I thought this thread was for 'crappy' youtube videos, yet everyone keeps posting good videos, like this.
Wow, that's some pro trolling. Too transparent, though. He clearly is making obviously ridiculous claims on purpose, not because he believes those things but because he wants to taunt, or whatever. He's not serious.
Too bad people get trolled with that kind of stuff too easily. They just don't get it that he's not serious.
IMO segmented runs (with restarts possible eg. at the beginning of each level) actually display *more* of the player's skill, not less.
Why? Because with a single-segment run the player is forced to play more carefully and cannot try the wildest tricks he is capable of, if those tricks are very dangerous and could easily cause the player to die, thus ruining the entire attempt.
A segmented run, however, allows for the player to truely show his skill at the game, without having to worry so much about dying and ruining 30 minutes of gameplay.
The Quake done Quick speedruns are the quintessential example of this: They are polished to almost perfection, showing almost superhuman skills from the players. True playing skills. A single-segment Quake run would simply hinder the player and forbid him from even trying the craziest stunts. Thus we wouldn't see as much playing skill in a single-segment run.
This game has been granted an exception in this regard in the past. I don't see any reason why the same policy couldn't still be applied. I certainly vote for not requiring those extra 18 seconds. That end screen is not all that interesting nor crucial.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
I think it depends on the game. For example in Quake I am completely for them to make the speedrun one level at a time (ie. practically as having a savestate at the beginning of each level). It improves the overall quality of the speedrun a lot. 1-segment runs of Quake are much less interesting.
This run... errr.. play changes the meaning of TAS.
Can this still be called TAS ? Or should it be called TAP (tool assisited play) ?
Late reply from me, I think it's Tool-Assisted Superplay (see forum logo), I'm not sure where everyone getting "Tool-Assisted Speedrun" from tho.
It always amuses me how some people stick to that logo, as if it was some kind of definite proof.
The forum didn't exist from the very beginning of the website. IIRC, the logo in question didn't exist from the very beginning of the forum either. It was made up later.
The term "tool-assisted speedrun" is much older than this site. It was already used years before Morimoto did his first TAS. It was used in the Doom speedrunning community, it was called "TAS-Doom". They used a patched version of the Doom engine which allowed savestates and other tool-assistance.
The first videos in this site were called "timeattacks", and the sole reason for this was because Morimoto called his videos that. It was later discussed that "timeattack" is a confusing term (which was very relevant at the time because the TAS community was widely accused of cheating, faking and creating hoaxes). The idea to use "tool-assisted speedrun" became precisely because that term had already been used for many years in the Doom speedrunning community for basically the exact same thing. It was an established and known term.
For some reason some people have a great aversion to the word "speed", though, but that's another story,
And as for this particular video, it *is* a speedrun. It simply uses a limitation for the sake of entertainment, but it regardless tries to complete the game as fast as possible, within this limitation, which is the very definition of speedrun. This is no different from eg. a "collects 100% iterms" run, where a limitation is imposed on the run for the sake of entertainment (but still, within this limitation, the run tries to complete the game as fast as possible).
An example of a video which is *not* a speedrun is the MK2 video: It doesn't even try to complete the game as fast as possible.
And don't say it lacks entertainment, because that's certainly not true.
This is extremely subjective...
When isn't entertainment subjective?
Indescribable amounts of circular reasoning right there...
Actually there isn't. With "it lacks entertainment" I meant "this cannot entertain anyone", or a bit less drastically "this wouldn't entertain the vast majority of people". Provably many people find it entertaining. Thus you can't say it "lacks entertainment". Even if *you* don't find it entertaining that doesn't mean nobody does. Entertainment is subjective, after all.
Is it really so much different than a "uses no warps" or "collects 100% items" run? IMO it's a completely valid category for this game. So why not publish it?
Are you serious?
Yes.
I'm not saying this shouldn't be published or anything... but this is NOT an equally valid category as 100% or no warps. This category is a concept which almost only works well for this game.
So what? Categories are now valid only if they can be applied to more than one game? Where does it say that? I see no such rule anywhere.
Tell me, how many movies have the category "aims for in-game time instead of real-time"?
Warp wrote:
And don't say it lacks entertainment, because that's certainly not true.
This is extremely subjective...
When isn't entertainment subjective?
and I think there are even quite some people who don't think the regular super mario TAS is that entertaining, let alone a movie where mario doesn't run.
There are quite some people who don't find 90% of the published movies entertaining. So what?
Seriously though, I still can't understand the reason to *not* to publish this. Why not? Is it really so much different than a "uses no warps" or "collects 100% items" run? IMO it's a completely valid category for this game. So why not publish it? And don't say it lacks entertainment, because that's certainly not true.
A limit to collapsing would mean there's some kind of force stopping further collapse. There exists no such force. There can't be such force, as I already said.
Particles degenerate when they are subject to such pressures. For example there are no distinct particles in the core of a neutron star. It's all just degenerate matter. When the density is too large for even this to work, it just all collapses into a singularity.
