This topic is for the purpose of discussing #5075: diggidoyo's Wii Mega Man 9 "In-Game Time" in 30:00.00

Because someone had to do it.

Would also have been nice if they created code where you could also skip the Weapon Get at the end of each stage. Sweet run, though.

Nice run diggidoyo, As you said, since it uses cheats (for a good cause, but still) it won't make it, but at least I was able to see how fast you can get in this game, so I appreciate that. I still would had preferred that for in-game time you would play the Time Attack mode as the real-time already plays the normal mode.

I really like this idea, and would love it if it were possible for the run to be published. Perhaps it would be possible to do a run of the unmodified game, then edit the pauses out of the encode? I've seen other heavily pause-based TASes for other games to use this technique. I assume that refilling weapon energy doesn't count against in-game time? Often, you spend a lot of time refilling a weapon for only a marginal time gain firing it.

I think an exception should be made for the code used in this game, because without it, the entertainment factor would go through the floor. As long as there's a notice saying that "we don't normally except runs with cheat codes, please see our rules as to why" I'm absolutely OK with this run being on the site. Voting yes for moons.

I'll repeat my argument from the last submission as to why I won't accept this run.

I have not yet seen this run, but I did see that testrun/WIP of some years back, and based on that, I expect this run to be completely awesome to watch. However, as I already stated at the time, I am strongly against publishing this run or anything like it. Even if it does not affect its goal of in-game time, it is still a movie that relies on an external cheat code to work. This breaks a fundamental site rule, and I will make no exception to it. TASVideos was founded on the principle of informing viewers what tool-assisted speedruns were and are, and that the "tools" involved were not cheat devices that directly modified the game data. Publishing this run would go directly against that very founding principle.

We've had "real time encodes" of other games before (basically, you take a screenshot whenever the real time counter advances by a frame, and the encode is made out of those). They're used to compare things like realtime runs of Super Metroid. I think that it'd be possible to make a run like this with no cheating involved (it might even be possible to hex this run), then create a watchable encode of it. That wouldn't fall afoul of any rules except possibly primary encode rules, which are much less important than the no-cheating rule.

Giving this a No, although I do like the run. Accepting this run would allow for a precedent for other runs to use cheats in them, which I feel would spiral out of control pretty fast. It's a site rule for a reason, I feel.

TASVideos was founded on the principle of informing viewers what tool-assisted speedruns were and are, and that the "tools" involved were not cheat devices that directly modified the game data. Publishing this run would go directly against that very founding principle.

I'll politely counter with the fact that this "principle" you speak of was founded before the Wii was even released, and the capabilities it (and by extension it's emulators) bring could not have been foreseen. Times change, technology improves, and art (which is what this is) evolves. Furthermore, exactly what kind viewer would be uniformed here? Are you worried my grandma will feel betrayed by this?? Anyone who has played MM9 would know what's going on. All it takes is a little cognitive decision making based on facts instead of blind judgments based on fear. If the main drawback is the assumption that troves of cheat code runs will follow from the dangerous precedent, then that assumes a lack of faith in the judges to maintain reason in the first place. With that said, I canceled my earlier submission shortly after I submitted it because of the negative backlash and decided it would be better submitted as a joke. Submission or rejection status doesn't take away from it's completed status, which is all I ever meant to do. This run took me a few months to finish and is the run I wanted to see done. I have no motivation to recreate this run with the pauses included, but anyone is free to use this route as a guide if that's what they want.

I'll politely counter with the fact that this "principle" you speak of was founded before the Wii was even released, and the capabilities it (and by extension it's emulators) bring could not have been foreseen. Times change, technology improves, and art (which is what this is) evolves.

How does the fact that this is a Wii run make it any different? The principle of cheat codes to modify games hasn't changed much from the NES' Game Genie to the Wii's USB Gecko. The only major difference is that the cheat code itself is more elaborate than what you see on earlier consoles, but that doesn't make it not a cheat code. It's still a cheat code, designed no less to speed up (in realtime) the gameplay.

