Hi, on average gaming defining "beating the game" is easy, but lately I've been struggling trying to figure out when I have crossed the line and have not actually reached the ending. Haven't found any discussion about it on the internet, although it probably was a bad search query...
You know pokemon, and how you can manipulate ram directly, so imagine you can do absolutely anything you want. You also know how it plays, its classic for many games: You play through several maps until you reach a final map, usually have a boss fight on that map (in pokemon you have the fight on the previous map), play a "cutscene", in this specific case there's a white out and a special rating screen (in other games it could be a statistics or score screen), progress is saved, setting flags for "post-game" play (a quest flag, access to Hall of Fame on the computer, etc), then the credits animation rolls in, then the game resets cleanly. All of this is part of beating the game for the average player.
However we can skip the part where we play through several maps, and just reach the final one. And its generally accepted that we beat the game.
We can skip the part where we fight the final boss, I think most people would still accept that as completing the game.
We can skip the part where we enter the final map, at least visually. Some might argue if we don't reach the final map at all, but we are still doing the steps that follow it.
We can skip the cut scene, the statistics screen, game being saved, flags being set. I personally would end up accepting it just with the credits animation rolling and the game resetting.
But what if to all the previous, we also garble up the graphics of the credits animation in a moderate way, we see some developer's names but they are barely visible in a corner. Let's pretend this is still valid, so now let's completely garble up the graphics, we see stuff moving with the speed and direction credits would roll, but can't tell for sure it's the credits what we are seeing, we still accept it's the credits because the bgm is the same as the one played then. Remove the bgm. Still acceptable?
If so, remove the part where the game resets, have these so called credits loop forever. I could barely get up to this point, but we can still make it more extreme.
Instead of playing credits, have the ending flags be set silently, the game goes on but you now have access to post-game material. Did we suddenly beat the game?
Or instead of a loop have the credits end and the previous game continue like if nothing had happened. Would this be beating the game or did we just play an animation like it seems to have happened? But this is THE credits animation, sure it doesn't look like it, but data was accessed, data that is only accessed when you beat the game.
But then comes the problem, how much of this "special" data has to be accessed for it to be considered beating the game? what if we only accessed the last frame of the credits animation? What if we only accessed the last couple particle effects that are created on this animation and nothing more? What if we see absolutely no indication that we beat the game, however we can prove that we accessed at least one instruction of the procedure that would be called "BeatTheGame()" if we reverse engineered the game's code, hell what i this specific instruction is its final call, the one that resets the game. What if it doesn't reset the game, and it looks like the game crashed, black screen, no sound, no response? What do you think?
Since every game is different, and games are normally considered in terms of psychological impact upon those playing it (or watching it get beaten), I'd try to not find a general solution and instead analyze on a case by case basis.
Do you have any games in mind which are ambiguous?
I think having some viewer sensory confirmation that the ending has been reached is a necessary requirement. This topic could be a ridiculous debate on the workbench for sure.
gia wrote:
Instead of playing credits, have the ending flags be set silently, the game goes on but you now have access to post-game material. Did we suddenly beat the game?
I think this is roughly where I would call it 'not beating the game.' At some point the average viewer will feel like you just glitched the game and stopped playing it instead of beating it. We probably don't want to publish something that ends like that, as it will just cause terrible confusion amongst viewers.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
The ending can be thought as the conclusion of the game.
In Pokemon, you use glitches to trigger the final cutscene by playing the game for a few minutes. After that point the game acts no different from what it would do after normal hours of gameplay.
That's an ending all the same.
To take the game as beaten, I think we need to see the expected conclusion. Just making the game logic consider it beaten is not enough and probably not even visible in a video recording.
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
This judgment falls on the shoulders of the person who's running the game.
Every TASer is expected not to go blindly to the fastest completion goal, but also make the movie entertaining and even tolerate a loss of time if it's necessary to make the movie entertaining. Since we're talking more about pokemon, one could take 10 minutes off primorial#soup's Blue run without any route change if he decided to ignore entertainment tradeoffs and use the near-death noise all the way (making the movie unwatchable in the process).
