I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier.
Well strictly the Moon Tier is for runs with high entertainment value. It is possible for a run to have low entertainment but be a significant technical achievement, and to be non-vaultable. (BoboTheKing's run where he maxes the score in the Beetlemania minigame of Super Mario RPG being one example off the top of my head.)
The more I think about it, the more I ask myself: "why does it have to be a tier?".
The works we would end up putting in it will have some sort of uniqueness, after all, that means that we would have a hard time defining strict criteria for them. It's obviously a case by case thing.
I think we just need a place to showcase these "demo" runs/works. And if they qualify for a "normal" tier (moon, vault), they can also be published normally on the site; in fact they would get published first, then added to that showcase place.
Let's go with some examples.
We could have the "multiple games with one input file" in there, and they would also get published in moons.
We can have the *GDQ events (SMW turns into pong+snake or into SMB, Pokémon plays Twitch...).
We can have the infinite SMB2 run, even if it can't be published because it doesn't finish the game, the Pokémon pi run doesn't finish the game either.
I think I've explained the idea enough. The "runs" would be picked reagrdless of what happens to them in the workbench, if they even go to the workbench to begin with :P
They'll need to be handpicked, and that's another debate, maybe one debate for each run.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
I think my point is being indirectly addressed.
The difficulty here is, what movies are "showcases" that are NOT "moons" and what criteria do we have for judges and audience to distinguish them?
Warps point is interesting. Right now Vault has the "must complete the game" criteria.
However, moons (and stars) do not have this verbage, they simply need to be entertaining TASes. As such, playaround type movies are published in Moons (or stars).
We could require game completion on Moons and Stars, then showcases would have a clear differentiation. Or, all showcases are just moons anyway so what's the point. I'm not seeing other options here.
IMO the current tiers should be about game completions, and this new tier (if it's created) can be free of such requirement. It clarifies things, and makes it much easier to say "this goes to the demo tier".
Said tier could thus also host runs of games that have no clearly defined ending or completion.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
IMO the current tiers should be about game completions, and this new tier (if it's created) can be free of such requirement. It clarifies things, and makes it much easier to say "this goes to the demo tier".
Said tier could thus also host runs of games that have no clearly defined ending or completion.
To be clear, you are proposing a change to the moon and star tiers not stating the way they have been.
keep in mind there are more human inputs than controller inputs.
I like that : )
But I'm not really sure what you are proposing. Would you go with something even more general?
@feos: 'prowess' may have been poor word choice there. 'Innovation' would probably be better. But anyway, in your example a bot-generated run on wii would be interesting, but I had something different in mind for technical innovation, more along the lines of what the games and hardware can do.
I'll give another example, the fancy new n64 emulator CEN64 (or any ongoing emulator developments) if completed would be in its own right a technical achievement that would allow much more accurate TASes for that system to be generated, but as an example of what can be done with a game or hardware, it wouldn't provide anything new by itself. I hope this is a clear example.
As for Adelikat's question of what is a showcase and not moon, in my mind it is like the complement of the question mark box designation. The top tier examples that can be considered cutting edge technically (even if their entertainment value is minimal.) The benefit is that it sets these runs apart in an easily accessible and searchable place, as opposed to being in the sea of ~900 moons TASes.
For how they are picked, I think Grincevent said it pretty well. The 'beating the game' requirement might also help clarifying as well.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
This has been a great discussion thread so far - a lot of good points have been made. My thoughts on the most recent suggestions:
I didn't go into this concept thinking that anything would change with the existing Moons and Stars thread rules, but I actually kind of like the idea of making all three existing tiers (Stars, Moons, and Vault) have a requirement that the run completes the game and set aside whatever this new tier is to handle runs that *don't* complete the game. The problem with that simplistic definition is it would exclude things like TheAxeMan's Final Fantasy console verification run, so perhaps this new tier simply doesn't require completing the game but doesn't prohibit it either. That leaves the sticky problem of trying to confine what *can* be accepted within that rather loose definition which is something Adelikat is apparently concerned about.
I'm probably still too biased to be the one proposing these guidelines so I'll again defer to someone else. (Also, the announcement of the TASBot block being scheduled during primetime for SGDQ 2015 has me quite distracted, but I digress...) Thanks again for all the useful discussion so far!
I didn't go into this concept thinking that anything would change with the existing Moons and Stars thread rules, but I actually kind of like the idea of making all three existing tiers (Stars, Moons, and Vault) have a requirement that the run completes the game and set aside whatever this new tier is to handle runs that *don't* complete the game.