All it takes is a little cognitive decision making based on facts instead of blind judgments based on fear. If the main drawback is the assumption that troves of cheat code runs will follow from the dangerous precedent, then that assumes a lack of faith in the judges to maintain reason in the first place.

I never stated that "troves of cheat code runs" are the main drawback, nor have I ever stated anything remotely like it. But if you want to argue down that road, fact is, if we are going to accept even one TAS that relies on a cheat code, then we are going to have to draw a line somewhere, and given the potential of all sorts of cheat codes, this line will be tested several times. How do you define what will be "okay" to use as a cheat code, and what not? Without a perfectly clear answer (and there will not be a perfectly clear answer, I can absolutely guarantee you) we will eventually just get a mess of unique cases, special exceptions, disagreements on what belongs where and by the end of it nothing will make sense anymore. I'd rather not go down that road, when we could just not accept any cheat code runs to begin with. Anyhow, that argument aside - what I did say was that I refuse to accept cheat code runs because of the history of TASVideos, and TASes in general. For years, TASVideos had to deal with the common misconceptions that TASes were cheated runs. Even today, that still happens on occasion. Accepting actual cheated runs would effectively validate that conception, effectively devaluing the concept of a TAS, and I refuse in principle to let that happen. In my book, the definition of a TAS is a stream of input that can theoretically be played back on console (in ideal circumstances) without outside modifications effecting the run. A run that depends on an USB Gecko code violates that definition, and therefore I do not consider it eligible for publication. EDIT:

Furthermore, exactly what kind viewer would be uniformed here? Are you worried my grandpa will feel betrayed by this?? Anyone who has played MM9 would know what's going on.

How about anyone who does not know what a TAS is? They are going to get the misconception that TASing involves cheating, which most certainly should not be the case. And it will be quite hard to shake off that impression when it's literally what this run is doing.

How about anyone who does not know what a TAS is? They are going to get the misconception that TASing involves cheating, which most certainly should not be the case.

I'd contest that this run is NOT for people who don't know what a TAS is. Most TAS's wont be. That's what we have the star tier for. Your arguments sound more like you're unwilling to make a decision on the matter, both now and in the future, and want to uphold the foundation by which a decision will never have to be made. If that's how judgements are made around here, I'm thankful this is only a TAS.

I'd contest that this run is NOT for people who don't know what a TAS is. Most TAS's wont be. That's what we have the star tier for.

How do you aim to ensure that everybody who ever watches your TAS will already know what a TAS is? What about people who will randomly look for Mega Man 9 videos on YouTube? There will be people who see your run as their first TAS ever, and you have no control over that.

Your arguments sound more like you're unwilling to make a decision on the matter, both now and in the future, and want to uphold the foundation by which a decision will never have to be made. If that's how judgements are made around here, I'm thankful this is only a TAS.

I'm making a very clear cut decision on the matter. The decision is that cheat codes are a no go. I'm not sure how I can be any more clear with my decision, actually. And honestly, I haven't heard a single decent argument from you yet why I should think otherwise. Your posts are mostly just complaining about my decision-making and judgments, no actual arguments for cheat code runs.

Of course! Your tone makes it clear that no discussion will be tolerated. I have to at least make you open to suggestions before a suggestion can be made. You announced your verdict before the trial started.

You know that using cheat codes are completely banned in RTA runs. This is no exception. The current RTA records doesn't even use that cheat code to begin with, likely because 1) It's a cheat code. 2) The authors of these runs don't have a Gecko USB device anyway and are very well aware that using cheat codes would invalidate their runs. Finally, there's this little bit:

Maybe someone can make a hack of this game instead of a cheat code to perform the exact same function.

I honestly don't believe even that would be accepted. You're actively encouraging runs that use a cheat code, which is only going to further strenghten the TAS-critics' accusations of TAS being cheating if we decide to accept such runs (which, as Mothrayas stated, is never going to happen). In short, what's your point?

