Anyway, I don't understand why the site would not want to have this TAS. Do whatever you decide, but the concept of denying this TAS is baffling to me. No disrespect meant, just confusion on my side. It's a good TAS and would only serve to better the site.

Hi, welcome back. I'd like to start off with a simple, blunt statement: You don't understand how we operate. We don't have the same standards as other sites that will just accept anything. In fact, we have much higher standards than most other sites. From what I've read in the thread, most people just see no point to this category. Some people say it should be combined with a normal 100% run, other people say there's just no entertainment in entering rooms only to immediately leave them right afterward. Some people have said this category offers nothing that the fifteen or three hundred other categories we have published don't already do, and I have to agree with those people. What we don't want is extraneous, unnecessary publications. All we are doing is rejecting TASes from site publication. That means next to nothing in the long run. Site publication, to me, is nothing more than an ascended privilege anyway. I know a lot of people (and my own staff position) disagree with me on that, but I feel it's the truth. Our goal as a site is to host a repository of TASes: The Vault was created so we could host normal speed records, but the rest of the TASes on the site have met a high entertainment quota, one that we strive to push further and further with every new publication, and because of this we can't allow every single run we get to be published. I believe I brought up an example last time around, though my memory is hazy as if I'm trying to repress it, of a Donkey Kong Country TAS that only collects O, N, and G out of the KONG letters in every level. This does exist somewhere, on Nicovideo I believe. But that's a prime example of a run that, even if it's ridiculously optimized, serves no purpose in being published here. Our standards don't allow arbitrary goals such as that. And I mean arbitrary as in our site standards: Arbitrary, to us, means a category that just doesn't make sense to publish. It's unnecessary, it's niche, it's extraneous, and it's not going to further our site in any way by publishing it. In fact, something like this could turn away the community if we publish it. "Why would you accept this but not that?" "Ugh, another Super Metroid publication, really?" Just a couple examples off the top of my head that I could definitely see happening were we to publish this after its current reception. We cater to a community as a whole, being a TAS repository, we don't cater to each individual subcommunity. We listen to and respect what our community wants from us, and in return our community blesses us by following the rules and standards that we set. Had the community given us a much more positive response to this run, we would accept it, but in its current state with the voting and the thread feedback, I can't see that happening now, and going against the community would be disastrous. I've said a million times that I will never discourage anyone from making any TAS they want. The fact that this TAS exists is absolutely fine. People will enjoy it, that's great. I just don't see what the big deal is about publication. As I said, this could have been easily posted in the Super Metroid game thread, this could have been shared on DeerTier or any other site, and it would still have the same effect. A run like this can still "better the site" and contribute greatly to other TASes by just being posted here and shared elsewhere. But as I said, publication is nothing more than a privilege. I could understand the sentiment of publication being important if we were much bigger of a site than we currently are, but we're still a tiny niche in an already niche subculture. As for having "too many" Super Metroid runs: We already have too many. At least three of the currently published runs are extraneous in my mind and that's me being generous. I personally (emphasis on personally) believe we shouldn't be biased toward one game or another, we shouldn't have people loving runs just because they're of certain games or hating runs because they're not other games. I feel like we've always been biased toward Super Metroid, allowing damn near every run we get to be published, and we've only recently realized that we may have gone too far back then. What we really need are runs that showcase different content, runs that are unique and show off incredible things, not 7 derivative runs: Why do we need an in-game time run? Why do we need multiple low% categories? What incredible things do they show off that aren't in every other run? Who is going to be interested in these runs apart from the Super Metroid sub-community? Would the general public care about a run that enters different doors to get a lower in-game time? These are all things you have to consider when you're in my situation, and they're all things you have to consider when you're trying to argue for the millionth new Super Metroid category as an outsider as well. Fans of the game have to approach it from an outsider's perspective, because the general public won't have the same sort of appreciation for a run. And, yes, I've repeated myself 20 times in this response already but it bears mentioning again, we cater to the general public more than anything else, thus we need to set these standards so we're not flooding people with a thousand runs they have no intention of ever watching. A recent example of this kind of behavior is our recent efforts to upload encodes of every run on the site, including obsoleted runs, to our official YouTube channel. This means we've had long strings of similar runs being processed and published to the general public, and the general public reacted with backlash at seeing the same games over and over again. tl;dr - When we reject a TAS, that only means we reject it from site publication. We are not rejecting the TAS itself. Anyone can feel free to make whatever TAS they want and post it here, whether in userfiles or in the game's thread. It's just that when it's submitted to the site, it's subject to our high standards, and our high standards are different than other sites. If you don't understand our process or our standards, then join the community and learn them before coming in to a submission thread and complaining about us. We aim to host a variety of extremely entertaining runs that anyone can watch easily, as well as cutting down on repetition by limiting arbitrary categories so as to keep that variety without needing 10 publications to do so. Phew.

