Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
GenericMadScientist wrote:
My example is Yu-Gi-Oh! Forbidden Memories for the PS1. There's a video of someone performing the disc swap at https://youtu.be/ltwvh_yZbGk. It's not in English so I'll explain. You swap out the disc and put in another one before the end of the duel, and when the game tries to load your drop it bugs out and gives you the 'drop' 000. When this happens, the game takes the bottom card in your deck in the pre-duel menu and morphs it into the card with an ID 256 greater.
This can be used to obtain cards that are otherwise unobtainable, e.g. Blue-Eyes Ultimate Dragon, the most powerful card in the game. This would probably speed up the Any% TAS, and would allow you to use said card in an NG+ TAS on the NTSC-U version. It can also give you glitch cards with an ID above 722 (the maximum ID of a normal card), and some of these are very powerful.
Sounds like you need a blank disk image as a part of the multi-disc xml, correct? Does this even work in the emulator?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Samtastic wrote:
I have a question regarding BIOS options for Abe games. When me and Dooty made the original runs, they were done using SCPH1001.bin which gave us the best sync options for the game. Lately I have been in contact with ViGadeomes and he says my Maximum Casualties update I'm working on this year works better with the SCPH1001 oriiginal BIOS. Now, Ultrastars3000 told me that SCPH7003 is a Japanese BIOS and the original USA PS1 console was SCPH1001.
I tried reading this once again, and it makes no sense. You were using 1001. You were told that 1001 works better than 1001. Then you were told that 7003 is Japanese, and 1001 is American. And?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
Okay, how would you like to improve it?
The only thing that would let us use rating anyhow is a way to create movie lists based on rating. All you can do right now is simply sorting the list you already have, and there's no reason to expect your list is lucky enough to relate to tech top in any way. Right now you can use several movie tokens to create lists, and none of them inherently outputs tech top.
The closest you can get is http://tasvideos.org/Movies-Popular.html but that uses combined rating above 8. You can not pick which rating you want to be above 8, and you can not pick a different cutoff. So you end up with a list of 270 movies that take annoying time to load, and then you have to manually edit the link to sort them by rating, because the Filter module doesn't have an option to only show Popular. Like, if you just get to the Popular list and then use the Filter to sort by some rating, you'll get a list of a few thousand movies instead: Popular token will be lost.
If we had tokens allowing to show only movies with tech or entertaining rating above X, then both could be used in all sorts of creative ways. Lack of this custom cutoff for entertainment rating is compensated by our promotion based movie system: Newcomer-rec > Stars > Moons > Vault > Gluefood Delight. It's easy to find an already limited list of entertaining movies. It's hard to find such a list for technical movies. I described here how hard it is to obtain info about our most technical movies.
Nach wrote:
My statement on the matter is that while there is some actual link in what occurs between entertaining and technical because one often fuels the other, the actual link in results is of a temporal nature.
You can show me all the lists you want, that does absolutely nothing to debunk my claim of the rating link being of a temporal nature. If you want to debunk my claim, you must show that there is a causal link between the two which cannot be broken. Anything else is arguing in the wrong arena.
BTW, before I get too far with this, please explain me on an idiot-proof a rubber duck level why the link here is temporal. Maybe if I see how you learned this, I can learn this myself and we'll be able to skip some unnecessary part of this talk.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
GenericMadScientist wrote:
Say a game doesn't have support for any disc swapping, but disc swapping bugs the game out and lets you get otherwise unobtainable items. Would it be allowed to:
1. Use this to set up a NG+ save?
2. Use this in an Any% TAS?
Do you have an example?
Samtastic wrote:
I have a question regarding BIOS options for Abe games. When me and Dooty made the original runs, they were done using SCPH1001.bin which gave us the best sync options for the game. Lately I have been in contact with ViGadeomes and he says my Maximum Casualties update I'm working on this year works better with the SCPH1001 oriiginal BIOS. Now, Ultrastars3000 told me that SCPH7003 is a Japanese BIOS and the original USA PS1 console was SCPH1001.
