So, in short, you would like to see more speedruns of the game the developers intended to make, rather than of the programs that the programmers released.
Is that roughly approximate?
No. Glitches are fine. Unintended shortcuts are fine. Zipping through walls is fine.
It's not about what is done, but how.
Then you would not approve of a segmented speedrun in which the segments are specifically intended for RNG manipulation? Even in a game where favorable RNG can save tens of minutes?
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.
Perhaps not, but ACE has been called out as a worrying trend in speedruns, and people are willing to debate that.
But the reason I don't like ACE to be considered a proper completion of the game is quite different from the subject I'm talking about in this thread (ie. non-gameplay tricks being used in speedruns. After all, ACE is (usually) done purely via gameplay, so it's a different issue.)
As I said, I think ACE is awesome in its own right, but should be considered a completely distinct category from game-completing speedruns. Sure, the ACE can jump back to the game's code, but its execution was interrupted in-between, so it doesn't really matter. The run ended when the ACE began, and since the game wasn't completed during the run...
Much closer to the original subject is using the reset button in TASes. The reset button is not part of gameplay, and thus in my books isn't completing the game via gameplay either. (Yes, I know about that one game, don't nitpick about it. With that particular game you can press the reset button all day long for all I care, if it floats your boat.)
Then you would not approve of a segmented speedrun in which the segments are specifically intended for RNG manipulation? Even in a game where favorable RNG can save tens of minutes?
That's an interesting and difficult question. I don't have a strong opinion about it at this moment.
I disagree with a certain important presupposition in the first post. As far as I'm concerned, menus *are* a part of gameplay and the game's interactivity in general, and things like menu glitches or save / load glitches should be okay to use.
Rather... to me it's things like changing .ini settings in PC games to do things not normally allowed by the game that are starting to be the gray area of what's "acceptable" and what's not. But even then, it's best to not be too dogmatic about all this. People run for fun, and sometimes the rules are best decided on a game-to-game / category / community basis.
As I said, I think ACE is awesome in its own right, but should be considered a completely distinct category from game-completing speedruns.
Oh god. IS IT NOT?
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.
As I said, I think ACE is awesome in its own right, but should be considered a completely distinct category from game-completing speedruns.
Oh god. IS IT NOT?
Clearly not, given how many posts have been made defending the concept that ACE runs that jump to the end credits are legit game completions. (And the fact that ACE run submissions are officially not considered breaking the rule that says that the game must be completed.)
The debate about "fastest ACE completion" and "fastest game completion without ACE" isn't about whether they should be categories.
It's about which one should be called any% (making the other one either "game end glitch" if we have the any% as non-ACE, or "no ACE" if we have the any% as ACE-allowed).
As I said, I think ACE is awesome in its own right, but should be considered a completely distinct category from game-completing speedruns.
Oh god. IS IT NOT?
Clearly not, given how many posts have been made defending the concept that ACE runs that jump to the end credits are legit game completions. (And the fact that ACE run submissions are officially not considered breaking the rule that says that the game must be completed.)
The debate about "fastest ACE completion" and "fastest game completion without ACE" isn't about whether they should be categories.
It's about which one should be called any% (making the other one either "game end glitch" if we have the any% as non-ACE, or "no ACE" if we have the any% as ACE-allowed).
That's a completely different problem. It only depends on the viewer what to call "true any%", the site can't do it, exactly because it depends on viewer opinions, and they differ drastically. So we just have both. Fastest possible by all means is vaultable, so it will be published no matter what. Avoiding game breaking glitches will only be published if the game is entertaining enough to have branches. Read carefully the following post:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=15247
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.
Honestly I think the categories for ACE runs on TAS is good.
I don't think ACE is too much of an issue with normal speedruns either. While many runners will want to go as fast as possible, a lot also want to actually play the game while speedrunning it. Because of that, there will probably always be at least two categories for normal speedruns.
Closing or powering off a game mid-run is a segmented run, but resetting is considered fine for RTA. I don't know why you would have an issue with this as many systems either have a button combination for resetting, or more on more recent consoles you can just use the Home button anyway. Rules could be made by the community as to what is allowed or not.
