The PAL version of Genesis Prince of Persia includes 4 extra levels (Stages 6, 7, 12 & 15, respectively, on PAL) that doesn't exist on the NTSC version (as well as music on the levels).
The published run, as well as the obsoleted movie, uses USA version.
So, the PAL version of this game can be acceptable to include those extra levels in case of a new TAS of this Genesis port?
My homepage
--Currently not much motived for TASing as before...--
But I'm still working.
The PAL version of Genesis Prince of Persia includes 4 extra levels (Stages 6, 7, 12 & 15, respectively, on PAL) that doesn't exist on the NTSC version (as well as music on the levels).
The published run, as well as the obsoleted movie, uses USA version.
So, the PAL version of this game can be acceptable to include those extra levels in case of a new TAS of this Genesis port?
For me this is a valid case for accept this type of movie, because the pal version of this game adds more content in this game, not minimal changes compared to SMB
Keep the number of different branches per game minimal.
Perhaps this is a silly idea, but perhaps we could start slowly phasing that principle out. I'm not exactly sure why that principle exists. (I mean, I know the rationale; I'm just saying that perhaps said rationale is not so relevant, especially not on this day and age anymore.)
Consider, for instance, that speedrun.com doesn't exactly shy away from having lots of categories for a single game. For example, consider http://www.speedrun.com/oot which has a whopping 13 categories. And if you go to http://www.speedrun.com/ootextras it has 24 additional categories for that same game.
They don't shy away from having tons of categories for a single game. Why should we? Is there a good reason for that?
The best reason I can think of is a technical one, one of site design: I think it would be best that, like them, tasvideos.org had a separate page for each game, listing all the TASes for that particular game in a sensible logical order. This way one game could have a dozen categories, and they would be listed in a logical order (like "any%" first, then "100%" if it has one, and so on and so forth.) This would, however, require a complete site redesign, including much of the backend code, and a lot of work.
But besides such a reason of practical organization (which would require probably significant refactoring of the backend code), I don't think there ought to be any other reason. It's not like the site would become more confusing or run out of space, if different runs of the same game were logically organized in their own page.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
Keep the number of different branches per game minimal.
Perhaps this is a silly idea, but perhaps we could start slowly phasing that principle out. I'm not exactly sure why that principle exists. (I mean, I know the rationale; I'm just saying that perhaps said rationale is not so relevant, especially not on this day and age anymore.)
Consider, for instance, that speedrun.com doesn't exactly shy away from having lots of categories for a single game. For example, consider http://www.speedrun.com/oot which has a whopping 13 categories. And if you go to http://www.speedrun.com/ootextras it has 24 additional categories for that same game.
They don't shy away from having tons of categories for a single game. Why should we? Is there a good reason for that?
The best reason I can think of is a technical one, one of site design: I think it would be best that, like them, tasvideos.org had a separate page for each game, listing all the TASes for that particular game in a sensible logical order. This way one game could have a dozen categories, and they would be listed in a logical order (like "any%" first, then "100%" if it has one, and so on and so forth.) This would, however, require a complete site redesign, including much of the backend code, and a lot of work.
But besides such a reason of practical organization (which would require probably significant refactoring of the backend code), I don't think there ought to be any other reason. It's not like the site would become more confusing or run out of space, if different runs of the same game were logically organized in their own page.
There are quite a few reasons why comparisons to speedrun.com don't really work (including fundamental differences on what type of content they provide, and for what audience), but the most critical difference here is that a lot more effort goes into a TASVideos publication (including encoding, front page publication, description, categorizing, and such) than into a speedrun.com leaderboard entry. This makes it much harder to afford to go 'anything goes' with regards to publication.
Yes, the site could be redesigned to make large amounts of categories less cluttery, but that still doesn't solve the above issue, nor does it really fit with the fundamental principle of TASVideos to publish content that is both entertaining and diverse.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
A redesign that makes it possible to no longer have a policy that tries to minimize categories would be a great thing to do. Don't be afraid of chances, sometimes they are necessary to stay relevant and not go the route of SDA.
The idea of a design with game pages is something I always supported, you should really look into that!
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.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
andypanther wrote:
A redesign that makes it possible to no longer have a policy that tries to minimize categories would be a great thing to do. Don't be afraid of chances, sometimes they are necessary to stay relevant and not go the route of SDA.
I would possibly agree with this if we had infinite publishing capacity, but the realistic fact is we don't. (And there's still the issue of clutter). Please read my post directly above yours.
andypanther wrote:
The idea of a design with game pages is something I always supported, you should really look into that!
