This is a run of Math Blaster with the main goal being speed. Math Blaster has 3 sections: Trash, Caves, and Ship. In the menus you can choose between 3 and 5 lives. I add 1 life because I will be taking a lot of damage in trash.

Trash

In trash it is better to hit a wrong answer first as it only takes an additional 19 frames to fire the second shot, but hitting a correct answer first adds 40 frames because your bonus points increase and they have to be tallied in the bonus stages. For this reason, I hit an incorrect answer first all 30 times. This is the reason for the additional life. In the bonus stage, I avoid all bonus points except at the end, where shooting the last asteroids can end the stage sooner.

Caves

The main feature of caves is the up-clip glitch which was discovered recently. Normally, you are not able to progress upwards unless the number on your character is between the minimum and maximum listed on the cave level. However, with this frame perfect and pixel perfect glitch you can avoid getting detected by the laser that usually shoots you down.

Ship

In ship I manipulate the RNG to only give me problems where the correct answer is in the 2 leftmost tubes by waiting a specific amount of frames. The RNG is entirely based on the frame number and there is no other known way to manipulate it. The second tube is only slower by 1 frame, so both are acceptable as it would take at least 1 frame to RNG manipulate again until the correct answer was in the first tube. The only other glitch used here is known as the "Owch clip" where there is a 1 frame window to get "owched" by a piece of trash flying by and still make it into the tube.

ThunderAxe31: Judging.
ThunderAxe31: Hello and welcome to TASVideos!
This run is not acceptable for Alternative tier because the entertainment value is very low. Thus, Vault tier requirements will be applied.
The run is nicely optimized and beats all known records. However, the game played does not meet the Vault requirements, since it's an educational game. Specifically: this game mostly consists in doing math fast, and in fact most of the efforts showcased in this run are actually just manipulating and predicting the answers in order to solve the problems fast.
For this reason, I'm rejecting this submission. Better luck next time!
ThunderAxe31: In view of the arguments provided by feos in the forum thread of this submission, I start over the judging process.

ThunderAxe31: The argument brought by feos consisted in a different interpretation of the Vault rule for educational games. While I considered that rule to forbid any run made with educational games, he did instead consider it as actually forbidding games that don't feature TAS-worthy material. Since his argument was supposedly supported by the goal of TASVideos of developing superhuman gameplay, I decided to consider the possibility that my initial judgement was wrong.
I had a conversation with other staff members, including Nach, Mothrayas, and feos. I explained the reason for my judgement and I presented my evidence pointing out that Math Blaster can't be completed casually without solving math. In the end, everyone acknowledged that my method added a clear cut to the rule, whose text was updated accordingly. We needed to draw a clear borderline for evaluating if a given title is primarily an educational game or not. My idea was to use the concept of "casual play" as a yardstick for estimating how much determinant is the requirement to perform educational activities in order to play through the game.
On the other hand, we also agreed that relying on TAS merits for a given run could never give a definitive extimation, since that substantially consists of speculating about the TAS potential available for a given game. We can't really know in advance if such potential is actually present, and that would result in relying on chances, which we can't do for Vault rules. In fact, TAS potential can be there, but until one tries hard enough, we won't know about it. This doesn't allow for any reliable rule.
It must also be noted that while it's true that the goal of TASVideos is to develop and showcase superhuman gameplay, this is mainly done for the purpose of entertainment, which clearly doesn't apply for the Vault tier. And on the other hand, this movie has been proven by the audience to lack any TAS merits that make it entertaining to watch.
The purpose of the Vault tier is keep track of videogame records, and thus shouldn't be applied for pieces of software that can't be considered as actual games. For this reason, some kinds of titles are excluded from Vault tier, like educational games. Even if the updated rule that defines an educational game is quite lax, it's still very clear and definite, and it must be so in order to avoid impossible-to-solve cases; raising an exception here would generate a bad precedent.
This is indeed an unfortunate case because the run itself features good TASing material, as explained by feos in this post, and I also was aware of this from the start; but even then the run was not entertaining enough to be accepted for Alternative. The best I can do is to note that a "maximum score" run could potentially be entertaining enough to be accepted. Lastly, I want to thank qflame for having submitted this run, because it did give the opportunity to test and refine the rule.