s.

29 publications (not submissions) over 12 years across seven branches. Those branches are "game end glitch", "100%", "low% Speedbooster", "low% Ice Beam", "reverse boss order", "ingame time", and "any%". To my knowledge, seven branches is more branches than we have for any other game, and this run, on its own merits, obsoletes none of them. Most obviously, any% and game end glitch are much faster (38:41 and 7:14 respectively), but even 100% items finishes in 1:08:15, and that's sitting through the item chime for every item in the game. You're not causing an uproar, don't worry. I think a lot of the frustration from the people who don't find this entertaining comes from the fact that this same category was submitted roughly a year ago by the same person, and opinions haven't changed very much. Samsara's thesis is still valid though -- this run is a TAS, whether it is published here or not. nymx completed it, used tools, sped through the game, it's a valid TAS. It doesn't need the site's stamp of approval to be a TAS, it doesn't need the site's stamp of approval to be a VOD through nymx's Twitch stream or placed on his YouTube channel. I guess the site's question back to you is, "Why do you think that this category is worth publishing on this site?"

s.

And your thoughts are appreciated, please make no mistake. You're defending the submission in the forum thread, which is exactly the right thing to do and in the right place to do it. You're asking questions which (hopefully) are being answered by others here; it's a discussion. This is the point of communication, especially when dissenting opinions meet. I want to correct one particular point of contention in your post, though. One that I think is echoed by nymx and some others: You say,

and whether or not the TAS (in this case) is especially arbitrary, which I think it isn't.

The TAS itself is not arbitrary. It's the goal choice that we are calling arbitrary. In runs that aim for fastest time, we have a clear marker for comparison: we time runs from power on until the last input. This framecount determines time. (With some modifying factor based on language differences, and calculating the difference between NTSC and PAL.) In runs that aim for fastest in-game time, we have a clear marker for comparison: we time runs based on the number that shows up in the final screens. In runs that aim for lowest item percentage, we have a clear marker for comparison: we judge runs based on the number that shows up in the final screens. In runs that aim for 100% of items collected, we have a clear marker for comparison: does the number that shows up in the final screens say 100%? These metrics, in combinations, are used to determine whether one particular run beats another. With 100% Map Completion, there is no (known) in-game way to verify that every map square has been visited, unlike (for example) CastleVania: Symphony of the Night, which tracks and displays exactly this number. This lack of in-game verification is what makes this particular goal arbitrary.

s.

The thing about using that argument, " the game does mark these map tiles though, so there is visual confirmation" is that secret areas aren't marked on the map by default. Not even from map rooms (if I am remembering correctly), so (while this isn't likely because the game code has been heavily scrutinized) if there was a room attached to the game that nobody had found, no amount of visual confirmation would say that the map has been 100% visited.

s.