We have, for years already. I'll grant that more should be done with it, but that's where the technical and practical hurdles come in.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Regarding category bloat, I generally think that separating a game into 'main' categories and 'side' categories would be a good route to go. Main categories would be your staple any% and 100% runs, whereas side categories would be more inclusive and contain oddball goal choices and the like. Main categories would have far stricter standards for acception and publication and would in turn also be featured more prominently on the site, whereas side categories would be shunted off into game-specific pages.
In the case of SMB, this would mean that any% and warpless would be main categories, while things like PAL, max coins, FDS -3 and whatever you have would be considered side categories. Having to draw the line where movies would go would be kind of arbitrary, but ultimately so is the decision on whether a run should go to vault or moons currently.
I do admit that this idea does not map well to our current concept of Vaults and Moons, which may preclude it from happening, since the vault discussion is a different topic entirely. I just think it could be a potential way to go going forward.
In the case of SMB, this would mean that any% and warpless would be main categories, while things like PAL, max coins, FDS -3 and whatever you have would be considered side categories. Having to draw the line where movies would go would be kind of arbitrary, but ultimately so is the decision on whether a run should go to vault or moons currently.
Would be weird to have the fastest possible time (PAL) as a side category. It would make more sense to have NTSC as a side category.
Mothrayas wrote:
We have, for years already. I'll grant that more should be done with it, but that's where the technical and practical hurdles come in.
Is it even possible to access those from anywhere on the site? I can't find anything.
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.
Why are people mentioning Game Boy games here? There are no PAL Game Boy Games at all. It's a 60Hz system, and there are only different regions of games instead. PAL is not shorthand for European region, it refers to the 50Hz TV standard the games released in the region use. No TV, no PAL.
the most critical difference here is that a lot more effort goes into a TASVideos publication (including encoding, front page publication, description, categorizing, and such) than into a speedrun.com leaderboard entry.
I believe that the image you are painting there about speedrun.com may be unfair.
I don't know how they handle other games, but I do know that at least with Ocarina of Time, submissions are not simply published just like that, and instead somebody has to verify their validity (I do not know the specifics of what this verification process involves, but it is my understanding that it's more laborious than just five minutes of skimming through the run).
This especially if you submit something claiming to be a world record, but if I understand correctly, it's actually done to all submissions. (I was one day watching the stream of an OoT speedrunner, who was running a category new to him, and he PB'd, and I asked him if he was going to submit it to speedrun.com. He said that since this was pretty much his first completion of the category, which he would very soon improve, he didn't want to bother the site because they would have to go through the verification process. I understood from this that speedrun.com verifies every single OoT submission, even if it's not a top one. I might be wrong, but this is what I understood.)
Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but just wanted to clarify.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
the most critical difference here is that a lot more effort goes into a TASVideos publication (including encoding, front page publication, description, categorizing, and such) than into a speedrun.com leaderboard entry.
I believe that the image you are painting there about speedrun.com may be unfair.
I don't know how they handle other games, but I do know that at least with Ocarina of Time, submissions are not simply published just like that, and instead somebody has to verify their validity (I do not know the specifics of what this verification process involves, but it is my understanding that it's more laborious than just five minutes of skimming through the run).
This especially if you submit something claiming to be a world record, but if I understand correctly, it's actually done to all submissions. (I was one day watching the stream of an OoT speedrunner, who was running a category new to him, and he PB'd, and I asked him if he was going to submit it to speedrun.com. He said that since this was pretty much his first completion of the category, which he would very soon improve, he didn't want to bother the site because they would have to go through the verification process. I understood from this that speedrun.com verifies every single OoT submission, even if it's not a top one. I might be wrong, but this is what I understood.)
Sorry for the slightly off-topic post, but just wanted to clarify.
I am aware of the speedrun.com verification process. I don't see how what you wrote here counters anything I posted.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
I am aware of the speedrun.com verification process. I don't see how what you wrote here counters anything I posted.
You made it sound like publishing runs at speedrun.com requires significantly less work than at tasvideos.org, and that's one of the reasons why comparing the two is not valid. I questioned your reasoning. You made it sound like (although you didn't directly state that) speedrun.com just publishes runs without much work being put into it, which is why they can afford having so many categories. This may be a completely unfair assessment of them.
Mothrayas wrote:
andypanther wrote:
The idea of a design with game pages is something I always supported, you should really look into that!
