I forgot to brought this up, in case it matters. While this submission that doesn't use warps has a time of 04:35.6, there exists a TAS that does use warps that gets a time of 04:41.04. I could very easily foresee warps runs becoming faster than warpless, if faster warping methods were found. Then if faster ways of completing levels were found, warpless could become faster again. I don't see avoiding warps as a defining feature of this TAS as a result.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
That's only because you define it as "aims for fastest speed". It doesn't help with labeling when there are countless scenarios that need to be resolved sensibly.
This example of yours counts as counterpart branches. As long as they both exist, even though one is obsoleted, we label both to communicate the difference between them.
Here's a compound goal example, but it shows the solution:
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.
Thing is with Super Mario Bros., Warps walkathon will almost certainly never obsolete warpless walkathon. The latter shows off more content and is therefore viewed as more impressive. The goal of that TAS is entertainment. If one could interchangeably use Warps or Warpless without sacrificing entertainment, should the label be updated every time the movie is obsoleted? That is effectively my question.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
If it happens without sacrificing entertainment, we'll label both anyway. They use and avoid warps not because it makes walkathon faster, but exactly for entertainment.
To clarify history behind this, warpless walkathon clearly aims for entertainment with its warpless part of the goal. It explicitly avoids warps to be more impressive. So we label it as warpless. Warped walkathon is a counterpart run. We don't care if it's obsoleted or published alongside. We have both, one of them explicitly aims for entertainment, another one is a counterpart, so we label both. Not doing so for any of them would cause questions from those less familiar with the situation. Also, providing more info than needed for those familiar with the situation is less harm than not providing it to the former people.
For City Connection, warpless and warps are not compound goals. Therefore when it comes to labeling, we don't care about speed-orientation. And we don't care about entertainment. We only care about whether it's an internal goal or not.
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.
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.
In response to this, I would like to make sure a clear definition is made for what a "warp" is. Once we have that definition, then we can establish when it may or may not be considered significant enough to form a new branch.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
This got brought up because of a question as to whether #5977: link_7777 & EZGames69's NES City Connection "warpless" in 04:35.60 should be labeled as warpless. In this instance, it could be argued that it is "Warpless" only incidentally since Warps are slower. Or it could be argued that it is a goal that is being aimed at.
Did you not watched Takanawa's tas?
Warp is 2min faster in this game. If not use "Warpless", this movie shouldn't be published.
This got brought up because of a question as to whether #5977: link_7777 & EZGames69's NES City Connection "warpless" in 04:35.60 should be labeled as warpless. In this instance, it could be argued that it is "Warpless" only incidentally since Warps are slower. Or it could be argued that it is a goal that is being aimed at.
Did you not watched Takanawa's tas?
Warp is 2min faster in this game. If not use "Warpless", this movie shouldn't be published.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Sorry but I just saw this topic and the branch name changes of my familiar movies. I have to say honestly I prefer the old way of naming branches, and to me, branch names should be as short, simple and elegant as possible.
Nach said "you know what each run is about by looking at it's title", but we also have tags which also contain information and are helpful to newcomers.
I think branch should reflect goals in the simplest form, and we don't need an artificial branch for a simple "any%" goal.
For example:
NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA PRG0) "warps" in 04:57.31 by HappyLee
I don't think this "warps" branch is necessary, because the goal is equivalent to "any%", and "warps" is just one of the basic things Mario can do, not a limitation or special goal choice. We don't used to have it and it worked just fine.
For example, we have:
NES Contra (JPN) "pacifist" by Soig & zyr2288 in 09:29.08
and
NES Contra (JPN) by zyr2288 in 08:51.73
These two branch names are simple and elegant. We don't have to call the latter:
NES Contra (JPN) "kills" by zyr2288 in 08:51.73
Just as it would be a disaster to call the current SMB run:
NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA PRG0) "warps, jumps, runs, kills, no-powerup, not maximum coins" in 04:57.31 by HappyLee
However, "warpless walkathon" is totally necessary, because with "warpless" removed from the goal, it's just "walkathon", and walkathon's a lot faster with warps.
Recent projects: SMB warpless TAS (2018), SMB warpless walkathon (2019), SMB something never done before (2019), Extra Mario Bros. (best ending) (2020).
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
HappyLee wrote:
Sorry but I just saw this topic and the branch name changes of my familiar movies. I have to say honestly I prefer the old way of naming branches, and to me, branch names should be as short, simple and elegant as possible.
