How is it differen't from warped "any%"? And is this branch for Vault or Moon?
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Warped any%
* Sends the player to a later part of the game, but never directly at the credits/ending
* Optionally an intended part of the game; Could be a warp put in, or a glitch
Game end glitch
* Takes the player directly to the credits/ending
* Not ever something intended to be in the game (otherwise, it's a debug/cheat function, or perhaps a credits selection in Options)
That's what I think are the differences. Anyone else can chime in and correct me.
could we accept a "game end glitch" TASpeedrun that is longer (reads: slower) than a "warped any%" run that doesn't use it?
EDIT: Good generalization FatRatKnight.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I can't speak for the judges, so take what I say as simply my own point of view. So that there is something to think about until someone else can state what is considered what, I will share what I believe.
Will a "Game end glitch" run be accepted when there exists a faster run that doesn't use it?
A little more encompassing than asking if it would be published for not beating a warped run.
Chances are very good that such a run will be rejected. An interesting trick that its setup ultimately ends up taking longer than beating the game in other ways means that run is not eligible for the Vault for failing to beat a known record, and acceptance to other tiers is unlikely without some very favorably interesting parts that differentiate it from other TASes. If the first half is identical to a warps TAS, there probably aren't enough interesting things to warrant a separate publication, and if that were the case, one can obsolete the other.
I'll ask myself a few other questions and answer those, just in case.
Can a "warped any%" be published when there is a faster "game end glitch" run?
I don't know, really. I will leave that to someone else to answer. Probably depends on the content, but I'm leaning more toward yes, depending on how much the game end glitch skips.
If a run contains both warps and a skip to credits, what should its tag be?
Game end glitch. I'm not sure if there's any interesting merits to warpless game end glitch versus warped game end glitch, if such a thing were to be considered. I believe it would be assumed that warps would be used if it gets you to the game end glitch faster, as this glitch is almost certainly a more significant thing than the warps needed to get there.
Well, that's everything I can think of, myself. Take my statements as simply something to think about, and not that it's the standard here. If it helps solidify thoughts from judges here for their answers, even if I ended up wrong on some point, then I'm glad to have helped. Basically, I'm sharing thoughts to give something to think about until someone else can give a more firm answer.
First of all, these branches are called "warp glitch" and "game end glitch", and they both address what's known as Major skip glitch. It's the same thing as Game-breaking glitch.
By definition, it's a major skip setup/trick, because it cuts away most of the time of the fastest run without it. Another way to put it is that it improves a run by an order of magnitude. And it's NOT an intended setup/trick, therefore it's called a glitch.
So judging by that, there's no way for a run with some sort of Major skip glitch to be slower than the fastest run without it. Because it sounds like a paradox and doesn't make sense to me. However, one can come up with a different type of a major skip glitch that would be faster than the known version of it. If the "game end glitch" run skips the the ending from level 3, and the newly found warp glitch skips from level 1 to the last boss, it'd likely be faster. There's also SRAM glitch, which can do anything, even what the above 2 glitches do, but it is only available if you corrupt SRAM. Finally, there are other types of major skip glitches, that can't be generalized by the 3 terms I mentioned, and we invent new names for them: "box glitch", "stairs glitch", "X-Ray glitch", etc.
Regarding Vault/Moons, it all depends on how entertaining the run is. Sometimes a branch that avoids the major skip glitch is published to Moons for being entertaining enough. Vault only accepts "fastest possible completion" and "full completion" goals, so if 2 glitched (as we used to call them all previously) runs are both very boring and deserve only Vault, we'll only publish one of them. But if they both deserve Moons, we will most likely obsolete one with the other, unless they are exceptionally different:
We've had
[1978] SNES Super Metroid "X-Ray glitch" by Cpadolf in 21:25.12 and
[2558] SNES Super Metroid "GT code, game end glitch" by amaurea, Cpadolf, total in 14:52.88
published alongside each other for a short while, and then they both got obsoleted by
[2600] SNES Super Metroid "game end glitch" by Cpadolf in 12:54.71.
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.
By definition, it's a major skip setup/trick, because it cuts away most of the time of the fastest run without it. Another way to put it is that it improves a run by an order of magnitude. And it's NOT an intended setup/trick, therefore it's called a glitch.