We have, for years already. I'll grant that more should be done with it, but that's where the technical and practical hurdles come in.
It's just that it would be nicer if we had actual pages for each game, just like at speedrun.com. For example if you search there for, like, "super mario bros" and select said game from the drop-down list, you get a nice page with cover art, some basic info (like date of publication) and different speedrunning categories in different tabs.
Of course at tasvideos.org we wouldn't probably use tabs for different categories, but simply list all the runs in a reasonable order (with "any%" first, and so on). Or if we would use tabs, perhaps each tab would show the entire publication history for that category. Either way, it would allow for us to be much more liberal in terms of number of categories, without the site becoming cluttered.
But I do completely understand that this kind of redesign would mean a very significant amount of work, so I'm fully aware of how difficult and laborious it would be. I'm just dreaming of what could be, if we had enough resources to do it.
This whole discussion made me thinking about something that might be relevant:
On what basis it is determined that two consoles are the "same" console? On what basis it is determined that two games are the "same" game?
Are the NTSC and PAL versions of the NES the "same" console? They are not identical, as there are differences in the hardware. Even the CPU's and PPU's aren't identical (as seen eg. here). They may be very similar, but not completely identical. Eg. their clockrates are different, among other things.
Is the Famicom the "same" console as the NES? If not, where do you draw the line?
Is the NTSC version of Super Mario Bros the "same" game as the PAL version? If I understand correctly, the two versions are not bit-by-bit identical, as there are changes in the executable binary. If you consider the the "same" game, on what basis do you assert this, and where do you draw the line?
Is the Sega 32X version of Doom the "same" game as the PC version? How about Doom64?
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
grassini wrote:
what's the difference between mtvf1 example and the mario PAL run?
It is entirely different - it is an NTSC-J run obsoleting a PAL run, which was erroneously published at the wrong framerate to begin with, which itself was a holdover from the Famtasia days. I don't see it in any way being relevant to how we do judging now.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Is the Famicom the "same" console as the NES? If not, where do you draw the line?
They play the same roms (without requiring emulation and discounting region lockout) therefore they are the same console. If not, would you give every Gameboy ROM a separate branch for being played on the Gameboy Color, which obviously has different hardware?
Is the NTSC version of Super Mario Bros the "same" game as the PAL version? If I understand correctly, the two versions are not bit-by-bit identical, as there are changes in the executable binary. If you consider the the "same" game, on what basis do you assert this, and where do you draw the line?
Many games have various versions, e.g. a 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 release; or an English vs Spanish language release. These are clearly not bit-by-bit identical. Unless there are intentional major changes to gameplay (such as extra levels added, or a wholly new enemy that doesn't appear in another version; but not minor things like bugfixes) I see no reason to have separate branches for Sonic The Hedgehog 1.0, Sonic The Hedgehog 1.1, Sonic El Erizo 1.0, Sonic Der Igel 1.0, and Sonic Der Igel 1.2.
On what basis it is determined that two consoles are the "same" console? On what basis it is determined that two games are the "same" game?
Are the NTSC and PAL versions of the NES the "same" console? They are not identical, as there are differences in the hardware. Even the CPU's and PPU's aren't identical (as seen eg. here). They may be very similar, but not completely identical. Eg. their clockrates are different, among other things.
At least for NTSC vs PAL, there are some real differences. There are games (e.g. 'Huge Insect') that rely on glitches in the NTSC ppu that were fixed in the PAL ppu. Thus a direct port of the game only accounting for timing differences would not work in PAL. Beyond that, a large number of PAL demos would not work (or be heavily glitched) if directly ported to NTSC due to relying on behaviour that is different between the two regions. Aside from that as well, the infamous DMC glitch was fixed in the PAL NES.
The somewhat large number of errata fixed between NTSC and PAL might be unique to the NES, I don't really know, but it does put it in an interesting situation to decide whether it's the 'same' or not.
They play the same roms (without requiring emulation and discounting region lockout) therefore they are the same console.
I'm not sure that's enough of a criterion. The Nintendo DS can play GBA games, but that doesn't make them equal.
If I understand correctly, there are quite significant differences between the Famicom and the NES, most prominently in their sound chips, and probably other parts (such as the Famicom controller having a microphone, and a different expansion port).
They play the same roms (without requiring emulation and discounting region lockout) therefore they are the same console.
I'm not sure that's enough of a criterion. The Nintendo DS can play GBA games, but that doesn't make them equal.
