It's sad differing opinions are not allowed here :-(
I'd rather define "gameplay" as "playing the game", than inputting electric signals in a program. A game has rules (which is the main difference between a game and a toy), and I'd argue that every rule broken is a step away from "playing the game". Rules might be implicit (limits made by the programmer) or explicit (the intent of the game designer). Here I said "a step away", that's not boolean as in a single violation is not playing the game anymore.
I don't see why a lot of debates here ends in absolutes or personal attacks or feelings of being persecuted. That's not healthy and everyone should be entitled to their opinion and should respect the other's and the others.
I don't see why a lot of debates here ends in absolutes or personal attacks or feelings of being persecuted. That's not healthy and everyone should be entitled to their opinion and should respect the other's and the others.
Here? I'd be willing to bet that most internet message board/forum suffers from the same problem.
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.
It's sad differing opinions are not allowed here :-(
I wrote down facts with logical consequences and you say "no differing opinions allowed". This post completely reflects what specific (not you!) people do in this thread.
This debate is all about people who knows what they are writing with years of experiences behind and good understanding of internal working of video games and platforms with proper knowledge of logical consequences versus those who say the opposite without any logic and makes contradictions of common sense.
Anyone who want's the truth, refer to my last post (won't change it because it's perfect and 100% valid. Ok maybe I will add this post as a reference).
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
MESHUGGAH, you speak like a superhuman. Superhumanism is not allowed. Only superplay and overcoming human limitations.
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.
I reject your post feos because
- no illogical things or any sign of being a zombie
- spelling breastlover as superhuman
- and what's with your name, why are you not creative and use something original like "warp" or something... wait...
Today I learned, moving left in Super Mario Bros. is not part of the gameplay (you supposed to go right!!! So many idiot superhumans!!!)
(this post is reserved for future references for this debate.)
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
You look just as insane as I am. It's good to not be alone.
Well, I suggest to finish this talk, the truth was found for those who wanted it, all the rest doesn't matter. I'm serious.
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.
1. Everyone who says [random technique] abuses [platform] not the game: it's part of the gameplay, deal with it.
2. Anyone who says it's not the part of the gameplay: it's part of the gameplay, carry on.
3. Resetting the game with various buttons, using "unexpected" ( there's no such thing the game thinks unexpected, there are "checks" and there are "routines" that do things depending on the conditions), buttons (famicom keyboard), the reset button, the power on/off button, resetting mid-frame, corrupting memory, corrupting save games, using 4 players for 1 player games, disc swapping, remove batteries/power supply, it's part of the gameplay, move on.
If you have any questions, feel free to read step 1 or 2 or 3.
Great arguments. It just is, because you say so, end of argument. You totally convinced me.
You look just as insane as I am. It's good to not be alone.
Well, I suggest to finish this talk, the truth was found for those who wanted it, all the rest doesn't matter. I'm serious.
Good closing words. Debate is over. Go 9gag. Cya nerds. Posts to refer: 4th page.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
I didn't expect this topic to become a battlefield of personal attacks. I am quite disappointed by some of the reactions here, especially on Warp's perfectly reasonable opinion on what constitutes valid input. I want this topic to be constructive, so please keep it so.
That said, let's get back on topic. Just going to clarify some points I've seen so far:
- I was indeed thinking about [2380] SNES Super Mario World "game end glitch" by Masterjun in 01:39.74 when referring to non-existent buttons.
- I never thought of packet spoofing, but that is also a good question for online games.
- Disc swapping with the wrong games can indeed be useful: http://www.gametrailers.com/full-episodes/6e5hv2/pop-fiction-episode-05---the-phoenix-down-that-failed
- Pretty sure N64 crooked cartridge can be emulated. I mean, why not? It's just electrical wires not connecting properly.
- By normal game's objective, I'm talking about the goal of the game, say rescuing the princess in Mario games.
- About that L+R video on real hardware, please take into consideration a case where such a thing isn't possible. Besides, as far as I know, that video could be fake.
So far I'm seeing people that are OK if pretty much anything goes and some that much prefer pure gameplay, and I think it's good to separate categories for this very reason. What I'm interested in is your personal opinion on what you feel should be allowed or not.
Now, for my own opinions:
- If something can be physically done to the console without opening it nor damaging it, it should be acceptable.
- If a signal can be sent through any kind of available port. it should be valid input.
- Components that are in an undefined state at power on should be allowed to be at any defined state before starting a TAS.
- Beating the game should mean getting the machine to reach a predefined state. What that state is is game-dependent, but should have at least one of the following criteria: beating the last level, executing the end state and/or getting game completion evidence on the save data.
Now, for my own opinions:
- If something can be physically done to the console without opening it nor damaging it, it should be acceptable.
