Guys keep in mind that tech ratings will be terminated at some point. Because it is outright impossible to make any objective sense with it. It ends up being a clueless guess based on how well the rater knows the game, how entertaining the movie is, how nice their mood is, how tasty their breakfast was, and so on. It is impossible to evaluate the technical value of a run. If you know the game, you have certain bias. If you don't you have different kind of bias. If you TASed it yourself, you have yet another kind of bias. And so on.
In that sense, player points don't make as much sense as we'd want them to.
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.
feos: I agree, and have nothing against getting rid of the concept of player points althogether.
No, I mean only leaving one rating instead of two, and it can mean just how cool/impressive/technical/entertaining/tasty the rater found the movie. It'd also make sense to limit this just to 10 options, like on IMDB.
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
It ends up being a clueless guess based on how well the rater knows the game, how entertaining the movie is, how nice their mood is, how tasty their breakfast was, and so on. It is impossible to evaluate the technical value of a run. If you know the game, you have certain bias. If you don't you have different kind of bias. If you TASed it yourself, you have yet another kind of bias. And so on.
That's not the point in tech rating at all. You shouldn't be looking at the game itself.
When you evaluate the entertaining rating, do you need to know everything about the game? Or do you ask yourself how it compares to other movies?
Both entertainment and tech rating are supposed to be relative to everything else on the site.
When you go to rate something technically, you ask yourself compared to other movies, how well is it making use of things like route planning, item conservation, health management, and so on.
My rule of thumb is, Super Metroid offers practically every technical thing imaginable we want to see TASs make use of. The most technical Super Metroid run therefore gets a 10. Every other movie is then measured against that Super Metroid movie to see how comparable it is in routing, items, using techniques like knock back and so on, and then gets a lower score according to how many things it didn't do as well or did not have at all.
Yes, this means some games played perfectly cannot get a perfect 10 technical rating. Just like some games can never get a perfect 10 in entertainment no matter how you play them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
My rule of thumb is, Super Metroid offers practically every technical thing imaginable we want to see TASs make use of. The most technical Super Metroid run therefore gets a 10. Every other movie is then measured against that Super Metroid movie to see how comparable it is in routing, items, using techniques like knock back and so on, and then gets a lower score according to how many things it didn't do as well or did not have at all.
Yes, this means some games played perfectly cannot get a perfect 10 technical rating. Just like some games can never get a perfect 10 in entertainment no matter how you play them.
It's why I never rated a movie because I never played a game, so I'm not able to say what is good or not in the movie. I'll rate movies from games I know but that's it.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ViGadeomes wrote:
It's why I never rated a movie because I never played a game, so I'm not able to say what is good or not in the movie. I'll rate movies from games I know but that's it.
That doesn't make any sense. Your rating is how you feel something compared to other things you've seen on our site. You're not rating the movie's use of the game's inherent qualities. You don't need to know about a game to determine how a movie of it makes you feel versus watching other movies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
It's why I never rated a movie because I never played a game, so I'm not able to say what is good or not in the movie. I'll rate movies from games I know but that's it.
That doesn't make any sense. Your rating is how you feel something compared to other things you've seen on our site. You're not rating the movie's use of the game's inherent qualities. You don't need to know about a game to determine how a movie of it makes you feel versus watching other movies.
(underline mine)
So essentially, a large portion of player points is based on the subjective opinion of others, not on objective factors.
Again, if we want this as a 'who's who' or popularity ranking system that varies over time, that's perfectly acceptable. But if we want the player points to be more of an experience system/indicator, the subjective opinions of others shouldn't be included in the calculation.
I can use myself as an example: my own points increased recently because EZGames69 rated a few of my publications, then they dropped back down because one of my runs was obsoleted. Neither of these changes happened due to my own actions, yet still affected the score associated with my name. I realize that using my earlier recommendation for calculating the points would still result in the decrease due to the obsoleted run, but the score wouldn't have increased due to the ratings. And while that means I would have even fewer points now, I feel it would be a better indicator of my experience.
