T after consideration of the condition of ~C). I think the resolution is simple. There are just different classes or categories of TASes or <thing>. In the chronologically prior dispute, the <thing> was taken to be something like "fast runs" where there was disagreement about the moral value of T because of the unarticulated C. In the newly-conceived-of dispute regarding ~S and E, the moral value of exploiting E is what is in dispute. I don't see why <thing>, (in this case "TASes" and in the chronologically-prior case might have been something like "fast runs"), has to remain a monolithic concept. We can split <thing> into facetA and facetB. Where things with or of type facetA exploit E where as things of type or with facetB do not Exploit E. As this is clearly marked, like the condition ~C, the controversy is resolved and general consensus is quickly reached in the community. In both cases, the guiding principle or the antidote to the controversy is transparency and honesty and clearly marking and categorizing what is and is not a <thing> as relevant facets or conditions of <thing> come into public consideration. Personally, I am turned off by frame-perfect end-sequence-triggering programming-exploit TASes. As if I want a TAS to reveal something secret or superhuman about a game, or the "intended" "spirit" of the game that is "naturally seen" or the "natural physics" of the game as "seen" by humans. For example, I can "see" that these Mario-through-walls (Mario 1) or high velocity Parallel Universe Marios (Mario 64) are not intended. Whereas, there is controversy or ambiguity regarding whether the final-level Mario 3 "through-wall" glitch was intended. Similarly, the Zelda 1 disappearing door... Even if it was born a glitch, once Nintendo issued some press release about how it's a feature, there is now controversy about whether or not it should be in the "spirit" of the intended game, or if it could be "seen" that such glitches are against the spirit of the game. Like, really, why do I want to watch a 4 minute screen warping glitchfest of every Zelda that looks the same and I have no idea how it works or what's going on. If you get off on that and Crooked Cartridges and shit, fine, that's your fetish, not mine. But categorize everything clearly and I have no problem with you jerking off to Crooked Cartridge. One concern is, though, that community resources will get split, or worse split in favor of the glitchfest art rather than the "natural intended spirit" art, of the kind of TASes I prefer. The Smash Bros community modded Smash Bros to add or change or fix things, because they knew what was best for the game. Were some Mario or Zelda source code open source, and it was "obvious" that there was a glitch or that something was "intended", why should the TAS community continue to TAS Mario 1 against the original source code rather than the community-approved of Mario 1 improvement source? People who prefer the glitchfest original source would be like historical reenactors. With an originalist interpretation of the Constitution (Mario 1), they think the newfangled source is heresy that has lost its way and is inauthentic. Whereas the progress community feels like whatever Mario 1 or whatever was intended with whatever virtue like "justice" or "freedom" or "love of Mario" such that today we may have a different style of interpretation than what was available to the originalists, and that this new style is superior. I didn't read the previous 9 pages before posting, so sorry for how much has been covered already. -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Let's say, to emulate Crooked Cartridge (CC), a physics simulator is created. This is a quantum physics simulator. The entire N64 and Zelda cartridge system is recreated, and we have the computational resources to emulate CC. Eventually it is discovered that some CC glitches are mutually exclusive when using a Newtonian simulator over the quantum simulator. Newtonianists value creating TASes which are Newtonian, for whatever reasons or merits that goes along with Newtonianism. The quantum simulationists, or originalists or realists or purists or Puritans or whatever, would say only the quantum simulation is "the real thing". Whereas the speedrunners will maintain that only a human with an original console is "the real thing." Until further and further and further "splitting controversies" occur, as more unconceived thoughts become conceived and brought to the public's attention, such as what is or is not a human, or what is or is not an original console, as those things which were once thought to be clear, monolithic concepts, become clarified with splitting details, which divide communities by moral or taste.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
And some day and AI will be able to make those personal artistic choices.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
If a human can do it, and AI eventually can. Maybe one day we'll see such gorgeous remakes made easily.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
It'd be nice if games could automatically be rendered in Unreal Engine 4.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Everybody get naked. This shit is amazing: https://youtu.be/GSeLdQASixE
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
So how does RetroArch do it?
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Is there a way to apply it to the final screen render? How does RetroArch do it?
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
The pixel shading method is general. And for other sprites, individual HD models can be set. It shouldn't affect emulator performance. Even if it were to take forever to render, more beautiful movies could be made. It doesn't affect the game physics any. Viewers could choose to watch the original or the graphically enhanced TAS.
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
This looks great. https://youtu.be/NfqtOXZoyVo
Experienced Forum User
Joined: 3/25/2004
Posts: 459
Why? And aren't computers a million times faster than the NES?
1 2 3
18 19