It must beat the game (1-level movies are rejected).
The discussion here has been about the Tiers page, which only calls out completion for the Vault. You are correct in pointing out that the general movie rules indicate that the game must be complete, but that is the very type of definition I propose clarifying to limit it to the three existing Stars / Moons / Vault tiers.
Might I even suggest that not only would the current tiers require the game to be completed, but for it to be completed "properly".
I understand it would be a rather fuzzy definition in some cases, but IMO an ACE run that jumps to the end screen doesn't actually complete the game "properly". It would fit nicely in the "demo" tier.
Might I even suggest that not only would the current tiers require the game to be completed, but for it to be completed "properly".
I understand it would be a rather fuzzy definition in some cases, but IMO an ACE run that jumps to the end screen doesn't actually complete the game "properly". It would fit nicely in the "demo" tier.
My original Demo tier idea had that suggestion. But as I think of it, strictly speaking, it doesn't matter where the run is published, if it already is. Demo is a tier for runs that can't be published here right now at all, and optionally, for some current runs that might be close to those unpublished ones by some trait.
I agree with requirement to complete the game for Vault/Moons/Stars, and I don't thing anyone is really proposing forbidding game completion for Demo. So yeah, if we set such a rule (to complete the game), some Moons runs would be moved to Demo, and I totally support it.
Alyosha wrote:
'prowess' may have been poor word choice there. 'Innovation' would probably be better. But anyway, in your example a bot-generated run on wii would be interesting, but I had something different in mind for technical innovation, more along the lines of what the games and hardware can do.
Yes, this is what I disagree with. You seem to prefer hardware-ish demonstrations to all the rest. I really fail to see a harm from showcasing a result of innovative thinking/R'n'D if it's not console-verifiable. Can you tell why it's not worth it?
I decided to go through some potential demos, that one might or might not feel like seeing in Showcase tier, and see if I'd be able to invent causes to put them there. Because, it's the best test for any proposal idea, let's decide what fits and what doesn't by simply looking at examples!
#4450: TheAxeMan's NES Final Fantasy "Console Verification" in 1:11:28.35
Impressive research and development. Novel concept. Weird goal.
Moth's judgment note wrote:
this run's goal to showcase a bot that has to figure out RNG on the fly from any SRAM by letting a fight run while holding a button
#3912: adelikat's FDS Super Mario Bros. 2 in 115:17:46:40.00
Novel concept. Weird goal.
I'm pretty sure we won't need more than one run of this kind, but having exactly one most impressive is a must. There's no other way you'd ever see an endlessly syncing speedrun!
#1493: Bisqwit's DOS Star Control II in 35:03.50
Impressive research and development.
Bisqwit hacked savestates into DOSBox! However, I visualize this run rejected due to simply not syncing. And maybe due to somewhat improper implementation of TAS tools, so let this run remain a Gruefood Delight.
#2908: HappyLee's NES Super Mario Bros. "lowest score" in 14:32.80
Weird goal.
But nothing more to it really. This run would only fit in Moons, because it's just plain standard gameplay achievement, but simply not entertaining. Also only Gruefood Delight.
[2171] NES Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? by Bobo the King in 2:01:54.05
Impressive research and development.
A run made entirely by a bot. Why is it impressive? Because it's hardly possible at all! Brute forcing takes absurd amounts of time, and is never used right away. There are only some smart algorithms to make bot's life easier and discard certainly wrong paths, but to make one, you really need to be a tech pro!
[1565] NES Lunar Pool by Bisqwit in 23:47.52
Same as above, but human did take part in it's recording. So such a run isn't unique, because you can't measure human ratio and put a limit on where you think human is allowed to participate, that wouldn't be arbitrary. So there can be only 1 clear definition: no human involved in actual recording. Then, how do we prove it, once it was claimed? There's only one way - try and run the bot, to reproduce the same run. Home machine, server, framework, whatever.
#3523: Bobo_the_King's SNES Super Mario RPG: Legend of the Seven Stars "Beetle Mania" in 45:35.38
Same as above, no human involved in recording, but it's only a minigame! I don't know if we should allow minigames or hacks for Demo.
#3556: Brandon's NES Super Mario Bros. "minimum button presses" in 05:48.04
Novel concept. Weird goal. Amazing installation!
Without such a script, it'd only be a Moon candidate, and fail, but with press counter looking like that, it is a showcase of... something neat! And it can be highly competitive too.