Your tone makes it clear that no discussion will be tolerated. I have to at least make you open to suggestions before a suggestion can be made.

I am literally asking for you to make an argument. If this is the response to that, I give up.

Your arguments sound more like you're unwilling to make a decision on the matter

You announced your verdict before the trial started.

Are you serious?

Doesn’t this cheat code “manipulate” the RNG, even? I’d expect this run to be impossible to hex with pauses and no cheats, so it’d be even less legitimate than simply using a cheat code.

Doesn’t this cheat code “manipulate” the RNG, even? I’d expect this run to be impossible to hex with pauses and no cheats, so it’d be even less legitimate than simply using a cheat code.

Hexing Dolphin runs in general is nearly impossible.

Of course! Your tone makes it clear that no discussion will be tolerated. I have to at least make you open to suggestions before a suggestion can be made. You announced your verdict before the trial started.

To be fair, you're not exactly creating a good argument as to WHY this should be accepted. It's not a matter of 'the judges aren't good enough' more of, like I said before, creating a precedent for runs involving cheats to be created. Which is bad.

Your arguments sound more like you're unwilling to make a decision on the matter, both now and in the future, and want to uphold the foundation by which a decision will never have to be made. If that's how judgements are made around here, I'm thankful this is only a TAS.

Ironically, or unironically, here is what Mothrayas said for his ruling on [2558] SNES Super Metroid "GT code, game end glitch" by amaurea, Cpadolf & total in 14:52.88:

This is a quite unique run. It uses a debug code to aid in reaching its end goal faster, which is arbitrary code execution. We have had varying precedents on runs using cheat codes that were accepted, and that were rejected. These cases all differ in multiple fields, including whether the debug code or cheat code is conventionally accessible in gameplay, whether they are intentionally put in the game for the player to use, and how much of an impact they have on gameplay. But in the end, this just turns out to be an entirely unique case. This is because the run does not just clear the game like a normal playthrough - it takes over control of the game code to trigger the ending. The movie rules contain a rule against cheat codes, so if the rules are to be followed, this run would be rejected. However, we need to look at the spirit of the rule here. Normally, cheat codes are used to make gameplay easier - make it simpler to finish the game. However, in this case, the run is not ordinarily "finishing the game". It does not actually make "gameplay" easier, because what it actually affects here can barely be called "gameplay". In odd instances such as these, where the game is not being conventionally played or finished, we can make an exception to this rule.

I certainly don't want to harp you about this, of course, but it's important to understand WHY this decision is chosen. We are not trying to personally attack you, or undermine your work. We're just following the rules. Rules that, although they were created about 12 years ago, still stand. Like every rule, though, there ARE exceptions, but we're talking for very specific reasons. If this run was done with an in-game cheat then it would probably be all right under certain conditions, for example for something like [802] SNES Biker Mice from Mars "final round" by Baxter in 05:12.62. In Biker Mice's case, it uses an in-game code obtained after playing a lot of the game to shorten the run by over 30 minutes. In this case, it's the equivalent of a new game plus. The fundamental idea from Biker Mice, saving a bunch of time that would be spent doing boring stuff, is the same here. The only problem is this movie is using a cheat code that is OUTSIDE of the normal game. It's manipulating the game into doing stuff that it normally wouldn't do. How do we know if this run can be reproduced in real time if you used a cheat that someone else could potentially never have access to to do it? Like I've said before, this run is good. It is a nice showcase of a different aspect of Mega Man 9. But it just simply isn't publishable.