How old? Your warped run was renamed 4 years ago. You mean even older? Community decided that the older approach doesn't work. I was okay with the older one. But we had to invent something new, and it was invented. Note that these threads mostly talk about "glitched". But the problem is identical. What happens when "glitched" branch is shorter than "warps"? We change the warped branch from blank to "warps", and remove the branch from "glitched", since it's now faster? 40% of our members insisted on that. Other 40% insisted on keeping the warped branch labelless, and labeling the "glitched" one. Really, such problems can't be resolved in a way that's perfect to each contradicting camps. So yes, we invented a compromise.
But as was pointed out by Nach in this thread, even then we'd have to rename branches constantly, every time a new branch appears. So we decided to give branches names that'd stick for years.
HappyLee wrote:
Nach said "you know what each run is about by looking at it's title", but we also have tags which also contain information and are helpful to newcomers.
I think branch should reflect goals in the simplest form, and we don't need an artificial branch for a simple "any%" goal.
It's impossible to reflect them in the simplest form when you have 2 camps with contradicting labeling preferences, tons of variations of branches, up to 5 branches per game, new branches appearing every year, and if the site grows, even more branches per game potentially.
HappyLee wrote:
For example:
NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA PRG0) "warps" in 04:57.31 by HappyLee
I don't think this "warps" branch is necessary, because the goal is equivalent to "any%", and "warps" is just one of the basic things Mario can do, not a limitation or special goal choice. We don't used to have it and it worked just fine.
It's only equivalent to any% until a major skip glitch is found. And only for this game. For other games, any% is equivalent to other goals. As mentioned in the first post of this thread, if we always drop the label of any%, and label all other branches, it ends up in unmanageable nightmare.
HappyLee wrote:
For example, we have:
NES Contra (JPN) "pacifist" by Soig & zyr2288 in 09:29.08
and
NES Contra (JPN) by zyr2288 in 08:51.73
These two branch names are simple and elegant. We don't have to call the latter:
NES Contra (JPN) "kills" by zyr2288 in 08:51.73
Just as it would be a disaster to call the current SMB run:
NES Super Mario Bros. (JPN/USA PRG0) "warps, jumps, runs, kills, no-powerup, not maximum coins" in 04:57.31 by HappyLee
But why "kills" is not a branch? Because it uses a mechanic that's so common that we consider it default. Similarly, "jumps, runs" are standard mechanics in speedruns. We already imply them. But for any mechanic that can become a new branch, we add a label.
Not so long ago Memory asked me, why don't we consider 1p and 2p internal goals in SMB and why don't we label them. Here's the answer I came up with:
These goals are highlighted, because they introduce gameplay differences into TASes that are significant enough to be published as separate branches.
"Warps" is not a default goal, because "warpless" is also really common, and not every game has warps. Same with "1 player" and "2 players". We already discussed this in details in this thread.
HappyLee wrote:
However, "warpless walkathon" is totally necessary, because with "warpless" removed from the goal, it's just "walkathon", and walkathon's a lot faster with warps.
I explained above why we can't leave all the fastest branches without labels.
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's only equivalent to any% until a major skip glitch is found.
Many people (or at least I) don't consider this an issue. In fact, this is a good thing: a any% run using warps should be obsoleted by a warpless run, if that somehow was faster.
feos wrote:
And only for this game. For other games, any% is equivalent to other goals.
Any% is "as fast as possible". Any other goals it overlaps with are incidental and don't matter.
feos wrote:
As mentioned in the first post of this thread, if we always drop the label of any%, and label all other branches, it ends up in unmanageable nightmare.
This is the only valid reason I've seen given for the current labeling system. There's two problems with it though:
1. I've yet to see any proof of this.
2. Clarity beats management difficulty.
feos wrote:
I explained above why we can't leave all the fastest branches without labels.
I don't feel you've ever actually explained it, though.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
Many people (or at least I) don't consider this an issue.
This is known. As I said, unfortunately, 40% of the audience do consider this an issue.
Scepheo wrote:
In fact, this is a good thing: a any% run using warps should be obsoleted by a warpless run, if that somehow was faster.
Where are you getting this from? It's not what the Judge Guidelines say. They say that double obsoletion (for example any% obsoleting any% and 100% at once) can happen when the new run achieves the goals of both other branches. Cross-branch obsoletion is another thing, and it only happens when the branches are similar enough.
Scepheo wrote:
Any% is "as fast as possible". Any other goals it overlaps with are incidental and don't matter.
