For games that have a lot of non-skippable cut scenes or dialog, would it be acceptable to add a script with the runs that fast forwards though all the uninteresting parts of the game (then published with that script). I ask this for 2 reasons, first can the developers simply not including a skip dialog option make the game a lot harder to publish a TAS of, and second, a lot of the game acceptance is entrainment value, so if a game is made more entertaining though fast forwards (and subtitles), shouldn't it rate more likely to be published?
The games in question I am think of is Card Hero (either the GBC or DS version). The game includes a lot, and I mean a lot, of unskippable dialog on both versions, but the technical challenge of beating these opponents is much more complex than the Pokémon's TCG as:
1. You can't force a lose by having your opponent not have any pokémon.
2. The deck size is a lot smaller (15-30 depending on variant).
3. The cards you get in story mode are fixed.
4. Some computer players will cheat and stack their deck (they don't shuffle).
However, even with those considerations, the game might also be a bad choice (at least for me), since it is only in Japanese, and I don't speak Japanese.
*Still patiently waiting for a 70 star run with a well defined list of disallowed glitches...*
I disagree with this statement. The game really is divided into several goals:
1. Every one of the stars you get that causes you to exit the stage.
2. The 3 keys
3. Figuring out which stars will have a detour of getting the 100 coins.
4. Optimizing the travel between each of those stars, getting the power up blocks at the right time, and getting those "free" stars between stages.
A run with just 70 stars is cutting out the longest to get 50 stars. The current 0 star run includes the bowser stages, only because it is needed to beat the game. The interesting part (in addition to the 120 star run) is the optimization outside the stages.
An ungliched 70 star run, in my viewpoint, is just a lazy run of the ungliched 120 star run, with 50 stars taken out.
I really liked this underrated game, the music is really good. I don't have the game on me, so I'll have to wait for the encode to vote.
Edit:
Its pretty good, nice and short. Going through the walls was a tad cheesy though. I'm glad to see that it wasn't abused more than you did (would have made a very boring TAS).
yes that's the problem with doing this run, there are a ton of different ways to do it.
Think about the planing required for that run you just suggested, seriously if you can figure out the ideal items for each stage without repeating and maxing speed, the actual run would be trivial
Well yes, that makes it more challenging. If you did allow the same items, most stages would be solved in the same way using the same exploit. How many stages can you do by putting hand cuffs on the star, putting the hand cuffs into a vending machine, dragging the star with them, then moving the vending machine to your character, and vending the hand cuffs to get the star. Its cute to see once, but it would get repetitive if you do that every time.
As far as route planning, you probably want an arsenal of a few fast combos like that, then try to do each stage without those items. The stages that take the longest, you substitute with the faster easy way instead.
I vote for going for fastest time with the additional condition of not using an object more than once for the entire run. I say object instead of word in that multiple words or phrases can map to the same object.
I would vote for simply allowing a bot that controls the input (and can decide when to input the keys) to be acceptable as part of the run. ...
I don't see why we would bother with that sort of thing when we can TAS games in the more usual way (which, incidentally, allows for bots to contribute to the input if the TASer wants to put in the large amount of extra effort to do so).
I mean this only in that there is no set hardware or configuration for PC games. Allowing a script to be part of the movie may allow for the movie to be playable on multiple systems, since you aren't aiming for fully controlling the environment. The "bot" would only define what a "frame" is.
One possible metric for determining how fast a game is played is by determining the number of times the game checked the input. This completely ignores lag though.
Also, love the vidoes they are quite entertaining. I didn't know that you level up by defeating bosses in that difficulty, which really helps. Normally I would suggest YouTubing these, but you would probably be flamed into oblivion for "cheating".
Edit...
I vote no, because you only beat the first room. Rumor has it the key to beating the second room is by using a super secret technique whose sequence is the first odd perfect number in base 4, where <- is 0, -> is 1, ^ is 2, and v is 3.
I would vote for simply allowing a bot that controls the input (and can decide when to input the keys) to be acceptable as part of the run. Such bot might be limited to having to input the exact same sequence each time, but simply decides when to input the next key (based on memory analysis). This would be subjective, and would require a level of technical skill from the TASer, but I'm sure in most cases someone can justify why their better run is in fact better.