And Hawking radiation has nothing to do with this.
gravitational forces make the astronomical body inside the black hole a very densely packed ball of matter (I take it explaining why it is a ball and not some other form is unnecessary).
"Ball" would imply that it has a non-zero radius. This would imply that there's some force stopping it from collapsing further.
According to the Schwarzschild metric this is impossible inside a black hole. Inside the event horizon all geodesics, and that means *all* of them, including time geodesics, point towards the center of the black hole. There simply cannot be a force pointing away from the center of the black hole because there's no "away". *Everything* points towards the center of the black hole. Moreover, time geodesics point towards the center of the black hole. Just advancing in time means advancing towards the center of the black hole. This means that it's completely impossible to keep anything away from the center of the black hole. It's not even a question of whether there exists a force strong enough to do so because no matter how strong the force, it cannot stop the movement towards the center of the black hole.
The only possible solution to the Schwarzschild metric is that the massive center body of the black hole has zero radius.
Of course you may refuse to believe this, but so far the GR equations have been pretty accurate. Currently there's no evidence that they wouldn't hold inside an event horizon too.
(Naturally quantum effects may play a role here and change things, but as far as we don't have a unified theory we can't say anything about how it could affect things.)
Note that the expression "black hole" is usually used for the event horizon of the phenomenon in question (thus for example things like "the radius of the black hole" refer to the radius of the event horizon).
However, the event horizon in itself is not really anything. It's basically just empty space. There's nothing there. (What makes it so special is the *geometry* of that space, but that's another long story.)
The actual physical mass of the black hole is located at its very center. That's where the actual astronomical body is located. (Although it has quite special features no other astronomical bodies have.)
When two black holes collide, their central masses will simply attract each other and these will join, forming one single bigger (ie. more massive) black hole. Nothing is destroyed.
Also its believed that there is many universes we just happen to be one of many and there constantly being born and dieing off.
Pure speculation. There's absolutely no evidence supporting that.
Deign wrote:
Also, as far as i know there's no physical evidence of a black hole either
There is "physical evidence" in an indirect way: If there were no black holes then the currently known physics would need heavy revising, and many observable phenomena (such as quasars) would need alternative explanations.
Currently there simply is no hard evidence that the equations of general relativity are wrong. Since these equations predict black holes, if black holes didn't really exist, it would mean that these equations are wrong. There simply is no evidence currently to support that they are wrong.
I apologize for barging in, as this is not really my thread, but I thought I could present my own view on these questions.
Deign wrote:
1. Where does the Universe end?
As far as I know, according to current scientifical measurements, we do not only not know what is the real shape of the universe (eg. if it does have an edge or not), but it's completely impossible for us to ever know this, no matter what we do. This is because of the so-called cosmological horizon, which causes the so-called observable universe to be smaller than the whole universe. We cannot observe anything that is outside this horizon, no matter what we do or how long we wait. We have absolutely no way of knowing, for example, what is the real size of the entire universe.
Thus it's completely impossible for us to say if the universe ends or not, and what kind of end it might be. There's just no way to measure it.
2. Do you think that the Universe is ever-expanding?
3. If so, do you think it will continue to do so?
I don't think this should be a question of opinion. It's just a question of measurement. Current measurements seem to indicate that the universe is ever-expanding, and until different measurements say otherwise there's no rational scientifical reason to believe anything else.
Of course you can doubt these scientifical measurements, but unless you can provide better measurements yourself your differing opinion on the matter is rather moot. Thus it's not really a question of opinion.
You can present alternative theories, but unless they are based on actual repeatable scientifical measurements, these theories will inevitably go into the realm of pseudoscience and have no real value.
4. If the Universe is expanding, how can it not have an end point? To expand means that it's limit is getting larger.
We don't know, and we cannot know, what is the real shape of the entire universe. Anyways, it's perfectly possible for the universe to expand regardless of its shape. Its volume simply increases. "New space" is formed, and distances between galaxies increase.
Sure, this is theory and you have the right to doubt it. However, no better alternative theories have been accepted by the general scientific community, and personally I believe that they know what they are talking about.
"2-player" "3-player" etc seems unambiguous as I don't think people would confuse it with multiple authors.
I'll have to disagree with that. I think it is a bit ambiguous.
At the very least the tags ought to be links to a page which explains in detail what those tags mean. The main problem is that tags must be short, but expressing this situation completely unambiguously is very difficult with a short sentence.
2-player has a specific meaning in game advertising. Besides, the number of authors should be apparent in the entry's title.
I'm sure not all people notice that the title lists more than one author.
Also, just listing more than one author doesn't tell us whether the authors made the TAS simultaneously (controlling different characters or whatever) or if they simply made different segments of the run (which, I believe, is the most common situation).
The Lost Vikings:
- 3 characters
- 3 controller inputs
I thought the three characters are controlled sequentially (ie. never at the same time) with one single controller? It's a one-player game, if I'm not mistaken.
I disagree giving the "2 controller inputs" to games where the second controlled is used for something else than *playing* the game. Simply using the other controller to restart the game does not count as playing IMO.
