I think the discord happens because you define pacifist as preventing enemy deaths, if possible, while the runs have so far aimed for not actively killing enemies. The latter is easy to conform to, the former... well, not so.

That's understandable, because the latter is easier goal to achieve (and to get published at TASVideos). In fact, in the case of Contra the "semi-pacifist" goal can be achieved even in realtime (it would probably take whole 15-20 minutes, but since it's not pure speedrun, time doesn't matter as long as it's not too sloppy). The question is: aren't you supposed to be superhuman? Play on hardest difficulty? Show something that couldn't be done in realtime? You have tools, you can manipulate those soldiers, so why rush and kill them indirectly instead of waiting? Oh, I know why you must rush! Because informal TASVideos policy made you assume that your submission won't be accepted unless you beat the time of previous run. Pacifist run or not - doesn't matter, only time matters, and that's sad. I'm not particularly against this submission (hence I didn't want to cast No vote first time). But it strikes me as another example how inertness of local judgement shrinks Superplay into pure Speedrun. It proves that experimentation and other difficult-to-conform-things are passively prohibited here (as in: yes, you are allowed to submit a non-speedrun TAS, but remember, judges will hate you for that, because it's difficult to compare things not measured in frames, and judges don't like difficult work).

It's ambiguous and somewhat pointless, because in this case the best way to prevent the deaths of the entire island's worth of enemies is to game over at the last boss.

Ambiguous: Yes, it is. And yes, it is difficult to judge such matter objectively. But hey, I don't see the written rule "make sure your movie is easy to comprehend and trivial to judge". Either add this rule and admit your laziness or stand up and face complexity of life. To me the point of tool-assistance is the opposite to stability. The point is to make abnormal things that are hard to compare with anything else. Pointless: No, it is not. I thought you were joking before, but you seem to seriously confuse gameplay and storyline here. It doesn't matter what happens in final cutscene, in pacifist runs TASers invent their own storyline anyway. Maybe soldiers fled from the island when player was going through level 8, that should not be our concern because it's not gameplay. What matters here is the interaction of all ingame objects while TASer is in control. If you can prevent deaths (enemy objects changing their ID to explosion sprite ID) and instead of doing so you chose to save 10 frames, you can't honestly call this a pacifist run. It's usual speedrun!

As always, STRANGE (for a regular viewer/taser) ideas hardly attract much attention. Well, until you present the result. So, while I like the idea of improving the true pacifism of Contra run, I can't be sure anyone would pick it. And I remember some other rule of life: if no one wants to do what you wish, do it yourself. It's not telling AnS to tas Contra, it's more like saying that I didn't like the entertainment decisions in this submission at all - and if I had time I'd apply both your and my wishes to pacifist Contra. But as for now, we may accept this submission as it's obviously better optimized then the previous one. We still can keep all timesavers, but use kinda trade-off to make this boring goal WAY more interesting! For example, one may switch weapons as much as possible and shoot as much as the lag counter allows (after clever management we probably won't need to trade something off). I'm even thinking of a 2 player pacifist (don't remember if it was discussed already) to bring more action. So, pacifist Contra is yet far from it's limits and sumerhumanity.

Should we also care about enemies who jump into bottomless pits in stage 1? How about those who get scrolled offscreen in stage 3? We know getting scrolled means certain death in that stage. What about item carriers and stuff like spiky walls in stage 6—should we save those? What if saving enemies in stages 2 and 4 from being caught in the explosions cost several seconds per screen, increasing total time of the TAS by minutes? What if we need to "sacrifice" an enemy or two so that more could survive? That's a completely plausible scenario if you really want to push it that far with the pacifism idea. I think it's not as important to truly live up to some fun idealistic concept such as being pacifist in a shooter, as it is important to make a movie that is fun to produce and, most certainly, fun to watch. It may be closer to the any% that way, but if it means I won't have to wait for meddling enemies to escape with their lives every time, that's totally fine by me.

I didn't see any problem with stages 2 & 4 and the exploding walls. Here's what I found kind of questionable: was it necessary to fire at (and hit) some of the stationary gunners early in stage 5? If these shots actually saved time, so be it, but if it was just stylistic, it doesn't really seem within the spirit of the run to blast enemies a few times just because they won't die from it. It seems more like torture than pacifism. Same applies to the second snowmobile in the same stage. I really liked the work overall, though. Nice improvement.

