Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Baxter wrote:
Why does it say "uses hardest difficulty"? How is this difficulty particularly used? Was there something wrong with the old "plays at hardest difficulty?
I wanted to avoid the word play in these classes. I think the act of the author "playing" these movies is a bit misleading (much more now then even in the past). is "uses" really that confusing? How about the word "Selects"?
Cool! :-)
Incidentally, re-reading through the category descriptions, the following thoughts popped into my mind and seemed worth sharing:
'Aims for maximum score'
'Maximum kills'
Why does one contain the phrase 'aims for' and the other not? Either way seems fine but to have both seems inconsistent.
I'll echo Warp's sentiment that having 'Maximum kills' and 'Pacifist version' seems inconsistent. Is there a reason for the asymmetric names?
Non-fastest completion goals/categories
The two headings seem at times blurry. Why is 'Maximum kills' a goal and 'Pacifist version' a category? Both seem likely to include completion time as a secondary goal.
I'm just some random guy. Don't let my words get you riled - I have my opinions but they're only mine.
It obviously depends on the game, and in some games (like tetris) the score really is maxed out. In this case, "maxium score" would indeed be suitable. In the Wetrix movie however, the goal is to reach as much points as possible, and the score isn't maxed out... to just say "maxium score" would be like saying the movie is perfect. This is why I think it would be good to change "maximum kills" to "aims for maxium kills", and not changing "aims for maximum score".
I agree that for Pacifist "aims for minimal kills" is more consistent.
What about a "maximum/extra levels" tag (opposite to "single level") for movies like these:
http://tasvideos.org/176M.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/561M.html *
http://tasvideos.org/1334M.html
This tag should only be applied to movies that play optional levels not required to complete a game.
Not equal to "Forgoes warps".
* Such a movie may instead deserve a "full/all levels" tag, though.
<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
I'd like to nominate Widget for heavy glitch abuse.
(It also could use a stream that plays faster than 25 fps so the glitches could be made out better, but I don't know how to help with that)
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
CtrlAltDestroy wrote:
I'd like to nominate Widget for heavy glitch abuse.
Nominate my ass! If anything should have this tag it is this game. The whole game is a glitch. I added the tag (which is clearly an oversight). Also, this should have been mentioned in the thread.
I had a thought just now. Since the "heavy glitch abuse" category is admittedly still a little arbitrary, why don't we try to divide it into more specific things, such as the "Uses save corruption" category?
Here are some ideas:
Travels out of bounds: Some of the gameplay takes place outside of defined level boundaries. This doesn't count if the player manages to clip through a wall into another room, or if they manage to stand on top of the ceiling. It only counts if the player accesses rooms or level data that do not exist, causing the game to load "secret worlds".
Examples: SMB -3 Stage Ending, Glitched Metroid II, Mega Man
Uses Zipping: The movie regularly uses an alternate movement technique that is significantly faster than any intended movement technique. Zipping is usually caused by abusing clipping or unconventional input such as L+R. Wobbling does not count as zipping.
Examples: Mega Man, Glitched Zelda II, Battle of Olympus
I think, if we had just a couple of these categories, it would cover all of the "Heavy glitch abuse" criteria. It would be interesting to view lists of movies in these specific categories.
I've always thought of heavy glitch abuse as meaning "abuses programming errors to skip significant portions of the game." So, for instance, the current run of Earthbound, the Chrono Trigger Run run, the glitched Zelda II and Zelda alttp runs, etc. In that sense, "heavy glitch abuse" is really just another term for "warp." I think that a label reflecting this would make far more sense than an ambiguous term like "heavy glitch abuse."
Thus, I think there simply needs to be more to distinguish between different kinds of warps:
1) Teleportation: Things like teleport spells and junction points full of portals. These need no special mention because they're taken for granted.
2) Warps: Things like the warp pipes and and whistles in Super Mario Bros. ie. Hidden though intentional features that allow the player to skip significant portions of the game. This (or its negative) definitely needs a category.
3) Restart Sequences: Self explanatory. Perhaps these (or the negative) should have a category, although I don't see why you wouldn't use it if it would save time.
4) Save Corruption: Self explanatory. Should definitely have a category.