I was thinking about my Demo category proposal and it's imaginary rules that could have been used to accept rule-breaking runs, and... this is what I think. Any mean of adding something unique to the run might make sense to get published, as long as it does add entertainment. The simplest example is using cheats to unlock difficulties. We can't know in advance if some decision will be supported by the audience or not though, so my Demo rules rely on that a lot. However, there should be a limit on being arbitrary. Guidelines advise against "No jumping except where necessary" kinda things. Now, looking and this submission, it is the same case as (for insnance) using a game-genie code (or a code hack) to add Spring Ball to Metroid just because Metroid II has it. Arbitrary? Quite so. Does it add entertainment? Kinda. If the end result is so different from the clean version that it gets high support (like Saturn's GT code run did), it would have publication chances. But personally, I don't see why this particular feature is strictly necessary to make a game more entertaining. Sure, it reduces boring times, but that's basically all it does. For a smoother experience, there's a tradition over here, to cut out those boring parts from an encode. We cut door and elevator transitions out of Metroid series. The author cut weapon swaps and item grabs out of [2621] GC Resident Evil 4 "The Mercenaries: Castle, maximum score" by Ubercapitalist in 13:44.33. This is perfectly fine, this is the proper way. So IIRC, the only reason to use this code here, is the author's motivation, or rather, lack thereof to TAS this without it. Given all of the above, as in:

• it can be done the proper way and result in a similar viewer experience without breaking the rules
• it doesn't add new entertaining content to the run, it only reduces some boring parts, so the viewer support isn't exceptional
• it is an arbitrary decision

this run would even get rejected by the acceptionist Demo rules.

Up front, I think this run is amazing but shouldn't get accepted. I just want to clarify a few things since there's some weird arguments going around. In a normal (realtime) run, weapon switching is kept to a minimum, since the menu takes a while. In a game time run, you can switch weapons as much as you want, which means in the latter part of the game, it pretty much spends more time paused than actually running. The quick swap code lets you see all the cool new strategies that are only possible with tons of weapon switching, but without constant unbearable interruptions. (MM9's weapon set is way more movement-based than MM10's, so quick swap in this game is beautiful!) Making this through simple encode editing without the cheat wouldn't work, since the music would be skipping forward multiple times per second - you'd have to disable the music during recording then add it back in manually in post-processing, which seems possible but very messy. I support someone trying it, though! It's this run's best shot at getting accepted.

I didn't think about music, good point. But what if a code is used to make it pause, and hence only be used for an alternate encode? Will it desync?

*****TLDR***** Ok fine. Rule good. Code bad. Diggi sorry. After watching this run and comparing it to the real time route, is "in game time" even a legitimate goal for this game? What about a run through of all the time trials consecutively? Should I give up on MM9 already and wait patiently for MM11? ****************

I am literally asking for you to make an argument. If this is the response to that, I give up.