Using in-game things such as menus, dev consoles, graphics settings, etc. should really all be decided on by the community running the game. This seems to be the one you have the biggest issue with. While I don't have any issue with it, I also see why it would be an issue, since you still have people playing the game using these methods, so it is unlikely they will get separate categories.
If there are programming bugs that can be exploited to go faster, they will be abused. Generally the worst offenders are not the 100% community preferred way of running though.
As for the "romhack" example you made, in that case you are no longer using the same software as everyone else. As long as you are using the same software as everyone else and are just manipulating that software using programming errors, I personally am fine with it. I don't really understand the comparison you are trying to make with this.
As for the "romhack" example you made, in that case you are no longer using the same software as everyone else. As long as you are using the same software as everyone else and are just manipulating that software using programming errors, I personally am fine with it. I don't really understand the comparison you are trying to make with this.
Why would most people not consider a modified game that just shows the end credits to be a proper completion of the game? Because the game wasn't actually played through. There was no "speedrun" at all. Sure, you got to see the end credits... but so what? The game wasn't actually played. How is that a game completion? It isn't.
In the same way, once ACE kicks in... well, the game was stopped being played as well. If the custom code now jumps to the end credits, it's essentially no different from the example above. Yes, sure, it's showing the end credits, but so what? The game was not played through. The "speedrun" ended once the ACE kicked in. The game wasn't completed. Just because the end credits are shown on screen doesn't somehow magically make the game having been completed any more than with the romhack example.
Do you understand where I'm going with this?
ACE =/= modding how many times does it need to be said. Do you need documentation to prove that you're wrong or something.
Like I said before, I get that you consider ACE cheap, or unimpressive, or non-traditional, but you can't say it doesn't count just because you don't like idea of the game jumping to the credits after a glitch. If it wasn't legitimate then ACE wouldn't have been accepted on the site in the first place.
Speaking of which, you didn't answer feos' question:
Do you by any chance want the site stop accepting ACE runs?
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
ACE =/= modding how many times does it need to be said. Do you need documentation to prove that you're wrong or something.
Fine, you don't understand, or refuse to understand, what I'm trying to say, even after I explained it to the best of my abilities. You are still clinging to the example rather than what I'm trying to convey with it. I suppose there's nothing more I can do to try to change that.
Did you have any other opinions about my original subject?
Joined: 8/15/2005
Posts: 1934
Location: Mullsjö, Sweden
Warp wrote:
Would you consider a game that was modded to simply show the end credits a legit completion of said game? (Note emphasis.) If not, then think about the reasons why not. Why would you not consider it a legit completion?
Simple answer is "no". Because a modified version of game X will instead be game Y. Making it not a legit completition of game X because it doesn't exist anymore. Which is also why modded games are disallowed in default. But yes, it's a legit completion of game Y.
To me, this is extremely obvious really... If something in-game does the same exact thing as the modded game, it will be allowed. The same way a glitch that makes you invincible is allowed, but a cheat code doing the same effect is not.
But yeah, I'm also missing your real point with this, as, which people have stated, it's a completely different scenario altogether.
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.
As for the "romhack" example you made, in that case you are no longer using the same software as everyone else. As long as you are using the same software as everyone else and are just manipulating that software using programming errors, I personally am fine with it. I don't really understand the comparison you are trying to make with this.
Why would most people not consider a modified game that just shows the end credits to be a proper completion of the game? Because the game wasn't actually played through. There was no "speedrun" at all. Sure, you got to see the end credits... but so what? The game wasn't actually played. How is that a game completion? It isn't.
In the same way, once ACE kicks in... well, the game was stopped being played as well. If the custom code now jumps to the end credits, it's essentially no different from the example above. Yes, sure, it's showing the end credits, but so what? The game was not played through. The "speedrun" ended once the ACE kicked in. The game wasn't completed. Just because the end credits are shown on screen doesn't somehow magically make the game having been completed any more than with the romhack example.
Do you understand where I'm going with this?
I understand why you would think this way, but I'll agree to disagree. Many games have ending sequences that start with 'congratulations', or 'you have saved ...' , or some such thing. To me if the game tells me congratulations then I beat the game. I think the smb3 wrong-warp would be a good example since it can be done rta.