As it stands, utilizing ratings automatically rewards popularity of a game because more popular games are more likely to be watched and therefore more likely to be given ratings. This popularity bias gives extra reward to TASers just for choosing a popular game. Again, if we want this score/rating as a 'who's the current best or most popular' approach, no problem. If we want the score as an experience indicator this bias should be removed.
TL;DR: The big question that needs to be answered is what do we want the player points to indicate?
Disclaimer: I don't put much thought to my own score because I had already recognized the subjective nature of the player points long before this topic was started. If it were switched to a more experience based model, I might be more interested in my own score. This may also encourage me to work a bit more on increasing it; and if others shared that perspective, it may increase the overall production of TASes.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
So essentially, a large portion of player points is based on the subjective opinion of others, not on objective factors.
A large portion? More like all of your player points is based on the subjective opinion of others and factors outside your control.
DrD2k9 wrote:
But if we want the player points to be more of an experience system/indicator, the subjective opinions of others shouldn't be included in the calculation.
Experience for what? I've never looked at player points to tell me who is experienced at just making movies. Instead I looked at their submission history in general.
Player points tells you who is doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied. If you have a very high amount of points, it means you have experience at doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I can use myself as an example: my own points increased recently because EZGames69 rated a few of my publications, then they dropped back down because one of my runs was obsoleted. Neither of these changes happened due to my own actions, yet still affected the score associated with my name.
Exactly as it should be. You satisfied EZGames69, you got points for doing so. And if you fail to keep posting new unobsoleted movies to satisfy the audience, your satisfaction rating (known as player points) goes down.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
That's not the point in tech rating at all. You shouldn't be looking at the game itself.
When you evaluate the entertaining rating, do you need to know everything about the game? Or do you ask yourself how it compares to other movies?
Knowing the game clearly helps with getting entertained, because I can enjoy what I'm seeing better when I understand how awesome and hard it is.
Nach wrote:
When you go to rate something technically, you ask yourself compared to other movies, how well is it making use of things like route planning, item conservation, health management, and so on.
If I don't know the game, I'll fail to notice most of the precision and management, most of the technicality behind what I'm seeing. If I tased it myself, I know how hard it is to achieve something even with tools, so at the same time I see how technical certain achievement is, and it entertains me even more.
Bottomline. Entertainment rating is supposed to be subjective, and it is. Tech rating is supposed to make some objective sense, and it's absolutely impossible.
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Knowing the game clearly helps with getting entertained, because I can enjoy what I'm seeing better when I understand how awesome and hard it is.
You may be entertained more by it if you know the game yes. But whatever the case is, you rate entertaining based on how much it entertained you compared to other things that entertain you.
feos wrote:
If I don't know the game, I'll fail to notice most of the precision and management, most of the technicality behind what I'm seeing. If I tased it myself, I know how hard it is to achieve something even with tools, so at the same time I see how technical certain achievement is, and it entertains me even more.
Technical rating is not about how hard it is to achieve something. It's how much technicality you see went into something versus other things that you've seen with technicality in it.
I don't need to know a game to see the player is using their own health to get damage boots, and ends up trading damage boosting for picking up extra health, and also walking around half the time with a single unit of health in their power meter.
When I see the player does stuff like this, they get a point. If it appears to me they're doing this really well, then I can give them two points for technicality. If the run in question doesn't use health like this, then they're not awarded for making use of this technique, and the tech rating suffers appropriately.
feos wrote:
Bottomline. Entertainment rating is supposed to be subjective, and it is. Tech rating is supposed to make some objective sense, and it's absolutely impossible.
Everything is subjective.
There is some objectiveness to tech rating if you grade it on actual relative criteria like I just described. There's nothing impossible about it.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Technical rating is not about how hard it is to achieve something.
I disagree. TASing is all about puzzle solving, and I always say that puzzles we're solving haven't been invented by anyone specifically for us to solve. Our puzzles appear out of nowhere when we decide to get on the top of the tree while riding a bike (figuratively speaking).