I think the same applies for game ending definition. If we evolve to a point where it's possible to overwrite the end flag and someone submits a movie that ends input with the player standing at his house, it's my opinion at least that, for people who will watch it at youtube/dailymotion/nicovideo, it makes little difference if it was written in the submission text "After that, the game behaves like it was finished, I can go to Mewtwo's dungeon and the Hall of Fame option appears in the PC, meaning that the game was beaten". People would still believe the game wasn't completed.
If it happens to fall on a more gray area, we have the voting poll. People are going to vote No if they think the game wasn't beaten, a lot of No votes and the submission will be rejected in favor of a slower option which was validated before. I really don't think defining an ending is a big issue.
I made sure to put "Aims for fastest completion of the game" in my two Yellow submissions so that people vote for it as a speedrun and not a glitch demonstration. IIRC, both received 100% yes votes and received reasonably high technical ratings, so I take it's widely believed that it has indeed completed the game. However, I know that there are people who consider it invalid, but unfortunately they didn't expose this at the time of submission.
Do you have any games in mind which are ambiguous?
Pokemon, it's on the post. RGBY, but Yellow is more specific if you like.
Kirkq wrote:
I think having some viewer sensory confirmation that the ending has been reached is a necessary requirement. This topic could be a ridiculous debate on the workbench for sure.
Yes, if you descipher my monologue I wonder whether sensory confirmation is a must or completely irrelevant. But then I worry, on either case, how much confirmation is necessary.
pirate_sephiroth wrote:
To take the game as beaten, I think we need to see the expected conclusion. Just making the game logic consider it beaten is not enough and probably not even visible in a video recording.
Ok I'll take it you prefer sensory confirmation as well, but what is exactly the expected result? Yellow's ending has several parts that have some visual or aural feedback to the player. Perhaps just rolling the credits is enough for you? Would it be enough with just the last frame of the credits? Do you require the whole thing since Oak's speech? what if he doesn't give his ending speech, and gives his initial speech instead?
p4wn3r wrote:
I made sure to put "Aims for fastest completion of the game"
Maybe I understood you wrong, but first you said the runs have to be entertaining. Now this is another debate, and my opinion may not be the common one, but if you go for fastest completion then you will not compromise even once and will sacrifice entertainment wherever necessary. The problem here is when you compromise too much and overshoot and end up not actually beating the game.
As for the rest of your post I see you also decided to attack just setting flags, so I'll file it under "an ending requires sensory confirmation".
For all we know many of the extreme possibilities could be slower from a tas perspective and as such much debate saved, but I still would like some opinions.
I made sure to put "Aims for fastest completion of the game"
Maybe I understood you wrong, but first you said the runs have to be entertaining. Now this is another debate, and my opinion may not be the common one, but if you go for fastest completion then you will not compromise even once and will sacrifice entertainment wherever necessary. The problem here is when you compromise too much and overshoot and end up not actually beating the game.
As for the rest of your post I see you also decided to attack just setting flags, so I'll file it under "an ending requires sensory confirmation".
For all we know many of the extreme possibilities could be slower from a tas perspective and as such much debate saved, but I still would like some opinions.
I'll try to make it more clear. Runs with the "aims for fastest time" tag aren't required to have no time-sacrificing additional objectives (for example, they can still avoid glitches, choose not to use death/take damage). It's simply there to indicate that the author completes the game with the speed objective in mind and, therefore, posterior runs that are faster and don't have big losses in entertainment should replace it.
Of course, most of the time, it's redundant to put such a tag, but in Yellow's case, someone could think of it as a glitch demonstration or playaround (trust me, there are people who think this), so I made sure to put the tag to avoid such misunderstanding, I submitted and it was accepted by the judge as a speed-oriented movie, what means that this site recognizes it as a valid completion of Pokemon Yellow.
And I used flag overwriting as an extreme example. The point I meant to defend in the previous post is: defining an ending is not important, because if a considerable amount of people think that a movie doesn't complete the game when it claims it does, that movie will be rejected. Feel free to file this under anything you want.
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
The first version of the '-3 stage ending' Super Mario Bros. TAS generated a lot of controversy over this subject in the submission topic. In that run, there's no visual indication that the game was actually completed, and there was a lot of discussion over whether that constituted "beating the game". It's actually a very interesting read and is almost exactly what you're describing here.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
If you're looking for a general answer, I'd say that triggering the complete "ending sequence" in the form of what was intended by the game designers to be the ending sequence should constitute "ending the game". Even that is open to debate, as there's no Shigeru Miyamoto telling us what is the ending of the game.
