Joined: 6/5/2006
Posts: 188
Location: Malmö, Sweden
I was originally against using the glitch because of reasons already mentioned by others: if the image is not part of tricking the OCR, it becomes arbitrary and we might as well not draw something or draw it in something else instead. But after thinking about it some more, we are ultimately still tricking the OCR, aren't we? Even if it's done in two separate steps (draw an image that gets ignored and draw answer invisibly) both of these steps involve tricking the OCR.
And in the end, we ARE drawing an image as part of our answer and it DOES get accepted by the game. The technical reason to why this works doesn't change the fact that it is potentially hilarious and impossible for a human player to perform.
Even the best player is limited by the speed of his fingers, or his mind's ability to control them. But what happens when speed is not a factor, when theory becomes reality?
I really can't understand what exactly is the problem you are having. I already suggested using the visible picture to fool the OCR for the majority of answers, and then give one or two answers with a completely blank picture, explaining clearly to the viewers what's happening. (In other words, something along the lines of: "All these pictures fooled the OCR to think it's the correct answer. However, we can go even further and give the answer off-screen, making it look like the program is accepting a blank picture as the answer.") If it's just one or two such answers at the end of the demonstration, I don't see a problem with it. As long as the previous visible-picture-answers were genuine OCR-fooling.
This is the way to go in my opinion (and I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed by Warp and others). First show some genuine OCR fooling, then announce a step-up in breakage and do a series of offscreen stuff showing a deliberately wrong answer, then a pretty but completely unrelated picture, then a blank answer, and explain the "magic" behind those.
A bit of a tangent, but to be fair, the audience already knows we break games, and have come to expect nothing less of us. So we need to cater to the entertainment aspects of our gamebreaking just as much, if not more, than the technical ones. Glitches should look and feel fresh, tricks should be executed with style, and so on. Obviously one would be going to run out of things to show if they were only considering technical breakthroughs. Back in 2009 or so, my mother, being an avid soccer fan, had a kick out of the ISSS Deluxe run. Before that, over a dozen of my friends could be seen laughing at Neofix's old Golden Axe run. It doesn't always have to be a technical breakthrough to be an entertaining watch that only TASing can provide.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
Warp wrote:
The pictures are not all by themselves all that fun. It's what they (seemingly) are doing, ie. fooling the program. I honestly cannot understand why this is so hard to fathom. It's quite clear.
I guess where I differ is I could care less how fooling the OCR takes place as long as the result fools the OCR into thinking the answer was correct but others here care a lot how it takes place. I agree we should try our hardest on every image to embed the answer in the image itself and only resort to off-screen answers if we must, but again, the existing run does stuff off-screen and I cannot understand why that is so hard to fathom. It's quite clear. :)
Warp wrote:
dwangoAC wrote:
echo chamber
Btw, you keep repeating that expression. I'm curious to know what you think it means (because, and pardon the pun, I'm not sure it means what you think it means.)
When I say echo chamber I'm saying that people inside of TASVideos are the only ones who care about this debate - people from outside of TASVideos don't. We're arguing inside of our own isolated bubble about something that seriously, completely doesn't matter to anyone outside of TASVideos, hence my statement it's an echo chamber. But having said all that, I think we've all made our points and come to a compromise so it's effectively a non-issue at this point. Thanks for the lively debate!
Joined: 12/8/2012
Posts: 706
Location: Missouri, USA
moozooh wrote:
Warp wrote:
I really can't understand what exactly is the problem you are having. I already suggested using the visible picture to fool the OCR for the majority of answers, and then give one or two answers with a completely blank picture, explaining clearly to the viewers what's happening. (In other words, something along the lines of: "All these pictures fooled the OCR to think it's the correct answer. However, we can go even further and give the answer off-screen, making it look like the program is accepting a blank picture as the answer.") If it's just one or two such answers at the end of the demonstration, I don't see a problem with it. As long as the previous visible-picture-answers were genuine OCR-fooling.
This is the way to go in my opinion (and I definitely agree with the sentiments expressed by Warp and others). First show some genuine OCR fooling, then announce a step-up in breakage and do a series of offscreen stuff showing a deliberately wrong answer, then a pretty but completely unrelated picture, then a blank answer, and explain the "magic" behind those.
A bit of a tangent, but to be fair, the audience already knows we break games, and have come to expect nothing less of us. So we need to cater to the entertainment aspects of our gamebreaking just as much, if not more, than the technical ones. Glitches should look and feel fresh, tricks should be executed with style, and so on. Obviously one would be going to run out of things to show if they were only considering technical breakthroughs. Back in 2009 or so, my mother, being an avid soccer fan, had a kick out of the ISSS Deluxe run. Before that, over a dozen of my friends could be seen laughing at Neofix's old Golden Axe run. It doesn't always have to be a technical breakthrough to be an entertaining watch that only TASing can provide.
Good post, moozooh (and Warp).