Thanks for your binary opinion. Are you sure that if it doesn't matter for you, all other people should be forced to stop caring?
Scepheo wrote:
This is the only valid reason I've seen given for the current labeling system. There's two problems with it though:
1. I've yet to see any proof of this.
I guess you've missed this thread then. Which is strange, because you've posted there.
Scepheo wrote:
I don't feel you've ever actually explained it, though.
Thanks for sharing your feelings.
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.
This is known. As I said, unfortunately, 40% of the audience do consider this an issue.
42%, to be exact. 44% don't. That's close enough to perfectly 50/50 to make the argument that "it is an issue" invalid.
feos wrote:
Where are you getting this from? It's not what the Judge Guidelines say.
It is my opinion, which is shared by many of the other people that feel any% runs should be the default, unlabeled one. Yet another point where opinions are divided about 50/50.
feos wrote:
Thanks for your binary opinion. Are you sure that if it doesn't matter for you, all other people should be forced to stop caring?
And again... It's the opinion of 50% of the people.
feos wrote:
I guess you've missed this thread then. Which is strange, because you've posted there.
Please point me to the part of that thread containing the evidence that "it ends up in unmanageable nightmare", because I can't find it.
feos wrote:
I've seen that thread too. It has nothing to do with what I said.
You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post: you keep bringing up the same points. Almost all of them are subjective, and the exact thread/poll you've posted prove that opinions are divided 50/50. This renders those points useless to the discussion.
The only other point you bring up is that it would somehow be impossible to maintain the labeling system I (and many others) prefer. However, it's been done like that before, so it's clearly not. You've also failed to provide any evidence as to what has changed to make it impossible now.
In short: I have yet to see a valid argument for the current system from your side.
feos wrote:
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
42%, to be exact. 44% don't. That's close enough to perfectly 50/50 to make the argument that "it is an issue" invalid.
Ah, so you're fine with ignoring half of our audience? OK. You've just been ignored as the unlucky half.
Scepheo wrote:
It is my opinion, which is shared by many of the other people that feel any% runs should be the default, unlabeled one. Yet another point where opinions are divided about 50/50.
You've clearly skipped the second thread I linked.
Scepheo wrote:
And again... It's the opinion of 50% of the people.
You've clearly skipped the second thread I linked.
Scepheo wrote:
I've seen that thread too. It has nothing to do with what I said.
Seeing is not enough. You will have to read it. Especially when you try to pretend it has nothing to do with this conversation.
Scepheo wrote:
You seem to have misunderstood the point of my post: you keep bringing up the same points. Almost all of them are subjective, and the exact thread/poll you've posted prove that opinions are divided 50/50. This renders those points useless to the discussion.
Okay. Now please go and read the second thread.
Scepheo wrote:
The only other point you bring up is that it would somehow be impossible to maintain the labeling system I (and many others) prefer. However, it's been done like that before, so it's clearly not. You've also failed to provide any evidence as to what has changed to make it impossible now.
That's a bold claim after having refused to actually read.
Scepheo wrote:
In short: I have yet to see a valid argument for the current system from your side.
Please point me to the part of that thread containing the evidence that "it ends up in unmanageable nightmare", because I can't find it.
I will. But I'll need you to post a full definition of the approach you defend, so I don't end up arguing with a false interpretation of it.
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.
42%, to be exact. 44% don't. That's close enough to perfectly 50/50 to make the argument that "it is an issue" invalid.
Ah, so you're fine with ignoring half of our audience? OK. You've just been ignored as the unlucky half.
I'm not the one using it as an argument: you are. You are ignoring half of TASVideos' audience. I'm just calling you out on it.
feos wrote:
You've clearly skipped the second thread I linked.
Still haven't.
feos wrote:
You've clearly skipped the second thread I linked.
Got it the first time. Still not actually responding to my points.
feos wrote:
Seeing is not enough. You will have to read it. Especially when you try to pretend it has nothing to do with this conversation.
And again: I read it. You claim that thread somehow invalidates my earlier point that "clarity beats management difficulty". It doesn't: it has absolutely nothing to say about that point. If it did, you'd be able to quote the part where it did, instead of ignoring all my points.
feos wrote:
Okay. Now please go and read the second thread.
That's the fourth time you're ignoring my points. I'm starting to think you don't actually have any arguments at all.
feos wrote:
I will. But I'll need you to post a full definition of the approach you defend, so I don't end up arguing with a false interpretation of it.
It's very simple, really: don't label goals that aren't actually goals of the movie.