Fortunately my speedrun game (nes empire strikes back) doesn't really have any 'non-gameplay' sort of features to exploit
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 understand why you would think this way, but I'll agree to disagree. Many games have ending sequences that start with 'congratulations', or 'you have saved ...' , or some such thing. To me if the game tells me congratulations then I beat the game.
Now it's me who doesn't understand. What does the actual text have anything to do with what I said?
This is turning quite ridiculous. I don't think I can explain my comparison any better than I did, yet people still just outright refuse to even admit that they understand what I'm talking about. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but you can at least acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying. What exactly is it that you want me to do? I can repeat my explanation, but I can't explain it any better. If you want me to repeat it I can do that, but it would be useless if you don't even have the willingness to acknowledge you understand.
This feels like some kind of weird fight, where opponents cannot give their opposition even an inch, and even an acknowledgement that they understand what the other is saying is conceding too much, and it has to be avoided at all costs. Even cursewords have already been thrown.
It's the exact thing I wished to avoid in my original post.
I understand why you would think this way, but I'll agree to disagree. Many games have ending sequences that start with 'congratulations', or 'you have saved ...' , or some such thing. To me if the game tells me congratulations then I beat the game.
Now it's me who doesn't understand. What does the actual text have anything to do with what I said?
This is turning quite ridiculous. I don't think I can explain my comparison any better than I did, yet people still just outright refuse to even admit that they understand what I'm talking about. You don't have to agree with what I'm saying, but you can at least acknowledge that you understand what I'm saying. What exactly is it that you want me to do? I can repeat my explanation, but I can't explain it any better. If you want me to repeat it I can do that, but it would be useless if you don't even have the willingness to acknowledge you understand.
This feels like some kind of weird fight, where opponents cannot give their opposition even an inch, and even an acknowledgement that they understand what the other is saying is conceding too much, and it has to be avoided at all costs. Even cursewords have already been thrown.
It's the exact thing I wished to avoid in my original post.
I understood your argument, in fact the first two words in my post were 'I understand. Your position is that one you change the code you are no longer playing the same game. That position is totally valid and has technical merit. That said I still disagree with it.
I'm sure this has gotten quite frustrating and has largely strayed from the intended topic, but I did intentionally try to pick an example in use by rta runners
What do you think of games like Untrusted that require you to edit the game's code to proceed?
If a game has "metafeatures" as a gameplay element, then using those metafeatures is of course actually playing the game.
This touches the subject of those few games that likewise go "meta" (oftentimes in very fourth-wall-breaking ways) by requiring the player to, for example, reset or quit the game in order to proceed. Naturally in those instances you do exactly that, when playing the game through. Personally I still think that the use of those metafeatures ought to be limited to those instances only. (But given how rare such games are, I would be ready to make a complete concession with those particular games and allow resetting/quitting to be used any time for any purpose. Not my preference, but I suppose it wouldn't bother me too much in this particular case, I suppose.)
I understood your argument, in fact the first two words in my post were 'I understand. Your position is that one you change the code you are no longer playing the same game. That position is totally valid and has technical merit. That said I still disagree with it.
No, I was talking about what should constitute a game completion. How do we define "speedrun".
The main point in my modding comparison was not that the game was modified, but that the game was not actually played. There was no "speedrun". It simply shows the end credits by bypassing the actual game code, and that's it. That doesn't feel like you completed the game by playing the game, but by other means.
I'm sure this has gotten quite frustrating and has largely strayed from the intended topic, but I did intentionally try to pick an example in use by rta runners
It was indeed not my intention to talk about ACE. The conversation just strayed there somehow. (May I even say, derailed.)
The main point in my modding comparison was not that the game was modified, but that the game was not actually played. There was no "speedrun". It simply shows the end credits by bypassing the actual game code, and that's it. That doesn't feel like you completed the game by playing the game, but by other means.
Tompa wrote:
Because a modified version of game X will instead be game Y. Making it not a legit completition of game X because it doesn't exist anymore. Which is also why modded games are disallowed in default. But yes, it's a legit completion of game Y.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