So with these objectively unique and unpredictable puzzles, we love TASes that solve them in ridiculously creative ways. You use all sorts of tools to assist you, available from others or created by yourself. You use your brain power to come up with a solution. You challenge your own solution and look for all the absurd ways to improve it until you can't improve it anymore. And then you still try again!
These are by all means factors of technicality, and they clearly answer the question "So how hard was it to achieve this?" Loosely speaking, in some games you have to spend 100k rerecords just to beat an existing records by one second. This is clearly relevant to technicality.
Nach wrote:
It's how much technicality you see went into something versus other things that you've seen with technicality in it.
I don't need to know a game to see the player is using their own health to get damage boots, and ends up trading damage boosting for picking up extra health, and also walking around half the time with a single unit of health in their power meter.
When I see the player does stuff like this, they get a point. If it appears to me they're doing this really well, then I can give them two points for technicality. If the run in question doesn't use health like this, then they're not awarded for making use of this technique, and the tech rating suffers appropriately.
The problem is, it's impossible to ensure anyone other than you uses the same well defined scale when deciding on technical rating. As I said, everything adds to bias for majority of the raters. So it just ends up being ephemeral.
In my opinion, this can be helped if we leave only one rating and let people factor in all the things they tried to divide by tech and entertainment, but unite them into a single integral digit.
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.
There is some objectiveness to tech rating if you grade it on actual relative criteria like I just described. There's nothing impossible about it.
The criteria you listed is only a small part of what is listed on the Voting Guidelines. You covered Techniques fairly well, but that is only one of the four criteria listed on the page. The last one, "Amount of work" is especially difficult to ascertain without submission notes.
Your method also would appear to me to biased towards width of techniques as opposed to depth, which can be deceptive.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Technical rating is not about how hard it is to achieve something.
I disagree.
You cannot disagree. We literally have rules for how to use the technical rating. Wiki: VotingGuidelines.
The rules don't mention it depends solely on how hard it is to achieve, but rather it's several factors. Those factors included things like amassing knowledge or were bots use to optimize parts of it which may be related to difficulty, but it's not about the difficulty.
feos wrote:
The problem is, it's impossible to ensure anyone other than you uses the same well defined scale when deciding on technical rating. As I said, everything adds to bias for majority of the raters. So it just ends up being ephemeral.
People are free to make up whatever scale makes sense to them for what technical qualities they consider important for a TAS. But everyone should use some kind of global scale which is not rewritten for every single game.
feos wrote:
In my opinion, this can be helped if we leave only one rating and let people factor in all the things they tried to divide by tech and entertainment, but unite them into a single integral digit.
I don't see how combining things solves anything.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
The criteria you listed is only a small part of what is listed on the Voting Guidelines. You covered Techniques fairly well, but that is only one of the four criteria listed on the page. The last one, "Amount of work" is especially difficult to ascertain without submission notes.
I did not describe anything exhaustive. I explained some factors of one of the criteria that I saw was being completely glossed over. The others are more obvious to people and does not require reiteration.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Player points tells you who is doing a good job of keeping the audience satisfied.
Thank you for the clarification on what the site wants/uses the number to represent.
That being the case, I now feel similar to Alyosha with player points being a mostly useless number for me.
I don't say this to be offensive, but I personally don't care who is or isn't entertaining/satisfying the audience (others may).
I started TASing for my own enjoyment and continue to do so for that reason. If what I accomplish entertains others, great! If it doesn't entertain others, great!
Actually given the description of the technical rating that you described Nach... who is this even useful for? The audience doesn't need to know technical rating, entertainment rating alone is really all they need to know to decide whether or not to watch it. It doesn't seem useful for a TASer considering an improvement either. Who and what does this help? Player points?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
You cannot disagree. We literally have rules for how to use the technical rating. Wiki: VotingGuidelines.
The rules don't mention it depends solely on how hard it is to achieve, but rather it's several factors. Those factors included things like amassing knowledge or were bots use to optimize parts of it which may be related to difficulty, but it's not about the difficulty.
note that this list is not comprehensive, and every TAS should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis
This explicitly leaves room for additional factors one feels like considering.
