I think that this is a good moment to bring up once again a relatively old idea which never caught on at the time (well, in none of the more than one times when it has been suggested):
How about creating a more separate "concept demos" section of the website where alternative versions of runs, funny videos, playarounds and other such tool-assisted runs not completely suitable for main tasvideos publications could be put? Runs like this one could well go to that separate section. This way the hard work put into this run would not go completely to waste.
Just bringing up an old idea...
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RT-55J wrote:
Nach wrote:
Someone register tasmetroidvideos.org for us, and we'll post all the Metroid runs for all categrories.
Even a 50% Draygon->Kraid->Ridley->Phantoon run? Sign me up! :3
Why that order?
I think I would prefer Ridley->Draygon->Phantoon->Kraid even more.
----
Okay, I've had a chance to sleep on thinking about the Super Metroid topic and too many submissions and categories and all that.
I think each game which has items and levels and whatever deserves two publishable categories, fastest, and full. Currently, some of our full runs are a bit random on what full means though.
In Super Metroid, our fastest run is the 6% one, it obsoletes everything, including any%. The other run is of course the 100% item run (while I'd love to see a 100% maps run, we seem to be looking at all items to be the definition of full for this game).
We broke this rule by having published an any% run which doesn't use SRAM corruption glitch. It's not the fastest, it's just showing off the fastest route in the game without SRAM corruption. I think we should move that run to our concept demos section.
This run by the same token is also not the fastest, and even slower than our other should be concept demo. This takes a different concept of not just using SRAM corruption, but also using the least amount of items besides that. I would rather us host entertaining videos here than having a spin off site. Thus I think we can make room for another Super Metroid demo with a clearly defined category of no SRAM corruption and minimal items.
We should also look to move other runs to the concept demo category.
----
Warp wrote:
I think that this is a good moment to bring up once again a relatively old idea which never caught on at the time (well, in none of the more than one times when it has been suggested):
How about creating a more separate "concept demos" section of the website where alternative versions of runs, funny videos, playarounds and other such tool-assisted runs not completely suitable for main tasvideos publications could be put? Runs like this one could well go to that separate section. This way the hard work put into this run would not go completely to waste.
Just bringing up an old idea...
I agree with this.
I think we break up the other category into 3 separate categories.
1) Hacks
2) Playarounds
3) Alternate Objectives
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.
We broke this rule by having published an any% run which doesn't use SRAM corruption glitch. It's not the fastest, it's just showing off the fastest route in the game without SRAM corruption. I think we should move that run to our concept demos section.
I have to vote against that suggestion.
In my opinion SRAM corruption is "too much" of a glitch, destroys the whole game and makes the end result extremely chaotic in most games where it's exploited. Granted, Super Metroid may be the game which suffers the least (in terms of chaotic results) by SRAM corruption, but it nevertheless results in, I dare to say, a slightly less interesting run. Other games suffer a lot more from abusing this bug, which makes them ending up being completely random and chaotic (I'm looking at you, pokemon).
Of course SRAM corruption should be allowed as a technique where applicable (because exploiting bugs is one of the core ideas of TASing), but in my opinion a non-SRAM-corrupting run of each game should be allowed, when it makes sense and results in an enjoyable run.
I vote for officially allowing three different categories on each game, where suitable:
1) Anything goes (including SRAM corruption).
2) Fastest without abusing SRAM corruption.
3) Fastest 100% completion.
But of course, as said, only when it makes sense. Super Metroid is, IMO, such a case.
Why? Because #2 is often more enjoyable than #1 (which is often more a curiosity than an entertaining movie), without being so overly long as #3.
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
Nach wrote:
RT-55J wrote:
Even a 50% Draygon->Kraid->Ridley->Phantoon run? Sign me up! :3
Why that order?
It's the closest I've ever come to doing an RBO on a console. >_>
And I was just trying to think of the most arbitrary goals possible.