5) Glitch Skipping: What now comes under the heading "heavy glitch abuse." Use of program errors to skip entire gameplay scenarios: Eg. the Earthbound run, the glitched Zelda alttp, Zelda II, the Final Fantasy II, run for the sealed cave etc.
I'd say that the use of zipping and scrolling errors like you'd see in Megaman don't need a separate category because I don't see why anyone would ever not yes them unless it means skipping actual scenarios (Like in Zelda II) in which case that aspect of the bug abuse is what needs a category.
"Travels out of Bounds" does make sense to me though.
Oh one other thing; I'm wondering about how useful "manipulates luck" is as a category. As has been pointed out before, most games have it in some sense or another and I don't see why you would ever NOT manipulate luck if it would help. In most cases I'd say that luck manipulation is a TAS technique and not a "genre" classification like "100% completion" or "no-warp." This is also why I'd be against "Zipping" and so on having a label in and of itself. I think labels should indicate parameters distinguishing the run's internal rules and objectives rather than its techniques. Actual technique's belong in the run's description or author comments.
Honestly, if I wanted to look up "heavy luck manipulation," I'd look in the "RPG" and "Strategy" genres instead because I know that's where I'd find all the good stuff...
Also: About the "best ending" label... The best ending for Chrono Trigger is the one where they're all dinosaurs right?
I've always thought of heavy glitch abuse as meaning "abuses programming errors to skip significant portions of the game."
It's not the only case where it applies. If a run abuses glitches to, for example, get 99 items of a certain type, that's quite heavy glitch abuse.
Thus, I think there simply needs to be more to distinguish between different kinds of warps:
I'm not sure so many similar tags are necessary or useful.
I'm wondering about how useful "manipulates luck" is as a category. As has been pointed out before, most games have it in some sense or another and I don't see why you would ever NOT manipulate luck if it would help.
As has been commented many times, there's a difference between "heavy luck manipulation" and the regular luck manipulation which happens in almost every run. I won't repeat the discussion here.
It's not the only case where it applies. If a run abuses glitches to, for example, get 99 items of a certain type, that's quite heavy glitch abuse.
Fair enough, I think that's a good example.
On the other hand though, it occurs to me that the actual result of such glitches is drastically different than, say, something that would allow the runner to skip the vast majority of a game by exploiting a sequence breaks. For search purposes, a category as broad as this doesn't seem very useful.
I'm not sure so many similar tags are necessary or useful.
Then have you changed your opinion from last year? By this I mean the following statement:
I think it might be a good idea to distinguish between the game's own warps (eg. in SMB1) and "warping" due to glitching.
"Uses warps" has a whole different meaning in those cases.
Looking over my own list I think that adding this distinction is the only real difference between what I'm proposing and the working list posted by adelikat. I'm in agreement with your previous statement that a game's own warps are categorically different from sequence breaking glitches. As for the rest, what would you have merged or dropped?
By the way, I think a label like "uses sequence breaks" or some variant thereof would be useful to describe what I'm talking about.
As for the issue of luck manipulation, I don't think you've made the position at all clear:
How do you define which submissions are publish-worthy and which aren't? How do you define which games are good choices for TASing and which aren't? How do you define when a submission is entertaining enough to be published? What were the principles used to differentiate between the glitched and non-glitched versions of Super Metroid or Pokemon?
Can you define those things without being entirely subjective?
That's what we have publishers, judges, or whoever is in charge of applying tags to publications, for. They decide, using their experience and expertise of the subject, which runs use sufficiently heavy luck manipulation to deserve the tag. There may be guidelines and rules of thumb for this, but ultimately it's the decision of a judge ("judge" in the sense of someone who judges whether a submission applies for a certain tag or not).
(And no, "it could cause controversy" is a moot argument. Rejection of submissions causes controversy all the time (and sometimes even accepting submissions for publication does.) That doesn't stop the system from working just fine.)
I don't think it's right to say that we need such categories and then to turn around abdicate responsibility for determining what they actually mean. The purpose of a judge is to interpret rules and guidelines; without such rules and guidelines being instituted a judge cannot be expected to fulfill their duty effectively. Likewise, it doesn't help the runners any if there's no transparency in the decision making process. Of course it ultimately comes down to human judgement, but codification is an important part of that process.