Wiki: VotingGuidelines wrote:
Amount of work: How much work was necessary to make the TAS? For example, was a considerable amount of background research (such as route planning or extensive RNG reverse engineering) necessary before even starting the run?
This is exactly what I'm describing. Why would anyone invest serious amount of work into something that's not so hard to begin with? People work hard and work a lot, because they are not satisfied with their achievements. You may have to invest tons of work into pulling off a trick that saves a lot of time. But some people (like Tompa or MESHUGGAH) invest tons of work into things that only save one frame. This is amount of work. And it is how hard it was to achieve.
And the problem with it, it's impossible to understand how much work actually stands behind a run. Less so when we're talking about a game that obviously looks complicated. One doesn't know the game too well, but they notice something that required a lot of work (reportedly). Yet for some crappy simplistic game, with tricks that required also a lot of work, no one will give a damn. Bias.
Nach wrote:
People are free to make up whatever scale makes sense to them for what technical qualities they consider important for a TAS. But everyone should use some kind of global scale which is not rewritten for every single game.
As I said, it's impossible to enforce any global scale that is supposed to resemble something objective. People are too different, unless the question is "Is this number greater than 10?", but even then some will give nonsensical answer.
Nach wrote:
I don't see how combining things solves anything.
Right now you have 182 variations. 91 for each criterion. 10 fractional parts for everything other than integer 10. It is absolutely impossible to enforce any global scale with all the variety of people's perceptions, opinions, knowledge, experience, moods, sanity, reasonability, etc. The simpler the question is, the more reasonable and sane the answer is. Objectivity is out of the question given all the variety of people and options they have. So it has been suggested in the past to only ask people how much they were entertained, which would imply a subjective answer to a subjective question. Yet I'm sure that when you just give too much options, you force them to invent their own scale and their own criteria that only make sense to them (and probably their friends?).
The submission poll asks a question with just tree options. Yet it's completely impossible to take the answers in the poll seriously when we're dealing with a borderline case. Why do we have to rely on the posts? Because the poll is almost useless. And even then posts alone love to trick you into thinking Moons, and then it gets 4s for entertainment when it's published.
So we actually have several possible decisions:
- reducing the rating to just "+/-" like youtube,
- reducing it to the same traditional "Yes/No/Meh",
- reducing it to traditional for real world movies 0-10,
- reducing it to 91 only for entertainment,
- reducing both factors to something similar to above, and finally,
- not reducing it at all.
Of these, I like 0-10 the most, because it would be similar to something already well known and very similar in nature: you can enjoy all sorts of aspects of a motion picture, you can basically invent your own scale, but when you see a movie with rating 8+, you know it's something nice. And movies with rating like 5 are not really worth watching.
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
Actually given the description of the technical rating that you described Nach... who is this even useful for?
It's information that can inform a variety of decisions.
Memory wrote:
The audience doesn't need to know technical rating, entertainment rating alone is really all they need to know to decide whether or not to watch it.
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
Memory wrote:
It doesn't seem useful for a TASer considering an improvement either. Who and what does this help? Player points?
Expand your thinking. There's more to making TASs than improvements. And even for improvements, you can go watch technically amazing movies for other games to learn ideas and go obsolete something else. This is also why it's important that people give a tech rating on a global scale.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
This explicitly leaves room for additional factors one feels like considering.
If you feel factors are important to you great. But don't enforce them on others.
feos wrote:
This is amount of work. And it is how hard it was to achieve.
And the problem with it, it's impossible to understand how much work actually stands behind a run. Less so when we're talking about a game that obviously looks complicated. One doesn't know the game too well, but they notice something that required a lot of work (reportedly). Yet for some crappy simplistic game, with tricks that required also a lot of work, no one will give a damn. Bias.
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
feos wrote:
As I said, it's impossible to enforce any global scale that is supposed to resemble something objective.
We don't enforce it. I already said it's nearly entirely subjective.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
The audience doesn't need to know technical rating, entertainment rating alone is really all they need to know to decide whether or not to watch it.