Warp wrote:
I vote for officially allowing three different categories on each game, where suitable:
1) Anything goes (including SRAM corruption).
2) Fastest without abusing SRAM corruption.
3) Fastest 100% completion.
We've been doing this for quite a while, except with "major glitching" instead of "SRAM corruption" (which counts as a major glitch).
Also, we should keep in mind that many games have goals that don't fall into these categories, but make sense in the context of the game. Take for instance, games with multiple characters, such as Castlevania 3, SMB2j, and Rockman & Forte.
But, yeah, we could stick those in the "Concept Demos" section, if we ever get around to properly using it.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
RT-55J wrote:
We've been doing this for quite a while, except with "major glitching" instead of "SRAM corruption" (which counts as a major glitch).
SRAM corruption isn't really a major glitch.
You can't blame the programmers for not making the game fault tolerant enough to withstand power outages. In fact in this case, you're forcing the power outage.
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.
We've been doing this for quite a while, except with "major glitching" instead of "SRAM corruption" (which counts as a major glitch).
SRAM corruption isn't really a major glitch.
You can't blame the programmers for not making the game fault tolerant enough to withstand power outages. In fact in this case, you're forcing the power outage.
You have a good point, and I think that's precisely what sets SRAM corruption apart from other forms of glitching, and why IMO it should be considered a category on its own right. SRAM corruption doesn't abuse any feature of the game itself per se, but a feature of the console hardware (ie. how it behaves if you press the reset button at a precise moment).
In fact, SRAM corruption is, in a way, so detached from the game itself, that personally I find it a bit dubious as a technique. You might as well emulate what happens to a game if you smash the console with a sledgehammer. Maybe if the emulator could emulate it well enough, something interesting might happen. But that would really be going beyond what TASing should be about.
That's the reason why I have the strong opinion that SRAM corruption runs should not obsolete other more "legit" (for the lack of a better word) types of run. (In fact, personally I wouldn't mind if SRAM corruption would be banned altogether.)
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I am heavily against moving the current "any %" run to the concept demo section, however I would not be opposed to opening up the Concept/demo section to serve as a catch-all area for well-done runs which people find entertaining, but do not fit into the general scheme of things well. And yes, that could possibly include Saturns other low% run. We already accept play-arounds, and as long as the option of accepting additional movies does not compromise the overall quality of content on the site, I can't see how it could be a bad thing.
EDIT:Although, if we are going to be further discussing and making changes to the site, perhaps these responses should be shunted into a new thread, so that this submission is not further derailed.
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
Nach wrote:
SRAM corruption isn't really a major glitch.
You can't blame the programmers for not making the game fault tolerant enough to withstand power outages. In fact in this case, you're forcing the power outage.
I know the actual corruption isn't a glitch, but game's acceptance the faulty SRAM is. Most games since the frickin' password era have used checksums to determine if saved data is legit, so having the checksum bypassable (Chrono Trigger) or not there at all (Pokemon (?)) can be considered a programming oversight.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Although, if we are going to be further discussing and making changes to the site, perhaps these responses should be shunted into a new thread, so that this submission is not further derailed.
Done.
I also think I'm going to look for all discussions about TASVideos.org development soon, and index them all in a sticky thread (kind of like here).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
...I would not be opposed to opening up the Concept/demo section to serve as a catch-all area for well-done runs which people find entertaining, but do not fit into the general scheme of things well. And yes, that could possibly include Saturns other low% run. We already accept play-arounds, and as long as the option of accepting additional movies does not compromise the overall quality of content on the site, I can't see how it could be a bad thing.
I think this is an excellent idea. A lot of the runs that get rejected for reasons other than being poorly done should be made available to viewers, or future TASers, as they sometimes contain useful insights or strategies that aren't in the published runs.
Since there are a lot of SM runs, it would make sense that these "demos" would be linked to the published run as well, so that someone looking specifically for SM runs could see ALL SM runs together.