Thus, I'd be very interested to know what concrete line you'd draw between "light" and "heavy" luck manipulation.
Personally, I don't see different kinds of luck manipulation is being descriptive of distinctions between different runs. If anything, they distinguish between genres and formats of gameplay. In action games luck manipulation tends to focus more on manipulating enemy behavior and drops. In RPGs you can manipulate damage, stats, drops, encounters, etc. Yet, most people would probably say that the former constitutes "light" luck manipulation while the latter constitutes "heavy" luck manipulation because it's so much more obvious:
Warp wrote:
...Thus for example a TAS of Super Mario Bros does not get the tag because there's no heavy luck manipulation possible in the game, but a TAS of Simon's Quest does get the tag because there's heavy luck manipulation.
In fact, luck manipulation in Super Mario Bros is much more difficult to do than that in Simon's Quest.
Given the apparently deterministic attack patterns of the enemies in in SMB I never would have suspected this myself. Furthermore, if the depth of luck manipulation can be this obscure what does it help as a search criteria?
Really, I think the major differences in what people consider "light" and "heavy" luck manipulation are an artifact of a game's genre, and since this aspect of a game is already kept track of elsewhere there is no need for a separate category.
I personally would define heavy luck manipulation as something that has a drastic visible effect compared to normal gameplay. For example, manipulating all the enemies out of the way in Metroid might be insanely tough for the TASer, but would look normal to the viewer. Manipulating away all the enemy battles in Dragon Warrior looks extremely abnormal compared to regular gameplay, so it should deserve the category.
In fact, I've always considered that one of the main purposes of the movie categories is to describe the huge visual anomalies that take place in a TAS, rather than just being a "FYI tag".
WTF, he just walked through a wall? "uses L+R". WTF, the game glitched up after he re-loaded the file? "Uses save corruption." WTF, no monsters are attacking? "Luck manipulation." WTF, how are all the players cooperating perfectly with one another?" "One player controls four characters."
They are things you can expect to see in the movie. That's why they're categories, so that viewers can sort by them and watch similar movies with these properties, and also so the player can have an explanation for what the heck they're seeing.
Over on a certain OMG-where-did-my-day-go site, they have a rule: no categories that are just an existing category, but to a higher level.
I say that movies should be classed as luck manipulating if they does things to luck that a normal player can not.
As for the "uses hardest difficulty" category? Yeah, that one needs to go. If it is in the mission statement, it is considered understood apply to everything unless otherwise noted.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
The mission statement says to use hardest difficulty in certain situations, otherwise use easiest.
In some cases both could be warranted.
It is worth noting.
I'm not sure so many similar tags are necessary or useful.
Then have you changed your opinion from last year? By this I mean the following statement:
I think it might be a good idea to distinguish between the game's own warps (eg. in SMB1) and "warping" due to glitching.
"Uses warps" has a whole different meaning in those cases.
I though that you were suggesting tags to replace the "heavy glitch abuse" tag. If you were suggesting more detailed tags to replace the "uses warps" tag, then it might be a different issue, although I still think that four tags is a bit too much.
I though that you were suggesting tags to replace the "heavy glitch abuse" tag.
Well, it is true that I think the "heavy glitch abuse" tag ought to be replaced with more specific categories actually descriptive of what effect these glitches entail. As I see it, glitch abuse is such a broad concept, and so overarching in its significance that it can generally be taken for granted in a TAS. Terms like "heavy" and "light" only make things worse by shoveling subjective judgement calls onto already vague terms.
The only alternative category I actually went ahead and named was for "sequence breaks" because that's generally what "heavy glitch abuse" means to me.
If you were suggesting more detailed tags to replace the "uses warps" tag, then it might be a different issue, although I still think that four tags is a bit too much.
Perhaps I have obscured the issue. The only thing I actually proposed was that the warps tag ought to be split in two. A "Warps" tag for a game's own warps, and a "Sequence Breaks" tag for the exploitation of bugs that allow runners to skip large portions otherwise intended to be mandatory.
The other categories were mostly just me pointing out that current categories like "uses game restart sequence" and "corrupts save data" can also be looked at as kinds of warps, but really we should leave them alone because they can have (much) broader implications than just that. I point them out mostly to suggest that things like corrupting save data should not be conflated with things like using a game's own glitches to break sequence.
