I think that the new Pokemon Yellow submission raises the question of what exactly is a TAS wide open.
Traditionally a speedrun is a completion of a game, from start to finish, as fast as humanly possible (without the aid of any cheating devices, scripts or modifying the game.) A tool-assisted speedrun removes the human aspect from the equation, allowing the usage of any technical aids that the runner wants to use (as long as he/she doesn't actually modify the game itself or use external cheat devices, even emulated ones.)
Some runs may have additional goals besides purely completing the game as fast as possible. The most typical and common one is achieving 100% completion (whatever that may mean in the game in question) besides completing it as fast as possible.
Some time along the way the meaning was somewhat loosened, and game completions which did not complete the game as fast as possible, but instead deliberately used slowed strategies for the sake of entertainment, were included. (Most typically this is done with fighting and sport games, at least the ones where an as-fast-as-possible run would be repetitive and boring, while showcasing other things in the game makes them significantly more entertaining.)
However, even the loosened definition still requires for the game to be finished, rather than simply ending at an arbitrary point.
The new Pokemon Yellow submission is challenging this notion in a big way, as it doesn't go even near to completing the game, yet it's a no-brainer for acceptance. It showcases something quite marvelous about tool-assistance, and deserves its spot in the TASing folklore.
However, it's a very, very different TAS. It does not complete the game, and in fact it doesn't even play the game per se (other than what's absolutely necessary to hack a program into the console and make it run it.) This is something else completely. It defies any existing category.
I think that it's about time to set up the completely new and separate "demo" main category of TASing, that has been suggested several times in the past.
Of course this opens the question of what is and isn't acceptable in the "demo" category.
I see playarounds fitting well within that "tier" (or whatever we want to call it), the TASer simply plays with the game to make an entertaining/interesting movie, but still in a "humanly not possible" way.
I think there should be some rules, but they can't be too strict; the acceptance for these kind of runs would depend a lot on the viewers' feedback, and it would be a case by case thing.
But I think there should be a clear "end" to the run: Brain Training finishes one "minigame", ISS shows one match, this last Pokémon Yellow closes with a, hum, ending song... from MLP, and I did expect the River City Ransom playaround to finish the game.
Buuuut again, this can't be an absolute rule: imagine if someones does a similar thing to this Pokémon run and instead of lauching a song with a picture, the program launched is a Space Invaders game (which is TASed too ^^)...
"Tool-Assisted Superplay" doesn't require completing the game, so Pokemon Yellow fits TASing well.
Arbitrary goals are not usually accepted, and not ending the game tends to be quite much such a thing (because the termination point almost invariably tends to be quite arbitrary.) If we allow runs ending wherever the author wants, it opens up a whole can of worms.
(Btw, personally I find it a bit annoying that so many people seem to want to distance the TASing genre from its roots of speedrunning, as if the original "tool-assisted speedrun" were somehow a name to be avoided. This especially after the years of "fighting" to get tool-assisted speedrunning to be widely accepted as a legit variant of speedrunning rather than something that's despised and looked down by the regular speedrunning community. "Tool-assisted superplay" is a backronym, really, not the original meaning of "TAS".)
The base of TASing is the speedruning, but didn't it changed ? I'm thinking of course about the playaround runs, and especially the Ultimate Mortal Kombat 3 and the Tetris run.
The purpose of these "superplays" are to impress the viewer, nothing else. It's still a minority of course, and when we talk about TAS, most people will think about speedruns, but yet talking about Tool Assisted Superplay isn't meaningless.
I agree with you though about the lack of rules for this kind of runs. For exemple, if a faster run of pokemon yellow ending with the Nyan Cat is submitted, does it obsolete bortreb's run ?
I agree with you though about the lack of rules for this kind of runs. For exemple, if a faster run of pokemon yellow ending with the Nyan Cat is submitted, does it obsolete bortreb's run ?
It doesn't even have to be faster actually. Remember the brain age run? It got obsoleted by a slower run by the same author due to being more entertaining.
Warp, I sympathize with the purism with regards to keeping the "S" in "TAS" strict to speedruns, but you aren't going to get away from "superplay" any longer—if only because that's a broader concept that has historically been featured on this site in the form of playarounds and runs of autoscrolling games, and elsewhere as an umbrella term for top-level playthroughs with or without a definite goal. These days TAS is a general term for virtually anything tool-assisted, no matter whether you consider it to be the proper usage. With that in mind, the Pokemon Yellow "TAS" doesn't become any different, even though technically it's a tool-assisted hackrun ("TAH"?). Maybe it's time to just let go. But I do agree that such hackruns should be concept demos rather than be listed with speedruns. With tiered publication system there should be no problem with reinstating concept demos as a separate tier devoted to showcasing things that are genuinely different from both going for lowest completion time and playing around.
(But the correct answer to the topic quesion is "a miserable little pile of inputs", of course.)
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I see TASes as a showcase of everything that's theoretically possible using allowed inputs on a piece of software. That's the broadest description I'd give.
The ones I expect to see on this site usually require the following restrictions as well:
- the software is a game
- the input sequence should not be easily reproductible without tool assistance
- the input sequence should achieve a stated goal
- the input sequence should achieve the stated goal by minimizing useless inputs, where the uselessness of an input depends on the stated goal
That means I don't expect to see a Microsoft Word speed run :-)
May or may not be off-topic, but I have always found the word "superplay" to be a little bit lame.