Reassuming: the rule didn't change, my judgment didn't change. Rejecting again for bad game choice in conjunction with low entertainment.

FREE MATH BLASTER.
Memory: Changes in the movie rules resulted in revisiting the run. Obviously, the audience reception and the optimization has not changed. However, due to said changes, the main factor now is triviality. This run looks far from trivial, with lots of RNG manipulation and plenty of obvious optimization points. Therefore under the rules now, this movie is finally acceptable.
Freeing Math Blaster to Vault.
EZGames69 PUBLISH MATH BLASTER


1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Math Blaster clearly has far more "actual gameplay" than the currently-published Carmen Sandiego run. The latter is a hell of a technical achievement (i.e. completely non-trivial), but the game itself is the absolute quintessence of edutainment, with no direct entertainment value. Meanwhile, Math Blaster is an action-oriented game with a clear win condition, traditional mechanics (space shooter, etc.), and far shorter duration. So if the grounds are "Does the game offer actual gameplay?", I don't understand how Carmen Sandiego gets a yes and Math Blaster a no. One could blur out all the math elements in Math Blaster and still have coherent gameplay. All this stuff about intuiting the designers' ultimate intent is a canard: how can one possibly do that? It takes something that should be cut-and-dried and makes it metaphysical. All you need to know is whether there's meaningful gameplay. In Sesame Street 123, there basically isn't; in Math Blaster, there is. BTW is there a place where "serious/non-serious game" is defined? One of the reasons I said these discussions are getting "legalistic" is that we have all these rules being cited, yet no clarity on the exact meaning of certain terms, nor on whether the rules cut both ways: to put it bluntly, can the staff be forced to approve a run they vehemently dislike because it fulfills the letter of the rules?
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1358)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
goldenband wrote:
One could blur out all the math elements in Math Blaster and still have coherent gameplay.
Excellent. I have just made a patch that blurs out all math elements in Math Blaster: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xit5qqmg57dl9wk/math-blaster---no-math-version.ips?dl=1 Apply it on the original ROM file by using Lunar IPS, then try playing the game. If you manage to beat the game at least once out of 1 billion attempts, then I'll agree that it "still have coherent gameplay" and rethink of my judgement.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
While I appreciate the IPS patch, I don't believe you're arguing in good faith here. As I'm sure you realize, my point is, if the person watching the run couldn't see the math elements, they'd see what appeared to them to be a standard (if uninspired) space cockpit shooter, then a kind of platformer, etc. And those events are actually being controlled by player input, so their impression -- of a game being played -- would be correct.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1358)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
goldenband wrote:
As I'm sure you realize, my point is, if the person watching the run couldn't see the math elements, they'd see what appeared to them to be a standard (if uninspired) space cockpit shooter, then a kind of platformer, etc. And those events are actually being controlled by player input, so their impression -- of a game being played -- would be correct.
We don't care about what a casual watcher may think or not think by watching the encode of a game they aren't familiar of; what we care about is what the game played actually *is*. If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game, regardless of what it could seem for someone that never played it.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
We don't care about what a casual watcher may think or not think by watching the encode of a game they aren't familiar of; what we care about is what the game played actually *is*.
If this Math Blaster run reaches the end of the game in the shortest amount of time possible, and there's active and dynamic gameplay happening onscreen and well-tuned manipulation "under the hood", then aren't both casual viewers and specialist audiences well-served by this run?
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game, regardless of what it could seem for someone that never played it.