Why don't we branch the current voting structure so that you can either vote for a video for publication under "main", or under "demo". It might even make sense to remove the "meh" option and replace that with a "demo" option. Meh votes really don't mean anything, but a demo vote would indicate that people like the video, but don't think it should replace anything that's currently published.
Just my two cents ;)
I think this is an excellent idea. A lot of the runs that get rejected for reasons other than being poorly done should be made available to viewers, or future TASers, as they sometimes contain useful insights or strategies that aren't in the published runs.
If/when the concept demos section of the site is implemented, maybe there should be another poll about which currently rejected submissions should be resurrected into the concept demos section, similar to that recent similar poll.
I like the idea but you shouldn't vote for it to be a demo, it should be posted in the demo section. If a video is in the wrong section, users will be able to comment about that fact and the video could be moved.
All runs with arbitrarily set goals to squeeze some more entertainment out of games (even if only for a limited audience) should be put into that section. But that opens a new issue and that's in which section "no major glitching" runs should be put in.
I can see why Nach considers moving the low glitch any% to the concept demos section. At first I was against it, but it seems this is the only way to have clear cut rules on what to put into which section. "Low glitch" is somewhat arbitrarily set, excluding only specific glitches also is.
I feel like it would be good to include a link on the submission pages of the heavy glitched runs to their low-glitch counter parts in the concept demo section then, especially on those with sram corruption. (as some people might not think of these as true/legit speedruns)
One thing to ponder about the concept demos section: Which rules would govern a new submission obsoleting an old one? Given that at least some of the runs will have purely aesthetic entertainment goals, how do we decide whether a new submission should replace it, be published alongside it, or rejected because "there's already a perfectly good run with these goals"?
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
All runs which are technically faster should be published, even if they're less entertaining. That's what the voting system is for, right? I don't understand why tasvideos rejects obscure/boring-looking games when there's certainly someone out there who would be fascinated by the run. I know I was looking for a SNES Bubsy TAS, a NES Back To The Future TAS, and some others I can't think of right now, but they were gruefood with no published video. It just seems ridiculous to me to throw away a movie for a game that doesn't already have a published movie. It could just have a low rating on the site. That's ok. Viewers can see the ratings.
Just imo.
All runs which are technically faster should be published, even if they're less entertaining.
I was talking about the (upcoming) concept demos section of the site, not the main section where strict TAS runs are published. The whole idea of the concept demos section would be that it would be a way to publish tool-assisted playing videos which do not conform to the rules but are otherwise enjoyable.
Maybe the Concept demos section is a wrong title ?
Maybe we could call it something like Video Vault or any better name (I know that this one sucks). But essentialy, it would be a place to publish videos that doesn't fit in the main category.
It would have the same voting system, and the question could be something like, Should this video be place in the Video Vault ? or something like that. It would be a collection of nice video without any specific goal.
I don't know if it's a good idea.
Maybe runs could be submitted to be published in either the main category or the concept demos/video vault/whatever. Maybe they could have their separate submission forums altogether. And in the main category submission forum one could vote yes/no/meh/vault material. If enough people think it's vault material, it could be transferred to the vault submission forum, where a new round of votes would ensue. Or something along those lines.
As you might have noticed (or not), I added and removed some movies from the impure category ( http://tasvideos.org/Movies-Hacks.html ). This category was also called the "concept demo category"; however the name is not actually binding, as it is actually called "movies of hacked games and other demonstrations".
For now, I have made the following changes:
- I removed the F-Zero movie. Inclusion of the F-Zero movie was presumably due to being a very specific demonstration (racing game, one level only, no game end). However, there are other movies, such as Zanac (one level only, although game end), Minesweeper (one level only, trivial game end), and movies that play one mode (too many to name, specific mode, no real ending). Their inclusion is also arguable, but there are a lot of them. Thus currently, "very specific demonstration" is not a criterion.
