I started Rejected Submissions page. The idea is to have every rejected submission plus short categorization (like 'bad game choice', 'bad optimization', 'wrong mode', etc...) of reason for its rejection.
Adelikat had idea of making database table of it plus module, so that new rejections automatically appear in it (either to be filled or with cause given with rejection).
Making this module would mean deciding the categories beforehand. Also, this should be done well, as recategorization would be quite a pain. Also, deciding on proper categorization would help even if there won't be module for it.
Here's a list of few proposed categories:
Bad game
Bad goal choice
Bad version (bad dump, using E instead of U, use another console)
Bad mode (like using GB mode in SGB game, should be combined with bad settings?)
Bad game settings (like playing on easy, should be combined with bad mode?)
Incomplete (fails to complete the game)
Breaks self-imposed restrictions
Bad optimization (fails to beat records, visibly sloppy timewise or obsoleted while in queue)
Entertainment (fails to entertain even with oppurtunities to do so)
Plagiarized / Unathorized submission (submitting someone else's run as your own or without that person's aproval)
Other
Also, maybe ones like:
Sync (doesn't sync for others)
Unapproved hack (pre-mid-2009 hack quickrejections, hacks obsoleted by other hacks (I don't think there are any examples of actual rejections due the latter))
Troll (extremely bad game choices (repeatedly), extremely bad optimization (repeatedly), using multiple accounts, etc...)
I agree that "bad mode" and "bad settings" should be combined.
"Breaks self-imposed restrictions" should probably be rephrased as something like "Inconsistent restrictions".
Should redundant submissions (accidentally submitting the same movie twice) show up on this page?
Otherwise, I think your categories are good. I can't think of anything off the top of my head that you've forgotten.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 4/20/2005
Posts: 2161
Location: Norrköping, Sweden
Nice idea! I have an idea of a sub section with rejected runs of games that currently don't have a published TAS and the run was rejected for technical reasons, but the game itself seems to be publishable material. A good example is Tailz's Cabal run. This list could serve as an additional "List of ideas" for someone who's looking for a new game to TAS.
This list is a great opportunity to finally have an overview of rejected submissions.
Derakon wrote:
I agree that "bad mode" and "bad settings" should be combined.
I think these categories should not be combined, as game settings and emulation settings are not exactly the same.
Anyway, having filled myself the list a bit, I agree with Ilari's choice of categories (we'll see next April if there is a need to add an "Aprilfool" categorie or something ;) )
Derakon wrote:
Should redundant submissions (accidentally submitting the same movie twice) show up on this page?
I think they should only appear once. Actually, in case of redundant submissions, the author almost always cancel one on his own.
This also raises a question : should we list (some of the) cancelled submissions too ? Indeed, not a few cancelled submissions were in fact submissions that were to-be-rejected ; and the reasons they've been cancelled may be interesting too.
Randil wrote:
I have an idea of a sub section with rejected runs of games that currently don't have a published TAS and the run was rejected for technical reasons, but the game itself seems to be publishable material. A good example is Tailz's Cabal run. This list could serve as an additional "List of ideas" for someone who's looking for a new game to TAS.
This boils down to think about how the list should be organized (when it will be more mature of course). In alphabetical order ? Or should we arrange the list by categories ? This would help to put in place Randil's idea, but a problem appears when two categories (like Game/Optimization) apply to one submission.
Anyway, having filled myself the list a bit, I agree with Ilari's choice of categories (we'll see next April if there is a need to add an "Aprilfool" categorie or something ;) )
BTW: 2530S isn't April Fools submission (2610S is). 2530S was requested test submission (actually second of them, the first was so broken it had to be deleted (it broke the site)).
Critical five wrote:
This also raises a question : should we list (some of the) cancelled submissions too ? Indeed, not a few cancelled submissions were in fact submissions that were to-be-rejected ; and the reasons they've been cancelled may be interesting too.
There's canceled submissions list already. And usually the reason for canceling run is either "will improve this", "already obsoleted" or "this would be rejected". Usually there's not that much information about reasons.
Critical five wrote:
This boils down to think about how the list should be organized (when it will be more mature of course). In alphabetical order ? Or should we arrange the list by categories ? This would help to put in place Randil's idea, but a problem appears when two categories (like Game/Optimization) apply to one submission.
If it was module, it would be easy to have it sorted in various orders. But as long as its manually kept, I think its better to keep it in submission order (so its easier to see missing submissions).
Some considerations.
Difficulty could either be merged into Goal (because it's a part of the goal set) or Mode (because it's a setting you decide upon before playing the game).
Restrictions could be merged into Goal, because they are a part of the goal, and not meeting them suggests that either a different goal choice is needed, or the run is technically inconsistent (and is thus judged by merits of optimization).
Sync could be merged with Emulation, and that should probably be renamed to Software, because those are both software problems not pertaining to games per se, and sync stability is primarily a problem of emulators unsuitable for the site. This one is probably the most obvious change, as reflected by, say, Star Control 2.
Plagiarism could be merged into Unauthorized, because plagiarized runs are those submitted without authorization. This one also feels obvious to me, and it gets rid of the additional negative connotations.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
This is a new list, that puts together the different suggestions listed above :
* Game: Bad game choice
* Unapproved hack: Only for movies submitted before September 2009
* Version: Bad game version choice
o Run should be done on another console
o Run should use another version of game
* Optimization:
o Bad optimization
o Fails to beat all known records
* Entertainment: Fails to entertain, even with opportunities to do so
* Incomplete: The movie fails to beat the game
* Goal:
o Bad goal choice
o Does not respect restrictions imposed by its own goal
o Bad difficulty
o Other kind of bad game settings
* Emulation: Bad game emulation
o Too severe graphical/audio glitches
o Exploits emulation bugs
o Uses a suboptimal emulator (like Famtasia instead of FCEU, or an old revision of an emulator)
o Doesn't seem to sync for others
* Mode: Bad mode / hardware settings
o Not choosing optimal GBx hardware for GBx game
o Forcing PAL game to NTSC mode
o The movie starts from a saved state or SRAM
o Other kind of bad hardware settings
* Unauthorized:
o Unauthorized submission
o Plagiarized run
* Troll: Being troll submission or something comparable listed as rejection reason
* Joke:
o Intended to be a joke submission
o Submitted on April Fools day.
* Other: Other reasons
* Game:
o Obviously bad game choice
o The judge disliked it
<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 disagree. An april fools submission is done for humor and fun. Trolling is done to cause animosity and disturbance. Calling an april fool's submission "trolling" is denigrating, imo.
I personally think some of the bad games may not be a bad game. Just a language barrier, or you don’t have the experience of playing the game.
So I won’t vote however famous games I’m not familiar with.
If it’s truly a bad game, author doesn’t spend much time on making the run.
Obviously bad choice sounds to me like something that doesn't provide for any TASing potential - i.e. the fastest path can be done consistently in real time, or it's just a puzzle game done very fast without any need to juggle menus/acceleration/luck manipulate.