IMO, that does sound like a solid game plan to go forward on this. After thinking about this more, it does sound like this new technical break though on Brain Age is like the '2015 update', in a way. Having the presentation play out in phases, with the current method showcased first, and then the "step-up" in breaking the game even further, and then explaining it all to the audience when finished, sounds pretty solid.
"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
I always thought that "echo chamber" (in this kind of context) means a group of people just frantically agreeing with each other, reinforcing what others are saying, preaching to the choir, and figuratively patting each other in the back for it. (A much more derogatory and obscene synonym for this would be "circlejerk".) Might also refer to one single person frantically agreeing with another, with no outside criticism or disagreement.
It probably depends on the context. Anyway, a total tangent that has nothing to do with this discussion, sorry.
That is what echo chamber means and he's been using it incorrectly. You (plural) agree with the echo in the group/chamber (or everyone is echoing each other), making it seem like there is a firmly supported, backed, and/or unanimous opinion. If there are disagreeing views, even if there are other alternate disagreeing opinions elsewhere, it's not an echo chamber.
Tangent away.
Joined: 8/14/2014
Posts: 188
Location: North Kilttown
Actually, this conversation hasn't been an echo chamber at all. Everyone seemed to be able to express their ideas and concerns in an open manner and was given due consideration.
But I do have a question, dwango. You said that this is basically a non-issue at this point and that we've come to a compromise, but - and I've read through the thread a few times to double check - what exactly is that compromise? What Moozooh said, or was there something else? And who exactly agreed?
I guess where I differ is I could care less how fooling the OCR takes place as long as the result fools the OCR into thinking the answer was correct but others here care a lot how it takes place.
The problem with using the new glitch is that the OCR is nothing being fooled at all! The OCR isn't even being run on what we draw. For all intents and purposes, the drawing doesn't exist to the OCR. To the viewer it looks like the drawing is fooling to the OCR, but in reality that is not happening, and this is what I have a problem with.
Isn't using the glitch similar to simply drawing a picture, then pressing Erase and then drawing an invisible answer? (And I mean similar in the game's point of view)
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)
Isn't using the glitch similar to simply drawing a picture, then pressing Erase and then drawing an invisible answer? (And I mean similar in the game's point of view)
For me, the line between acceptable and unacceptable is whether the OCR is running on the image that shows onscreen. Retracing over lines, drawing extra offscreen text, and the like in order to foil the OCR is fine, because that's pretty much within the bounds of what I expect OCR manipulation to be like, and the details are going to depend on what you originally drew (at least to one extent). Drawing in a way that the OCR doesn't see at all isn't fine, because the game isn't about fooling the OCR any more, but about fooling the game's input routines.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
Summing up a few things from earlier responses:
The general compromise is to only use the off-screen technique when it is absolutely required and to do our very best to have the numbers embedded in the drawing. See micro500's script if you want to be spoiled further, but effectively we know it will be absolutely required for at least one panel (one with no response at all) and we'll use it for that purpose to describe the trick and also probably briefly touch on the thought that went into not using it elsewhere, which I really am OK with even though I've argued against the necessity in earlier posts.
Regarding my use of the phrase echo chamber, I'm more or less using it in the form described here which refers to an echo chamber as "An insular communication space that is of no interest to outsiders or refuses their input." I think this discussion will be of little to no interest to outsiders, hence my use of the term. At the same time I don't think this discussion is exactly refusing outside input, although I've certainly discovered that none of the GDQ viewers ever read our forums... :)
Finally, I'd like to apologize for being somewhat combative myself in the last couple of pages. It's clear I was in the minority and I've come to appreciate the points of view expressed by others. I came into the conversation with a severe bias that has shifted somewhat over the last few days as you can see from my posting history in this thread and I hope the proposed compromise described above appeases everyone. I do still hope we can continue the discussion of how to post GDQ event material on TASVideos in some form in the future but I think this particular discussion has come to a reasonably amicable close.
Going to revive this thread from the dead, but I have found a new game-breaking glitch. If you don't want to delve into details, it's a glitch that would allow us, if applicable, to do two things:
1. save two frames on each drawing. This is done by starting to draw a full segment in only one input by storing an input from the end of a previous drawing; saving one frame from startign to draw earlier and another one from not having to wait 1 frame to draw a second segment;
2. create, like in the previous glitch, exactly one single fake input. This input visually appears as a segment, but is not registered by the game itself, since it comes from a stored input from the previous drawing. Since we're drawing from nothing, the segment doens't register on the game: only the very edge (second input) is registered. Here's a visual example:
Note that even though we drew visually all this segment (in black), only the second input (in blue) is registered. The first input AKA the stored input (in orange) isn't actually registered. This would be exactly the same as the previous glitch, but for exactly one input.
What are your thoughts?
That's simple, you aren't aiming for speed, and 2 frames are basically nothing for the viewer.
xy2_ wrote:
2. create, like in the previous glitch, exactly one single fake input. This input visually appears as a segment, but is not registered by the game itself
[...]
This would be exactly the same as the previous glitch, but for exactly one input.
So if it's exactly the same, it should be banned as well.
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)