In fact, I've always considered that one of the main purposes of the movie categories is to describe the huge visual anomalies that take place in a TAS, rather than just being a "FYI tag".
Eh, I wouldn't say they're FYI... The way I see it, tags are a recognition of the fact that a game can be completed any number of ways and that a run's internal rules and priorities will determine the route it takes. Warps, number of players, save data corruption, completion percentage, avoiding damage, pacifism, killing everything...: These are all extremely important aspects of determining a game's route. If you have preferences about how you'd like to see a game played, these will tell you if a run meets your criteria.
But things like "luck manipulation..." Since when is avoiding luck manipulation a valid route choice? I don't even think that's possible in a TAS. Luck manipulation isn't a goal, it's a technique for achieving other goals like "precise character movement" and "hit detection abuse." If we wanted to start keeping track of these things, I guess we could, but I really think that's what the descriptions are for.
I have an idea for a category, "Corrupts memory". It sure sounds like "Corrupts save data", but this is a superset, it covers more than the existing one.
This would be for all kinds of memory corruption. Anything where we bug a game to such an extent that it uses memory improperly. Be it loading non existent game data or erroneously overwriting the current status of the player. Anything where the game engine clearly is not behaving even remotely correctly.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Having given this some thought, this is what I think:
"Heavy glitch abuse" isn't specific enough for as widespread a tag as it seems to be. Other widespread tags such as "Takes damage to save time" or "Genre: Platform" are specific enough that I can accept most runs using them.
Further subdividing the tag into tags as "Corrupts memory", "Uses zipping glitches" (or something similar), "Sequence breaks"/"Uses glitches to skip semi-important goals" (similar to an old tag), etc. would help people find runs more in line with their personal interest than just a generic "run abuses large bugs / lots of bugs"-type tag.
I could also argue that "heavy luck manipulation" may not fit the threshold of not being specific enough, but I wouldn't know how to subdivide that further.
I suggest the tags "Zelda game", "Metroid Game", and "Megaman Game", so that a portion of the public have easy access to the movies they want to see. "Castlevania game" and "Mario game" are also a possibility, but their fans aren't as vocal and also like other games, as far as I know.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
It's easy to go to the search bar and type in "Zelda", "Metroid", or "Megaman"/"Rockman", so I don't think that's necessary.
On the other hand, it's not easy to search for a specific type of glitch in that fashion outside of that category.
Further subdividing the tag into tags as "Corrupts memory", "Uses zipping glitches" (or something similar), "Sequence breaks"/"Uses glitches to skip semi-important goals" (similar to an old tag), etc. would help people find runs more in line with their personal interest than just a generic "run abuses large bugs / lots of bugs"-type tag.
Maybe instead of doing that we should approach this from the opposite direction. In other words, rather than specifying in each video which glitches and other TASing techniques the run uses, we make a list of specific glitches and other techniques, and put links to movies which use those techniques there. This way if someone wants to see a movie which uses a specific TASing technique, he can check that list and pick a movie.
Joined: 10/28/2007
Posts: 1360
Location: The dark horror in the back of your mind
Warp wrote:
Maybe instead of doing that we should approach this from the opposite direction. In other words, rather than specifying in each video which glitches and other TASing techniques the run uses, we make a list of specific glitches and other techniques, and put links to movies which use those techniques there. This way if someone wants to see a movie which uses a specific TASing technique, he can check that list and pick a movie.
I'm suggesting doing this from a category perspective for ease of maintenance; I think it's much more likely for those submitting runs and our publishers to figure out which movies use what and tag the movie appropriately, which will automatically generate a list of the appropriate movies, rather than attempt to maintain a separate list.
Either way, we get the list you describe; I view it more likely to be up to date on a consistent basis by using the categories.
Honestly i think "contains speed/entertainment tradeoffs" is a pretty good catchall that states that the author could have saved more time, but felt that the slower run was the more entertaining one.
As an example, I thought the versions of A Boy and his Blob that used death as a shortcut were entertaining, while the ones that stopped doing that were much less entertaining.
I agree that Teddy Survives needs to stay, and that there should be a few more tags for humor value. Some examples follow.
"Contains gratuitous violence"
"Makes a mockery of the AI"
"Completely breaks the game"