I'm primarily a Java programmer, and I'm am fairly sure I can simply implement my own event manager, system clock, and the wait() method to get deterministic behavior.
Also I don't think that "reallyjoel's dad" difficulty was really ever expected to be beatable. Although it would be funny if it was.
I'm not sure if Zulu is best for harder difficulties. On deity, your opponents start with some pretty strong defenders, and if you aren't careful you may end up spending a lot of turns waiting for the idea time to attack, while your opponent quickly builds more reinforcements.
Germany may be a better choice for the free +50% bonus to warriors, which if you are able to catch a few of their troops or barbarians off guard you can get blitz (multiple attacks per turn) or the +100% bonus to attacking cities and possibly even a general for an extra +50% (although the general takes more real time to move along with your group). Once you attack, you can expect your opponent to start building defenses as quickly as possible.
Also, make sure you don't go up against Greece.. they start with defenders that have a 3 defense.
This game is a turn based strategy game that can be beaten very quickly by pounding your enemies into the group with insane luck manipulation.
The primary problem is it seems all luck manipulation is based on a single random seed that is unaffected by any user input except for when the game is turned on (using the DS clock).
Personally, I will probably never attempt this myself, since it probably requires writing a lua script to try and find the best map layout, and possibly even an AI that will go and attempt to kill all the players to determine which one has the best combat advantage.
I'm starting to see more and more submissions corrupting a save file by resetting the game while its writing. The primary problem with this is: how accurate is the emulator on resetting the game while its writing? On a real console, when you hit reset, does it happen right on a frame? Could you corrupt saves in between frames to get more optimal results? Do writes happen in batch, could a byte or int get partly written?
If we allow save corruption shouldn't we allow sub-frame resets?
Edit:
I'm asking if there would be any advantage to allowing input between frames. If a program checks the input register more than once per frame, couldn't you theoretically change your input part way though to trigger a logic failure?
I think Crazy Taxi is a perfect example of this. Is it possible to pick up every passenger in a standard game?
In the game you get X amount of starting time. Every passenger you pick up gives you more time based on how far they want to go, with a bonus 5 seconds if you drop them off quick enough. The more passengers you pick up, the less bonus time you get. However, with being able to break normal max speed limitation you can bottom out on bonus extra time and still stay afloat, but as more and more passengers are picked up, fewer are available in less optimal locations.
If you want add tags to runs for quality:
Needs significant improvement
Needs improvement
(No tag)
Well optimized
I just said this a few pages back. Next time, look before you post. :/
I'm not finding the post where you said this. In any case I don't want to spend the time though thoroughly read though every post and make sure I don't repeat anyone. If you did say this earlier, then I'm simply agreeing with you, no problem with that.
I vote no on simply the merits that there is a better solution to "un-publish" or whatever you decide to do. Don't be lazy programmers and use this as a way to perform this kind of classification.
On the subject of un-publishing, I think it should only be done if:
Poor choice for a game
Poor choice for goals
Emulator is broken
un-publishing should not happen because:
sub-optimal run
run not sufficiently entertaining (but still a good choice for goals and game)
If you want add tags to runs for quality:
Needs significant improvement
Needs improvement
(No tag)
Well optimized
Loading times are incredibly important. It's a source of physical entropy - cryptographic random number generators in most recent OS's will use tiny timing differences in drives as a source of entropy. There's no technical reason why a PSX game couldn't do the same - PSX games could be nondeterministic if they wanted.
Melissa
You mean a PSX emulators could be nondeterministic if it wanted to be :).
The save game files on gamefaqs are created by either using a Gameshark or VBA.
In either case, the user could very easily fake the data.
From my understanding it is perferable that if you use an SRAM you have a movie file that takes you from no SRAM to the SRAM state you use.
Do you think a hard mode run though would be more entertaining?
The differences in hard (as far as I know are)
Enemies have 50% more health (except one)
You take 50% more damage (not including swap tiles)
The endurance battles are different.
Cannot network
The biggest part would be more HP in enemies which would prolong the battle, but would require more techniques since PAs are a one shot deal.
A problem is however that it would require a SRAM which is impossible to achieve normally since there is no network support for TAS on GBA.
