Posting here because last time I complained in an existing topic, everyone went "blah blah blah make a new topic, all you do is complain".
The new Mega Man movie has "Ignores semi-important goals" as a category. The guess so far is that this is because it skips all six boss re-fights. (Note that the previous version skipped the first two boss re-fights, but did not have this tag.)
Why it's on the Mega Man run is completely beyond me, because this is using a different method to get through the same part of the game, and ultimately advance beyond enemies in the middle of the level one way or another. Plus, two bosses were skipped previously, why not have the tag then? Umihara's run skips bosses, why not have the tag there?
Other movies that have this tag include a bunch of Sonic games, Chrono Trigger/Final Fantasy 3, SMW2, glitched Zelda, ALttP & LA, and other games which I'm not too familiar with.
Now, if SMW2 has it, then why not the any% DKC games, or any%/low% Metroid games? If Zelda glitched, why not Zelda 2 glitched, OoT, Rygar glitched, Wizards & Warriors return-to-level-1, etc.?
Why? Because it's a category that isn't needed. It seems to be a placeholder for "not the best ending", or "skips part of the game", based on the game's it's currently on, but as you can see, it's just sprinkled occasionally, causing inconsistency and possible confusion.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
I would agree that the tag is inconsistent, but it does play a certain role.
Postulate: "Ignores semi-important goals" should only be used when a run skips pivotal and necessary portions of the game, not just skipping over a level. In this instance
Final Fantasy 3 does not skip any mandatory scenes, despite the fact that it does generally avoid the majority of the WOR. Therefore, not tagged.
Super Mario World 11-exit does not skip mandatory portions of the game. Not tagged.
Megaman skips the boss refights, but I personally don't find this portion of the game to be pivotal in any sense: it is just an obstacle wherein you can tinker with new techniques and items against bosses. Not tagged.
Shortglitch versions of ALttP and LA both use a major glitch to skip important and otherwise mandatory portions of the game. These portions of the game have necessary items that would be considered 'entrance goals', whereas completing these portions would be considered 'completion goals'. By skipping the areas, you skip the goals, boom.
Etc. etc. I forgot where I was going with this. However, I do think that we need to have a fairly thorough debate on whether or not Werewolf does these things.
iirc, the tag was created when the first Dragon Warrior TAS skipped saving the princess. Which is considered semi-important, but very, very possible to complete the game without doing (ie not mandatory.)
Its usage has since been... muddled. But that's the beginning of the tag....
Carry on.
Build a man a fire, warm him for a day,
Set a man on fire, warm him for the rest of his life.
Joined: 3/13/2004
Posts: 1118
Location: Kansai, JAPAN
I would agree that the Mega Man run probably does not warrant that tag, as the only "significant" goals are defeating the six Robot Masters and then Wily. If the run somehow skipped an entire stage or the Magnet Beam, then I would apply it since those are supposed requisites for completing the game. Skipping the second round of Robot Masters doesn't count in my mind (not that it wasn't impressive).
I'll remove it from Mega Man.
Quoting myself at http://tasvideos.org/forum/p/100196#100196…
> By "semi-important goals" I'm usually referring to quests that are normally
> done in the playing, that are considered part of the game's plot. They don't
> need to be mandatory or optional.
> Maybe that tag doesn't belong to this movie... Hmm.
Focus on the "considered part of the game's plot". I.e. an event, which could be referred to as a fact, if a sequel was made.
I'll add it in Wizards&Warriors as well, since you could consider that saving the five (?) damsels is at the core of the plot. Leaving them there to rot, and saving another damsel twice, is not how the game is supposed to end, although the grand goal is in killing the evil wizard.
Ps: If you haven't noticed, there are many other categories that are used inconsistently. In fact, nearly all of them are probably inconsistent and incomplete. The genres especially.
This used to be warned about at http://tasvideos.org/MovieSearch.html (category search).
Consistencifying them is the editorspublishers' job :P
(The reason it's not the editors' job is because there are quite many editors and the site provides no means to track changes in the categories; it's too easy to insert errors there (even inadvertedly) and nobody to notice it. A changelog feature in them would allow reopening it to editors.)
>A changelog feature in them would allow reopening it to editors.
That would be nice, since a lot of movies have gone mis- or un-labeled after the amount of possible taggers went from 46 to 6. If the aim was to decrease the number of mislabeled movies, the effect has essentially been opposite.
About the category "Ignores semi-important goals", the description given by comicalflop describes my opinion very well:
"goals in the game that are optional yet recommended"
Prime example is Wrath of the Black Manta, which skips both interrogating the red enemies and saving all the kids trapped in ice (but still gets the best ending). Another good one is Cobra Triangle, which lets the poor swimmers die because they take time tallying after the level. Or Ecco, ignoring all the trapped dophins. Bohoo.
Since almost every movie here tries to skip as much as possible, I wouldn't mind too much if the category was scrapped.
