It feels a bit similar to the situation with the "vault" tier. I have been pushing for years the notion of elevating this tier to the top, rather than it being considered just a garbage dump for all the "mundane" and "boring" TASes. I have been pushing for the idea that getting your run published in vault would be a privilege, the highest possible prestige, very similar to getting to the top of a category list of a given game at speedrun.com. In other words, if you get your run published in vault, you hold the world record; you are the best of all. But no, vault is still considered just a garbage dump where runs that don't get to moons get dumped. Rather than being a badge of honor, it's almost a badge of shame. And I seem to be in a very small minority who seem willing to have this notion reversed.
I find a degree of irony in the fact that I don't really consider ACE demos a legit form of TASing, yet I'm arguing for ways to have more of them published, while most other people here consider them legit TASes and would want less of them published. There's a certain... cognitive dissonance in all this, for a lack of a better term. "They are awesome! Let's have less of them published!" It feels a bit similar to the situation with the "vault" tier. I have been pushing for years the notion of elevating this tier to the top, rather than it being considered just a garbage dump for all the "mundane" and "boring" TASes. I have been pushing for the idea that getting your run published in vault would be a privilege, the highest possible prestige, very similar to getting to the top of a category list of a given game at speedrun.com. In other words, if you get your run published in vault, you hold the world record; you are the best of all. But no, vault is still considered just a garbage dump where runs that don't get to moons get dumped. Rather than being a badge of honor, it's almost a badge of shame. And I seem to be in a very small minority who seem willing to have this notion reversed.
I find a degree of irony in the fact that I don't really consider ACE demos a legit form of TASing, yet I'm arguing for ways to have more of them published, while most other people here consider them legit TASes and would want less of them published. There's a certain... cognitive dissonance in all this, for a lack of a better term. "They are awesome! Let's have less of them published!"
As for your idea of how ACE TASes should be treated, there's one thing that I'd like to know: Since you're basically suggesting that it should be possible to publish an infinite number of ACE TASes for one game at the same time, as long as each of them are "something notable and exceptional", should regular playarounds be treated the same way? As of now, it seems like ACE is treated like a variation of "playaround".
Or alternatively, we're saying "They're awesome, let's publish and highlight the best of them!"
whereas you're saying "They suck, let's create a dumping ground for them below the lowest tier, and mix the good ACEs with the bad ones so people won't notice them."
Quality over quantity.
Each new post arguing for such a concept highlighted to me more and more reasons why the aims and reasons of these [technically oriented] users did not mesh with what publications are supposed to be about, and what the site rules for publications aim to accomplish. Doing something difficult and novel programming-wise with a game is not a substitution for entertainment. Certainly not for the average viewer.
I do not see why people want to https://imagery.pragprog.com/products/167/bksqla.jpg?1298589874
I'm such a huge proponent of a completely separate and independent section of the site dedicated to these demos and playarounds that people are clearly interested in, but don't really fit into the concept of a speedrun.
"Superplay", not "Speedrun".Have you checked the site logo recently?
