Spikestuff baited himself and thought he did this run on Normal. It was on Hard.
The Stuff:
Bios: SCPH5500 (NTSC-J bios)
Hardest Difficulty
BizHawk 2.3.1
The lowest score value is chosen as well, dropping from 11 to 6. The lowest point value is 4, so getting to a value that's quicker was a higher priority.
This version of the game features ball switch on score, so stealing the ball back is important.
Unfortunately using the shorter characters for their speed such as Furin are much worse when they face a taller opponent making the quick shots near impossible.
If there was such thing as consistent charging I'd take it.
After a lot more discussion, private and public, it looks like my take on how similar these two games are wasn't shared by other judges, nor have my arguments convinced them. It was important in this case, because these games look at the very least borderline similar to me, so I needed more educated opinions.
The main argument is that the rules of the games are rather different. Not as different as "one has fighting and it's heavily used, while the other one doesn't"; mostly in how they tweak the basketball rules. Since the sports are played by different rules, and in-game controls are also different, they are most logically not the same game. Which means both this game and 1 on 1 can be published in Vault separately.
I don't know if re-skin was ever the main argument, pro or con, and I don't think we should invent a list of strict definitions, because it will mean we'll be adding more and more as new situations appear. Though if you guys have any other insights on how to make sure they are different enough, feel free to post. Difference in game rules is not always enough either, because it can vary.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
After a lot more discussion, private and public, it looks like my take on how similar these two games are wasn't shared by other judges, nor have my arguments convinced them. It was important in this case, because these games look at the very least borderline similar to me, so I needed more educated opinions.
The main argument is that the rules of the games are rather different. Not as different as "one has fighting and it's heavily used, while the other one doesn't"; mostly in how they tweak the basketball rules. Since the sports are played by different rules, and in-game controls are also different, they are most logically not the same game. Which means both this game and 1 on 1 can be published in Vault separately.
I don't know if re-skin was ever the main argument, pro or con, and I don't think we should invent a list of strict definitions, because it will mean we'll be adding more and more as new situations appear. Though if you guys have any other insights on how to make sure they are different enough, feel free to post. Difference in game rules is not always enough either, because it can vary.
Your judgement note does clarify how the rule is being applied for the 1-On-1 games, and judges could use your judgement note to better understand how to apply the rule in the future; but it doesn't do anything to clarify any perceived ambiguity in the rule's wording itself (which is my understand of what Thunderaxe was wanting input on). My post was in response to the request for input regarding the rule as it is written. I only referenced the 1-On-1 games as examples of my thoughts on the current rule. It was not my intent to suggest that you had done anything incorrectly, or that your judgement didn't make sense.
Perhaps I shouldn't have used the 1-On-1 games in my examples and just stuck with the other game references I used.
As far as changing the rule or adding definitions: I can see where things could potentially get quite complex if we tried adding various definitions for each possible situation. I was simply posting my thoughts in response the request for input on possible clarification of the current rule's wording. I apologize if the examples I used to demonstrate this perspective made you feel that I didn't understand that your judgement note says both 1-On-1 games are indeed acceptable.
Truly, specific discussion on this rule might be split into a separate thread instead of being attached to this submission.
I think it would be valuable for the staff/community to discuss/answer the following questions (some reiterated from my previous post) before potentially rewording the rule. These are not meant to be a comprehensive list of ideas that need discussed regarding this rule, and further discussions doesn't necessarily need to be in the forums; but if it's possible that this discussion ultimately improves the readability of our rules, I feel it's worthwhile.
1) What qualifies as significantly different game-play?
2) Is this even definable in a way that would cover the majority of situations?
3) Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play from a mechanics perspective? (or some other differentiation).
4) If this a problem where we can't establish a more clearly defined/worded rule that would cover most situations, should we require a multiple judge consensus on whether a particular situation is applicable to the rule? (This may already be a common practice, at least as it seems to have been demonstrated with the 1-On-1 situation.)
I want our site to be the best it can be and am willing to discuss my opinions with anyone who wants them. I feel that asking questions (even when I may not have an answer myself) holds value in prompting the thoughts of others. Questions that don't get asked don't get answered.
1) What qualifies as significantly different game-play?
The difference that would lead to different branches for moons, or to having 2 game versions published side by side, or to having 2 game modes as branches in vault.
DrD2k9 wrote:
2) Is this even definable in a way that would cover the majority of situations?
You can't guess or predict in advance, every game is different.
DrD2k9 wrote:
3) Are we more concerned about the appearance of different game-play or are we more concerned about actually different game-play from a mechanics perspective? (or some other differentiation).
4) If this a problem where we can't establish a more clearly defined/worded rule that would cover most situations, should we require a multiple judge consensus on whether a particular situation is applicable to the rule? (This may already be a common practice, at least as it seems to have been demonstrated with the 1-On-1 situation.)
It's not "oh no, we have no idea how to apply this, let's require a month of brainstorming for every occurrence". It's a step forward in the boiling-down process. For sports games, it now resulted in at least one idea of what may be sufficiently different in terms of that rule: the rules and mechanics of the simulated game. Only by trying to apply an existing rule you can know if it fits reality. If it doesn't, we just apply my signature and see if we need tweaks.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