I didn't see any problem with stages 2 & 4 and the exploding walls. Here's what I found kind of questionable: was it necessary to fire at (and hit) some of the stationary gunners early in stage 5? If these shots actually saved time, so be it, but if it was just stylistic, it doesn't really seem within the spirit of the run to blast enemies a few times just because they won't die from it. It seems more like torture than pacifism. Same applies to the second snowmobile in the same stage. I really liked the work overall, though. Nice improvement.

These soldiers have a metal shield, shooting it does nothing against themselves ^_^ And shooting the tank is okay as long as it doesn't explode. You know, if you shoot several bullets to a real tank, people inside it won't die.

Should we also care about enemies who jump into bottomless pits in stage 1?

That depends on author's goal. Here are 3 examples of such goals: 1. If death of enemy adds points to player's score, this is considered killing and should be avoided in the run. 2. If enemy object ID (data in RAM) changes to some specific value (death flag), this is considered killing and should be avoided in the run. 3. If viewer can see clear connection between player's actions and enemy death, this is considered killing and should be avoided in the run. Here, I just made up 3 goals that are not speed-oriented but still have the room for optimization. Choose any of those or create your own (not speed-oriented). I'm not advocating any single type of goal, all of them sound like nice limits with which TASer could produce interesting movie. And that movie could be improvable by its own units instead of frames (Example1: got less killing points => you obsolete old movie; Example2: got less moments when object ID changes to death flag => you beat old movie; Example3: less death animations on screen => your submission is published) Unfortunately, this submission's goal seems to be different: 4. Kill only the same enemies as in published run, but do it faster (got less frames => your submission is published) I don't care about actual concept of pacifism in Contra, I just want people to pick any concept beside speedrun.

How about those who get scrolled offscreen in stage 3? We know getting scrolled means certain death in that stage.

It depends on goal. 1st type of goal: enemies going offscreen don't add to player score, so it's okay. 2nd type of goal: enemy object ID does not change to death signal, it just gets cleared, so it's okay. 3rd type of goal: viewer doesn't see death of these enemies so he either assumes they happily go away (especially if TASer said so in submission text) or assumes that they die and add to the list of the game victims (together with bosses/minibosses). Either way it's okay, because player's goal remains solid (not to cause deaths whenever they can be avoided). 4th: those enemies were scrolled in previous versions, so it's okay to repeat it unless it's faster to do otherwise.

What about item carriers and stuff like spiky walls in stage 6-should we save those?

Let's see... 1st type of goal: destroying a pod or a wall gives points, so it's not okay to shoot them if you chose the goal (this means the movie will be played entirely with initial weapon). 2nd type of goal: these objects do initialize death sequence, so it's not okay. 3rd type of goal: viewer doesn't recognize these objects as a living creatures, so it's okay to shoot them. 4th: since people have mixed opinions on killing pods and walls, do whatever is faster.

What if saving enemies in stages 2 and 4 from being caught in the explosions cost several seconds per screen, increasing total time of the TAS by minutes?

Then this run would be 9:50 instead of 9:30. Do you have a problem with it? Remember, first TASes of Contra were 11:30+, and they were considered entertaining. Or do you tell me it's blasphemy to obsolete 9:35 TAS with a 9:50 TAS? Then stop thinking with frames. There are more important things that can grant obsoletion of a Superplay. Now, if saving enemies in stages 2 and 4 from being caught in the explosions cost several minutes per screen, this goal would produce non-entertaining movie, which invalidates this goal and forces TASer to choose between other (not speed-oriented) goals. Simple!

What if we need to "sacrifice" an enemy or two so that more could survive?

That would be awesome show of TASing skills! Like HP management, but better. This would definitely require some planning and a lot of rerecords. But there's no such places in Contra.

That's a completely plausible scenario if you really want to push it that far with the pacifism idea.

I don't want to push pacifism idea, that's only an example. I want to push playarounds idea. Pacifist runs are at least something refreshing among total dominance of pure speedruns, and now even these pacifist runs turn into pure speed competitions. Last bastions are falling, dammit!

I think it's not as important to truly live up to some fun idealistic concept such as being pacifist in a shooter, as it is important to make a movie that is fun to produce and, most certainly, fun to watch.

Indeed, player should consider all options and choose the goal that grants best entertainment result. If I were choosing among those 3 goals I made up, I'd take number 3 - only those deaths that viewer can see and link to player's actions are considered prohibited (unless it's impossible to prevent them). This goal would produce a run that is similar to this submission except for levels 2 and 4. Maybe I would actually get more score points by shooting some enemies offscreen where viewers can't see deaths, and such sneaky TAS would still have more solid goal than this inconsistent submission. This submission's inconsistency is caused by enforcing speedrun rules onto playaround movie, and I object to that.

