Funnily enough, this is not at all the point I was making - I was pointing out, contrary to what was stated, that "it was short" does not constitute a valid argument for accepting a game.
I misunderstood this, I agree.
That said, I can't help but point out the hypocrisy of your two statements: "I like this run because the game was very bad" vs.
Rather, Yes vote for TASing a game reviewed by AVGN.
"Those games are very bad and should have been rejected",
Their rejection is not about bad game, rather bad game choice, or bad game category choice, or bad ROM choice not even done yet.
not to mention your later statement that "a lot of the very bad games on this site should not have been published in the first place".
You read it a bit wrong there. That's not what I meant to say at all!
I meant to say that a bad game shouldn't be taken into consideration for acceptance or not. And if this game is rejected for being a bad game, lots of other games shouldn't be on the site then.
Hope we have the same definition of "bad game choice". Not to be mistaken with "bad game"
Bad game: bible games, dragon's lair, lester the unlikely, barbie goes to vacation...
Bad game choice: Clue, minesweeper, all the board games like chess or "Serpents et échelles", solitaire, probably lots of sport games if you are just aiming for fastest time or best score.
I think this game just fits into the category of bad game. And I'll probably go into a frame war as well during this week, just to prove that it's not that of a bad game choice.
Note that damage is indeed taken in that run, as there are circumstances where it does save time.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
The way you said,it seems all games in this site shold take damage to save time, even where the game doesn't work that way
If damage can be taken to save time, there had best be a very good reason for not saving that time if it is not.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Not every game is Mega Man 2 or Super Mario 64, you know...
Very true. Not every game is technically complex enough to make good use of the extremely game-breaking glitches present in the most recent versions of those run, where gameplay is significantly altered to the point of little resembling normal gameplay and looks decidedly superhuman. The one glitch present here pales in comparison, as I've previously noted.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
...wow, now you're generalising for the sake of generalising. You took joke submissions and menu debugs to make a point. TASes made without an purpose besides giving a chucke.
You presented 11 TASes under 2 minutes. The site published more than 30.
First, [submission 2602]not all[/submission] [submission 2557]short[/submission] [submission 2997]submissions[/submission] [submission 2906]are[/submission] [submission 2896]joke[/submission] [submission 2085]submissions[/submission]. Second, at time of writing, we have 2485 published/accepted submissions and 1313 rejected/cancelled submissions. That's a ratio of 1.89:1. Through some database magic, I can similarly inform you that there are 71 published/accepted submissions with a length under two minutes, and 159 cancelled/rejected, for a ratio of 0.45:1 - much less than average. This negates both your new point and your apparent original argument related to length of the run.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Worst part? That doesn't prove anything. At at. That's part of a point in the next part of the sentence, that got cut out for no good reason.
At what point did you bring this up again? I'll note that you did respond to at least one other point in my replies to your original line of argument, so I can assume you did read the rest of it.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Defining fast paced: Non-stop running, from enemies, hazards, glitches. It's under 2 minutes because it's fast. Hence, fast paced. Not everyone runs just like Sonic.
[movie 1451]Here is a published movie that fits your criteria[/movie] (barring the "under 2 minutes" portion). [submission 2331]Here is a submission[/submission] barely over two minutes and fits the rest of your criteria. [submission 2085]Here is another submission[/submission], which is even under two minutes.
It may just be me, but I do not think any of the above can be considered fast-paced.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
I'll try to explain better. The best way to overcome your mistakes is to fix them. If exclusion is not an option, the community should make a new submission, making it better and fixing the mistake.
If the mistake is "accepted a run of a poorly-suited-for-TASing game", can it still be considered a mistake to accept another, different, poorly-suited-for-TASing game? If so, we can (and should) prevent such a mistake from happening again, which was the point of my bringing up this line of argument.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
I tried to be all poetic last post about this, guess it didn't work =(
I could say this is because that wasn't the last post, but that would be a little too snide even for me. ;)
I was pointing out, contrary to what was stated, that "it was short" does not constitute a valid argument for accepting a game.
