So there does exist a game manual In the Scoring section it says that achieving 1000+ points in any event will award you with a musical tribute. So while the ending doesn't change based on performance, the content does. There is also even an (unofficial?) Club of Champions which awards you Gold status at 10,000 points or more. Since the game does recognize some form of high score, I believe that unlocking the musical tribute in every event can count as full completion. That being said (unfortunately) I don't think this game falls under Max Score rules anymore. I think this run would have to be re-done in order to get to 1000 points as fast as possible in each event and then scratching out as soon as possible afterwards.

You can't call "reaching the highest score" game completion because 1) it's a non-binary condition, and 2) it's arbitrary.

When there's no hard requirement for meaningful completion, you can invent any soft requirement,

Please stop talking until you have a basic understanding of how the site works.

you always want to argue against the site.

All posts and messages must remain civilized. Posts and messages that are or become uncivil are not allowed. The extent of civility (or lack thereof) is determined both by situation and by moderator opinion. Moderators may lock topics that become uncivil. Moderators may also edit or delete offensive posts. Disruptive posting is not allowed. This includes spamming, making multiple useless topics or posts, or repeatedly going off-topic in a topical thread. In extreme cases, disruptive members will be banned.

Why is a 2.5 year old submission being necro'd & discussed at all? It's an obvious 'no' and that has been made abundantly clear. Can we close this one out? Please?

Rule changes regarding max score tases has been changed, so this tas is being relooked at. If there’s any others that could be relooked at dont be afraid to bring them up here: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=19596

In Pole Vault you can only get 957 at max, so either way it feels incomplete if we define winning as getting 1000 on each event.

Are you ever planning to start caring about the site's goals and principles?

Featuring entertaining Tool-Assisted superplay movies? This qualifies. It's a superplay of this particular game.

What you did last time was argue the following. We have 4 bins. This movie doesn't fit in bin 1, bin 2, bin 3 or bin 4, therefore it can't be published. That's crap. The fact that your ruling would have permitted a 'fastest run' that zoned out of every event as fast as possible indicates that your prior reasoning was massively flawed. If the 'rules' bar good videos, but let through trash videos, then it's clear that the problem has to do with the rules.

In this particular movie you're now arguing that because "we cannot be certain that this is the truly highest score, therefore it can't be published". Which is also crap. Can anyone improve on any of the scores in this game?

I noticed that you didn't actually answer my question..

In this case, we have a video where there are clear maximums for each event.

There's no way I can see that the score can be manipulated to increase, and there's also no loops in the game.

So we get back to the question. What would a superplay of this particular game look like? How would a player seek to maximize performance in the game? I think the choices of the submitter make sense to me. Lowest possible time in the track sections, and highest score in the field events. Sure makes a helluva lot more sense than 'fastest time'. Goals need to take into account game choices. Certain goals are not going to be appropriate for all games. In this case I think that what's been done here is an appropriate choice to show off what a superplay of this game would look like. And ultimately, I think that's the main purpose of this site, no? To publish superplays of available games that demonstrate precision, and play beyond what can be achieved by human players.

And the original ruling was crap which is why the rules were changed.

Which of our movie rules says "being a superplay is enough to get published"?

This movie is not "fastest run", it sacrifices time to gain higher score. Otherwise I don't understand what you're trying to say here. Provide some quotes regarding who said what and why it was wrong.

Those are not "clear maximums", because when the game is not programmed to limit your score explicitly, any score can be maximum.

The author has already found a way to increase it.

What do you mean by "superplay" at all?

What ruling?

Which of our movie rules says "being a superplay is enough to get published"?

The one that states, "this is the purpose for the site?"

Why would we use 'fastest run' to evaluate this kind of game? It makes no sense, because failing out of each event would be faster than completion.

Highest score makes sense.

The author has already found a way to increase it.

Where? He doesn't say that at all.

What do you mean by "superplay" at all?

Games done to precision beyond unassisted human capabilities.

What ruling?

The reason this game is now being reconsidered now.

Its purpose is to fulfill the site's goal of being a TAS records site, and a central repository of tool-assisted literature and information.

This tier contains speed-based movies that don't have much entertainment value, but still represent meaningful tool-assisted speedrun records. Game choice is tightly limited. Vault rules filter out games that don't hold much weight when tool-assistance is applied in accordance with the TASing guidelines on optimization. Vault needs clear cuts, so whenever something can not be clearly distinguished, such a movie gets rejected.

Maximum points or score is allowed as a full-completion category under the following conditions: ...There is no other way to define full completion for the game...

Quote? There's no such phrase there.

Because that's how the site works.

Highest score subjectively makes sense generally

it doesn't automatically make this movie meet other rules. What is required to make a "max score" run eligible for Vault has been linked a lot of times in this thread, go and read.

I got a PM from him.

This does not automatically make that "game" meet any of the movie rules we have.

You said "the original ruling was crap which is why the rules were changed", and you don't even know what ruling you're calling crap exactly?

electricslide, I think I can understand most of your frustration with this TAS's judgment based on this quote. I still have problems myself with certain games not being publishable no matter what. There have been attempts to fix this in the past (and I will let you search the forums for all that information), but you just have to accept that for now there are strict guidelines for each tier. The following quote from the Vault Movie Rules is now the filter that has to be applied to this run:

Let's start with the 'meaningful' aspect. Scratching out in every event would make this fastest completion, but it turns into something that a human could easily do unassisted which in turn makes it a trivial game to TAS which means it gets rejected for not being meaningful. This point was implied but never specifically pointed out.

Right now we are still trying to define what entails full completion for this game (which at this point seems to fall into a gray area?).

electricslide, this is the crux of the problem. Maximum score criteria can only be applied as a last resort. We need clear reasoning that there is no meaningful way to define full completion, first.

Runs aiming for time are still required to complete the game.

Where applicable, the movie must reach an ending screen that positively signifies a game is finished successfully. Reaching a game-over screen is not considered beating the game. If a game shows the same ending screen regardless of success or failure, reaching it is not considered successful completion.

The problem is quite simple and precise: the actual completion requirements are missing from the game. You can't call "reaching the highest score" game completion because 1) it's a non-binary condition, and 2) it's arbitrary. I may suggest that you're supposed to not fail in any of the attempts. Or to beat some record in each of them. Or something else. When there's no hard requirement for meaningful completion, you can invent any soft requirement, but it would remain artificial, not inherent. Meaningful completion criteria are undefined for this game. And we can't use max score to outright replace the fastest completion goal, because... that won't help with the completion definition.

Secondly, it keeps getting brought up that there needs to be proof that the score is truly maximum. Where are the guidelines for this? I know it got mentioned in the previous judgment of this submission, but I believe that was by mistake. Max score had only ever been an allowable goal for moons tier, but it was set to be published in Vault so that shouldn’t have been mentioned at all in the notes. It’s great if you want to definitively prove that it’s the maximum. I just don’t know why that would be required.

So, a couple things... maybe I missed it, but has there been a clear consensus that max score is the only valid completion criteria?

You are playing through all of the events with a goal of aiming for the high score. By playing all the events you are going through all unique content the game has to offer and high score adds an objective to aim for. If completion is considered a problem because of that rule, the rules need to be fixed because it's not like you can just add additional events. This seems like a rule written with speedruns in mind and is one of the flaws with the site in my opinion.

In sports that depend on a variety of environments or situations, such as golf, completion can be defined by clearing every environment or situation in the game.

Does this movie clear every event? If it does not, maybe it should?

...Not having strictly capped max score makes it worse.