I feel like maybe it's to do with the games themselves. If you play them on a different BIOS, you will get different sync results? Well, I am making a 100% Exoddus TAS Update on the original BIOS which will make things easier to sync against the 2014 run. There are plenty of new tricks to see in later places like Mudanchee and the Zulags.
I don't understand what you're asking.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
My statement on the matter is that while there is some actual link in what occurs between entertaining and technical because one often fuels the other, the actual link in results is of a temporal nature.
You can show me all the lists you want, that does absolutely nothing to debunk my claim of the rating link being of a temporal nature. If you want to debunk my claim, you must show that there is a causal link between the two which cannot be broken. Anything else is arguing in the wrong arena.
My plan is to look at how users actually use the system, so we could talk about real problems instead of our idea of them.
But please give me an example of a statement that'd debunk your claim if it was true. Without such an example I'd have to rely on my own fantasies about this "causal link". I mean, I'm not even sure what kind of information I need to provide here.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
I don't understand.
If a user wants to find top tech for NES movies, they can. I don't see what's missing.
It is too hard to use, this is what I'm saying. I went as far as to say that it's "impossible to sensibly use", partially because of how hard it is.
Nach wrote:
Your suggested method for looking into this only serves to perpetuate the falsehood.
What you see today changes tomorrow.
Picking data for the experiment means you misunderstand the issue at hand. It's not about data, it's about the system itself.
My point was about how the system is being used, and how usable tech rating is. Saying that tech top list will in future significantly diverge from top entertainment is yet another claim that can't be checked. I say that these top lists will remain very similar forever. Because of how people use tech rating (I'll still get to this).
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.
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.
Yes, I know that we can sort by rating and create such links. But to make this option usable for tech top, one has to find movie lists that are already small enough. Using huge movie lists in order to check the tech top takes too much time and site resources. Using smaller lists implies that the user already looks for something very specific, so sorting by tech rating doesn't change the result too much.
You see, the site uses the tier system that's based on entertainment, we promote Moons over Vault, Stars over Moons, Newcomer-rec over Stars. These serve as means to shrink the movie lists, so they can be observed with little hassle.
There's nothing similar on the site to make using the tech top nearly as easy. But even if there is, we return to my point that the tops are almost the same anyway.
Nach wrote:
Nothing agrees with your point because you have two unrelated things which are constantly shifting.
I posted a statement that you declared false. We can only check if it's true or false using actual data it was talking about: movie lists sorted by tech and by entertainment. If they are mostly the same, my statement is correct. If they are significantly different, my statement is wrong. I asked you which data should I pick for an actual experiment. You simply declared that it's impossible for my point to be correct. Therefore you don't seem to want reality to be checked. In that sense, your claim about my statement is unrefutable. Do I need to explain what that means for this talk?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
I don't understand how you're waiting for an answer when I already provided.
Quote? How exactly do I make use of the information about technical top?
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
Because all the top entertaining movies are also top technical.
I've mentioned this a few times already. This statement is false.
OK, so you want me to come up with actual lists and compare them. Which movie groups would make you agree with my point?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
The only thing I've really been hearing from you that it's impossible to give with the criteria you defined or use in the limited way you consider personally using it.
I asked you how to use it, and I'm still waiting for the answer. As for giving, I'll look at other criteria mentioned on the page and examine them in my next post.
Nach wrote:
As for your three points, I don't know what 1 means. I don't find how it's misleading just because it's nearly entirely subjective. All ratings anywhere provided by human beings is subjective at least to some extent. Whether people rate properly or not, be that tech or entertainment is also a general issue that applies everywhere. Humans aren't perfect. So what?
1 means the site doesn't let you easily obtain the information about top tech movies exclusively. This info is your argument for having tech ratings in the first place.
And it's misleading, because people rate based on their idea of the questions asked, not based on the actual questions. I'll get to that.