Plenty of games intended as entertainment (not edutainment) require doing lots of math. Most are on computer, but a game like Artillery Duel on the Atari 2600 is literally about calculating angles, power and nothing else -- there's no action/dexterity component. Other examples include space travel and rocketry simulators (and some RPGs come pretty damn close). Perhaps most of those don't have enough going onscreen to justify a TAS as a watched experience; Math Blaster, however, clearly does. What I suspect you really mean is if the game forces you to solve math problems as a central gameplay element and the intent of the game is to teach math, it's a non-serious game. But -- if that's a correct gloss of your stance -- I don't think even that is a coherent standard, or that any judging criteria attempting to be objective should include "intent" as a criterion. The Oregon Trail's intent is didactic/pedagogical; so is Carmen Sandiego. Both are on this site. Meanwhile, Math Blaster's gameplay may involve solving math problems, but I'd argue that it doesn't consist of solving math problems: it consists of shooting, platforming, etc. If you can't see the difference and want a game that consists of solving math problems, the Apple II library has plenty of examples where you just type in the answer and that's all you do. Also, once again, let me ask: where are "serious" and "non-serious" defined on this site? If these are matters of policy, shouldn't they be spelled out explicitly, so that anyone can know in advance where a given submission will stand? Isn't that what rules are for -- to ensure accountability for all parties? I know it's irritating to have your judgment questioned. Please understand that this is a sincere response to a perceived lack of clarity or consistency on certain points, and to evidence that seems to contradict claims being made.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game, regardless of what it could seem for someone that never played it.
That's not what the rule says. For clarity of my argument I'll quote it.
For the purposes of this tier, a game which is a board game, educational game or game show game is not defined as a serious game. Examples of unacceptable education games for this tier are Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs. A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible.
The amount of math involved is irrelevant, and there's no definition of "a lot". There's a definition of "primarily educational game" that we can obtain via provided example. Then when rendering a judgment of a game that's probably educational to some degree, we compare it to Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s to get the basic idea. So let's do this. Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s is seeing some amount of objects on the screen and picking the digit that equals their quantity. It is decorated in a few different ways, but all gameplay is concentrated in picking the correct digit. Is, what "picking the correct digit" consists of, serious gameplay? No, it is too trivial to provide any room for TASing. A trained player could arguably learn to do everything frame perfectly. In the end, the result would still be unimpressive and worthless. Is Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot as trivial as Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s if we discount all the math matter? Trash You need to shoot an object; objects appear around the screen; depending on whether your shooting is correct or not, you either loose time or energy. The correct object appears randomly regarding time and space. If you repeatedly fail to shoot correct objects you die. This sounds like an average basic game from something like Atari2600 era. Except there you can tell that your shooting is correct by the sprite of the object: it is supposed to look like an enemy. Or something otherwise harmful. In this game, you need to do basic math to know which object to shoot. My personal opinion is, if you have to fight enemies anyway, and math helps you to make sure you're fighting the right enemy, otherwise you'd have to make random guess each time, math is a secondary factor in such a game. But even that can be totally ignored with some basic luck manipulation: you just shoot random objects and compare your time loss. For real-time play you need to see the numbers. For a TAS you don't care, yet you still have to play the game the usual way. And in addition, there's this optimization factor where you need to plan out your route the way the author did. Caves Same as the above, you get a hint where to fly not to die if you do math, but you need to control your character optimally regardless. So again math is just a secondary indicator here. If it was replaced with colors, all the gameplay would remain the same, even though it'd be as basic as on A2600. But the good thing about this run is that it not only ignores math in this level, it breaks the gameplay entirely by using a physics glitch by frame perfectness and ideal positioning! Primary TAS contents right there ladies and gentlemen. Playing a level based on physics by completely ignoring it. Ship This has the least left to it when you discard the math aspect, but it keeps the jetpack physics, and instead of glitching through it requires luck manipulation to make it spawn the optimal math questions, which is determined by which ports we need to enter. This is clearly TASable. This is unachievable in real time unless one has literal frame perfection and actual luck. Math, just like in the previous level, is just an indicator that might as well be a color or a sprite. Result This game has educational elements to it, but its actual gameplay, that remains when you discard math, allows for an optimizable TAS that can even be improved further if some harder glitch is found in the second level. The rule requires that this game only has "some secondary educational elements scattered within it", and it perfectly fits, especially if you compare it to the example game that clearly doesn't.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game
