I don't think that argument is completely valid. It's a valid argument if there already is a published run of the game, and someone submits another run with a different goal: If said goal doesn't make the run entertaining enough, it does not deserve to be published, for the reason you state.
However, that's not the case here. There is no existing run of this game, so a TAS of it has validity if even some people can find it interesting. After all, wasn't one of the driving motivations behind the new tier system that every game deserves a TAS? (Ok, perhaps not strictly that, but I think that's a bit the idea.)
If someone makes a new submission of this game, perhaps with another goal (eg. a total playaround, or a glitchfest), it could obsolete this one if it's considered better or more entertaining.
(Hence my suggestion of a fourth tier elsewhere. If Vault is dedicated to speed records and Moon requires enough entertainment, but we want a TAS of every game in existence, a tier for TASes that don't fit either of those is needed.)
I'm honestly not trying to start the argument again, and I'm honestly being purely curious: Does that include using the power button and pulling and reconnecting the power plug?
I think that links to those two pages in the "Site" tab under the "Articles index" page should do the trick. Or possibly under the "Movie watching" tab, if that's more logical.
I have always understood the current tiers as this:
Vault: The default tier. Since every game deserves a TAS, no matter how unsuitable the game might be for that purpose (from an entertainment perspective), everything goes at the very least here.
Moon: TASes that are more entertaining and appreciated than the average. Basically, what was previously considered publication-worthy (ie. entertaining enough to be accepted for publication), or even a bit stricter (so as to not make this tier excessively large.)
Star: TASes that are not only moon-tier, but have been manually selected for this tier because they showcase in some manner what's cool about TASing. In other words, a relatively small collection of TASes that are extraordinarily representative of what TASing is. A "watch these first" list. (While these tend to be some of the highest-rated TASes as well, they don't have to be, and that's not the main point of this tier.)
If the Vault tier ought be one mainly collecting speed records for games that can't get to the Moon level, then we may need a fourth tier for those TASes where speed is not the goal (but which don't go to the Moon nor Star tiers either, because of lacking sufficient entertainment.) This tier ought to be conceptually "parallel" to the other tiers, rather than being below or above anything.
Then perhaps that should be fixed. Either expand the meaning of the Vault tier, or create a fourth, distinct tier (which is more like "parallel" to the others, rather than being "below" or "above" anything.) Else the meaning of the Moon tier would get rather diluted, IMO. A kind of dumpster for "everything that doesn't fit anywhere else", which I don't think is the intent of that tier.
I don't disagree with that. It was just your original rationale that caught my eye.
Mod edit: Topic split from 2612S discussion. -Mothrayas
----------------
Wait, what? Since when does the Moon tier mean "everything that doesn't aim for fastest time"?
The tier description page says: "These are movies which the audience greatly appreciate beyond a level of just merely seeing a game beaten quickly. Since this deals with appreciation, those movies of a more exotic nature are acceptable here when the audience, and by extension, the judges, deem them entertaining. Movies with sufficient entertainment levels will be accepted for this tier as long as no major drawbacks are found in them."
Not interested enough to watch an hour and a half of that, but if I had to guess, I'd assume that while some of the things it says may be based on actual facts, there's probably a lot of accentuating the negative, ignoring the positive, exaggeration and deliberate misinterpretation. In other words, and quite ironically, propaganda.
Say some people. Not everybody agrees.
It's unquestionable that the S meaning "superplay" is a backronym, ie. a meaning attributed to the acronym well after it was coined, and different from the original.
I would really prefer a speedrun that completes the game as fast as possible, but which goes through the intended route. Seeing the player fooling around (and basically wasting time) can sometimes work, but that's a completely different category.
It's an enormous amount of hard work.
(And before you reply with a semi-sarcastic remark, as it seems that you are somehow going through a phase of retorting to everything I write in such a tone, let me remind you that this was just a suggestion for an idea that somehow might want to use and others see done.)
I have suggested several times that a TASing category of "uses the intended route" be introduced as a valid category (naturally applicable only to games where a TAS would normally use glitches for very significant skipping not intended by the developers) but for some reason it has never caught on, even though there has always been demand for such a thing (one prominent example being the Megaman TAS; many people have always wished to see a "normal" playthrough of the game with superhuman reflexes and as fast as possible, but without skipping.)
Perhaps I didn't explain clearly enough what I mean by "from the viewer's point of view" and "it doesn't matter how you reset." Which exact buttons are pressed may make a difference from the player's perspective, but not from the perspective of a person watching the TAS, and the exact combination of buttons is completely inconsequential with respect to what resetting does.
And many speedrunners eject CDs in PlayStation games to skip cutscenes, and whatnot. Such things being tool-assisted or not makes little difference to me. I still feel like it's not gameplay, but interfering with the execution of the game via outside influence.
I must admit I don't fully understand what you are trying to say above. Nevertheless, please take into account that I have been answering exactly what SmashManiac was asking:
He asks for personal opinions, and I offered mine.