Well ask and you shall recieve, but all I ask is for you to seriously consider my point of view. Not my opinions, as those belong to me and you're entitled to your own, but honestly, what would you have done with my options? I'm kind of in a tough spot, because I don't really have a good argument. The rule is clear and valid, and I don't think it should be changed at all. I fully understand the underlying reason for it, and I can imagine the consequences that could happen if it were changed. I'm in favor of the rule and I always have been. To further complicate matters, "in game time" is a debatably arbitrary category to use in the first place, and typically holds less merit than a real time run unless there's a good reason for doing so. My understanding of these issues is why I initially chose to scrap this run for the real time one. That's also why I canceled the first submission and removed it from the workbench myself shortly after the rules were regurgitated... I mean restated for clarity. This all occurred before it was claimed for judgement, before it had more than one official vote, and before it was formally rejected. I then chose to wait 5 months and resubmit it on April Fool's Day, a day I've noticed has been annually dedicated to runs that don't seriously expect to be published, often intentionally breaking the rules and pushing the envelope on what's acceptable for comedic or technical value. But I didn't create this run to encourage cheats or even rock the boat around here, so personal jousts and a classic GTFO is rather unnecessary and indicates a misinterpretation of my intentions for creating this run as well as my hope for the outcome of this submission. My intentions stem from actually playing this game. The developers included an in-game timer, and minimizing it's value as opposed to the systems value results in a very different route and liberates new strategies. Watching MegaDestructor9's runs is largely what brought me into speedrunning in the first place, and I wanted to know how much his record 19:18 could be improved. But even his runs have appropriately received negative feedback from excessive pausing and been called unwatchable. Although I disagree in his case, this TAS would have been an order of magnitude worse. That's a TAS that wouldn't be fun to make or watch. So the only options at the time to TAS were real time or not at all. Thus, I completed the real time with AngerFist. However the real time run, despite strictly adhering to the rules of this site, still felt arbitrarily throttled. This game was released with its own timer, complete with its own set of rules for when it advances tailored to it's specific gameplay. In brief, the timer only ticks when the player has control of Mega Man, and this allowed for novel ideas and tricks utilizing all of the weapons available. That is how I remember playing this game. Real time has only ever been a formality for this game that severely limited the player's options. This limitation is an acceptable and negligble consequence of RTA authentication, while a TAS is severely hindered in that category for no apparant benefit beyond basic continuity. Despite the overwhelmingly vocal majority in this thread, there are others with similar experiences who shared my sentiments, but could do no more than wish MM9 had the weapon switching abilities of MM10. So wish we did. Suddenly... A wild code appears! Not perfect, but for the most part it accomplishes it's intended purpose, and brings MM9's gameplay up to date with the latest game, MM10. At first, I started using it on the real time route, which instantly revealed an obvious gameplay advantage that consoles didn't have. This created the blasphemous category of "fastest time using code". Clearly an unacceptable modification of gameplay and was immediately abandonded. Using it on the in-game time route, however, I learned that it didn't provide any gameplay advantage at all. It merely condensed a repetitive ~70 frame pause into a single frame. Finally a watchable in game time TAS was possible! But regardless, my intentions for creating it seem to be an irrelevant footnote in the face of the unwavering rule, so I'll explain my reasoning for submission. I wanted people to at least see it, especially those that had asked for something like it. Perhaps someone might use the input to script a legitimate run. Perhaps an intrigued viewer would be motivated enough by it to create the hack that's required. Perhaps the legality of using a code to serve an acceptably appropriate function would be reconsidered. Perhaps it is instantly published to the star tier and I'm awarded a massive bounty for my unprecedented contribution. Perhaps it gets violently rejected and no one attempts such a blatant disregard for established protocol ever again. Perhaps I mistakenly identified April 1st as a sort of "safe haven" or amnesty day for questionable runs. Perhaps I'll be banned from this site for intentionally creating such an atrocity. Perhaps not.

If you can't handle this simple, easy-to-follow rule, either leave the site or don't submit runs with cheats. Hack this feature into the game, provide a patch that anyone can easily apply and have it work 100% consistently, and then we can properly judge the run for site publication

Such passion! Seems like you've devoted yourself to the framework of this site and you view this submission as my reckless attempt to undermine it. If I knew how to do more than simply re-record a TAS, I'd be happy to provide the hack or patch you suggested. Instead of teaching myself the proper technical skills to accomplish that task, I used the ineffecient tools available to me at the time (much like when I TAS'd MM10 in 2011) to essentially mimic a version of what I wanted to exist. For that, my punishment is exile?? Did you actually play MM9? As much as it gets thrown around alot here and in the real world, I still feel slippery-slope is a rather unfounded argument that makes a lot of worst-case assumptions about the future. Your scenario of utter disarray implies BOTH malicious intent enmasse to take advantage of any real or imagined precedent set here, as well as the inability of the judges to make impartial decisions on a case-by-case basis. It either of those are true, then we already have a problem, but I seriously doubt they can both be true. Lastly, your catchphrase "your movie does not need to be published here" is appropriate and an indisputably true statement. But let's be honest about it, if this TAS belongs in only one place or nowhere at all, it's going to be here. Isn't that enough reason to try? Simply being on the workbench for a day doubled the views it's received in the past 5 months.

I then chose to wait 5 months and resubmit it on April Fool's Day, a day I've noticed has been annually dedicated to runs that don't seriously expect to be published, often intentionally breaking the rules and pushing the envelope on what's acceptable for comedic or technical value.

I don't think a lot of them break rules to be honest.