Well, I don't know exactly if the recent Prince of Persia run could be accepted on Vault. I actually consider more interessing completing stages with these skips than beating normally.
I wasn't asking if it could be accepted to Vault. I was asking that if it would go to Vault, whether it would co-exist as a separate game with the other PoP games, as per the current rules.
I don't know how to explain exactly.
My homepage
--Currently not much motived for TASing as before...--
But I'm still working.
I wasn't asking if it could be accepted to Vault. I was asking that if it would go to Vault, whether it would co-exist as a separate game with the other PoP games, as per the current rules.
Yes, because it contains major game elements not present in the original version (e.g. the second fight with Jafar, different physics engine, completely new graphics and outro sequence, and the speed setting options menu). As far as I can tell, this isn't actually a port of the game, but a wholly new version rewritten from scratch.
Yes, because it contains major game elements not present in the original version (e.g. the second fight with Jafar, different physics engine, completely new graphics and outro sequence, and the speed setting options menu). As far as I can tell, this isn't actually a port of the game, but a wholly new version rewritten from scratch.
So what exactly are the rules for considering two versions of a game for different platforms separate games or the same game (with respect to the question of whether it warrants separate publication)?
I'm asking that genuinely, because I just don't know.
I think one easy rule would be: If the games are for different consoles, they will be considered different games (regardless of how similar they look and play). But I'm assuming that's not the current rule.
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 section really needs updating, though. It basically says "in the past we preferred one version, but now we don't", and then goes on at length on how this was treated in the past.
I think "additional content" is a good criterion, and this matches both the judgment on SMB and earlier movies like the non-super Mario Bros: versions with extra levels, new enemy types, more scenes, or something similar get a separate branch. Versions with only bugfixes, resolution/frequency tweaks, or straight source ports with identical gameplay do not. $.02
Cross-platform obsoletions, on the other hand, are not done unless it's about deliberately identical ports (as happens with modern console games).
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.
If somebody ever makes an any% TAS of Ocarina of Time, the Wii VC version, would it be considered the "same game" as the original N64 version, or would it be considered a separate game? (In other words, could a Wii VC version and N64 version co-exist in Vault?)
They are in principle the same game, but with either minor modifications to the game itself, or imperfections in the VC emulation system, make them behave differently (eg. by causing the N64 to crash the system when a certain glitch is triggered, which does not cause the Wii VC version to crash.)
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 relates to my question of where the line goes that distinguishes between two games being "the same game" (and thus not being able to co-exist in Vault), and when they are considered different games (and thus able to co-exist).
So you're seeing no answer in that other thread nor its links?
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.
So you're seeing no answer in that other thread nor its links?
The thread is about whether a TAS of a Wii VC game is acceptable at all, not whether it would obsolete its N64 counterpart or exist as its own separate game. I see no official answer to either question there.
I mentioned links on purpose. The first link is to a movie that got accepted after quite some debates about how it is different from the regular NES DK movie. That case is basically identical to what you're asking, so you might wanna investigate what happened and why it happened the way it did.
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 relates to my question of where the line goes that distinguishes between two games being "the same game" (and thus not being able to co-exist in Vault), and when they are considered different games (and thus able to co-exist).
As I infer from the various linked posts, the rules can be summarized as follows. I'm obviously not a judge, but I believe the below is a decent summary of past judgments and existing guidelines.
(1) A game on a different platform is always considered a different game by default unless it's "deliberately identical", which includes (a) a platform emulating an earlier platform, such as Wii Virtual Console; (b) cross-platform compatibility such as running a GB game on a GBA; and (c) direct source ports such as DOOM.
(2) A game on the same platform, or anything falling under 1a/1b/1c, is considered the same game by default. This includes (d) translated versions of the same game; (e) different builds like v1.1, prerelease, or beta; and (f) region changes such as PAL vs NTSC.
(3) "The same platform" means that roms are cross-compatible between two consoles. This specifically discounts (g) region lockout; (h) one-way compatibility, e.g. a GBA runs GB roms, but a GB does not run GBA roms, therefore they are not the same platform; and (i) emulation, which is really a subset of h.
(4) If it's the same game by default, then author of the run has to make a good case that a substantial difference in gameplay exists. Precedent indicates that (j) new content, like extra levels or enemy types unique to one version, is a substantial difference, whereas (k) a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not; (l) if the difference is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the game, then it's probably not substantial enough.
There's obviously some gray areas in this, but that's why we have judges, after all. HTH.
(a) a platform emulating an earlier platform, such as Wii Virtual Console
(k) a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not
Can it be inferred from this that a TAS of the Wii VC version of Ocarina of Time would not be accepted (ostensibly because the original is preferred over a port)?
If that's the case, then I really, really wish the rules were changed to be more lenient.
SMB PAL is not a port, so this has nothing to do with whether originals are (or are not) preferred over ports.
Tell that to Nach, who insists it is one.
Ok, I will.
The more important part of the argument is that for different versions, ports, builds, or whatever you want to call them: if you want it to be published as a new branch, then you need to make the case that the gameplay is substantially different.
Precedent indicates that new content, like extra levels or enemy types unique to one version, is a substantial difference, whereas a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not; if the difference is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the game, then it's probably not substantial enough. Now I get that you're not happy with this precedent, but that doesn't change the fact that it is precedent.
if you want it to be published as a new branch, then you need to make the case that the gameplay is substantially different.
Define "substantially different".
If one version allows a glitch that the other doesn't, isn't this a substantial difference? It's often very visible, and leads to very different-looking gameplay, and is often quite easy to explain to the average viewer (not necessarily the technical details of the glitch itself, but the fact of the existence of the glitch, and what it allows doing differently).
SMB PAL is not a port, so this has nothing to do with whether originals are (or are not) preferred over ports.
Tell that to Nach, who insists it is one.
Ok, I will.
The more important part of the argument is that for different versions, ports, builds, or whatever you want to call them: if you want it to be published as a new branch, then you need to make the case that the gameplay is substantially different.
Precedent indicates that new content, like extra levels or enemy types unique to one version, is a substantial difference, whereas a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not; if the difference is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the game, then it's probably not substantial enough. Now I get that you're not happy with this precedent, but that doesn't change the fact that it is precedent.
See, there's a difference between a port and a version (version includes region change), so it's not just what you want to call it, it is what it is, there is a meaningful difference on TASVideos.org between the two. Aside from that, I've already argued my points on the matter.
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?
A recent question in this forum about language versions added an additional layer which I hadn't thought before:
If, for instance, the Japanese version of a game is faster than the English version because there is less text to print in the former, are they still the "same" game? Would the Japanese version always obsolete the English version for the sole reason that the lesser amount of text makes it faster? In other words, the English version has no chance of ever being published (at least if somebody makes a TAS of the Japanese version).
That is ignored by other site rules which state that time gained due to language change alone is ignored. See http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#JVsU
"Keep in mind that time gained solely through basic ROM differences will be discounted for the purpose of comparison. This includes:
time gained through shorter cutscene text and speech boxes due to Japanese writing being more compact;
differences in title screen, cutscenes, and menus (unless menus are the game's main control interface). "
((Note that if one wishes to be pedantic about the TASVideos.org rules, this applies to J vs U only, and not to E (PAL)))