But I'm going to go with most everyone else and recommend analysing each game separately.
Joined: 8/31/2004
Posts: 298
Location: Falun, Sweden
I remember this debate from years back. :-)
I'd keep with FODA here. Try seeing from "the publics eyes" and ask yourself "Would I consider this the end if I hadn't done this run?". If you can answer YES without hesitating at all, well then your on the safe side.
But if you'd need some thinking and maybe even en explanation then you might be on thin ice. Maybe you'd ought to persue a different "ending" so the general viewer understand.
But then again there is an important exception from this rule, the very geeky runs. Runs such as "-3 level SMB" qualify under this category. Runs that require a certain amount of "nerdiness" (in lack of a better word) to understand and to cherish. Those movies can get away with weird ends that requires some explanation since the general viewer of such movies can be expected so seek out some information regarding the movie in question.
That's my "general answer", in short ;-)
Bein' away for like five years, and not a single new post in the ZSNES forum... :'-(
Defining a game's ending was always problematic. Here's my theory approaching it from the game's perspective.
Assume that a game has a set of conditions you need to met in order to get a positive end game state, either it has a point where you can't progress any further in the gameplay because there's no such possible set of input that would meet those conditions (if there's any).
My marvellous definition would be:
A game is completed if the movie reaches a positive end game state and it lasts forever without any negative game state appears. If there's no such possible series of input that would let you reach a positive end game state, the game's end-point located at the very last position where you can't progress any further in the gameplay's plot.
Let me know what do you think. The definition should be revised with proper wording.
I also want to show some interesting examples of various game ending obscurity with my game ending definition:
SNES Contra III - The Alien Wars
The game ending is a part of the last level. In order to watch the conclusion and credits you have to beat the final boss. However, the glitched TAS run skips these and only the final statistics shown.
The game ends when your last input processed at the point where no additional inputs needed to achieve the positive end game state (the final statistics screen).DS Bubble Bobble Revolution
The US version is unwinnable due to a programming error. At level 30 you can't progress further since the boss won't spawn.
The game ends when you beat level 29 (you can't progress any further at level 30).ZX Spectrum Impossible Mission
Some of the puzzle pieces are hidden behind unsearchable objects, preventing you from obtaining them, rendering the game unwinnable.
The game should end at the last position where you can't progress any further (the point where you need such an object you can't obtain).PS2 Atelier Liese - Eternal Mana
The PAL version had an irritating bug right at the very end of the game where it would crash during the ending sequence. This was doubly annoying as not only was it impossible to see the entire ending, but you also couldn't get a completed save file as a result, preventing you from playing the New Game Plus.
The game ends if the ending sequence fully performed.
edit: regarding the Pokemon Yellow issue:
The game ends if you achieve a positive end game state without any negative game state flag. So any game state that happens during the normal completion would be approved by my definition just like manipulating the memory to trigger the statistics screen, the credits screen, the "The end" state. Note that there's a difference between "state" and graphics so if it's impossible to verify that what is the actual game state, simple graphics like the "the end" won't qualify it since it's just a picture, so memory manipulated movies must have something to verify that the they have a positive end game state and not just drawing the picture THE END on the whole screen.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
I have to disagree with the notion that if a game has a programming error that makes it impossible to reach the normal ending intended by the game designers, the last point reachable in the game could be considered a valid "ending" with respect to a TAS.
If a game cannot be completed, then it cannot be completed, and thus it's unTASable (at least with respect to the traditional goal of playing the game through). It's no different than eg. a game that is so buggy that it outright fails to start being completely unTASable.
Of course a special goal/category could be created for such a game, but it would be an exception to the general rule.
I have to disagree with the notion that if a game has a programming error that makes it impossible to reach the normal ending intended by the game designers, the last point reachable in the game could be considered a valid "ending" with respect to a TAS.
If a game cannot be completed, then it cannot be completed, and thus it's unTASable (at least with respect to the traditional goal of playing the game through). It's no different than eg. a game that is so buggy that it outright fails to start being completely unTASable.
Of course a special goal/category could be created for such a game, but it would be an exception to the general rule.