That makes absolutely no sense. I can't even begin to imagine how you come to that conclusion. And then Mothrayas castigates me for repeatedly asking why if the math was replaced with puzzles, it would (seemingly) become acceptable, for some reason. I'm asking it because it needs to be asked, because the same point keeps being repeated, and it makes absolutely no sense. What is it in math problems in particular that makes them so different from puzzle problems, that any game where you need to solve math problems to progress is automatically disqualified, while games where you need to solve puzzle problems to progress is ok? I honestly cannot understand why you are all so adamant to have this game not be eligible, no matter what, as if it were some kind of principle.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1358)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
goldenband wrote:
Plenty of games intended as entertainment (not edutainment) require doing lots of math. Most are on computer, but a game like Artillery Duel on the Atari 2600 is literally about calculating angles, power and nothing else -- there's no action/dexterity component. Other examples include space travel and rocketry simulators (and some RPGs come pretty damn close). Perhaps most of those don't have enough going onscreen to justify a TAS as a watched experience; Math Blaster, however, clearly does. What I suspect you really mean is if the game forces you to solve math problems as a central gameplay element and the intent of the game is to teach math, it's a non-serious game. But -- if that's a correct gloss of your stance -- I don't think even that is a coherent standard, or that any judging criteria attempting to be objective should include "intent" as a criterion. The Oregon Trail's intent is didactic/pedagogical; so is Carmen Sandiego. Both are on this site. Meanwhile, Math Blaster's gameplay may involve solving math problems, but I'd argue that it doesn't consist of solving math problems: it consists of shooting, platforming, etc. If you can't see the difference and want a game that consists of solving math problems, the Apple II library has plenty of examples where you just type in the answer and that's all you do.
No one ever said Math Blaster doesn't contain actual gameplay. The problem for this game is that the educational part comes before the gaming one, that is forcing the player to execute an activity that has nothing to do with shooting and platforming and specifically doing it in an educational way. On the other hand, it makes just sense for some kind of strategic games to require you to do calculations, because it's relative to that gaming ambiance and it's not specifically crafted in order to teach any school subject to the player.
goldenband wrote:
Also, once again, let me ask: where are "serious" and "non-serious" defined on this site? If these are matters of policy, shouldn't they be spelled out explicitly, so that anyone can know in advance where a given submission will stand? Isn't that what rules are for -- to ensure accountability for all parties?
I already linked the Vault rules page in my judgement notes, that is the place where TASers are supposed to learn about which games and which game goals could be accepted and which not; if that's not enough, everyone is still free to ask if a specific game title could be potentially accepted for Vault, by posting in this thread or contacting a judge privately via PM, IRC or Discord.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Thanks for your reply, ThunderAxe31.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
No one ever said Math Blaster doesn't contain actual gameplay. The problem for this game is that the educational part comes before the gaming one, that is forcing the player to execute an activity that has nothing to do with shooting and platforming and specifically doing it in an educational way. On the other hand, it makes just sense for some kind of strategic games to require you to do calculations, because it's relative to that gaming ambiance and it's not specifically crafted in order to teach any school subject to the player.
Why, then, is Math Blaster rejected but Oregon Trail and Carmen Sandiego accepted? They both fail the test of "forcing the player to execute an activity" that's subservient to the educational goals of the game.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I already linked the Vault rules page in my judgement notes, that is the place where TASers are supposed to learn about which games and which game goals could be accepted and which not; if that's not enough, everyone is still free to ask if a specific game title could be potentially accepted for Vault, by posting in this thread or contacting a judge privately via PM, IRC or Discord.
Unfortunately, the Vault rules page only offers examples, switches back and forth between terms ("proper" vs. "serious"), and doesn't define exactly what constitutes "seriousness" or "non-seriousness" in a game (the word "serious" only shows up twice on that page). When definitions are codified as part of a set of rules, their value is that they allow others to hold us accountable to that definition, to lay bare the principles beneath the rules, and to require us to abide by the defined rules whether or not we approve of the outcome that results. That's the whole point: otherwise they're just guidelines.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
I haven't read that whole page in details lately, but if there's really no definition for a serious/proper game, I'd propose a definition. A serious game that we want to see published at least in Vault is a game with challenging gameplay that could result in a challenging TAS, involving optimization and applying basic TAS techniques like heavy glitching, heavy resource management, heavy luck manipulation, etc.