Personally, I have been calling them "Tool-Assisted Showcase" runs for a while now. Either they showcase the theoretical perfect speedrun, or they showcase something else about the game, using tools.
I fully agree with launching a demo category. Although we would need to define exactly what kind of run would fit in a demo category. We might be able to categorize all "playaround runs" as demos, or something.
I fully agree with launching a demo category. Although we would need to define exactly what kind of run would fit in a demo category. We might be able to categorize all "playaround runs" as demos, or something.
If a new major category is implemented in some manner, I suggest that we at least consider creating another one as well, so we have three:
- Speedruns.
- "Superplays".
- Concept demos.
(Not a new idea, of course, but just putting it out there once again for consideration.)
I also feel we have to add a true Demo tier for all sorts of messing around, rules ignorence, hacks and fucks, glitched runs of insane depths, as long as the audience LIKES the result.
Language: lua
if CommentsAppereciation >= CheckVal then Enjoyable end
if SubmissionVotes >= CheckPercent then Enjoyable end
if RejectReason then Reject
else
if not Enjoyable then Tier = Vault
else
if MessesAround then Tier = Demos
else Tier = Moons
end
end
end
Publish(Tier)
I don't know whether Playarounds should be preliminarily included into Demos (where the Glitched runs must settle IMO) or into Moons (unlikely for me). I think if we inspire experimenting, a part of that would be more Playarounds, and if we get enough of them, they can be moved to a separate tier. But first we need to bring up the idea that messing around is fun (accept SM GT code)!
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 2/28/2006
Posts: 2275
Location: Milky Way -> Earth -> Brazil
"Genuine self-esteem, however, consists not of causeless feelings, but of certain knowledge about yourself.
It rests on the conviction that you — by your choices, effort and actions — have made yourself into the
kind of person able to deal with reality. It is the conviction — based on the evidence of your own volitional
functioning — that you are fundamentally able to succeed in life and, therefore, are deserving of that success."
- Onkar Ghate
Bisqwit wrote:
If a new major category is implemented in some manner, I suggest that we at least consider creating another one as well, so we have three:
- Speedruns.
- "Superplays".
- Concept demos.
We basically already have those. Vault is for pure speedruns, Moons and Stars are for exceptionally entertaining speedruns as well as superplays, and this new tier would be for proof-of-concept runs that don't necessarily make [all] the speed or entertainment criteria, but remain interesting and/or important in what they achieve. I would reserve stuff like this for such tier:
— hacking the game like in the Pokemon Yellow run, perhaps a single run of any game susceptible for such abuse would be publishable;
— partially complete playthroughs that are better off that way; i.e. don't need the entire game done to make a point, nor wouldn't become more entertaining that way (AngerFist's MM1/2/3/4/5/6 run would qualify), as well as probably any multi-game run that does more than four games at a time;
— historical runs done on custom emulators that didn't end up accepted for submissions on the site due to technical problems (Bisqwit's Star Control II TAS being the first DOS submission would qualify);
— many or most noteworthy submissions that showcase specific methods of glitching a game or otherwise getting to its end only attainable through TASing, but failing to make it faster than other submissions and/or having questionable choice for the ending point of the game;
— submissions with unconventional restrictions that aim to showcase the possibility of finishing the game under such restrictions which wasn't deemed possible even under tool-assisted conditions (warpless walkathons and the like);
— perhaps demonstrations like this would be better suited for such tier as well.
Thoughts?
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If it completes the game, then it's a legit speedrun, not a concept demo (no matter how glitched.)
I'd love to make the vertical axis of tiers clear enough: Gameplay Speed Records. I always emphasize that TASing provides DIFFERENT types of enjoyment, that, if messed up, cause heavy confusion among both TASers and viewers. Watching a TAS people have fun of:
How the puzzles the gameplay internally provides get solved in the most unexpected way. You need to glitch things up to a CERTAIN level, to make the viewer go WOW WTH, but still be able to figure out what's going on by more precise watch (rewinding/frameadvancing in the emulator)
How everything can be JUST BROKEN CRYING FOR HELP. And the most incredible thing here is that you can do that to the game INTERNALLY, just with input.
How things can be farsightedly planned and executed. Item, life, HP management, wise route planning.
Now, what people involved into TASing seem to enjoy:
Setting a world record
Improving
Messing around
Wait what?? These are not the same! TASers and viewers like DIFFERENT things! Some TASers AT ALL don't care how the result looks! Some AT ALL wanth all Any% branches obsoleted by Glitched as long as they're faster. Wait what?? Something is wrong here guys.
We want the site to be the MOST ENJOYABLE, so why roll it down to stupid RECORDS ONLY? The first sense of TASing for me (since I became the TAS viewer) is TAS FASHION. We can sacrifise some fashion if one Any% run is improved by another Any% run. But not between different TAS TYPES. Some guys here were caught suggesting tripple obsoletions. Huh?
Conclusion:
Keeping the most intelligible runs in the MAIN (vertical) tier axis emphasizes what WE like of what we do - as viewers of our own TASes. That inspires people to put more attention to HOW IT LOOKS while TASing.
So, glitching everything up is kind of a SIDE tier, clearly thinking.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
