As for Smash Bros., we've had several varieties of speed-oriented runs submitted here, which were all rejected for not being entertaining enough.

Bad game choice: ... solitaire...

Yes, and those submissions are significantly slower (and duller) than ReneBalow's runs. I realize this may not be pertinent, but you provoked my response and I must reply.

While I admire sgrunt's arguing skills, there's a hole in this argument here.

It's not the TAS itself that would be considered shameful. As [wiki WelcomeToTASVideos]noted elsewhere[/wiki] (emphasis mine),

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.

While the entertainment level of a TAS is somewhat subjective, there are a few principles that most of our players and viewers have agreed upon that make for runs with high entertainment. An entertaining run should:

• Be fast-paced. If it takes five minutes for anything to happen, nobody will want to watch your run. Games with fast characters are well-suited for this.
• Be varied. Watching a character do little more than run to the right and jump occasionally is not entertaining. Generally, the more possibilities for what your character can do at any given time, and the more of them that are used, the better
• Do the unexpected. Abuse of glitches and otherwise causing the game to perform in unexpected ways makes for far more interesting gameplay.

The technical rating of a TAS should reflect a number of technical qualities about the run itself and how it has been made. It's important to understand that there is no one single feature which determines the technical quality, but that it's the sum of many different aspects. A common misconception is to think that "technical quality" is a synonym for "frame perfection" (in other words, how optimal the run is). This is not so. Frame perfection is part of what constitutes the technical quality of a run, but only a part. These are things which should be considered when rating a TAS for its technical quality (note that this list is not comprehensive, and every TAS should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis):

• Frame perfection: How frame-perfect is it? Are there known improvements or obvious flaws?
• Technique: What kind of TASing techniques does the author use in his run? For example, does he manipulate luck heavily, abuse bugs or level design flaws in the game for shortcuts, use close approach collision abuse, maneuvers that reduce lag, etc?
• Tools: What kind of tools did the author use? Did he use eg. Lua scripting for something useful? Memory watching? Decompiling the game ROM? Did he perhaps even write his own tools, such as bots?
• Amount of work: How much work was necessary to make the TAS? For example, was a considerable amount of background research (such as route planning or extensive RNG reverse engineering) necessary before even starting the run?

Note that not all games are suitable for a TAS with perfect technical rating, similarly to how not all games are suitable for a perfect entertainment rating. Some games simply don't lend themselves for extensive technical achievements (eg. if they are too simple or straightforward, with no route planning, exploitable bugs, etc.)

I've [post 275290]already debunked the possibility of this run being fast-paced[/post].

Gameplay here consists of, well, running to the right and jumping occasionally, which explicitly fails the "be varied" criterion, and as [post 275232]I've previously noted[/post], the one glitch here does not alter gameplay substantially from normal. Thus, I don't really see how the run fits any of our commonly-defined criteria for entertainment.

I will grant that the run is probably well-optimised, but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run. This run was thrown together in less than two days in response to [submission 3171]an earlier submission[/submission], so I can't really see that any special tool work would have been done for this run, or that a significant amount of effort was put into its creation.

Further, technique here basically consists of "determine which frame to press jump on", unless I am very much mistaken about how this game is supposed to work. In addition, as warned against at the very end, this is a game which is exceedingly straightforward, requires no route planning, and showcases a grand total of one glitch which does not influence gameplay significantly.

In other words, what we have here is a game that fails almost every possible criterion set out by the site for being entertaining or technically interesting. How this can translate into being called "high quality" is beyond me.

I've [post 275290]already debunked the possibility of this run being fast-paced[/post].

So you've debunked a subjective notion? :) Or did you debunk this run being fast-paced as per the criteria made up by a single forum member who isn't used to arguing or, indeed, using English? Too early to claim a victory here, try somebody of your own league.

[...d]escribes runs which require quick reaction times on the part of the player and, arguably, a continual feeling of imminent danger - that one little mistake can cause everything to go horribly wrong.

Gameplay here consists of, well, running to the right and jumping occasionally, which explicitly fails the "be varied" criterion, and as [post 275232]I've previously noted[/post], the one glitch here does not alter gameplay substantially from normal. Thus, I don't really see how the run fits any of our commonly-defined criteria for entertainment.