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
How does this work? I felt like checking which NES runs have the highest tech rating. So I opened all NES movies and after a minute that it took to load I was able to sort by tech, which also took time. Things I saw there were mostly ones that already have the highest entertaining rating (because people simply rate Mega Man two tens), and then a few things like these, near the top:
6.2 entertainment6 entertainment5.7 entertainment5.3 entertainment
Okay. These movies are supposed to be insanely technical it seems. How do I know what's so technical about them? I need to check movie classes. Then I decide which of them I actually want to watch. I watch them. Get insanely bored and drop after a few minutes. Or watch to the end, and rate 3 for entertainment, because it was annoying to sit through.
Compare this to simply checking the most entertaining movies. The list is about the same, but there's no boring garbage at the top anymore. Are these insanely entertaining movies by any chance less technical than those boring ones I linked? NO WAY.
The question. Why would anyone even want to care about technical top if entertaining top is already all they need to see, and is guaranteed to also be enjoyable?
Nach wrote:
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
Nope. I'm disproving the point about amount of work, and I explained how similar it is to "hard work", and both are impossible to sensibly evaluate.
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
As I said, it's impossible to enforce any global scale that is supposed to resemble something objective.
We don't enforce it. I already said it's nearly entirely subjective.
Exactly because technical rating is nearly entirely subjective, it's nearly entirely useless.
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.
You cannot disagree. We literally have rules for how to use the technical rating. Wiki: VotingGuidelines.
The rules don't mention it depends solely on how hard it is to achieve, but rather it's several factors.
<nitpick> It's a guideline, not a rule. </nitpick>
But yeah, the technical rating shouldn't be considered a measurement of one single thing (nor even the exact same thing for every single game).
The audience doesn't need to know technical rating, entertainment rating alone is really all they need to know to decide whether or not to watch it.
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
Here's the thing: I don't find what TASes that "make good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS" useful information to know. It comes across to me as limited towards more common techniques and strategies of TASing and biased against the unorthodox and new. If you want to watch a prototypical TAS I guess the technical score would be useful then but otherwise I don't see the value.
Nach wrote:
Memory wrote:
It doesn't seem useful for a TASer considering an improvement either. Who and what does this help? Player points?
Expand your thinking. There's more to making TASs than improvements. And even for improvements, you can go watch technically amazing movies for other games to learn ideas and go obsolete something else. This is also why it's important that people give a tech rating on a global scale.
If you want to learn ideas on how to improve your TASing... You should be watching every movie regardless of technical score. By your method, a TAS with all of the traditional techniques and stuff would get a high rating. A movie without these traditional techniques but with a couple unique ones might get a low score, but still be equally valuable if not even more valuable to watch and learn from. Therefore, the score does not help.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
Here's the thing: I don't find what TASes that "make good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS" useful information to know. It comes across to me as limited towards more common techniques and strategies of TASing and biased against the unorthodox and new. If you want to watch a prototypical TAS I guess the technical score would be useful then but otherwise I don't see the value.
Even if you wanted this information, watching a run that's super technical and also very entertaining 1) is a better investment of your time overall, and also 2) makes it easier to notice incredible TAS-only features one would expect from a low entertainment but high tech run.
Another thing I touched in my previous post is that you rarely need to watch something just technical. Most of the time you'd be checking specific movie classes, and then you'd be picking either runs that are entertaining (see above for reasons) or of the games you know, because it'd also be easier to notice the TAS-only features.
Damn, even the very tier system only cares about promoting entertaining runs the most. Not because they can be super trivial. But because being highly technical is also entertaining, if the game is entertaining in itself.
feos wrote:
I'm disproving the point about amount of work, and I explained how similar it is to "hard work", and both are impossible to sensibly evaluate.
To add to this, there's indeed no way to know how much work stands behind a run. If one wants to read the author's notes about it, it becomes evaluating the notes themselves. Because one can either put all the irrelevant information pretending it's technical and relates to the amount of work (and outright lie too), or not tell enough stories about all the hard work, and it automatically makes it look like the work was not there.