GBA roms and DS roms are not interchangeable, because the GBA cannot play DS roms. Furthermore, the GBA accepts GB roms and the DS does not. Therefore they are not the same console.
But even with the current rules, I highly doubt that anyone is going to reject, for example, a Twilight Princess TAS using the nearly identical PAL version to save a few seconds with the German language.
Interesting you bring this up since the TP TAS is, in fact, being done in German. Though this was likely intentional. To bring up a more interesting point, by TASVideos standards, USA 1.0 is actually the fastest version of Skyward Sword, though JP is faster RTA, since the text speed is that much different.
That said, my vote now goes to Yes, and Obsolete NTSC. It's not a port, it's SMB. That it has different glitches due to being adapted to PAL standards rather than NTSC standards is what makes it faster. Not text speed. Not "bad porting" - ESPECIALLY since it's not a port at all. Different, and better, glitches. And regarding the rule about using NTSC over other versions, it should be changed to:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
Quoting my own post from the SMB PAL submission thread (Page 5 of 11, if you're inclined to look it up) and I won't be cutting anything out to show the whole quote. But the last statement made here is important, and what I wish to focus on:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
You might adapt this to include stuff like title screen differences, but this is one simple rule that covers NTSC-U, NTSC-J, and PAL (and any other version or region you want) and makes it clear that differences from changing version that matter (text speed and title screen changes being excluded here) are present and fine. Is "fastest" potentially confusing? Possibly, though it shouldn't really be - what reaches the credits/end screen faster?
As to what is the "same game" that is a decision the publishers (not TASVideos.org publishers, but the actual physical game publishers) make or made when they release(d) the game. What do they call it? As an example, you have The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. There are several versions, all with the same name, across two consoles. For GameCube, you have the game in three regions, USA, PAL, and JPN (and yes, there are some glitch differences between USA/PAL and JPN), and the Wii has USA 1.0, PAL 1.0, JPN 1.0, USA 1.2, PAL 1.2, JPN 1.2 and a KOR release of unknown version (USA 1.0 and PAL/JPN 1.0 have a glitch difference, and the differences between 1.0 and 1.2 are several as well). ALL of them, all ten of those versions, are the same game: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, despite the sometimes significant differences between each. There's ALSO The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD, released for the Wii U, with three versions of its own (USA, PAL, JPN) - but since this is not the same name, it is considered a different game despite being extremely similar (and yes, there are glitch differences between the "SD" releases and the HD remake) and these three versions are all the same game in comparison to each other, despite their differences.
In short, we really don't have to decide what is the same game or not in 99.99% of cases, since the publishers of the game already made that decision for us. Regions can differ and yet still be only different versions of the same game.
Since I in some way feel responsible this mess (I didn't start it, but I would have if HappyLee didn't do it before me), I'd like to explain my reasoning why I thought this was a good idea, why I think the rules should be changed and how.
My line of argument is along the lines of what Alyosha already brought up. I'm not against the policy to keep the number of branches small, the point that I don't agree with is the inherent preference of NTSC over PAL to resolve conflicts for similar runs.
But I think it's useful to step back from NTSC vs. PAL and look at how different versions of a game in general should be (and partly are already) treated. All of this is for runs that aim to get the fastest time, with entertainment value as a secondary goal.
I don't think it matters how large their differences technically are. It may be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 version of the otherwise same title, or it may be a port for a completely different system altogether, with a different underlying engine and everything. The important point is that they have the same goals, use similar means to achieve them, and provide a similar viewing experience, so only one of them can be published according to current guidelines (this explicitly excludes cases where they use significant version-specific glitches and the like, or contain significant version-specific content, and can be considered different categories).
There are of course obvious no-gos where one version is clearly superior to the other, e.g. when one of the versions is broken in a way that compromises the gameplay experience, and we only focus on the cases where both versions are official releases, reasonably well done compared to each other and offer similar gameplay and viewing experiences when trying to achieve their goal.
So assuming we have two runs that conflict with each other in this way, which one should be published?
In my opinion, this consideration should include (in rough order of importance):
- Fastest time (modulo trivial version differences)
- Audience response/Entertainment value (weight depends on publishing tier)
- Audiovisual quality of the version
- Relative version popularity/sales
It specifically should not include:
- Which version was published first on tasvideos.org
- Which version was released first to market (aka the "original")
The current Guidelines (as I understand them) reflect most of this, except for the last point, they prefer originals over later versions. This is something I have discussed with Nach a little already in the SMB thread that started this, I don't think being the original is by itself a reason to prefer one version over the other. It usually comes with one of the reasons that I think are valid reasons, like superior gameplay or higher popularity, but it's not a reason by itself.
