This topic is for the purpose of discussing #5087: Fog's Wii Gummy Bears Minigolf in 12:27.13

still yes, does it synch with the normal game ?

still yes, does it synch with the normal game ?

Yes, custom textures don't affect sync. Link to video

good, i think that both encode should be published alongsides then the MLG one got me and was well made

Voting no because of not getting all hole-in-one.

Wow, i vote yes, this video is candidate to play for TASBot in Summer Games Done Quick, very funny. Sorry for my english.

this video is candidate to play for TASBot in Summer Games Done Quick

First they have to figure out how to use TASBot with a Wii, which is much trickier than using it with any other system they've done so far. Might be easier if the game supported GameCube controllers, but this one does not. As for my opinion on the run itself, there were a few shots that made me wonder if a more precise hit would have resulted in a shorter animation and time for the hole. This detracted from my enjoyment slightly, but overall it's a fairly solid run. Also, the swearing on the loading screens in the texture pack turned me off a bit, resulting in a Meh from me. The normal texture version also gets a meh, since it doesn't have the joke value of the alternate.

this video is candidate to play for TASBot in Summer Games Done Quick

First they have to figure out how to use TASBot with a Wii, which is much trickier than using it with any other system they've done so far. Might be easier if the game supported GameCube controllers, but this one does not.

There's not much hope that being able to sync GameCube/Wii TASes on console is possible. For all we know, the disc drive is non-deterministic, meaning you wouldn't even be able to play back input you recorded on a console. Even if that wasn't the case, Dolphin doesn't have frame perfect accuracy.

I want to know what the Devs where smoking when they came up with this game. I'm sure it would be a lot more fun to watch/play while high lol! I voted Meh being a mini-golf game but yes for the vault none the less.

this video is candidate to play for TASBot in Summer Games Done Quick

First they have to figure out how to use TASBot with a Wii, which is much trickier than using it with any other system they've done so far. Might be easier if the game supported GameCube controllers, but this one does not.

There's not much hope that being able to sync GameCube/Wii TASes on console is possible. For all we know, the disc drive is non-deterministic, meaning you wouldn't even be able to play back input you recorded on a console. Even if that wasn't the case, Dolphin doesn't have frame perfect accuracy.

An encode could be created much in the same way one was created for Ikaruga for SGDQ 2015.

Anyone who voted Yes to this run, was it solely due to April Fools' Day and the texture pack, or did you genuinely find the run outside of those things entertaining?

Well I liked it. Reminds me of Kirby's Dream Course.

om, nom, nom

the fact that it is a game of sport means that we can't Vault the run

Please define "sports game" in this context (ie. in the context of TASing, and admission to vault.) Why are "sports games" not eligible for vault? How does this particular game fulfill those reasons? If the game is pretty linear, and has a definitive and clearly-defined ending, isn't that all that's needed for vault? Why does it matter if the theme happens to be based on some real-life hobby? Would you reject a linear FPS game that just happens to depict paintball rather than an actual war, just because paintball is considered a kind of sport in real life?

Please define "sports game" in this context (ie. in the context of TASing, and admission to vault.)

Not to state the obvious, but a "sports game" is a game that depicts the playing of a sport. In the context of TASing/Vault, it is a game that is mostly defined by a timer (i.e, a football game).

Why are "sports games" not eligible for vault? How does this particular game fulfill those reasons?

As I said, most sports games aren't defined by how fast they can be completed. There's a start point and an end point, clearly defined by a timer that needs to run out. This ultimately makes sports games too trivial for Vault, in that there's no actual way to shorten the length of the "game" being played. This is not true for all sports games, of course, this one in particular being an exception, but that doesn't mean the game is complicated enough for site publication.

If the game is pretty linear, and has a definitive and clearly-defined ending, isn't that all that's needed for vault? Why does it matter if the theme happens to be based on some real-life hobby?

It doesn't matter in some cases. We just have a general rule that prevents sports games from being Vaulted since most of them don't exactly apply in the context of speed and obsoletion. What mostly matters here is triviality: Should someone submit a run of an "action" game where literally all you do is hold right and win, we would likely reject that as well for triviality. The fact that this is a sports game means it's just subject to slightly higher criticism in terms of the entertainment value it provides. I'm not necessarily agreeing with the overall rule about sports games, I do actually agree that it should only apply to timer-based sports (football, basketball, soccer, etc) rather than the full spectrum, but as the rule stands now, all sports games have to be given equal treatment. Perhaps we'll discuss this behind the scenes, but as far as I'm aware this is the only time in recent history where this rule has actually been sort of a contested issue.

Would you reject a linear FPS game that just happens to depict paintball rather than an actual war, just because paintball is considered a kind of sport in real life?