On ePsxE you can skip movies by selecting change disk and choose an empty iso file, and then quickly change back to the origional (to avoid crashing). (Haven't tried this myself, but one of the FAQs for FFIX on gamefaqs said you can do this).
In any case you would have to "open" the cd tray to skip disks, unless you plan a segmented run where you save at the end of a disk and use that save for the next disk.
As far as using the regan "trick" in FF7, I don't think any TAS would be able to take advantage of that.
And the delays an emulator has can affect a speed run. E.g. if opening the menu in the Zelda games for N64 was faster, a TAS might open them more often.
Finally I think we are going to see TSA's for DS before XBox/XBox360/GameCube/PS2/PS3.
I agree this would make a decent TSA.
It would be very frustrating to manipulate the random encounters since the number of steps to the next random encounter is determined after the last battle is over, although the encounter itself can easily be manipulated to allow running away easy (or before?).
The exp system allows you to catch up very quickly (not as much as the third one though, see image below), but you will lose your bonus exp if you use the red stone (which can be very significant if you are fighting a boss and your level is low).
The drill should also be considered in addition to the sword, since it seems you can out DPS the sword.
Fortunately unlike the 3rd one, running away is independent of your level, you can be very low level (with low speed) and still manage to not get hit at all.
The TSA might be a tad bit repetitive, since you will probably just end up doing attack, block, attack again, repeat until dead.
[URL=http://img399.imageshack.us/my.php?image=summonnightcraftswordmojy7.png][/URL]
I would perfer a focus on TASing new games, rather than going for that 5% improvement on existing good runs. Most of these runs are just a tad bit more optimized and are not really any more enjoyable then the movie they replace.
I don't want to see people discouraged since they picked a 'bad game' to TAS.
I wrote:
1. I don't know they cheated.
Thats a typo, just as nitsuja stated, its ment to say:
1. I don't if they cheated.
The rules of the runs here are: The replay file 'wins' the game. If you have the source code for the game, and know exactly how the random number generators works, then use that to your advantage its not cheating (even though you have an unfair advantage in making the replay). If you have a super computer and have it do portions of the run for you its ok. If a team collabrates to make the replay, thats ok too (give credit where credit is due though).
Tool assisted runs for me are about what is possible, what would the perfect run look like. For me a tool assisted run is "a game was completed in X frames", where as a non-tool assisted run is "play X has completed the game faster than anyone else." TSAs stand on their own, there is not a TSA out there that I think is less enjoyable than a non-assisted speed run (of the same game and goals).
I think a well optimized run (with reasonable goals) should be accept regardess of the game.
Perhaps a run could have ratings:
1. Fun to watch
2. Professional (well optimized)
Games on the site must pass both of these criteria to get published. It would be rare to see a run that meets the first, but not the second, since a professional is either out or in the making.
Boring runs do occationaly get accepted, e.g. Mario Legend of the 7 stars. I could not bear to sit though that movie without fast-foward. The main fall back on that is its very long, but the game is popular enough to warrent a published status.
P.S. The run I'm currently doing (if I ever finish) I think is fun enough to watch.
Personally I appricate the technical merits that go into a speed run.
If someone posts a boring speed run of a game on your tube, I'm not intrested because
1. I don't know they cheated.
2. I can't see the button combination used during the movie.
For me, many movies I read the author commantary on what stragities were used, and how the game engine works. I then look at the replay as a guide in showing me how it turned out.
I am 99% certian if someone made a well optimized TAS of Pokemon Dungeon Red, the movie would be boring as ever to watch. However I would be very intrested on the techniques used to optimize the entire dungeon ahead of time to minimize the amount of walking from one exit to the next. You are saying such an effort has no place here. I cannot think of any other site that would either.
Personally I really hate it when a well optimized movie gets rejected simply because its boring (or too long) to watch, or there is another movie with different goals that is more enjoyable.
I would be nice if these movies got published, but with a warning stating that the movie is not all that fun to watch, but is a good demostration of optimization.
Making a TAS is not all about making it enjoyable for others to watch, it is also about the challenge of making a 'perfect' run; these efforts should be noticed, and not thrown away along with all the other "I spent a whole hour making this speed run."
[/URL]