More weasel words and appealing to subjective notions. 8-bit platformers in general require little more than holding right and jumping occasionally, simply by their nature. Even the revered Mega Man games consist of exactly that to at least 80% of their length (that isn't consumed by get weapon cutscenes, boss appearances and so on), which is why not everyone likes them despite the glitching. Yet we publish runs of 8-bit platformers at least once a month without failure, and somehow the argument doesn't crop up too often. Why is that? Did they suddenly become complex? Before you pull the "past mistakes don't justify the present" card, are you going to use it the next time somebody TASes another exceedingly simple platformer for MSX, SMS, GB, or NES?

I will grant that the run is probably well-optimised, but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run. This run was thrown together in less than two days in response to [submission 3171]an earlier submission[/submission], so I can't really see that any special tool work would have been done for this run, or that a significant amount of effort was put into its creation.

No, that's a bad, bad argument. Referring to Wak's statement here is grasping for a straw that wouldn't even matter had this submission not been controversial. While his words supposedly come from a personal (and likely supported by hard data) insight, they are very very general and hold little weight, so using it to back up your own argument is naive. "Look, that guy says this run is very improvable, so it must be true!" See? That's how your argument looks. Until Wak has presented his improvement, it effectively doesn't exist, and this submission should be judged on its own merits. And saying that a run is improvable is like saying nothing because any run is improvable and it's not a secret to anybody.

As for the time required to make a run, it's a very bad criterion as well because you have no way to appraise that, and, moreover, shouldn't. People like AngerFist, Nitsuja, JXQ, and other TASers have been known for working extremely quick while maintaining solid quality, and so far you haven't proved it to be otherwise.

And keep in mind that it's a 2-minute long platformer. How complex can that possibly be to take more than a couple days of decent work?

Further, technique here basically consists of "determine which frame to press jump on", unless I am very much mistaken about how this game is supposed to work. In addition, as warned against at the very end, this is a game which is exceedingly straightforward, requires no route planning, and showcases a grand total of one glitch which does not influence gameplay significantly.

You have not only described most of the simple platformers, but also the process of TASing in general. Indeed, it basically consists of determining which frame to press a button on, which in case with platformers is mostly jump and occasionally attack, which, mind you, is used here as well (to pick up baby Moses, for one). That's like saying that your words aren't significant because you type them up with two fingers and not ten.

In other words, what we have here is a game that fails almost every possible criterion set out by the site for being entertaining or technically interesting. How this can translate into being called "high quality" is beyond me.

Ok, here's some more challenge for you. Do you bring up this argument in submissions that are improvements of already published runs that fail the same criteria as well? Do you also say they aren't high quality and vote No on them, or is this only specific to submissions of new games.

Let me turn the initial point that prompted that line of discussion upon you, then: What do you consider to be a fast-paced run? I presented a definition earlier which hasn't seriously been challenged, and if there are flaws in it I encourage you to point them out.

If you look back at my past track record on submissions of this nature (where I've bothered to comment, at least), I've generally been opposed to their publication for exactly the reasons I'm citing here - that there's little room for technical innovation or entertainment. Games such as Mega Man are a different story, in that there are additional factors at work such as route planning (for the initial stages), weapon selection, and (in may cases) substantial abuse of glitches (a look at the most recently published Mega Man 1 submission being a wonderful illustration of the latter).

I'm not referring to anyone else's argument here, and I'm not sure where that notion came from.

but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run.

If it is a bad criterion, perhaps the page in question needs to be updated. I'm merely citing a suggestion that has been presented there, which, by its presence, nobody has challenged there up until now.

To turn this on its head: if you don't expect that a game is complex enough to warrant more than a modicum of effort to produce a tightly optimised run, how can it provide for a slightly technically interesting run?

To carry on with your keyboard analogy, suppose I give you two passages of text to type - one requires two fingers to type, and another that (using normal keyboard positioning) uses all ten. Between these two, which requires more technical skill to carry out?

moozoh must be the best troll ever

Ah, arguing with you is truly a pleasure.

Let me turn the initial point that prompted that line of discussion upon you, then: What do you consider to be a fast-paced run? I presented a definition earlier which hasn't seriously been challenged, and if there are flaws in it I encourage you to point them out.