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.
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
feos wrote:
A serious game that we want to see published at least in Vault is a game with challenging gameplay that could result in a challenging TAS, involving...
At the end of the day, this is the point of a lot of Vault rules. There needs to be a minimum bar of "triviality". If we take a serious look at all the junko out in the wild, it is only logical that we have to set some kind of bar. But at what level? That needs to be decided. Even more problematic than where to draw the line, "triviality" is subjective. The intent of the vault is to be minimally subjective. As often as possible, vault/no vault should be minimally controversial and easy to put a consensus on. The point of rules that mention specific types of genres such as education are an attempt to minimize the subjectivity of a blanket "triviality" rule. Their goal is to be more concrete/less subjective as opposed to just a vague statement.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
adelikat wrote:
At the end of the day, this is the point of a lot of Vault rules. There needs to be a minimum bar of "triviality". If we take a serious look at all the junko out in the wild, it is only logical that we have to set some kind of bar. But at what level? That needs to be decided. Even more problematic than where to draw the line, "triviality" is subjective. The intent of the vault is to be minimally subjective. As often as possible, vault/no vault should be minimally controversial and easy to put a consensus on. The point of rules that mention specific types of genres such as education are an attempt to minimize the subjectivity of a blanket "triviality" rule. Their goal is to be more concrete/less subjective as opposed to just a vague statement.
Excellent points. Firstly, thank you to all those commenting. As frustrating as this debate has been for many of you, it has exposed the perspectives of various members of the community. This entire topic then begs the question: Does the term 'educational' actually aid in determining a degree of triviality for a more concrete rule? It seems to have created more confusion than anything. Would the rule benefit from dropping the word 'educational' all together and just stick with 'non-serious' (Assuming that can be defined)?
Skilled player (1672)
Joined: 7/1/2013
Posts: 448
DrD2k9 wrote:
Excellent points. Firstly, thank you to all those commenting. As frustrating as this debate has been for many of you, it has exposed the perspectives of various members of the community.
I agree with you, DrD2k9. It is to this community's credit that such fervent debate can arise from a rather minor game.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I always thought of Vault to fulfill the principle "every game deserves a TAS", regardless of any subjective "entertainment" value. The only minimum requirement would be that it's an actual video game that's "TASable" in a reasonable way (which essentially means that it has a well-defined ending; otherwise it would be impossible to time it and decide which TAS is fastest.) I believe that tiers were originally created, and the requirement of any sort of entertainment value discarded in the case of Vault, largely for this reason. While I understand the principle that a game has to be a "serious game", in that it has to be, by some standard, an actual playable video game and not just eg. an application, or some kind of other software that's not a game, I think that in this case this concept is being overly applied to an "educational game". I honestly can't understand why having to solve math problems in order to advance in the game makes it "not serious" (especially since "serious game" seems to be poorly defined).
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
I think one of the other parts was triviality, Warp; a movie that's too trivial to replicate in real-time is also rejectable IIRC.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Can this time be matched in real-time play trivially?
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
I always thought of Vault to fulfill the principle "every game deserves a TAS", regardless of any subjective "entertainment" value.
That's not quite the intent. More specifically the vault aims to allow meaningful TAS speedrun records regardless of "entertainment" value. I think there are subtle differences here with important implications. The vault is specifically limited to categories that fulfill a notion of a "meaningful record". Therefore rules try to be geared toward defining what exactly constitutes a "meaningful record". A meaningful record tries to define that it is in fact a "game" and has been "completed". And that completion is at least minimally "non-trivial", else what is the point of using super-human reflexes/abilities? Unfortunately there's some level of subjectivity in all 3 of these notions. Since the vault was trying to be minimally subjective, the original rules erred on the side of rejection in the face of sufficient ambiguity. The idea was that if we weren't sure a run qualified in all 3 categories, then it in fact did not. (I'm trying to clarify the original rules as opposed to the current, because the original intent was not to be a definite final list but rather a template that could refined over time)
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
DrD2k9 wrote:
This entire topic then begs the question: Does the term 'educational' actually aid in determining a degree of triviality for a more concrete rule? It seems to have created more confusion than anything.