I'll remove that category. I'll consider about the tagging thing.
EDIT: I have reopened the category changing to editors.
Here's the permission chart of the site as of now:
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
| |nobody|anyone|editor|judge|publisher|halfpublisher|admin|
| | (1) |(530) | (38) | (2) | (5) | (0) | (1) |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|view_submissions |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_submissions |N; N |N; Y |N; Y |Y; Y |Y; Y |N; Y |Y; Y |
|(all; self-submitted)| | | | | | | |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|submitting_movies |N |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_pages |N; N |N; Y |Y; Y |Y; Y |Y; Y |Y; Y |Y; Y |
|(all; homepage) | | | | | | | |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_deletedpages |N; N |N; N |N; N |N; N |N; N |N; N |Y; Y |
|(all; homepage) | | | | | | | |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_moviehdrs |N |N |N |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_movietext |N |N |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_moviecats |N |N |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_moviefiles |N |N |Y |Y |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|publishing_movies |N |N |N |N |Y |Y |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|judging_movies |N |N |N |Y |Y |N |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|editing_page_history |N |N |N |N |Y |N |Y |
|---------------------+------+------+------+-----+---------+-------------+-----|
|edit_recommendation |N |N |N |N |N |N |Y |
+------------------------------------------------------------------------------+
The one "nobody" is NesVideoAgent in case you're wondering. And lurkers are "nobody", too.
Changes in files and categories are now logged to the database. I'll add a tool for tracking those changes later.
I don't think "ignores semi-important goals" needs to be removed so much as it needs to be given a clear definition, which is then applied with consistency.
I always thought that it was a category for runs which ignore game goals that Have bearing on the plot, or convey an advantage to the player, but aren't necessary for completing the game (for instance, collecting emeralds in the Sonic games, collecting hearts in Zelda games, getting mushrooms in super mario), but that it was not a category for generalized sequence breaks (for instance: skipping bosses in Megaman/Rockman games).
Although, to be honest, the category should probably be "completes semi-important goals", because ignoring those goals is generally normal and can be assumed to happen unless otherwise stated.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Something seems to be wrong with the link for editing anything about movies. Right now the link says "Edit text" and prompts to create a new page titled with the movie number.
I often feel that these categories are granted for the videos too lightly anyways, and it's not only this "ignores semi-important goals" but also others (such as "abuses programming errors" and "manipulates luck"). I often feel that it's enough for the submitter to give a list of categories he would like the video to have, and these are more or less automatically given to it.
IMO these categories should be given to videos where the effect is very *significant*. Basically *all* videos "manipulate luck", but that doesn't mean that all of them should be categorized with that tag. Only videos where luck manipulation is extremely obvious, significant and saves considerable time (eg. heart-collecting in castlevania2) deserve the tag. The same goes for glitch abuse.
Or perhaps there could be more precise categories such as "manipulates luck slightly", "heavily manipulates luck", "abuses some minor programming errors" and "heavy abuse of programming errors". There could also be categories like "skips important but non-mandatory goals" and "skips mandatory goals".
Another category idea: "Skips significant portions of the main route."
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
I agree with you on the luck manipulation thing. I have been generous with that label in defining my own movies in the past because I interpreted it as just any kind of luck manipulation. Rather than that it should be reserved for significant manipulation such as critical hits, drops, tetris blocks, and other significant things and not for boss patterns, enemies appearing in a particular place or other minor issues.
If someone could find a more eloquent way of saying "Skips significant portions of the main route." I would agree with that category as well. This is what I thought "ignores semi-important goals" meant originally. I think it should be reserved for things that are supposed to be manatory in normal play but are skipped by using glitches or perfect reflexes (such as the 1-item metroid run or the any% rygar run).
>I often feel that it's enough for the submitter to give a list of categories he would like the video to have, and these are more or less automatically given to it.
This is practical and saves us a good deal of time. The suggested categories aren't always applied though.
We (me and Warp) have been over the luck manipulation thing before (I don't feel like digging up the topic), I still think that it will be a huge amount of pointless debate about what movie deserves what category, if this movie doesn't manipulate more than than movie, what counts as significant luck manipulation, etc. Just look at how much debate there has been about which movies should have a star.
It's essentially the same for splitting it into major/minor categories. What do you judge it on? How hard it was to accomplish or how small the chance was? How much time you actually saved by manipulating luck? How impressive it looks? "Why doesn't my movie get the major tag, I manipulated luck a lot :( "
The easiest thing is to apply the category for every movie that manipulates luck (or uses glitches), no matter how minor, and leave the rest to the description. I think our viewers have no problem identifying Monopoly as a movie which manipulates luck more than the others, as it is now.
Only videos where luck manipulation is extremely obvious, significant and saves considerable time (eg. heart-collecting in castlevania2) deserve the tag.