- I inserted all movies listed under http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C4015Y.html (movies that start from savestate or SRAM), regardless of whether it is savestate or SRAM, or verified or not. This includes Super Mario Kart and Mario Land hard mode. Before then, the inclusion of such movies was mostly inconsistent. Currently, "starts from savestate or SRAM" is a criterion. Note that currently Mega Man Xtreme and Super Mario Kart are the only unverified ones.
No other changes were made. All movies of hacks remain. All multigame movies remain. The Star Fox 2 movie, which I had originally considered included because it was unreleased, was actually included because it is considered a hack. Thus the non-inclusion of EarthBound Zero (U version), which is also unreleased, is reconciled. Of course, one can question whether it should be included anyway.
Current criteria:
- is a hack
- is a multigame movie
- starts from savestate or SRAM
This is by no means a final set of criteria (unless no one cares), so you may discuss.
- I removed the F-Zero movie. Inclusion of the F-Zero movie was presumably due to being a very specific demonstration (racing game, one level only, no game end). However, there are other movies, such as Zanac (one level only, although game end), Minesweeper (one level only, trivial game end), and movies that play one mode (too many to name, specific mode, no real ending). Their inclusion is also arguable, but there are a lot of them. Thus currently, "very specific demonstration" is not a criterion.
If a game has a well-defined ending but the TAS doesn't go there, it's IMO very unambiguously a concept demo and should be considered as such.
If a game has no well-defined ending (eg. levels just repeat over and over ad infinitum) but the author has chosen an "ending point" by some rational and well-defined criteria (which is also accepted by the community), then it could be considered a "legit" TAS.
If a game has a well-defined ending but the TAS doesn't go there, it's IMO very unambiguously a concept demo and should be considered as such.
If a game has no well-defined ending (eg. levels just repeat over and over ad infinitum) but the author has chosen an "ending point" by some rational and well-defined criteria (which is also accepted by the community), then it could be considered a "legit" TAS.
I'm currently looking at the movies that could fall under this category.
(Note: My opinion)
- F-Zero: Single track, alternate mode, status screen ending. This one is understood to be a concept demo.
- Minesweeper: Single level, main mode, simple ending. This one is not as easy because although it jumps to the last level, it is easily part of the main mode.
- Brain Age: One specific mode, status screen ending, playaround. This might be a candidate.
- Rubik's World: One specific mode, not even a real ending. This is a very likely candidate.
- Tetris Mode B: Alternate mode, simple ending. There is a main mode, which has the "best ending" at the max score.
- Tetris max score: Main mode, best ending.
- Tetris playaround: Main mode, not so best ending. Maybe a candidate.
- Tetris DX: Specific mode, simple ending. Hard to tell.
- Tetris Blast: Probably main mode, full ending. Having a full ending pretty much excludes it from consideration.
- Tetris Attack: Probably main mode, full ending. Same as above.
- Tetrisphere: Alternate mode, status screen ending. Maybe a candidate.
- Quarth: Main mode, single level. Probably not.
- Wetrix: Alternate mode, status screen ending. Maybe.
- Tetris DS: Specific mode, full ending. No.
- Dr. Mario: Main mode. Probably not.
There are other games I should look at but it takes some more movie watching.
The thing about "well-defined ending" is that it's something that has to be agreed upon. While it may be obvious for most games, for games that are basically game mode compilations, a well-defined ending may be difficult or impossible. In that case, perhaps no well-defined ending exists.
Of course, the author can just set own ending. However, is that ending really defendable? The author could set the ending to the end of any desired game mode, or after a single track, or after a few levels.
What about splitting the Movies-Hacks page into several pages, such as Movies-Hacks (hacked games only), Movies-Unreleased (unreleased games), Movies-Demos (very specific concept/demonstration), Movies-Impure (starts from savestate or SRAM) and so on?
However, a movie could fall into more than one such category. So, it might be a good idea to allow publications in more than one movie category (including their console/platform categories).
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