There's no question whether it is arbitrary in itself or not. The question is: Is it arbitrary enough to not publish it as yet another branch? Yes, it is too arbitrary to be published as a separate branch. It wouldn't be so, probably, if there was only 1 published branch of SM at tasvideos. But we try to reduce the amount of branches to only have those that are meaningful to have as a TAS, which means they all represent unique features that can't be seen in other runs, and that the goals of those branches are solid enough. So even if this was submitted before the first "all items" run, the latter would obsolete it, due to being more solid as a goal and having a lot of overlapping content. Yes, this thread is where people can discuss the qualities of the run itself, and what they feel about it. But it won't help if it simply doesn't fit into the site by the rules we have. Everyone also liked the MM9 run which had that cheat to switch weapons. It was reasonable to some people for such a run to be made. But it didn't help, since it didn't fit into the site by the rules. And no, the rules are not set in stone to be obeyed blindly. They simply express some basic principles we all consider the most important. Exceptions happen when the principles are challenged by some fantastic content that those rules wouldn't imagine, but they are extremely rare and obviously stand out in the first place. "GT code + arbitrary code execution" was exceptional. Right here though, it's not an exceptional case.

Ingame time any% is arbitrary since there are ways to trick the timer. Both low% tases on the site are obsolete since 13% is new low%, making them arbitrary (my opinion).

Sniq, you're right that in-game time is arbitrary because of timer manipulation, but that's also an argument that was made (and the judgment was made in favour of the distinction). As for both low% TASes being obsolete, they aren't because no TAS has been created for 13% anything, but they would be obsoleted by the site's rules if an optimized 13% or lower TAS were submitted and published. (Which is a sentiment that I echoed last time):

two different low% (14%) runs, likely both of which will be obsoleted once a single 13% run is found because they will better meet the goal of low% than either 14% run;

To the best of my knowledge, both of those runs were published as completing the game with the lowest known percentage of items score that didn't involve ACE or otherwise breaking the game. Some investigation into the forum discussions surrounding those particular runs (or goal choices) would likely result in some very interesting discussion about why we need two low% runs on the site in the first place, and "these are categories that realtime speedrunners care about" vs. "but we're not realtime speedrunners, we're TASers, and we shouldn't be held to their standards".

I have yet to finish watching the TAS in question (though I don't know if I will be able to because of my gamer instincts screaming every time it enters a room with an item and immediately turns around) but I don't think this site runs on a system of precedent like a court. Just because it was decided years ago that such and such goal choices would be accepted for publication back then, it doesn't mean that such and such goal choices would be ok today. However removing previously accepted branches without obsoleting them in some way would not be fair to the authors of those publications. As someone who isn't really big on Super Metroid, it appears to me to have a ton of branches. It definitely seems reasonable to compare the entertainment value of one branch to that of another.

I figure I'll give my take on this as well. This is a pretty good improvement. It's clear nymx, EternisedDragon and everyone else paid good attention to the issues of the last submission. Optimization looks pretty good overall (although some users still found some sketchy areas), there is actual relevant information in the submission text now, there is a bit less copied input (although some parts like cpadolf's first half of Ceres are still not appropriately credited or mentioned), and we get to see (and read about) a few new fun tricks as usual. However, the greatest issue - the one I rejected last year's run for - has gone completely unaddressed. This run was received slightly better due to improved optimization and the other aforementioned things, but the viewer response is still not looking good. The vote ratings went up from 33% last year to about 40% for this submission, which is still way too little. The category still is seen as poor or arbitrary by many people for many different reasons. Some dislike the fact that the run doesn't collect all items along the way; others just find traversing rooms for the sake of traversing rooms a pointless or arbitrary goal in general, considering the game internally does not keep track of the number or percentage of rooms visited. Either way, compared to all the other branches this game has (any%, 100%, low%, RBO, ACE, and then some), this category falls flat and is just considered to be not very interesting. The bottom line is - it's just considered a niche and uninteresting category here. I'm sure there's an audience for this run among Super Metroid enthusiast communities/sites like Deer Tier, but for TASVideos this category just does not cut it.

om, nom, nom... blech!