So judging by that, there's no way for a run with some sort of Major skip glitch to be slower than the fastest run without it. Because it sounds like a paradox and doesn't make sense to me. However, one can come up with a different type of a major skip glitch that would be faster than the known version of it. If the "game end glitch" run skips the the ending from level 3, and the newly found warp glitch skips from level 1 to the last boss, it'd likely be faster. There's also SRAM glitch, which can do anything, even what the above 2 glitches do, but it is only available if you corrupt SRAM. Finally, there are other types of major skip glitches, that can't be generalized by the 3 terms I mentioned, and we invent new names for them: "box glitch", "stairs glitch", "X-Ray glitch", etc.
A "game end glitch" run could be slower than a run without any major skips if the "game end glitch" itself takes too much time to setup/execute, and then the TASer still has to make input for the ending dialog/scene. I haven't got an example of this in hand but it could happen if:
The glitch requires certain items/abilities etc. that takes a long time to obtain, or can only be executed in a stage on a long branch of possible routes late in the game.
The glitch is abusing slow buffer overflows over a very large memory range, worse if requiring multiple passes.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
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.
Well. So what about a run that uses a "game end glitch" that doesn't satisfy your definition of "major skip"? I am really asking about "game end glitch", not "major skip".
feos wrote:
They also usually cut down the time of the run dramatically, comparing to the fastest one that avoids the given glitch.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
We haven't seen any examples of that, but if such a run appears, and it's slower than normal completion, but optimized and also entertaining enough, showcases unique strategies and separates itself from the existing branches content-wise, it might be published to Moons. And it's possible that the any% branch that avoids the game end glitch is so boring that it's in Vault.
The way tiers work doesn't have any specific way to handle major skip glitches and related stuff.
http://tasvideos.org/Guidelines.html#Tiershttp://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#TiersAndGoals
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.
You want an example? There you go: http://tasvideos.org/4121S.html
Uses a credits warp, but is slower than the regular any%. It also uses a very different and unique route.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
I am aware of the existing debate on what the ending of a game is.
How to define a game's ending?
But what's more...
FatRatKnight wrote:
Warped any%
* Sends the player to a later part of the game, but never directly at the credits/ending
* Optionally an intended part of the game; Could be a warp put in, or a glitch
Game end glitch
* Takes the player directly to the credits/ending
* Not ever something intended to be in the game (otherwise, it's a debug/cheat function, or perhaps a credits selection in Options)
That's what I think are the differences. Anyone else can chime in and correct me.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
A glitch that skips to the ending, but is not a major skip glitch, does not need to have its branch called out, because it makes it effectively a simple any% run with heavy glitch abuse.
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.
A glitch that skips to the ending, but is not a major skip glitch, does not need to have its branch called out, because it makes it effectively a simple any% run with heavy glitch abuse.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
A 3 minute run is 3 minutes shorter than the 13 minutes run?
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.
It was my fault, but now can we get back to the topic with understanding in the context?
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
I don't understand what you're trying to ask, but the only thing that matters when comparing runs completion time (in order to figure out whether most of the time got cut away or not) is the difference between the final overall times.
Fastest Contra 3 run without the major skip glitch is 13 minutes long. The major skip glitch run of it is 3 minutes long. The major skip glitch cuts away most of the time of the former.
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 don't understand what you're trying to ask, but the only thing that matters when comparing runs completion time (in order to figure out whether most of the time got cut away or not) is the difference between the final overall times.
Fastest Contra 3 run without the major skip glitch is 13 minutes long. The major skip glitch run of it is 3 minutes long. The major skip glitch cuts away most of the time of the former.
You said that the branch name "game end glitch" requires the skip to be "major".
I questioned about whether it is the instance of a "glitch skip" that contributes to the "game end" is considered for the branch, because as the numbers indicate, the "game end glitch" itself resulted from the "GO warp" in Contra 3 saves only ~3 minutes in the last stage. The applications of the same glitch in other stages have little to no impact on this "game end" except for resource mangement. As the "more major" "pool-skip" in the lastest Clock Tower run didn't grants such a branch name, it seems arbitrary.
As you say, it is the overall time that matters. It still seems arbitray that such a run as that Contra 3 is branched "game end glitch" simply because it has a "GO warp" glitch that skips the majority of the run, but has much smaller contribution to the actual "glitch ending". (NEW) It would also make me wonder if a glitch-warped run that skips over a tiny part to the ending with a different glitch holds for this branch name.
I also questioned about whether it is the overall contribution of a glitch to the whole run, because the numbers indicate that the warp glitch in the Little Samson run saves more time than the "reused level glitch" in the Wizards & Warriors does. While the warp glitch in Little Samson doesn't resemble that "reused level glitch" in Wizards & Warriors, the former is quite similar in outcome compared to the "GO warp" in Contra 3. It seems arbitrary that the Little Samson run didn't even get the "Major skip" tag (letting alone the "game end glitch" branch name), while the other two did.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
as the numbers indicate, the "game end glitch" itself resulted from the "GO warp" in Contra 3 saves only ~3 minutes in the last stage
This is what I don't get.