All that means is that if a movie aims to do A, and it happens to do B, but only because doing B helps with A, you do not label the movie B.
And an example to round it off: if a Super Mario Bros. movie aims to do "fastest completion", and it happens to do "warps", but it only does "warps" because that helps with "fastest completion", you do not label the movie "warps".
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
I'm not the one using it as an argument: you are. You are ignoring half of TASVideos' audience. I'm just calling you out on it.
Still haven't.
Got it the first time. Still not actually responding to my points.
And again: I read it. You claim that thread somehow invalidates my earlier point that "clarity beats management difficulty". It doesn't: it has absolutely nothing to say about that point. If it did, you'd be able to quote the part where it did, instead of ignoring all my points.
That's the fourth time you're ignoring my points. I'm starting to think you don't actually have any arguments at all.
I guess I'll have to do it for you then.
When you have 2 camps with contradicting opinions on some subject, and each camp is approximately half of of your audience, blindly enforcing either opinion is impracticable, one-sided, unhelpful and narrow-minded. Especially when it's the audience who contributes and manages content in your community. You have to come up with solutions that would relax the tension, satisfy the overwhelming majority, be definable in a way that'd make sense to this majority, and serve on the long run. If you're unable to come up with such solutions, things will be getting worse, tension will keep increasing, flamewars will keep raising, and no one will be happy. One half will be annoyed with the enforced policy, another will be annoyed with the fact that they are disagreed with. And all this will be just a result of lazy staff who's unable to resolve the problem.
To resolve this problem, we had a staff conversation back in 2014. And we all agreed that whatever mess was introduced after retiring the "glitched" branch and removing the label from all "any%" branches, it should be fixed by using branch labels to describe the movies themselves, instead of describing the difference from "any%". The first thread you've seen contains the discussion where we try to point out all the problems we see and suggest solutions. The second thread suggests a solution. This solution was based on all the previous disagreement and agreement, and it was also commonly agreed upon, as lack of flamewar in that thread indicates.
The solution was to completely avoid enforcing either of the two originally suggested approaches. Because both of them are 100% based on subjective things called opinions. We stopped relying on opinions in labeling branches. We started relying on statistics. Whenever the approach of some branch is so common that it's default, we leave it without label. Because it's already implied. Whenever the approach of some branch is uncommon/rare/unique, we label it. When it's somewhere in-between, we label both variants.
But the important part of the original staff agreement was that "any%" is not something that needs to be addressed in the branch label. Because doing so results in the mess I'll show you after I find all the examples that convinced us back then. "Any%" is not descriptive. It tells nothing about gameplay conditions used to beat the game ASAP. Gameplay conditions are differences between branches. Difference between branches is what we need to mention if we want branch labels to help people orient in them.
So for internal game conditions we agreed to mention all options. And for external game conditions we agreed to mention the rare ones. Sorry that I don't have all the IRC logs from 2014. But it was all discussed in the usual #tasvideos room, and everyone could participate.
Now note that the main problem, "glitched vs. blank" and "blank vs. no X glitch", was resolved by not enforcing either of these options. We don't use "glitched" anymore for "major skip glitch" branches. And we don't use blank label anymore for any%. Because, as I said, these were subjective opinions of 2 halves of the community, and enforcing either of them is in no way a solution.
You may say that all this isn't contained in the second thread I linked. But all the main principles are, and I couldn't believe they remain unapprehended after having read that thread and remembering the events that led to it.
Scepheo wrote:
It's very simple, really: don't label goals that aren't actually goals of the movie.
All that means is that if a movie aims to do A, and it happens to do B, but only because doing B helps with A, you do not label the movie B.
And an example to round it off: if a Super Mario Bros. movie aims to do "fastest completion", and it happens to do "warps", but it only does "warps" because that helps with "fastest completion", you do not label the movie "warps".
And what do we label explicitly, and how? Use SMB3, Battletoads, Super Mario World, Super Metroid, and Super Mario 64 as examples of how perfectly your suggestion serves your plan.
Also note that "goals" is a rather broad term that you'll have to clearly define before demonstrating your suggested system in action, if you want the system to only care about this single aspect. The branching system since 2013 requires branch labels to not only accurately depict the goals and achievements, but to also differentiate each branch from others. Keep this requirement in mind when showing examples of your approach.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I was there for during the 2014 discussion, as you've already observed. There's no need to repeat it to me, I've been asking you to explain how it relates to my points, which you still haven't done. But nevermind.