I think this is worth seriously considering. Note that it is the degree of confusion that I'm specifically concerned as problematic. Not the fact that this specific run was rejected.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
adelikat wrote:
Note that it is the degree of confusion that I'm specifically concerned as problematic. Not the fact that this specific run was rejected.
It's the confusion that is my primary concern as well, not this particular submission. This majority of this discussion could (and likely should) have taken place in its own topic, and it only happened here because this is where it started. The biggest problem with it happening here is the unfortunate likelihood that some of the generalized comments from both sides are being specifically (and inappropriately) attributed to this particular run; not being considered as a generalized concepts. I am probably as guilty of this error as anyone else.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
adelikat wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
This entire topic then begs the question: Does the term 'educational' actually aid in determining a degree of triviality for a more concrete rule? It seems to have created more confusion than anything.
I think this is worth seriously considering. Note that it is the degree of confusion that I'm specifically concerned as problematic. Not the fact that this specific run was rejected.
That's a good point. It is clear from this thread that some people consider this a math game with some secondary action, whereas others consider this an action game with some secondary math. But the question that should be asked (and in general, not about this game in particular) is if it's worth making a distinction in the first place between "math with action" and "action with math". This distinction appears to distract from the underlying issue, i.e. that the vault is looking for "games" "completed" in a "non-trivial" way, regardless of what tags or categories can be applied to these games.
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Emulator Coder, Expert player (3821)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2829
Location: US
DrD2k9 wrote:
This entire topic then begs the question: Does the term 'educational' actually aid in determining a degree of triviality for a more concrete rule? It seems to have created more confusion than anything. Would the rule benefit from dropping the word 'educational' all together and just stick with 'non-serious' (Assuming that can be defined)?
I don't think the rule (as written) is intended to seperate out games based on triviality. No argument against 'Math Blaster' has been about how trivial the game is or even whether it's a game at all. I would say the the one word that sums up the current rule and judgement is 'style.' I think the intent of the rule , and certainly the the way it is used in this judgement, would be more clearly stated as: 'Games in the style of educational games or board games are not accepted in the vault.' Then, at least it's clear that we aren't differentiating games from non-games here, nor trying to define some notion of 'serious game', nor judging the game based strictly on it's content. The style alone is what is at issue. Then you could even use 'math blaster' as an example. I still wouldn't think this is a good or necessary rule (I think it can be safely scrapped altogether), and 'style' would probably still be contentious, but at least it's clear about what's being judged. On the notion of triviality, I think that aspect should be re-inforced even more then it is. The current 'Porky's' run for example can be almost exactly reproduced real time with a little practice and only 1/4 chance luck.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
This sounds like an average basic game from something like Atari2600 era. Except there you can tell that your shooting is correct by the sprite of the object: it is supposed to look like an enemy. Or something otherwise harmful. In this game, you need to do basic math to know which object to shoot. My personal opinion is, if you have to fight enemies anyway, and math helps you to make sure you're fighting the right enemy, otherwise you'd have to make random guess each time, math is a secondary factor in such a game. But even that can be totally ignored with some basic luck manipulation: you just shoot random objects and compare your time loss. For real-time play you need to see the numbers. For a TAS you don't care, yet you still have to play the game the usual way. And in addition, there's this optimization factor where you need to plan out your route the way the author did.
I see you are actually trying to conform to the rules to get this game published, and I think you're on the correct track. Now, just because a TASer can use RAM watch and other tricks to avoid normal play doesn't actually relegate the math component to being secondary. Since I don't know the game nor watched it, let me ask can the player just shoot everything and still win? Because if they can, the math isn't important here.
feos wrote:
Same as the above, you get a hint where to fly not to die if you do math, but you need to control your character optimally regardless. So again math is just a secondary indicator here. If it was replaced with colors, all the gameplay would remain the same, even though it'd be as basic as on A2600.
Can this be done with just simple trial and error by a regular user till they got it right? If so, I would agree the math is actually secondary to the game play.
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Nach wrote:
Since I don't know the game nor watched it, let me ask can the player just shoot everything and still win? Because if they can, the math isn't important here.