There's a very few (~9?) games in the world that can't be completed due programming error without patching the original game (if it's possible) so this isn't a serious threat, I just wanted to be specific for such a problematic definition. Also note that the "end point" shouldn't be the "last point reachable". Think about games with an ending like changing the map to "theend". It makes no sense to run through a level that has a text "THE END" made out of tiles and jump to the last reachable place. This mostly featured in DOS/PC games.
Guess what: Action 52 has many uncompletable games since there's no ending [positive game end state] or can't be completed.
And I didn't mention games that has absolutely no positive end game state only a game over screen.
edit: And not to mention games without end game states like SuperNova
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
I have a question I want to raise.
In "Dizzy The Adventurer", you can reach the "Ending room" by traveling far out of bounds, and this room behaves the same way as the normal ending.
I don't know whether or not it's possible to reach it in this way without RAM cheats, but is it considered beating the game if you reach the ending room that way instead of playing through the game the normal way?
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Dwedit wrote:
I have a question I want to raise.
In "Dizzy The Adventurer", you can reach the "Ending room" by traveling far out of bounds, and this room behaves the same way as the normal ending.
I don't know whether or not it's possible to reach it in this way without RAM cheats, but is it considered beating the game if you reach the ending room that way instead of playing through the game the normal way?
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
How does this do with things like any % vs 100 %?
It also is very unclear with the regards to previous saves/passwords. It may not be it's job to deal with these matters, but I feel that a curiosity examination of the interaction with the matter is warranted.
And more importantly, how does it do with games where you see how long you can last? (Assuming no killscreens or similar) For that scenario there is the problem of a lot of games having upper limits to how high they can track your progress (score counter overflows/maxes out). The game doesn't track further progress, but you can do it instead.
How does this do with things like any % vs 100 %?
It also is very unclear with the regards to previous saves/passwords. It may not be it's job to deal with these matters, but I feel that a curiosity examination of the interaction with the matter is warranted.
Any% and 100% are different game endings. Both of them eventually leads to a positive end game state. Show an example if this doesn't happens in a specific game.
Well my opinion is that passwords are used if they make the gameplay harder or have such a benefit that makes the run faster without the intention of making the gameplay easier/shorter.
Possible passwords: a "hard difficulty" code, an intended "negative" code that abusable, making the run faster with a curse for example
Denied passwords: warp to level N, all weapons at the very start (new branch if it's significantly much-much faster than a normal tas)
But that's just my opinion...
henke37 wrote:
And more importantly, how does it do with games where you see how long you can last? (Assuming no killscreens or similar) For that scenario there is the problem of a lot of games having upper limits to how high they can track your progress (score counter overflows/maxes out). The game doesn't track further progress, but you can do it instead.
Do you know any games that could be TASed and can be played forever without reaching a point where no more change occurs in the gameplay? I merely assume that after a limited time (that would range from 2 hour to 2 days or even more) the game will have something like a repeating pattern (define end-point), a memory corruption (that should end in a freezing state/restart/death) or unwinnable situation (inability to move/attack/do anything due too many enemies on screen, lag, anything).
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
My personal preference (not the option this site has historically adhered to, nor is this an attempt to make it) is for the goal of a run to be the sole site of speed/entertainment tradeoffs, and of ending definitions. It is the runner's job to pick a goal that a) makes for an entertaining movie and b) gets the game into some state that they think people will like, whether that be the 'ending' by some definition, 999999 points, or whatever else they deem appropriate.
After the choice has been made, they should do everything possible to minimize the time from power on to the goal being reached.
This neatly answers the question at hand: the ending state is whatever the runner chooses. Other runners could make other categories. The ones that get positive feedback on WIPs/Yes votes on submissions will end up published.
It also makes a nice framework for formalizing choices like not using the near-death noise in Blue - you just add "* doesn't use the near-death noise" to the goal definition, and bam, no more speed/entertainment tradeoff. At the same time, it forces runners to justify such decisions a bit more fully than 'i thought this slower thing looked cooler so i did it'.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
MESHUGGAH, I think I get your definition but I am not sure if I really did. You'd be fine with the statistics and /or credits looping infinitely since that's an end game state and you cant progress further if it loops infinitely.