The main reason for this practice that was discussed so far (and that I think is flawed, see my reasoning here and in following posts), is that differences in later versions of the games are deviations from the original developer intentions, so the original that stays truer to the developer intentions is to be preferred (please correct me if I'm misrepresenting the argument).
I'm not aware of any other main arguments for this preference so far, but I'm happy to hear them.
My proposal for a rule change is simply to not consider originality as a factor anymore, or at least demote its importance heavily. Applying this to NTSC vs. PAL, it means that (assuming all the conditions mentioned initially are met), PAL and NTSC versions are equivalent and can obsolete each other.
That of course doesn't mean that they always should, there are still all these other factors, just that there is no inherent bias. I think my main mistake was trying to use SMB1 as an example to make this point, I underestimated how much people love their childhood memories with that game which most of them played on the NTSC version, and what seminal role it has on this site to convey a relatable entry to understanding what TASes are about, so people had a hard time even entertaining the thought of obsoleting it for a faster non-NTSC version.
I had no illusions that it would actually be obsoleted (the outcome I anticipated was that it gets published alongside as a special case because of NTSC SMB's special role and history), but it failed to incite the debate I wanted to have and the change I wanted to provoke, and just provoked a lot of angry shouting instead.
I'm happy that we can have this discussion here instead now, in a more abstract and less emotionally heated environment.
One of the major points to keep in mind is that TASVideos has never been all about speed records. Quite the opposite, before 2012 we didn't have the tier system, and insanely optimized runs that fail to entertain were rejected. Boring speed records going to Vault is just a bonus, for those who are still entertained by such games and/or by the fact that they got beaten in a TAS way.
So in every discussion about changing judging traditions we should consider the tier system. Because for Moons people would prefer a version that's superior over one that's faster, if we're talking about obsoletions. And if we are talking new branches, diversity is our main criterion.
So nobody is objecting the suggestion to base publishing PAL as a new branch if it increases diversity. As pointed out by Radiant, it makes sense to have a PAL branch that highlights some special goal not present in other branches. So by using PAL for side branches (the unvaultable ones) we can make a branch even more different than it usually has to be to co-exist. This is good, this happened a bunch of times before: Rygar, Blaster Master, Mario Bros. A similar ruling should apply to using the Japanese release. Side branches only exist in Moons, so Vault is out of the question here.
When we switch to PAL where no branch diversity is involved, which means a vaultable branch like any% or 100%, I insist on the superiority requirement, reflecting some or several parts of the PAL release that are better: media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes, etc. As long as the run goes to Moons despite of being a vaultable branch, these factors should outweigh speed, because we want it to be as impressive as it can be.
The above seems to already work for quite some time, and all the reasons look clear to me. The hard part is deciding whether we should allow switching to PAL for pure Vault runs. Speed is supposed to be the main factor here. But if speed is achieved by some reduced difficulty that notably reduces the challenge (and the impressiveness), people still use to prefer the harder version it seems.
I suggest to leave Vault runs to the case-by-case basis when it comes to PAL. The decision should be a consensus between the judge and the audience (and probably the author?)
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.
When we switch to PAL where no branch diversity is involved, which means a vaultable branch like any% or 100%, I insist on the superiority requirement, reflecting some or several parts of the PAL release that are better: media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes, etc. As long as the run goes to Moons despite of being a vaultable branch, these factors should outweigh speed, because we want it to be as impressive as it can be.
I agree that a submission should not focus only on speed if it is to be considered for higher tiers, but that's not the point I'm trying to make. My point is that PAL runs shouldn't be under any higher pressure to deliver that NTSC runs, independent of the tier. Just because the new sumbission happens to be on the PAL version, it shouldn't be held to higher standards or have something expectional in it, a simple improvement (considering all aspects) is good enough. Again, all the usual caveats apply, they should be good versions and provide similar experiences.
Maybe think of it the other way. If there is an already published PAL version, and someone tried to obsolete it with an NTSC version (and the NTSC version happened to be released first), would you expect the same level of strict superiority and strictly better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes, etc?
If you wouldn't expect that, it points to the bias for NTSC and original versions that I'm arguing should be dropped. If you would expect it, then you're creating an environment where whatever version got published first has a large advantage, where it's easy to publish improvements on that version but not any different one, regardless of any other factors. This seems arbitrary to me.