If you shoot the objects math tells you to shoot, you lose time. If you shoot other objects, you save on time but lose health and eventually die. The author trades as much health as he can on that, this is why he takes an extra life in the menu. Playing the unintended way is faster and results in "Takes damage to save time". The second level is the same in a way: playing the intended way is suboptimal and should be avoided. In the third level you can't avoid math entirely, so you manipulate it to give you faster gameplay.
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
Same as the above, you get a hint where to fly not to die if you do math, but you need to control your character optimally regardless. So again math is just a secondary indicator here. If it was replaced with colors, all the gameplay would remain the same, even though it'd be as basic as on A2600.
Can this be done with just simple trial and error by a regular user till they got it right? If so, I would agree the math is actually secondary to the game play.
I dunno if numbers switch around preventing blind winning;, if they don't change, it's clearly possible in real time. But regardless, my main point here is that the game has lots of TASable gameplay if you discard math, while Elmo has none. In the end, it's not math itself that we want to avid with Vault rules, but trivial games whose TASes don't impress anyone.
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.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
Since I don't know the game nor watched it, let me ask can the player just shoot everything and still win? Because if they can, the math isn't important here.
If you shoot the objects math tells you to shoot, you lose time. If you shoot other objects, you save on time but lose health and eventually die. The author trades as much health as he can on that, this is why he takes an extra life in the menu. Playing the unintended way is faster and results in "Takes damage to save time".
So basically he throws the math out the window, and just finds the fastest combination that makes you win. Although for the viewer to understand what's happening, you have to pay attention to the math?
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
Same as the above, you get a hint where to fly not to die if you do math, but you need to control your character optimally regardless. So again math is just a secondary indicator here. If it was replaced with colors, all the gameplay would remain the same, even though it'd be as basic as on A2600.
Can this be done with just simple trial and error by a regular user till they got it right? If so, I would agree the math is actually secondary to the game play.
I dunno if numbers switch around preventing blind winning;, if they don't change, it's clearly possible in real time.
Knowing the answer is important to determine if the educational bits are primary or secondary.
feos wrote:
But regardless, my main point here is that the game has lots of TASable gameplay if you discard math, while Elmo has none. In the end, it's not math itself that we want to avoid with Vault rules, but trivial games whose TASes don't impress anyone.
While I agree with you we want to discard TASs that don't impress anyone, the point of the vault is to allow publications of TASs which don't impress anyone[1]. Therefore we have strict rules to discard software which isn't real games or too trivial to be taken seriously, or so messed up that some call it a game, but no serious TASer would. So we have to look at it not as discarding math, but rather if the education in the game is actually an essential component of the game or not. If it isn't we can accept this. [1]It should be noted that a small minute fraction of our viewers are defective humans who think some math number slapped next to a video is the only determination for impressiveness. The rules clearly don't work for these individuals[2], and since they're not part of the highly esteemed real TAS loving group (nearly everyone here), we honestly do not care about their opinion. [2]These defective humans basically end up being either A) Impressed by mere numbers, in which case they don't actually watch anything anyway, they can find the same number in the submission list and be impressed by that without a publication; B) They actually watch it, but then notice how our numbers don't line up with their expected way to play the game, in which case they don't like the number and don't want it published. In either case, there's no point publishing anything for these people and we can ignore them
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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Nach wrote:
Although for the viewer to understand what's happening, you have to pay attention to the math?
Since the run mostly shots "wrong" math answers, the viewer isn't likely to understand what's going on without reading the description
Nach wrote:
Knowing the answer is important to determine of the educational bits are primary or secondary.
I'll check tomorrow.
Nach wrote:
While I agree with you we want to discard TASs that don't impress anyone, the point of the vault is to allow publications of TASs which don't impress anyone[1]. Therefore we have strict rules to discard software which isn't real games or too trivial to be taken seriously, or so messed up that some call it a game, but no serious TASer would.
As a serious TASer, I think that this run contradicts the real-time play intuition in all gameplay elements it touches. Breaking a game while speedrunning it is what I look for in TASing.
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.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8