A specific paintball game, yes, would be subject to the sports game clause and would need to be entertaining enough to make Moons, but what you're describing is a linear FPS, not a sports game. What matters more for the criteria of "sports game" is how it's presented, not the fact that it contains a sport to begin with. We wouldn't, say, reject a run of Dark Cloud 2 for its golfing minigame, because the primary experience of the game is an RPG. We wouldn't reject your theoretical linear FPS paintball game because, in theory, it wouldn't actually depict the sport itself. It'd just be like turning on the paint cheat in Goldeneye. As it stands, this is just a minigolf game, quite clearly a "sports game" as I don't see any possible way to make minigolf not a sport, and the primary entertainment value is derived from the texture hacking. The only golf TAS that was initially accepted to Vault is, funnily enough, Ninja Golf, which is more of a sidescroller with occasional golf rather than a pure golf game. Krazy Ace was initially Mooned, I suspect it was moved to Vault before we had an official sports game ruling on it, but even if we had the rule back then, the run received good enough votes to make Moons as it was. Like I said, we may revisit and revise this rule in the future, and as such this submission will be re-judged, but it's not exactly a top priority for us. We would need a real borderline case to actually push it up on the list for us, not a joke submission that can't actually be accurately judged off of audience feedback.

This is not true for all sports games, of course, this one in particular being an exception, but that doesn't mean the game is complicated enough for site publication.

Since when has triviality been grounds for disqualification from vault? I thought vault was specifically intended as a means to publish TASes of all possible games regardless of entertainment level. Vault is not supposed to be Moons v2, where the "slightly less enteraining" TASes go. Besides, I would argue this game is fair from trivial. It's not a "press right to advance, and nothing more". Actual work needs to be done in order to make a perfect run of this game. (Again, not that I think that should be a requirement, but the rejection is doubly baffling given the fact that this is not an absolutely trivial game to TAS.)

As it stands, this is just a minigolf game, quite clearly a "sports game" as I don't see any possible way to make minigolf not a sport

"Most sport games are timer-based, therefore no sports games should be accepted, even if they aren't timer-based" seems a rather silly rule, and it makes no sense. I have hard time believing that's the spirit of the rule. What exactly is the problem in determining vaultability on a case-by-case basis? What exactly is the problem in saying "sport game X is the kind of game that does not fit in vault, but sport game Y is the kind of game that does fit"? You are already judging submissions individually, on a case-by-case basis, so what exactly would be the problem in determining whether the game is of a type that suits for vault, rather than just shoving every single "sport game" under the same category and rejecting all of them regardless of content and game mechanics? I see nothing in this particular game that would make it unsuitable for vault, even with the current vault rules. It has a progression from beginning to end, and it has a clearly-defined ending. Its completion time is not dependent solely on some in-game timer, but the TASer has plenty of opportunity to do non-trivial optimizations. I'm convinced that if I browsed through all the relatively recently published vault runs, I could find at least some that I would consider less "vaultable" than this one.

I also have to say that this seems like a pretty muddled case. The run's complexity as an optimization problem is definitely higher then other runs in the vault, so it seems rejection for triviality doesn't quite fit. Also this run is at least as complicated as the recent Fighters Destiny runs, which happen to follow the guideline of "in general, these would be games where the user competes against an AI opponent, and/or have a fixed clock time" to the letter. Fighting games get an exception from 'sport' category for some reason though despite being a perfect example according to that definition. As Warp mentions, this game has all the goals and mechanics of a normal game, and none of a sport (there isn't even an opponent.) So despite the fact that 'golf is a sport', this game is not played as a sporting event. Maybe this rule needs some attention sooner rather then later.

If this is a hack, and not the original game, I would consider that a completely acceptable argument for rejection. However, I see no reason why a TAS of the original game couldn't be published. (In fact, I find this more interesting than quite many vaulted runs.)

If this is a hack, and not the original game, I would consider that a completely acceptable argument for rejection. However, I see no reason why a TAS of the original game couldn't be published. (In fact, I find this more interesting than quite many vaulted runs.)

It's the original game, just using a texture pack for comedic purposes. The run syncs with the game without a texture pack.

Since earlier today, we've been discussing between the judges about possible changes or clarifying inconsistencies regarding sports games in the Vault. This run was judged properly by Samsara as according to the Vault rules, but the rules themselves look like they may need an update. Depending on our conclusion, we may unreject this run in the future and re-evaluate it for the Vault, and may do the same for some other rejected submissions as well.

Since when has triviality been grounds for disqualification from vault?

Since 2012-11-03.

What exactly is the problem in determining vaultability on a case-by-case basis? What exactly is the problem in saying "sport game X is the kind of game that does not fit in vault, but sport game Y is the kind of game that does fit"? You are already judging submissions individually, on a case-by-case basis, so what exactly would be the problem in determining whether the game is of a type that suits for vault, rather than just shoving every single "sport game" under the same category and rejecting all of them regardless of content and game mechanics?

This is probably the second time in history, but I ABSOLUTELY AND TOTALLY SUPPORT THIS APPROACH the one Warp suggests.

This might be a bit sappy (and a bit off-topic), but I would like to show my appreciation that the staff of tasvideos does listen to their visitors and seriously consider their ideas, suggestions and questions. I have had way too many experiences at other sites where the staff is too stubborn and arrogant and full of themselves, and consider their own rules too holy and too rigid to ever change, and somehow seem to consider the visitors too stupid to be even being considered seriously. It's really refreshing and warming to participate in a site with reasonable and down-to-earth staff. Thank you.

There are other published (mini)golf or pool runs on the site, so i wondered at first. Some are more interesting i agree, this one http://tasvideos.org/2730M.html probably isn't. I guess if the Gummy Bears had faster load times, the run would really benefit.

I dunno, the slow loading times are part of the package. If that makes it not entertaining enough, then that's just the game being itself.