I admit that this is hard to see when you don't have an example where this would be applied, maybe there is none and the whole discussion is moot (because all PAL ports are either bad or strictly slower), that's why I tried to present this as part of a submission that illustrates it (and failed). It will likely be a case-by-case decision and maybe it's just not worth discussing this possibility if such a case never occurs, but this is also a chicken-and-egg problem where the current rules discourage it from ever happening.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Is the Famicom the "same" console as the NES? If not, where do you draw the line?
Is the NTSC version of Super Mario Bros the "same" game as the PAL version? If I understand correctly, the two versions are not bit-by-bit identical, as there are changes in the executable binary. If you consider the the "same" game, on what basis do you assert this, and where do you draw the line?
Is the Sega 32X version of Doom the "same" game as the PC version? How about Doom64?
I share your pain in this regard. I often question why we don't have TASs for the different revisions of Donkey Kong Country. When there's different bugs in each revision, a TAS for one shows the fastest possible with some glitch, while the TAS for another has no access to some glitches, and instead plays the game more as it was meant to. I think each have their tradeoffs and unique entertainment opportunities, and I'd really like to see both represented.
I think I'd look at it as to how compatible the different versions of a game are with each other. If the average run of a game plays back exactly the same on another version, I think we can consider them the same despite not being bit for bit identical. We have some TASs that playback on a Rockman game and its Megaman exactly the same, because nothing changed in the game aside from the imagery in the title screen some letters on menus and the end credits.
Once you reach the point that input for the two are not compatible, we enter different levels of incompatibility. Some games may had a new version which has some secret side level added, but otherwise is identical. For such a game, playback will work unless entering the side level was attempted, at that point the two games necessarily diverge. We have other games where any input for a given area in the game will play back identically, but the menus between those areas diverge. These I would consider our gray areas.
Beyond that we have different versions of games where input will never sync between the two, not even in limited (but complete) segments. For those, I don't see any parity between the games anymore, despite a similar look and feel, and it being common knowledge that the two are supposedly the same.
As a side example, let's look at two variants of Checkers. The rules are the same across both, except the following
Variant A) A player must jump if they have a piece they can jump. Kings gain the ability to move in both directions.
Variant B) A player can choose to jump if there is a piece they can jump. Kings not only gain the ability to move in both directions, but when jumping can skip as many spaces as wanted.
The board is the same, the pieces are the same, nearly all the rules are the same, but are they the same game? Are masters of one also a master of the other? Would a record game in one make sense as a record in the other? Games are defined as their rules, and when the rules change the game changes. TASing is all about the rules as they are, not as they appear. So even if two games look the same, if they are true video games, we must understand they're not the same. I go into this in more detail in Wiki: Nach/HistoryOfGamesAndRelevanceHere.
MrWint wrote:
I don't think it matters how large their differences technically are. It may be a 1.0 vs. 1.1 version of the otherwise same title, or it may be a port for a completely different system altogether, with a different underlying engine and everything. The important point is that they have the same goals, use similar means to achieve them, and provide a similar viewing experience
I think how large the differences technically are is the primary crucial point, and is in fact a foundation of TASing philosophy. Please see my above response to Warp and link.
MrWint wrote:
So assuming we have two runs that conflict with each other in this way, which one should be published?
In my opinion, this consideration should include (in rough order of importance):
- Fastest time (modulo trivial version differences)
- Audience response/Entertainment value (weight depends on publishing tier)
- Audiovisual quality of the version
- Relative version popularity/sales
It specifically should not include:
- Which version was published first on tasvideos.org
- Which version was released first to market (aka the "original")
Two runs for a single game or two similar games each with their own run? I assume you mean the latter, as the former makes little sense in the context.
This gets into a number of issues regarding quality of the game, TAS itself, popularity, audience response. I think most of the time we should strive for both. If they're too similar and absolutely cannot do both, I'd personally prioritize:
Highest quality game version (most potential for TASability and good audience feedback)
Version preferred by majority of audience
Audiovisual quality of the version
I define TASability as including ability to complete the games in multiple ways, many tradeoffs which require study and planning, much depth that has a near infinite supply of finding new things, ways to perform entertaining action often.
The following suggested criteria I would not consider at all not even one iota:
Fastest time
Version popularity/sales
Which version was published first on TASVideos
Which version was released first to market
I wouldn't consider any of them because fastest time for some run in some branch, most sales, first to publish, and first to market have 0 affect on the game's quality or its overall TAS potential.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