What if you're not familiar with the game, so you think all the enemies dropping hearts is normal? What if it's a game that hardly anyone's familiar with?
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
We (me and Warp) have been over the luck manipulation thing before (I don't feel like digging up the topic), I still think that it will be a huge amount of pointless debate about what movie deserves what category, if this movie doesn't manipulate more than than movie, what counts as significant luck manipulation, etc. Just look at how much debate there has been about which movies should have a star.
I'm not saying there should be a strict judging process and a 10-page list of requirements which have to be fulfilled. I'm just saying that the person who grants these categories should give it a bit more of thought and be ready to argument why he gave it the category. Also the submitter should, IMO, give good reasons why the video deserves certain (non-obvious) categories. Just giving a list of desired categories is not enough.
Perhaps also the community could participate: Induce somehow the viewers to comment if they disagree with a certain category. If someone protests, then the video could be reviewed more carefully. (No, I don't have any good idea right now how to induce the community to participate... :) )
It's essentially the same for splitting it into major/minor categories. What do you judge it on? How hard it was to accomplish or how small the chance was? How much time you actually saved by manipulating luck? How impressive it looks? "Why doesn't my movie get the major tag, I manipulated luck a lot :( "
The submitter should propose a category and give his reasons why it deserves that category (minor or major or whatever). If it's rather obvious that the reasons are valid, then there's no problem. If the admin cannot see the connection he could give a lesser or no category and ask for more details. The community could also be consulted on opinions.
It doesn't have to be a strict process. It can be quite relaxed. However, I think that just a bit of work can make the categorization a lot more valuable and informative.
The easiest thing is to apply the category for every movie that manipulates luck (or uses glitches), no matter how minor, and leave the rest to the description.
That may be the easiest way, but it renders the category obsolete. The category doesn't tell anything informative and is useless. Why have the category at all?
When I am watching a "manipulates luck" video, I expect it to be something very remarkable. If the category is given randomly to anyone who asks for it, then it just loses its meaning and value. It would be the same as if the category didn't exist at all because it doesn't tell anything.
Bag of Magic Food wrote:
What if you're not familiar with the game, so you think all the enemies dropping hearts is normal? What if it's a game that hardly anyone's familiar with?
The submitter should describe how he manipulated luck, what it effects are and how much he thinks it saves time, plus any other possible reasons why the video deserves the category. If it sounds concincing then the category can be granted. The community can protest if someone thinks that the reasons are not valid, in which case the video could be reviewed in more detail. (I don't think it would ever go that far, though. After all, most people here are honest.)
>Also the submitter should, IMO, give good reasons why the video deserves certain (non-obvious) categories. Just giving a list of desired categories is not enough.
This is mostly already in effect. People usually list how they manipulated luck or which glitches they abused.
>That may be the easiest way, but it renders the category obsolete. The category doesn't tell anything informative and is useless. Why have the category at all?
I disagree. Out of 360 movies, we have 150 movies with the luck tag, and 150 movies with the bug tag (they are not the same movies). Since nowhere near all (or even half) of the movies have that tag, I think it conveys something meaningful that separates these movies from the others.
Splitting it into major/minor could convey more useful information, but I somewhat doubt that the effort and arguments that will follow are worth the extra usability.
I've been thinking about ways to rearrange, rename and remove some categories, but perhaps this topic isn't the place for it. I will start a new one if I get something presentable together.
I was thinking that, for "ignores semi-important goals", it could be split into 2 categories: "has sequence breaks", for things like the Megaman movie's skipping of the boss refights and other mandatory stuff, and the old "ignores semi-important goals", such as not collecting a map that tells you where a treasure is buried but isn't necessary to actually dig up/obtain the treasure. (In this case, you could simply dig EVERYWHERE until you find the treasure.)
The problem is defining the meaning of "semi-important goal". Does it mean "something which you would have to do if you were playing the game for the first time and had no previous knowledge about it, but you could skip it if you knew it already"? Or perhaps "a goal which *technically* isn't necessary, but without it it would be quite difficult to beat the game in normal playing"? Or does it mean "a goal which the makers intended to be mandatory but which actually can be skipped (ab)using a design/programming oversight, and skipping it does not cause the game to become unbeatable" (a game may become unbeatable if you eg. don't collect a mandatory item)?
Perhaps more shortly: Does it mean "optional goal, even in regular gameplay", or "game developers intended for it to be mandatory, but it can be skipped by bug abuse, yet the game is still beatable"?
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Using Magish' example, you could make a divergent meaning of the term.
"Sequence breaks" are acts of skipping things that were programmed to be mandatory. Example: skipping Spore Spawn via early super missiles in Super Metroid.
"Skipping semi-important goals" includes skipping things that aren't mandatory, but are very very hard (near impossible) to skip through normal gameplay. Example: skipping the Gravity/Varia Suit and still playing through Maridia/Norfair in Super Metroid.