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 the numbers indicate, the "game end glitch" itself resulted from the "GO warp" in Contra 3 saves only ~3 minutes in the last stage
This is what I don't get.
AFAIK, you can use "GO warp" before the last stage, and then complele it as usual, or play normally till the last stage and then use the "GO warp" to glitch to the ending. So unless I am wrong about any of these, only the last application of the "GO warp" has direct relationship to the "game end glitch", and it (the last application of the "GO warp") just makes the last stage ~3 minutes shorter compared to a run without it.
I am indeed ignoring resource management here. I am not certain that if there could be unseen problems in such a theoritical "glitch-warped-but-normal-gameplay-ending" run that would invalidate my conjectures on this.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
"GO warp" is used in several levels. If you make a full use of it, your time will be ~3 minutes. If you completely avoid it, your time will be ~13 minutes. If you only use it in the final level, you're being sub-optimal, as each glitch and trick should be used to its full speedrun potential, unless throttling that potential is considered entertaining enough for a yet another branch, or a more entertaining application within the same branch.
You can have speed-entertainment trade offs slowing you down within the same branch, or you can use the same setup to skip less than possible within a separate branch.
One way to resolve your confusion might be to rename the Contra 3 glitch to Game Over glitch, since just skips to the level end each time, and not the the game end strictly speaking. Or we might call it a warp glitch because of that, not sure which would be the best.
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.
"GO warp" is used in several levels. If you make a full use of it, your time will be ~3 minutes. If you completely avoid it, your time will be ~13 minutes. If you only use it in the final level, you're being sub-optimal, as each glitch and trick should be used to its full speedrun potential, unless throttling that potential is considered entertaining enough for a yet another branch, or a more entertaining application within the same branch.
You can have speed-entertainment trade offs slowing you down within the same branch, or you can use the same setup to skip less than possible within a separate branch.
Whether we can agree on the range of the impact of the "GO warp" in Contra 3, my Post #451896 is unaffected by this, and the main points of other posts regarding the Clock Tower run saving more time stay the same either way.
EDIT: In case you are wondering why the warp glitch in Little Samson doesn't cut the "majority" of a "non-glitch-warped" run like that in Contra 3, well, it is primarily because there are 4 unskippable non-boss stages and 18 unskippable bosses in Little Samson, both of which are much larger in number than those in Contra 3.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
The any% run of Little Samson does not cut away most of the time of its predecessor (I typed that before I saw you've edited your post, but whatever). And it hasn't been considered different enough to warrant a new branch. So it's just heavy glitch abuse, like in [1686] NES Mega Man by Shinryuu & finalfighter in 12:23.34.
The Wizards & Warriors situation is probably branch misnaming.
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.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Pulseman got misnamed as well.
Regarding CV3, the run was considered unique enough to warrant a new branch, and it has a warp glitch that skips a significant part of the game, so it made sense to call it what it's called.
We don't have a strict definition of the term "major" in that regard, because it simply keeps its original meaning. When we came up with the term "major skip glitch" originally, we meant things that SDA addresses when it calls its runs "no major skips". But no one can consider all existing and potential problems beforehand. If you have suggestions on how to improve this all, go ahead.
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.
That "major skip (glitch)" (which "game end glitch" could/should be) term in different senses is probably responsible for the confusion and debate in this thread. I haven't got ideas on how to improve the usage of this term on published movies yet.
However, while I do think "game end glitch" can be so significant in skipping contents of the game that it is considered a "major skip in gameplay's sense", I don't think the definition of "game end glitch" should be bound to that "major skip in time-attacking's sense". A "game end" is a game end, a "glitch" is a glitch. Neither "game end" nor "glitch" suggests relationship with "saving majority of time over an (existing) speedrun without using it". If such a concept (in time-attacking's sense) is needed, a different term should be used instead.
The question will a "game end glitch" run be accepted when there exists a faster run that doesn't use it makes sense only if the definition of "game end glitch" is not bound to "major skip in time-attacking's sense". I hope it is clarified now.
For runs like "Stage -3" of SMB2j and "glitched Ending D" of Clock Tower, it seems to me that the games run into "bogus" endings that happen to resemble some working normal endings. And it might also be the case for some other debated "game end glitch" runs. It is a slippery slope for definition of a game ending and I haven't got any good ideas on this matter either.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