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
You questioned the probability of being entertained by the most entertaining movies on our site, but you skipped the question about what a user is more likely to watch.
I don't know what you mean by this. At this point in the exchange, I'm not even sure if we're speaking about the same topic.
I already repeated this point several times. When someone's goal is learning TAS-only techniques, they would rather watch movies that are entertaining and technical, rather than movies that are only technical. Therefore, only having a list of the most entertaining movies is enough for that purpose. Because all the top entertaining movies are also top technical.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
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?
I'm saying that tech rating is impossible to properly give on the scale of the whole community, and it's impossible to sensibly use, because
1) the site is not designed for that,
2) it's inherently misleading due to being mostly subjective, as you already said, and also
3) a user will most likely just pick a high tech run that's also entertaining, and disregard the one that's only high tech.
Nach wrote:
The list may or may not be the same.
I can go and check once again, for any group of movies you want. It is mostly the same.
Nach wrote:
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?
You questioned the probability of being entertained by the most entertaining movies on our site, but you skipped the question about what a user is more likely to watch.
Nach wrote:
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?
I never said that entertainment rating is useless. And the tech rating's uselessness is addressed at the top of this post.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Memory wrote:
Nach wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
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.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
People please give me direct links (now and in future) with timestamps so I could instantly download the relevant segments we want to have on TVC!
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
I'd rather suggest publishing reencodes with some code-wise delay/timeout. For example, TVC logic could track the reencodes recently published, and only allow one per day for example. You can send it a command to publish 100, and it'd proceed them one at a time instead.
Pro: can't be abused even if we wanted.
Con: requires logic to be written, which might be tricky.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Nach wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
Setting the level to anything at all for this mode doesn't break movie sync. However setting it to 99 in any level will reset it to 0 upon completion of that level.
I'm trying to find any trace of increasing difficulty after this movie ends, and so far there's none.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
TASeditor wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
This game has a clear and obvious way to skip to the last level, which can also be seen not as gameplay level, but as difficulty level.
The game allows you to rescue the princess even if you haven't played the previous levels, so avoiding them is just a matter of choice.
Since playing through all the levels rewards the player with letters of a certain word, this looks like a good definition of full completion for this game, whoever feels like making it.
This run though, looks pretty acceptable to me. Memory?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
DrD2k9 wrote:
Consistently submitting runs with lots of blank frames may get you limited in your ability to submit.
Wrong. We only disable submission privilege when the author consistently breaks basic movie rules. Ending your movie at the right time is easy to learn when you are already aware of other rules.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
I don't think there's any way to define full completion for this game that'd be officially grounded (in-game rewards, game manual encouraging it, etc). So simply beating all the tracks as fast as possible, while also doing all the needed stuff to upgrade your bike, looks like the only other category for this game.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11302
Location: RU
We can look at this run from the perspective of this movie:
[802] SNES Biker Mice from Mars "final round" by Baxter in 05:12.62
It uses a password to fully upgrade the bike and to skip to the final round at the highest difficulty. It was accepted because it was very entertaining. And it was not a vaultable branch (not any% or full completion).
We have this rule:
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#WeAllowPlayingUnlockableContentUsingInGamePasswords
So in principle, it's allowed to unlock hidden stuff with cheats or passwords, it just also has to be entertaining enough for Moons as a side branch, Demonstration kind of goal in the case of this run and Biker Mice.
But playing only the first level is not allowed anymore:
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#MovieMustBeComplete
So from all of the above, I conclude that if you use a password to deliver you to level 5 with this same hidden bike, and you make the movie really entertaining (I haven't watched this one yet), it would be your best chance to get published.
Whether this bike provides for entertaining gameplay we'll find out with this submission. If it does, I think you'd only need to reapply the same ideas to a run of level 5 (increasing the difficulty in any available way, while also keeping the most upgraded bike).
Otherwise, an optimized run with no passwords that just plays through all the levels would be acceptable regardless of how entertaining or boring it will be, since that would be an any% category, therefore vaultable.
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.