#1991: AngerFist's NES Mega Man 1, 2, 3, 4, 5 & 6 in 02:42.90
Not sure how to categorize it.
This only beats one level, but if we aim for competitiveness, it opens some sane possibility to beat this movie: once someone beats more games at once, completing only one level, or beats more levels using the same amount of games, it might be obsoleted. However, we don't want meaningless publications too, and submitting a bunch of runs that beat more and more levels is meaningless, so we either only allow 1 level or full game, or ban single levels entirely, if aimed for completion itself.
http://tasvideos.org/Bisqwit/Projects/ChronoCross.html
This is unheard of! Impressive research and development. Novel concept.
But again, it'd be better to go on and implement TAS tools, while this work doesn't even provide a movie file.
#1504: curtmack's NES NES Test Cart in 01:31.68
This is actually a tough one. What it does is stupidly trivial. It has stupidly limited variety of actions. The end result is stupidly boring. But it's stupidly fun nevertheless! I was amazed by this movie when I saw it. More importantly, it reminds all about how input display can be used as a light organ in actual TASes.
[817] SNES Super Metroid "100%" by JXQ in 1:10:45.02[1030] Genesis Sub-Terrania by JXQ in 06:40.62#3549: Supper's DS NitroTracker "fastest song" in 00:53.94
Concept somewhat similar to the above (replay a song), but it needs a homebrew game.
Link to video
This needs a script even to record/replay something. But man, if such a run is ever made, we HAVE to find a place for it somewhere! I think the general rule for such runs could be that they need to be entertaining to justify game hacking.
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.
Being technically interesting has no relation to Moons. A run could be absolutely straightforward, but well-received, and for that alone reside in Moons.
Indeed. My point is that "technically interesting" runs are also going to be well-received (so that they can go in Moons). If a run isn't well-received, then clearly most voters didn't find it interesting.
Warp wrote:
I thought that a TAS has to, at the very least, complete the game. If it doesn't complete the game, then it's hard to call it a speedrun at all. (Because that's the very definition of "speedrun": To complete the game as fast as possible.)
According to the site logo, TAS stands voor Tool-Assisted Superplay, not speedrun. Indeed, we have a numerous Moons runs that don't in fact complete the game as fast as possible.
Grincevent wrote:
Let's go with some examples.
We could have the "multiple games with one input file" in there, and they would also get published in moons.
We can have the *GDQ events (SMW turns into pong+snake or into SMB, Pokémon plays Twitch...).
We can have the infinite SMB2 run, even if it can't be published because it doesn't finish the game, the Pokémon pi run doesn't finish the game either.
I note that all the movies you mention are, in fact, in Moon tier (except, surprisingly, the infinity run). So that seems to confirm my statement that Moon tier already covers what this proposed tier is for.[/url]
I decided to go through some potential demos, that one might or might not feel like seeing in Showcase tier, and see if I'd be able to invent causes to put them there. Because, it's the best test for any proposal idea, let's decide what fits and what doesn't by simply looking at examples!
It's just my opinion that whatever we put in a 'technical showcase' should meet the highest standards of what is authentically possible, but certainly the community can collectively decide where they want to draw that line.
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
This has been an interesting thread, with some solid, thoughtful posts about this proposed demo/showcase tier.
Can a request something, since this idea is becoming more fleshed out? How would such a proposed tier look like on the TASVideos front page? Could someone make up a 'concept page' to show off how this would look?
"But as it is written, Eye hath not seen, nor ear heard, neither have entered into the heart of man, the things which God hath prepared for them that love him." - 1 Corinthians 2:9
According to the site logo, TAS stands voor Tool-Assisted Superplay, not speedrun.
I'm honestly wondering if you are just trying to troll me.
That logo doesn't dictate the policies of the site. It could just as well say "Tool-assisted slowplay movies" and it wouldn't make any difference.
I'm honestly wondering if you are just trying to troll me.
That logo doesn't dictate the policies of the site. It could just as well say "Tool-assisted slowplay movies" and it wouldn't make any difference.
Not at all. If I understand your previous post correctly, you would like a showcase tier for runs that don't fit the definition of "speedrun" (i.e. to complete the game as fast as possible). I'm simply pointing out that we already have runs in moon tier (e.g. all playarounds) that don't complete the game as fast as possible.
Basically, if propose that we need a new tier to publish X (for some value of X), then it strikes me as a fair counterargument that we already publish X.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
There has been no recent progress in clarifying how we would use the existing submission system to provide more visibility for some of the technical showcase runs and there is demand to create a place to describe what we've done at past GDQ events. Because adding a new tier is clearly a politically fraught and technically difficult endeavor I have opted to create a large number of Wiki entries instead, starting with the Wiki: TASBot page and creating individual entries explaining each run of note.