It may be closer to the any% that way, but if it means I won't have to wait for meddling enemies to escape with their lives every time, that's totally fine by me.

If the pacifist concept transformed to any% because it's more entertaining to watch any%, that would be totally fine by me too. But it transformed to any% because people are being taught that "improvement = saving frames", which is not always true.

If these shots actually saved time, so be it

Oh, great. People indeeed consider this pure speedrun - "if shooting a gunner saves time, it's okay". Man, why didn't you say "If these shots actually saved other soldiers by luck manipulation, so be it"?

Remember, first TASes of Contra were 11:30+, and they were considered entertaining.

When I was a little kid, I considered playing TMNT and Felix the Cat entertaining; I don't anymore. What I want to say is, I'm not against your ideas per se, but I do think the solutions you've proposed either overcomplicate things (#1 and #2 are disconnected from the general viewing experience, as they require the viewer to monitor RAM to verify adherence) or have fuzzy goals (#3, "clear connection" is hard to define, as there is always some kind of critique that emerges in any case). #4, albeit defined a posteriori, is "don't actively kill, but don't prevent collateral damage either", and it is the only goal that is both unambiguous and easy to monitor. It has no internal conflict, but it does have an external conflict with your desired definition of pacifism and your desired increase in the amount of playarounds as opposed to pure speedruns. I'm not critiquing the notion; in fact I support it, but I'm just not sure it makes much sense with a game as simplistic and straightforward as Contra. Many of the more complex games actually do have playarounds and non-trivial goal TASes published; maybe you should rather open up a thread asking people for interesting playaround goals/ideas for games with(out) published speedruns? Or, well, maybe do some yourself—you're a proficient TASer after all.

I just want people to pick any concept beside speedrun.

Hmm... I remember here AnS was defending another view ;D

When I was a little kid, I considered playing TMNT and Felix the Cat entertaining; I don't anymore.

If I get the analogy, now you only play 3D-FPS ;) Because it's unambiguous (plain) and easy.

it is the only goal that is both unambiguous and easy to monitor

It's not wise that these two qualities restrict the scope our decisions. #4 is not the only goal that grants entertaining movie. It actually grants the movie that gets its entertainment only from speed, thus closely resembling the flavour of another Contra speedrun we already have. Also #1 and #2 do not have internal conflict. There's a lot of TASes that use tricks disconnected from viewing experience, but viewers trust that TASer keeps his word and that judge checks everything well. Don't see any internal conflict here. #3 is ambiguous, so are all other playarounds. I say, if it produces more entertaining TAS (more entartaining because it's more different from another Contra TAS), let it be ambiguous.

Hmm... I remember here AnS was defending another view ;D

I didn't vote No there (go ask admins if you doubt). These particurlar 10sec were just bad choice of speed-entertainment tradeoff, to my mind. Bad enough to pronounce it a couple of times in the submission thread, but not bad enough to actually vote No or rate the movie lower that it should be rated.

If Soig didn't change any of the previous movie's entertainment decisions (the former submission was awful in that), anyone wouldn't be able to notice the difference. Isn't that ambiguity? Is the framecount itself enough? See how one may improve the style (scorecount) even lowering the counter just for a SINGLE frame.

This movie has been published. The posts before this message apply to the submission, and posts after this message apply to the published movie. ---- [1926] NES Contra (Japan) "pacifist" by Soig & zyr2288 in 09:29.08

Thank you for publishing! However, I think the current screenshot isn't a good choice: the death doesn't look good, and it happens at the very end of the movie anyway. How about the screenshot suggestion I made earlier in this thread? There's a point where the hero is jumping between fire shots of the Stage 3 boss. You wouldn't see that kind of picture in the any% run, since that run would destroy the arms of the boss first.

Should we also care about enemies who jump into bottomless pits in stage 1? How about those who get scrolled offscreen in stage 3?

Oh come on, that's way different. You're comparing enemies walking into a pit to the player directly causing an explosion that kills people. If you did a pacifist run of Doom and you shot a barrel, blowing up a bunch of zombies, it wouldn't be called a pacifist run, and that's pretty much what happens here.

Too bad speedruns are "the only goal that is both unambiguous and easy to monitor". Since I'm somehow having Editor permissions I fixed the movie description to be more fair to what people can actually see during the speedrun.

A fantastic comment went from YT: He was just out for a walk, and probably couldn't figure out why everyone was shooting at him. Even when he went to great pains to avoid them (including getting killed three times), they wouldn't relent. So he blew up their island. The end. :)