There was a big discussion about two options. A very small group of people decided that there was to much discussion about those options, and a third one was enforced, without any discussion. The only reason there's no flame war in that thread is because everyone who disagreed with its content had given up on arguing.
And I'm not going to give you any examples of what you do label, because that is entirely unrelated to my suggestion.
I'm going to stop discussing this here though, as the only points you're actually addressing are the ones I'm not making.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
There was a big discussion about two options. A very small group of people decided that there was to much discussion about those options, and a third one was enforced, without any discussion. The only reason there's no flame war in that thread is because everyone who disagreed with its content had given up on arguing.
Stop speaking for the entire community. Stop accusing staff who invests all their effort into handling everything, in being just a very small group of people. Stop exalting your subjective opinion over the entire community. Stop rewriting history.
No one decided that there was too much discussion. All the discussion that's been before my suggested solution has naturally stopped by itself. Literally nothing was enforced without discussion. You can pretend you're able to read everybody's mind and claim that they've given up. Yet you want the entire community to give up and accept your narrow-minded vision instead of the compromise that serves all the goals I listed.
Scepheo wrote:
And I'm not going to give you any examples of what you do label, because that is entirely unrelated to my suggestion.
Unfortunately it is exactly the main problem with your suggestion. You don't care what happens to everything and everyone after it's enforced and everyone who disagrees with you gives up.
Scepheo wrote:
I'm going to stop discussing this here though, as the only points you're actually addressing are the ones I'm not making.
This somewhat demonstrates how far you are ready to go when it comes to actually resolving the problem.
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.
What about updating movie publication descriptions too? to give a example Theyogwog's publication says that there is a Knuckles 100% by upthorn but this was obsoleted the last year, there is a Knuckles in Sonic 2 ring-attack too and the new Knuckles any%
http://i64.tinypic.com/apfo8j.jpg
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Will you take care of this if we give you the required privilege?
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.
[2226] A2600 Superman "pause glitch" by jlun2 in 00:11.42
Since there is a major skip in play, we should come with a label... The movie description mentions a demo glitch, but it's actually not a demo play, since it just shows the various locations of the game during the pause. See the submission text.
So, we either go with "demo glitch" or "warp glitch".
Edit: it has been decided to go with "pause glitch".
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6446
Location: The land down under.
For redundancy sake.
[3764] PSX Pepsiman: The Running Hero "100%" by NhatNM in 19:57.96
For TASVideos' case it's pointless for an any% run to exist since the only major factor in Pepsiman between 100% and any% is the rating screen at the end of each level.
Also the major factor that applies to both any% and 100% for the sake of knowing if an improvement is actually made is in the In-Game-Time that's what helped push the Hawk submission across (besides having music compared to psxjin).
Yes. 100% does unlock something however this special reward is an unlockable the game gives to you which you never see (Wireframe Pepsiman) and there isn't a unique FMV clip of the wonderful Mike Butters.
Also for the other sake of argument. Should we place "Aims for in-game time instead of real-time" with this game?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11492
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
So in light of the recent improvements to the rules about full completion, we established that sometimes there's no easy label for a full completion movie, if the full completion criterion is not monolithic.
In [3774] ZXS Castlevania: Spectral Interlude "100%" by Noxxa in 34:33.12, the full completion goal consists of a lot of objectives, which all originate from fundamental in-game features and match all other rules. But the overall goal is still compound.
By the current publisher guidelines, there's basically nothing we can put in the label. Because "100%" doesn't appear in the game as any sort of measurement, and all the other goals can't be deduced to anything simple, meaningful, and accurate.
So in this case, when the community agreed to have this goal as approved full completion for this game, people also agreed that using the "100%" label here makes the most sense. The only other option was putting literally "full completion" as a branch label, by this was liked by no one.
Here's my edit where I describe how I see this situation:
After heated discussion we agreed that when the full completion goal for a game is decided by the community to consist of maximizing several independent units, each on its own, we can't deduce such labels to "all X". If the game does not use the term "100%" for something special, compound full completion can be labeled as "100%". When "100%" means something different in the game, there should be a new iteration of discussion to come up with a name that's not "100%" and still represents full completion.
So we consider the "100%" label iconic [for speedrunning in general] and use it when we have to, when we can. Changed the branch back.
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.
Many believe that the ideal Lemmings run would complete all 120 levels. However, with each level taking, say, 1.5 minutes, that's 3 hours, and many of the levels repeat with subtle differences to increase difficulty as the game progresses.
I'm not as active as I once was, but I can be reached here if I should be needed.