This plan does *not* solve the general problem that there is no place on the site for these types of runs to be submitted but it at least will provide an outlet to describe some of the more technical aspects of what we've done.
Returning to the problem at hand, in my opinion, we need a way to classify these total control and similar runs. They need to have their own rules regarding completion criteria, as well as overall criteria on what is allowed and disallowed. I find a key factor here that games which lack these exploits are finite. Baring loops, there are a (nearly incalculable) finite amount of ways to complete a game. However, in games that we can add our own code, once we do so, there are now an infinite amount of ways to proceed. These two groups are now objectively distinct, and we really do need to come up with a set of rules for each. These rules we develop should take into account how the different groups of these runs differ from each other as I entailed in my presentation of the previous problem, and allow for many runs per game, but limit the infinite.
An important point to consider in developing a tier and rules for it is how a run makes use of the existing game once its payload begins. This run to my knowledge is the first run to no longer make any use of the game whatsoever once the payload begins. Meaning that the final payload can be ran on any SNES game once controller input to RAM becomes possible. Since it's not tied to a game, do we accept different runs of Notepad attached to Super Mario World, Super Metroid, Kirby Super Star, and others? Not only do we have to categorize what kind of diversity we allow for any given game, we need to limit how we apply this diversity to many different games, as I do not wish to publish the same virtually identical payload over and over.
I already began work in trying to define a new tier for these kinds of runs in order to spark some discussion. However, I find this initial work to be lacking in that it does not make use of yet to be developed movie class/branch criteria, and it does not supply a series of rules on how to deal with the aforementioned sub-problems in this tier problem. If we can iron these issues out, I'd be happy to enable the site to support it, and then accept this run if it conforms to the new rules.
In closing I want to add that runs like this which include payloads and play them take tool-assistance to their epitome input-wise, and we should put the effort in to properly acknowledge them.
Since I do like tech demo stuff a lot (even if I'm not that technically knowledgeable enough to do anything of the sort) I guess I'll at least post some comments about this.
My feeling in reading over Nach's post is basically wondering why there is such an over abundance of caution. I don't see the harm in just declaring the Demo Tier into existence, using your (Nach's) existing rough draft of rules and such, putting some runs into it, and working out the kinks from there. It's no big deal if some problems are encountered or some mistakes are made along the way, gotta climb that learning curve somehow. At least there would be something real to look at and work with instead of just the hypothetical. Not everything needs to be crystal clear and set in stone for the tier to work, and it's not like we're stopping global warming or defeating ISIS here, give it a try! Something is better then nothing!
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.
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.
One thing that that seems to exclude is runs of games that are not eligible either for vault or moons, because of the type of game that it is. In other words, it's just your old regular TAS of a game that hasn't a published TAS, but which gets rejected from moons for being "boring" (whatever that means) and from vault because of being of the "wrong type" of game, but still would have merit to have a TAS (because we want TASes of all existing games).
I'd say that if it's an officially published commercial game for one of the supported platforms, a sensible TAS of it ought to be almost automatically published, unless there's a good reason not to. (One reason that comes to mind is if the game has no clearly defined ending, and the goal or stopping point chosen by the runner is so arbitrary that it might just as well had been stopped at a random point, with little justifiable logic or reason.)
As long as it can meet the conceptual criteria, sure. But games that are just played using internal gameplay only, should be simply reconsidered for Vault, like it's being done for sports games now.
Concept Demo should show impressive achievements, not be a dumping ground for something that didn't make it but is still somewhat nice.
EDIT:
I added the definition to the page. And clarified the R&D part a bit.
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'd say that if it's an officially published commercial game for one of the supported platforms, a sensible TAS of it ought to be almost automatically published, unless there's a good reason not to. (One reason that comes to mind is if the game has no clearly defined ending, and the goal or stopping point chosen by the runner is so arbitrary that it might just as well had been stopped at a random point, with little justifiable logic or reason.)
.....A basement tier to store the mass amounts of chess/checkers/real-life game based runs?
.....A basement tier to store the mass amounts of chess/checkers/real-life game based runs?
Maybe we should avoid giving a tier a name and fame of being just a dump for everything that has been rejected from everywhere else. I believe that every tier deserves a certain amount of prestige that the others do not. Having your run be put under a certain tier shouldn't be a shame, but something normal.