A similar situation happens with the 5-controller SuperMetroid run: Although 5 controllers are used, only one is used for actual playing, and thus the other 4 don't count.
But with this solution, the "# characters" tag would need to be used with movies where it might have little meaning, like some Megaman game where you might control Zero for a short sequence only. Another problem is that some RPGs have very many characters. Also, what tags a Lemmings movie should get?
IMO the "controls n characters" should be reserved for situations where the characters are controlled simultaneously with separate controllers. In other words, something which normally could only be done with more than one physical player. Sequential control with one controller does not belong to this category.
If using more than one character (sequentially) is used to complete the game and we would want a tag to indicate that, it should be a different tag which makes it clear and, in my opinion, should only be given to games where using more than one character is *optional*. For games where you control more than one characters in any case, as part of regular gameplay, I don't think there's any reason to give any special mention.
Of course this means that eg. Maniac Mansion and Lost Vikings wouldn't deserve any such tag at all, because controlling more than one character is part of regular gameplay.
Ok, fine, let's not add any features to the site which might help people finding interesting videos from among the 400+ published ones simply because there *might* be some disagreement on whether a movie deserves a certain tag or not.
Well... there was such a thing as stars... maybe you could start a debate about that... that allows people to find interesting movies among 400+ movies... although they are probably most interested in movies of games that they played themselves.
I still think the stars were a good idea. Basically my suggestion was to extend the idea of the stars. The (original) intention of the stars was to make a relatively short list of "best of the show" movies. Basically my idea was to extend this to create such lists for other things too, such as "the most glitched runs you'll ever see". Something fun.
Categorizing something as "extremely glitched" doesn't need consensus, it doesn't need voting, it doesn't need agreement. It only requires for one or a few admins to create the list
Warp wrote:
Baxter wrote:
There is already a tag for abusing programming errors in the game
Which, as used, is completely meaningless and useless (because it's applied liberally to almost any run for the sole reason that the author wanted the tag).
Like I said, I disagree that people wanted a certain tag.
I think you misunderstood my expression. It was a slightly sarcastic expression, and what I meant with it is that the "abuses programming errors" has been quite liberally given to any run for the sole reason that the author of the run claims in his submission text that it abuses programming errors.
I disagree with this policy, and this has been discussed before. IMO this tag should be given only to those runs which heavily abuse prominent programming errors in order to gain huge time savings. Abusing a small programming error to make your run 10 frames faster does not, in my opinion, entitle for the tag. As it is used currently, the tag is almost useless. (Another even more useless tag is the "manipulates luck", which is given even more liberally to almost every run.)
Warp wrote:
(By the same logic no movies should be published at all, and this site should be closed completely, because there not only *might* be disagreement about which movies should be published or not, but there actually *is* constant disagreement with certain movies.)
For some reason you are trying to convince people about me being wrong by suggesting I am in favor of absurd things.
It was sarcasm. An exaggeration. I wasn't implying you are suggesting to close the site.
You are right in that "uses n controllers" may be a bit confusing because most TASes are made with the keyboard, usually not game controllers. Of course what is meant is "uses n emulated controllers to give input to the game through the emulator", but it becomes quickly very confusing and complicated.
I like "player controls n characters simultaneously", and games where more than one playable character is controlled sequentially (using one controller) are excluded from this category. If someone really wants to add a special tag to them, then perhaps something like "player controls n characters sequentially" or something like that.
Now it's possible to list movies like by console type or sorted by rating.
This is how you started your post. It contradicts with this:
Warp wrote:
Even if there's a way to list movies which have a certain tag, this feature is certainly pretty well hidden. I suggest more openness.
It doesn't really contradict it. "Is possible" is not the same as "it's easy to find how to".
But you are right, it isn't that hard to find after all.
Warp wrote:
No. I mean there are certain movies which are categorized eg. as "extremely glitched" and then you can list those movies.
That seems rather arbitrary, and for every movie, people could have debates whether it's "extremely" glitched, or just "glitched", or "glitched a little". It is rather subjective, and I wouldn't want such subjectivity in tags. They should be objective, like the things I suggested in my previous post.
Ok, fine, let's not add any features to the site which might help people finding interesting videos from among the 400+ published ones simply because there *might* be some disagreement on whether a movie deserves a certain tag or not.
(By the same logic no movies should be published at all, and this site should be closed completely, because there not only *might* be disagreement about which movies should be published or not, but there actually *is* constant disagreement with certain movies.)
Warp wrote:
Which, as used, is completely meaningless and useless (because it's applied liberally to almost any run for the sole reason that the author wanted the tag). Also, it can't be used to find the glitchest runs.
Once again, like I suggested, "programming errors" could be specified more (left+right?, zipping through walls?), but it should still be something objective, and not subjective, like "very glitched".
I think that most people would be more interested in finding extremely glitched runs than runs which use a very specific glitch.
I can't find any flaws in your idea, so I'll have to agree.
(Although "uses # controllers to control # characters simultaneously" would be the best, although quite long...)