I'm not sure if you'd be fine if the game was forced to loop infinitely drawing the last frame that says The End. You are at the very last instruction of the ending, and you are constantly executing it again and again, does that count as state? You haven't just drawn the end once and continued to play afterwards, the game is locked drawing it forever.
However if you created the code that will make this loop in some area of memory you have access to, and as such it is not the original's game ending code the one being executed, it is not the The end that should be drawn, its an identical clone you created, I'm not sure if it would fit your definition.
Warp, assuming such game can be defined an ending, reaching that final stage would probably be it. Assuming again this final stage is open ended, as in no sequential rooms, you can go up or down but everything's empty, once you reach the stage you can't be sure where to proceed.
Personman, I suppose that's an option, I recall a tetris tas that set maximum score as it's own ending goal.
......You'd be fine with the statistics and /or credits looping infinitely since that's an end game state and you cant progress further if it loops infinitely.
I'm not sure if you'd be fine if the game was forced to loop infinitely drawing the last frame that says The End. You are at the very last instruction of the ending, and you are constantly executing it again and again, does that count as state? You haven't just drawn the end once and continued to play afterwards, the game is locked drawing it forever.
However if you created the code that will make this loop in some area of memory you have access to, and as such it is not the original's game ending code the one being executed, it is not the The end that should be drawn, its an identical clone you created, I'm not sure if it would fit your definition.
Don't forget that this is only my opinion. Now let's face it... Memory corruption (and other abuses) screws my definition, so let's revise it again.
In gaming, completing/beating a game means that you fulfilled the game's objectives. Depending on the game, either you get some statistics, congratulation screens, new features (new game+, new items etc) or just a plain the end image. This means you gain such an experience that only achieveable if you beat the game.
The game's perspective again: If you met the requirements for a set of conditions, let's start the ending sequence. Depending the code and features, completing a game unlocks features that can be accessed at a new game.
---> Direct/indirect memory corruption enables the TASer to change the part of/entire code. This means you can define new requirements needed to met to complete the game, changing values to immediately met the requirements, etc. This leads to a very-very different reception among tasers and viewers.
To define a game ending, someone from the bosses of tasvideos should detail furthermore the existing rules and the general acception of a movie.
Obsoleting my definition leads to another (ignoring viewers' reception):The movie must reach a point (optionally where it mets the game's requirements) that leads to a state which should only occur when the game is beaten.
Some notes should be added regarding newgame+. Also this is such a lousy and abusable definition... can't come up with better one that satisfies movies with or without memory corruption.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
MESHUGGAH, does your definition include not requiring any more input? Would a Star Fox TAS that instead fights the giant jackpot machine and defeats it count as "a state which should only occur when the game is beaten"?
I ask because I am genuinely interested, and the current Pokemon Yellow jump-to-credits debate has me wondering about such things.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
MESHUGGAH, does your definition include not requiring any more input? Would a Star Fox TAS that instead fights the giant jackpot machine and defeats it count as "a state which should only occur when the game is beaten"?
I ask because I am genuinely interested, and the current Pokemon Yellow jump-to-credits debate has me wondering about such things.
You mean the slot machine boss? Well, it's another "exception". I would say you should compare the difference between completing the game normal way and this way (where you can't advance after beating the boss).
It worths mentioning that while it really shows the credits and "the end", if you die on the level, it will just restarts. So you can actually go from a "fairly positive end game state" to a negative. If someone should verify the differences between the 2 routes, I could elaborate it more.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Indeed, that thing.
I don't think it would be accepted for TASing because there's no point where you can just sit the controller down and let the game do the rest, because of the dying, but is it, by your definition, a game end state?
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
Indeed, that thing.
I don't think it would be accepted for TASing because there's no point where you can just sit the controller down and let the game do the rest, because of the dying, but is it, by your definition, a game end state?
Nope, because it's actually not an "end state". We have to distinguish "game ending state" and "end state", since in this way you can go back to the (negative) "normal state", therefore it's not an actual end state.
If you couldn't be able to die nor getting in to a negative game state (for example if the game would literally end this way, or you couldn't die in any means or there wouldn't be a function that would "decrease" your completion (for example reseting the game would just restart the level, right?)), than it would be considered as an end state. In a positive one. But this still depends on the differences of the two "completion" (I'm 100% sure there's something that really shows you that you completed the game the normal way).
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