I'm honestly not trying to start the argument again, and I'm honestly being purely curious: Does that include using the power button and pulling and reconnecting the power plug?
- Pretty sure N64 crooked cartridge can be emulated. I mean, why not? It's just electrical wires not connecting properly.
I'm pretty sure it can't. Emulation isn't about mimicking the electrical properties of a system.
Besides, electrical circuits are extremely hard to emulate properly. When you start using a system in a way it was never designed to be used, anything can happen.
- Pretty sure N64 crooked cartridge can be emulated. I mean, why not? It's just electrical wires not connecting properly.
I'm pretty sure it can't. Emulation isn't about mimicking the electrical properties of a system.
Besides, electrical circuits are extremely hard to emulate properly. When you start using a system in a way it was never designed to be used, anything can happen.
Emulators do emulate reading bytes from the cartridge. Console CPUs don't have all their address space mapped to the ROM, so at some point there's a decoder that looks at the address requested by the CPU and passes it on to the cartridge. Cart connector pinouts are well-known, so I don't see how the decoder couldn't turn off specific Data Bus lines.
EDIT1: But technically that should count as altering the game code (unless a TASer can prove that only save RAM data is modified), i.e. like a hack.
EDIT2: I believe the true spirit of TASing could be summarized as beating the original game code as fast as possible. This doesn't have to include any hardware at all (which is why we can use emulators); it's like a theoretical mathematics problem. The game is like a labyrinth, and the goal that is hidden in the middle is the ending - the last, final state the game can assume (though some games may restart automatically). In other words, a TASer needs to beat the game creator and his code into assuming this last state (usually visualized by the ending).
[Emulators do emulate reading bytes from the cartridge. Console CPUs don't have all their address space mapped to the ROM, so at some point there's a decoder that looks at the address requested by the CPU and passes it on to the cartridge. Cart connector pinouts are well-known, so I don't see how the decoder couldn't turn off specific Data Bus lines.
Sure. But this is about emulating the behaviour, and no the electrical system. Who knows what can actually happen when pulling out a cartridge? You might have connected circuits, half-connected circuits, unconnected ones, perhaps even crossed ones.
Besides that, resistance and voltage may vary outside tolerated parameters. There is just no way to emulate all of this. But yes, you could emulate the "likely" behaviour, if you know what pins to disconnect and all other technical know-how of how these carts interact with the system.
But then again, is it well defined how they interact with the system, considering stuff like chips in the cartridges and stuff?
I didn't expect this topic to become a battlefield of personal attacks.
I apologize for turning this thread into a flamewar. Partially it concerned my judging decision about latest SMW glitched, and I needed to figure out if this decision was fair. If community didn't mostly agree that the traits SMW gitched has are legit from TAS point, it would prove my decision was wrong, so I needed to find out why and how that mistake was made by me. I see that no mistake was made though. And it was not me who raised the question of "spirit of tool-assisted speedrunning" (the matter I can't resist discussing since I am interested in it).
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.
Now, for my own opinions:
- If something can be physically done to the console without opening it nor damaging it, it should be acceptable.
I'm honestly not trying to start the argument again, and I'm honestly being purely curious: Does that include using the power button and pulling and reconnecting the power plug?
Yes. Allow me to elaborate, since I forgot to do so earlier.
Indeed, with the exception of restoring a state prior to a power off or interrupt, such actions are rarely taken into consideration during the game design process. On this regard, I find your position perfectly valid and reasonable, and worthy of a separate category in my opinion.
However, it is possible to do such actions, and the hardware has been designed for that. Not only that, but proper handling of those actions are literally requirements for licensed games. (For example, I've seen a Wii game fail certification because the power button triggered a save before power off.) Therefore, even if the game was not designed around those actions, the software does, and since the published game is the software, then it's the only reliable reference for the game's rules too, including the handling of the hardware's power.
I hope my position is more clear now! :)
EEssentia wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
- Pretty sure N64 crooked cartridge can be emulated. I mean, why not? It's just electrical wires not connecting properly.
I'm pretty sure it can't. Emulation isn't about mimicking the electrical properties of a system.
Besides, electrical circuits are extremely hard to emulate properly. When you start using a system in a way it was never designed to be used, anything can happen.
I'm not an electronics expert, but I know the N64 was designed so that a cartridge could be temporarily removed from the system, even up to 10 seconds on early revisions (hence why Rare attempted Stop 'n' Swop for Banjo-Kazooie). Because of that, I believe the electronics must have been designed to accommodate cartridges that aren't inserted property while powered on too, since that case can very easily happen during a swap. I don't see how it could have worked otherwise. If I'm right, I would have thought that simply forcing some bits to 0 while emulating a read or write operation would have done the job.