Not all on itself, but it helps when the game is otherwise very simplistic. Certainly if this TAS was 30 minutes long, all the levels being very similar, rather than the 2 minutes it is, it would most probably have an overwhelming amount of "no" votes for being way too boring to watch throughout. However, its current short length helps maintaining entertainment and interest throughout.
In other words, this discussion wouldn't be even taking place if this was a 30-minute run. It being 2 minutes long certainly does affect people's opinion on the positive.
I tried to be all poetic last post about this, guess it didn't work =(
I could say this is because that wasn't the last post, but that would be a little too snide even for me. ;)
...but you did. I guess you are that snide after all...
sgrunt wrote:
OmegaWatcher wrote:
...wow, now you're generalising for the sake of generalising. You took joke submissions and menu debugs to make a point. TASes made without an purpose besides giving a chucke.
You presented 11 TASes under 2 minutes. The site published more than 30.
First, [submission 2602]not all[/submission] [submission 2557]short[/submission] [submission 2997]submissions[/submission] [submission 2906]are[/submission] [submission 2896]joke[/submission] [submission 2085]submissions[/submission]. Second, at time of writing, we have 2485 published/accepted submissions and 1313 rejected/cancelled submissions. That's a ratio of 1.89:1. Through some database magic, I can similarly inform you that there are 71 published/accepted submissions with a length under two minutes, and 159 cancelled/rejected, for a ratio of 0.45:1 - much less than average. This negates both your new point and your apparent original argument related to length of the run.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Worst part? That doesn't prove anything. At at. That's part of a point in the next part of the sentence, that got cut out for no good reason.
At what point did you bring this up again? I'll note that you did respond to at least one other point in my replies to your original line of argument, so I can assume you did read the rest of it.
OmegaWatcher wrote:
Defining fast paced: Non-stop running, from enemies, hazards, glitches. It's under 2 minutes because it's fast. Hence, fast paced. Not everyone runs just like Sonic.
[movie 1451]Here is a published movie that fits your criteria[/movie] (barring the "under 2 minutes" portion). [submission 2331]Here is a submission[/submission] barely over two minutes and fits the rest of your criteria. [submission 2085]Here is another submission[/submission], which is even under two minutes.
It may just be me, but I do not think any of the above can be considered fast-paced.
I consider this game fast-paced. The character runs at a reasonable speed while dodging everything. I can be wrong, but that doesn't matter, does it? You don't really want to discuss this. You're just going to ignore all I've said, possibly making another snide comment about my post. Now I see why you didn't quote anyone.
You still insists that I've pointed the run's duration just to mean it's short instead of adding to the "fast paced factor". You still keeps trowing site numbers and submissions. I'm done with that.
You complain that not all of your submissions examples are jokes or debug modes, two quotes later you do basically the same, using an universally loathed game to make your point and to mock mine. You're trying to ridicularize me, since "my criteria for fast paced games" should make one of the most sluggish games ever made fast paced.
You don't want do discuss anything, you just wants to be right. This attitude shouldn't be welcomed in a discussion board.
Sonikkustar wrote:
Just because its entertaining doesnt mean it should be published.
Could you please elaborate? I'd like to hear more about what you have to say about this. I can see this applying to that debug mode in Super Metroid, but not in this game
Note, I'm not being sarcastic or anything. I really meant it.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
To be fair, you're also equally determined to be right, which sort of undermines your whole argument. I actually do agree with your general stance on this game and I think that most people opposed to publication aren't interested in really doing anything besides staunchly defending their position; however, ad hominem probably isn't going to change that.
I'm sure sgrunt feels he is justified in his reasoning. I don't actually agree with his view, and I think he's being unduly harsh, but it's not much more than personal opinion. If he finds the game boring, that's how he feels... the humor and novelty of the run is lost on him. That in and of itself is a shame, for sure, but it's not a reason to attack him.
After TASing this game myself (and not being done with it)...
I can definitely point out to people that there is more than meets the eye, and this game still has some hidden secrets to be discovered.