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.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
If you just want to see something entertaining, indeed all you need is entertainment rating. However if you want to watch something which makes good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS, you have the technical rating. If you want to make a TAS yourself and want to get an idea what technical things you could incorporate, you can go watch a couple of games with a high tech rating, and then see if anything there can apply to a TAS you want to make. It's another way of learning aside from our "how to" pages.
How does this work? I felt like checking which NES runs have the highest tech rating. So I opened all NES movies and after a minute that it took to load I was able to sort by tech, which also took time. Things I saw there were mostly ones that already have the highest entertaining rating (because people simply rate Mega Man two tens)
Mega Man is not simply two tens. Mega Man includes different weapons, routing, health and item manipulation. These movies are among those that make the most use of TASing techniques. They also happen to be entertaining because of mad action.
feos wrote:
Okay. These movies are supposed to be insanely technical it seems. How do I know what's so technical about them? I need to check movie classes. Then I decide which of them I actually want to watch. I watch them. Get insanely bored and drop after a few minutes. Or watch to the end, and rate 3 for entertainment, because it was annoying to sit through.
I don't know what you're getting at here. I said people may want to watch something technical so we have that information. You say you found those movies with low entertainment rating boring, so didn't. What are you trying to prove by having different objectives than the one being discussed?
feos wrote:
Compare this to simply checking the most entertaining movies. The list is about the same, but there's no boring garbage at the top anymore. Are these insanely entertaining movies by any chance less technical than those boring ones I linked? NO WAY.
The list may or may not be the same.
feos wrote:
The question. Why would anyone even want to care about technical top if entertaining top is already all they need to see, and is guaranteed to also be enjoyable?
How is it guaranteed?
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
Nope. I'm disproving the point about amount of work, and I explained how similar it is to "hard work", and both are impossible to sensibly evaluate.
Um.. When did I have a point about "amount of work"?
I keep telling you that one of the most important factors is the techniques seen in the movies, and I keep telling you that effort involved should be ignored. Neither amount of difficulty of work should be evaluated.
feos wrote:
Exactly because technical rating is nearly entirely subjective, it's nearly entirely useless.
Why is subjectively informing people what other viewers find entertaining or technical useless?
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
You're disproving your own point.
You're correct an outsider cannot know how hard it was. Therefore how hard it is is not sensible criteria.
Nope. I'm disproving the point about amount of work, and I explained how similar it is to "hard work", and both are impossible to sensibly evaluate.
Um.. When did I have a point about "amount of work"?
I keep telling you that one of the most important factors is the techniques seen in the movies, and I keep telling you that effort involved should be ignored. Neither amount of difficulty of work should be evaluated.
Voting guidelines wrote:
Amount of work:
if amount of work is not a criteria then why is it listed on voting guidelines as such
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Memory wrote:
Here's the thing: I don't find what TASes that "make good and frequent use of the essence of a TAS" useful information to know.
So you want to enforce your own personal opinion of what is useful for you on others?
Memory wrote:
If you want to learn ideas on how to improve your TASing... You should be watching every movie regardless of technical score.
Well, it's important to learn what's not good too in order to avoid it. I wouldn't say everything, just enough of a sampling to get an idea both ways.
Memory wrote:
By your method, a TAS with all of the traditional techniques and stuff would get a high rating.
With my method, any TAS which makes use of several techniques, be they traditional or not get a high rating. Movies which use fewer techniques be they traditional or not get a low rating.
Memory wrote:
A movie without these traditional techniques but with a couple unique ones might get a low score
Score overall is decided by how everyone feels about it, not just my own personal preferences.
Memory wrote:
but still be equally valuable if not even more valuable to watch and learn from. Therefore, the score does not help.
I don't follow this conclusion. If people are rating on a global scale, and counting amount of techniques used in the run and how expertly it was made, then you end up with a score that becomes informative. If people just make up numbers that have no global bearing, then yes, in that case it wouldn't help.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