Whether doing so is a form of hacking or not is another matter entirely. But even if it isn't, it's not sufficient reason to allow crooked cartridge for me since it does not resolve whether or not doing so causes damage to the hardware or cartridge. And even if it doesn't, the N64 user documentation clearly states in bold letters to always make sure that the power is off before inserting or removing a cartridge, so just for that I would not allow crooked cartridge.
feos wrote:
I apologize for turning this thread into a flamewar. Partially it concerned my judging decision about latest SMW glitched, and I needed to figure out if this decision was fair. If community didn't mostly agree that the traits SMW gitched has are legit from TAS point, it would prove my decision was wrong, so I needed to find out why and how that mistake was made by me. I see that no mistake was made though..
Thanks for apologizing. I understand now why you felt so concerned about this thread. Getting the pulse of the community for such rules and rulings was the primary reason I created it, since nobody appeared to have done so in the past except in submission threads. I'm happy that it had the desired effect on this regard. And yes, you can stop worrying. :)
However, it is possible to do such actions, and the hardware has been designed for that. Not only that, but proper handling of those actions are literally requirements for licensed games. (For example, I've seen a Wii game fail certification because the power button triggered a save before power off.)
I'm not sure I can agree with the sentiment that since the power button can be detected in some modern consoles, it has to be allowed in all consoles, even those where it simply just cuts the power to the machine and that's it.
Nevertheless, perhaps I could clarify what I mean when I say that I don't like it if non-gameplay-related things are abused to corrupt the game data.
Assume a hypothetical case where a team of all-powerful beings, in the form of humanoids, were to demonstrate how to play an absolutely perfect and flawless game of football against a normal human team. In such a demonstration one would expect exactly that: A perfect game of football, with both teams playing to the best of their abilities, and the superhuman team just mopping the floor with the other team by constantly making absolutely stunning football performances.
However, what happens? All the members of the normal team get so sick that they cannot play, and have to be removed from the game. The all-powerful team then simply plays in an empty field by just kicking the ball constantly into the now-empty opposing goal, thousands of times. Certainly this would be a complete letdown, and not what one wanted to see.
When asked why they did this, they argue: Well, the case where a player gets sick is right here in the rulebook. Since it's in the rulebook, making them sick a perfectly valid option, isn't it? Surely it wouldn't be there if it weren't a valid strategy, now would it?
Well, the game's rulebook might contain some section about what to do if a player gets sick during a game, but that's not really what we wanted to see. We wanted to see the game being actually played...
I'm not an electronics expert, but I know the N64 was designed so that a cartridge could be temporarily removed from the system, even up to 10 seconds on early revisions (hence why Rare attempted Stop 'n' Swop for Banjo-Kazooie). Because of that, I believe the electronics must have been designed to accommodate cartridges that aren't inserted property while powered on too, since that case can very easily happen during a swap. I don't see how it could have worked otherwise. If I'm right, I would have thought that simply forcing some bits to 0 while emulating a read or write operation would have done the job.
Whether doing so is a form of hacking or not is another matter entirely. But even if it isn't, it's not sufficient reason to allow crooked cartridge for me since it does not resolve whether or not doing so causes damage to the hardware or cartridge. And even if it doesn't, the N64 user documentation clearly states in bold letters to always make sure that the power is off before inserting or removing a cartridge, so just for that I would not allow crooked cartridge.
The problem is that you are thinking digitally: ie, a signal can only be 1 or 0. That's not true in electronics. In electronics, it's a matter of voltage and current. Typically there are regions, like 0 - 0.2V is treated as a 0 and 0.8 to 1V is treated as a 1, and in between is unknown.
If you mess with the cartridge, you can disturb those signals, possibly flipping them or making them fall into the unknown region.
Anyway, I'm sure it the behaviour can be emulated, but the electrical system can't. This might make it possible to emulate this, but difficult to verify on a real system (like timings).
Whether it should be allowed or not is a debate I'm not going to get into ;)
Warp wrote:
When asked why they did this, they argue: Well, the case where a player gets sick is right here in the rulebook. Since it's in the rulebook, making them sick a perfectly valid option, isn't it? Surely it wouldn't be there if it weren't a valid strategy, now would it?
Well, the game's rulebook might contain some section about what to do if a player gets sick during a game, but that's not really what we wanted to see. We wanted to see the game being actually played...
While it's a perfectly valid opinion, keep in mind that others opinions are not the same as yours. There might be people who think it's entertaining and fair game, who knows? ;)
However, what happens? All the members of the normal team get so sick that they cannot play, and have to be removed from the game. The all-powerful team then simply plays in an empty field by just kicking the ball constantly into the now-empty opposing goal, thousands of times. Certainly this would be a complete letdown, and not what one wanted to see.