Most people won't like what they're about to read, but this game can be fast-paced and improved just like Super mario bros. But in 2 mins instead of 5.
Thanks,
Wak.
While I admire sgrunt's arguing skills, there's a hole in this argument here.
sgrunt wrote:
It's not the TAS itself that would be considered shameful. As [wiki WelcomeToTASVideos]noted elsewhere[/wiki] (emphasis mine),
Site mission statement wrote:
TASvideos.org is committed to providing the best in tool-assisted speedruns and superhuman play. Our runs are held to high standards, and only high quality runs will be published on the site.
The run itself is high quality: it's indeed tightly optimized. The play is superhuman: there is absolute precision even though the controls are awful, there's complete disregard for danger, glitch abuse, and all that. It's the game that's bad, but the snippet you've quoted says nothing about that.
Thus, there is nothing in this submission that openly contradicts the mission statement, you're just filling in the blanks using your interpretation of it.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
moozooh makes a good point. Hasn't there been some precedent for publishing games that are very difficult to play, regardless of how hard it seems to a casual viewer? I don't remember that being a hotly-contested issue.
he doesn't have a good point, running right and occasionally jumping, even if frame perfect, is something human speedrunners could do. if a TAS doesn't look amazing, super human, then what's the point of even making it? I don't know how that glitch works, but if it's not easy to do then that's the only thing this TAS has of super human play
People seems to forget about general optimization over the obsoleted submission. There have been more improvement than just the glitch, and there will be more improvement as well. This game HAS more to offer than just running right and jumping.
People seems to forget about general optimization over the obsoleted submission. There have been more improvement than just the glitch, and there will be more improvement as well. This game HAS more to offer than just running right and jumping.
I'm willing to place a bet on these words. History has known submissions that were due to be rejected for bad game choice, but subsequent improvements made them quite competitive and not at all embarrassing (btw, I agree with Warp that the old OoT TAS was pretty much the only one I could consider embarrassing to have published on the site).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
The only truly "shameful" TAS that has ever been on the site (that I remember of), and for a rather long time at that, was that LoZ:OoT TAS that was slower than the unassisted record. (It's a bit embarrassing to have an officially published TAS which is significantly slower than the unassisted speedrun of the same game.)
This is happened at least 4 times in our site history that I know of.
In addition to OoT, there is Majora's Mask which is CURRENTLY published and slower than an unassisted speedrun. Chrono Trigger (the 4 hour one) was beaten by 40 minutes by a regular speedrunner (due to a new trick). And Ziplock's NES Jaws was beaten by a speedrunner (until I improved it).
My personal Zelda ALTTP glitched record of 3:42 (That I never submitted on SDA but would have been approved) is lower than Tompa's record... but only due to the timing difference. As a speedrunner, my timer ends when I get to the triforce room, while Tompa has to sit and press A throughout the whole speech at the end.
That's different. The TAS record for Donkey Kong is 1:08.67, which is slower than the SDA record of 1:05. A timing difference is one thing, but sub-optimal gameplay is entirely different. The latter can be remedied.
The only truly "shameful" TAS that has ever been on the site (that I remember of), and for a rather long time at that, was that LoZ:OoT TAS that was slower than the unassisted record. (It's a bit embarrassing to have an officially published TAS which is significantly slower than the unassisted speedrun of the same game.)
This is happened at least 4 times in our site history that I know of.
In addition to OoT, there is Majora's Mask which is CURRENTLY published and slower than an unassisted speedrun. Chrono Trigger (the 4 hour one) was beaten by 40 minutes by a regular speedrunner (due to a new trick). And Ziplock's NES Jaws was beaten by a speedrunner (until I improved it).
Until recently, the ActRaiser TAS was slower than a non-assisted speedrun, too.
As for Smash Bros., we've had several varieties of speed-oriented runs submitted here, which were all rejected for not being entertaining enough. You can't reasonably claim that a non-speed-oriented run is embarassing because a speed-oriented run is faster than it. You can say all you like about their relative entertainment values, of course, but that's all subjective and not pertinent to this discussion.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