There are no flaws per se, because being fast-paced means different things to different people. It may be dependent on anything including but not limited to: rate of actions carried out per second, speed of screen scrolling, character movement speed, enemies AI or rate of attack, required rate of decision-making, and so on. Moreover, in tool-assisted and unassisted conditions these things tend to change, as is often the case with games like Bomberman. What I consider fast-paced is in this sense irrelevant, and I won't even try to come up with an universal definition because I know it won't even work for myself. Instead I rely on a feeling of speed, and that's, while largely indescribable, works well for me. In regard to this run in particular, I wasn't bored by it, so it's good enough. (I won't rate it highly either, nor be depressed if it's ultimately rejected.) If it were considerably longer, I could see myself being bored, but it's not the case here, so we shouldn't even consider that.

If you look back at my past track record on submissions of this nature (where I've bothered to comment, at least), I've generally been opposed to their publication for exactly the reasons I'm citing here - that there's little room for technical innovation or entertainment. Games such as Mega Man are a different story, in that there are additional factors at work such as route planning (for the initial stages), weapon selection, and (in may cases) substantial abuse of glitches (a look at the most recently published Mega Man 1 submission being a wonderful illustration of the latter).

But since Mega Man games are at the upper spectrum of entertainment for a relatively simple platformer (mainly due to glitches involved), a valid question would be: should we still publish runs of games that don't allow as much as Mega Man does? Historically the answer to this has been "yes", but what is your opinion and where do you draw the line?

I'm not referring to anyone else's argument here, and I'm not sure where that notion came from.

From here:

but as beautifully pointed out above, that's far from the be-all and end-all of technical quality of a given run.

So... whom it was pointed out by, if not Wak or yourself referred to in third person? I should note that OmegaWatcher's request to quote your references would be indeed warranted here.

A common misconception is to think that "technical quality" is a synonym for "frame perfection" (in other words, how optimal the run is). This is not so. Frame perfection is part of what constitutes the technical quality of a run, but only a part.

If it is a bad criterion, perhaps the page in question needs to be updated. I'm merely citing a suggestion that has been presented there, which, by its presence, nobody has challenged there up until now.

The criterion on the page in question reads "amount of work", not "amount of time", and I hope you agree that the relation there is not quite direct. I also don't see it even suggested anywhere on the page to speculate on the amount of work in the absence of hard data by the submitter. As you know, speculations make for lousy arguments.

To turn this on its head: if you don't expect that a game is complex enough to warrant more than a modicum of effort to produce a tightly optimised run, how can it provide for a slightly technically interesting run?

Why necessarily a modicum? The amount of work here is relative to the game length, which I hope is understandable. If the game was longer, say 10 minutes, I would expect it to take more than a few days to TAS (but, again, historically it didn't always require so even with more complex games, so I wouldn't use it as a criterion for anything).

To carry on with your keyboard analogy, suppose I give you two passages of text to type - one requires two fingers to type, and another that (using normal keyboard positioning) uses all ten. Between these two, which requires more technical skill to carry out?

I'm using the entirety of a keyboard, even if not optimally, but the result is the same.

If you look back at my past track record on submissions of this nature (where I've bothered to comment, at least), I've generally been opposed to their publication for exactly the reasons I'm citing here - that there's little room for technical innovation or entertainment. Games such as Mega Man are a different story, in that there are additional factors at work such as route planning (for the initial stages), weapon selection, and (in may cases) substantial abuse of glitches (a look at the most recently published Mega Man 1 submission being a wonderful illustration of the latter).

But since Mega Man games are at the upper spectrum of entertainment for a relatively simple platformer (mainly due to glitches involved), a valid question would be: should we still publish runs of games that don't allow as much as Mega Man does? Historically the answer to this has been "yes", but what is your opinion and where do you draw the line?

I'm personally okay with this practice but I can't help but wonder if there isn't a better option to please everyone.

Bah. This is improvable. I've been able to save 6 frames on the second stage. I'm not sure I could rack up enough frames to get under 2 mins, but this is definitely improvable.

http://dehacked.2y.net/microstorage.php/info/845660278/Bible%20Adventures%20waks2.gmv here it is. Next is to tell me how to keep on working with the same file using that emulator (same as publisher)

Holy flamewar, Batman. I can't believe this submission exploded like this.

Holy flamewar, Batman. I can't believe this submission exploded like this.

Honestly, I don't see any "flamewar" going on here (well, at least not up to the point of your post). Not all lengthy discussions where people present differing opinions are "flamewars". I think calling civil rational discussions "flamewars" is denigrating and disrespectful. People are entitled to differing opinions, and as long as they remain civil (and refrain from eg. name-calling and personal insults) discussion is a good thing.

I would wait for a decision on this run first, though, depending on whether this is considered to be an adequate game choice.