Sure, so audience would vote No, and the movie would be rejected (or go to the Vault), while another movie where gods didn't play the sickness card would be accepted (to the Moons). Is there some problem I don't see?
I'm not sure I can agree with the sentiment that since the power button can be detected in some modern consoles, it has to be allowed in all consoles, even those where it simply just cuts the power to the machine and that's it.
My soft power button example was just an example, not a generalization. To give another example, I've seen a 360 game fail certification because of bad save data corruption handling after a power failure.
To clarify, my point was if a consoles is designed with a specific feature, software running on them must be designed to take that feature into consideration.
Warp wrote:
Well, the case where a player gets sick is right here in the rulebook. Since it's in the rulebook, making them sick a perfectly valid option, isn't it? Surely it wouldn't be there if it weren't a valid strategy, now would it?
Well, the game's rulebook might contain some section about what to do if a player gets sick during a game, but that's not really what we wanted to see. We wanted to see the game being actually played...
Not sure that's a really good example, considering sports competitions do have rules about not doing that sort of things without being disqualified. At least, well-designed ones.
That said, I see merit in both following the rules and abusing the rules. The entertainment value for each case is entirely subjective and game-dependent, so both categories should be allowed in my opinion.
That said, I see merit in both following the rules and abusing the rules.
To clarify, the "rules of football" I used above as a metaphor was a simile related to the hardware. In other words, just because a game "should" add eg. savedata checksums to make sure that savedata is not corrupted, and many games don't, that's not part of gameplay. In the same way as the superhuman players could abuse the fact that the opposing team can get sick doesn't mean that's what the spectators want to see, likewise just the fact that power can be cut from the console is not necessarily something that the spectators want to see. In both cases the spectators (or at least me) want to see a game being played with absolute perfection, not abuse of ancillary unrelated things.
I get your metaphor now, thanks for the explanation. Seems like I understood your position perfectly.
It makes sense to me, but it's a logic that can't be perfectly applied for TAS because you can bet for sure that the game design rules are different than how the game is programmed. For example, while a game designer can think in terms of probabilities, an algorithm cannot generate randomness, only simulate it. Hence, you can't ban luck manipulation, and yet you can't fully manipulate it either.
You could still use your common sense and guess what were the game designer's intentions, but there are limits (as I just mentioned), and it's open to interpretation (bug or feature). There is merit to at least try (glitchless categories), but you just can't make it a hard requirement. It's impossible.
And of course, even if it would be possible, it doesn't mean that the "abuse" way doesn't have merit too. It's just a different kind of entertainment. But I'm just repeating myself on that last one. :)
Now, how about we watch a good game of [1438] SNES International Superstar Soccer Deluxe "playaround" by Marcokarty in 15:24.38? :D
It makes sense to me, but it's a logic that can't be perfectly applied for TAS because you can bet for sure that the game design rules are different than how the game is programmed. For example, while a game designer can think in terms of probabilities, an algorithm cannot generate randomness, only simulate it. Hence, you can't ban luck manipulation, and yet you can't fully manipulate it either.
I think there's still some misunderstanding left. I'm not talking about abusing luck or glitches in the game. I'm just talking about doing it via gameplay (rather than via external influence such as the reset or power buttons.)
If we continue with the football game metaphor, abusing luck in the game would be like in the football game a perfect player making a one-in-a-trillion shot from one end of the field to the other, which has just the right amount of spin and velocity, and bounces ten times from the ground, other players and goalposts, and might even fly 50 meters high at some point, and ends up in the opponents' goal through astronomically small chance. There's nothing wrong with that.
Zipping through a wall is like the ball suddenly quantum-teleporting through a player, a chance that's so astronomically small that it just doesn't happen normally.
Frankly as far as I'm concerned, if you make an awesome movie using TAS tools, then it should be publishable on this site. Does it really "complete" the game? Who cares! Does it use inputs that a normal player would never be able to access? Who cares, so long as they're repeatable! Was the movie enjoyable to watch, that's what matters.
I support this opinion. I love watching superplays and combo fests in fighters, even though they are not speedruns, but actually playarounds. I love (TAS) speedruns that abuse the games AND consoles limits to create an astonishing experience of "What just happened?" and then reading up on how everything works. But I'm also a big fan of "no-glitch-runs" where the category limits the use of various glitches.
Similar thing with the disc swap (as posted earlier, swapping discs between unrelated games can result in incredible results) - I love watching this being used to it's full potential.
If for some reason we would, as a theoretical example, start PS Spyro 1 and then swap disc to some weird other game, walk into the next emerald, then the game freezes, we swap the disc back to Spyro 1 and the ending plays because it happens to load the ending - that would be amazing and awesome. But should by no means obsolete the current runs.
I have the firm belief, that most things can be solves by "different" - but clearly labeled and defined - categories.
