I think it can never be non-arbitrary for any game even if every single human on earth agree to a given ruleset.
Previous years of judging made us realize we cannot aim for absolutes when dealing with people and their works, and even definitions of the term "objective" vary from person to person (as well as things they consider objective). So the best we could aim for is whether some decision makes sense for majority of participants.
As I mentioned in the first post, we can't blindly rely on a sum of everyone's views, but we can work with functionality concerns regarding any particular decision. And the more concerns we faithfully resolve, the better the quality of the decision will be.
This is the case because for any given group of people polled, simply polling more people can still result in previous conclusions being rendered invalid. Because it's not always possible to know specific group biases of the people we've previously polled, without having an idea of which groups exist out there. It only becomes apparent if we're ready to continue digging in.
As a result, our solution to those problems is working with functional concerns until there's no more of them, but being ready to work on them again when they appear again. We're fundamentally open to changes and improvements now, which means we're more prepared for the future than if we tied to come up with perfect rules (like we did before).
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.
Doesn't that mean that we're letting the game shine through whatever extremes it allows for? In some games the use of glitches is the only thing you can minimize or maximize, and we would be highlighting those differences officially, rather then requiring it to be entertaining.
It’s not the entertainment aspect I’m referring to. It’s wether or not it creates a notable difference in how the game is played.
Here’s an example, in [4048M], the entire game contains no glitches or bugs, except for when it reaches 6-3 where it performs a glitch that saves 50 frames overall.
This is a clip of the glitch: https://youtube.com/clip/Ugkx4ImmE_J0Hlv4TUZ66bTlRG7LlshuNExV
Here’s what the SNES run does for reference: https://youtube.com/clip/UgkxQVqxP0OYbNFWRzd9HEO8phmiowr7RYlq
Would it make sense to do a glitchless TAS for DKC2 GBA, where the only difference would be that one stage? While every other level would be basically identical? Because I don’t see how that’s a good enough argument to put it into standard just on the fact alone that it’s glitchless.
I just found out about this thread. If this passes, I am totally going to submit runs with minor changes to get more easy records.
Also, for things like "Super Scribblenauts" or "Brain Age", how exactly would a "glitchless" run be like? I am curious how large of a number for instance "2" needs to be to not count as "bug", given you can basically draw anything and it will count.
For real though, I find "glitchless" usually just refer to popular games that are broken. Like, who even cares about some obscure (J) only game no one else ever heard of it to bother gltichless/glitched? It is rather frustrating there's this discussion, and I immediately get the feeling the games people usually have in mind are the popular ones with glitches, with no regard in how it may work as a standard in general for most other games, or ones that have very minor bugs that affect 1 single stage.
If this does pass, I will need to ask, for multiple games, what counts as a bug. For instance, Jurassic Park (NES) doubles your need for 1 single frame every time you land. Am I supposed to minimize jumping in a glitchless run?
In Spongebob the movie, if you do not hold on a direction when in the air using Patrick's pants to fly, they don't reduce your speed. Is that a bug? How much do I limit myself to count as glitchless in this case?
For Digimon Ruby, it was noted that the story progression flags do not match the actual dialogue given.
The game's script (as in plot progression requirements) is...less than solid. The plot can tell you to destroy a Dark Crystal, when in reality the script will ignore the flag about the destruction of that crystal entirely, and it would speed things up significantly if you avoid doing so.
Is a "glitchless" run required to beat the crystal, even if the game doesn't check it?
I'm not sure if it exist, but I hope one day I can find a game with only a single menu bug at the very beginning, then submit 2 runs as "glitchless" and "any%".
I'm not sure if it exist, but I hope one day I can find a game with only a single menu bug at the very beginning, then submit 2 runs as "glitchless" and "any%".
Hah, there is certainly the possibility of a lot of bad faith submissions, but somehow I do not think there will be too many of these since tasing is really time consuming. Most games are not so easy to optimally tas due to routing, rng, and lag. Maybe some really simple games are really easy to do multiple submissions with a glitchless though. I do think that those bad faith submissions like your example should be chucked in the garbage though since it is super low effort with basically no difference in the final result. Feels like creating a lot of noise and extra work for people for no benefit. Those submissions should just go to userfiles.
Edit: Maybe there should be a "gatekeeper difference" like there needs to be at least a 1% change between glitchless and not. To weed out these types of hypothetical submissions.
jlun2 wrote:
If this does pass, I will need to ask, for multiple games, what counts as a bug. For instance, Jurassic Park (NES) doubles your need for 1 single frame every time you land. Am I supposed to minimize jumping in a glitchless run?
"Natural" glitches with really minimal impact like graphical glitches or that are just part of gameplay I would not count against a glitchless.
Another example: in Battletoads, the player can hit the level-end trigger after dying (with their corpse). Would this be allowed in a glitchless playthrough?
I just found out about this thread. If this passes, I am totally going to submit runs with minor changes to get more easy records.
I'm not sure if it exist, but I hope one day I can find a game with only a single menu bug at the very beginning, then submit 2 runs as "glitchless" and "any%".
Which problem would revenge spam solve?
jlun2 wrote:
Also, for things like "Super Scribblenauts" or "Brain Age", how exactly would a "glitchless" run be like? I am curious how large of a number for instance "2" needs to be to not count as "bug", given you can basically draw anything and it will count.
If this does pass, I will need to ask, for multiple games, what counts as a bug. For instance, Jurassic Park (NES) doubles your need for 1 single frame every time you land. Am I supposed to minimize jumping in a glitchless run?
In Spongebob the movie, if you do not hold on a direction when in the air using Patrick's pants to fly, they don't reduce your speed. Is that a bug? How much do I limit myself to count as glitchless in this case?
For Digimon Ruby, it was noted that the story progression flags do not match the actual dialogue given.
The game's script (as in plot progression requirements) is...less than solid. The plot can tell you to destroy a Dark Crystal, when in reality the script will ignore the flag about the destruction of that crystal entirely, and it would speed things up significantly if you avoid doing so.
Is a "glitchless" run required to beat the crystal, even if the game doesn't check it?
I'm not sure if it exist, but I hope one day I can find a game with only a single menu bug at the very beginning, then submit 2 runs as "glitchless" and "any%".
"Define the term glitch exactly for every game out there" is the opposite to what we're trying to do here. The whole point is, again, it will vary per game and per community around that game. It doesn't make sense to invent the rules for every single game in existence in advance and then to enforce those rules forever for everybody. An open discussion is how those rules are invented, by people who know the game and are interested in figuring out new goals.
Global rules that are meant to work for all games while being clear cut and objective to everybody - are absolutely impossible in practice. We've tried. Now we're moving away from dictatorial practices, because they don't help us thrive as a community, they don't make us more happy, and they don't make us enjoy what we do more. They don't help us discover new cool things, feel fresh and interested.
jlun2 wrote:
For real though, I find "glitchless" usually just refer to popular games that are broken.
Like, who even cares about some obscure (J) only game no one else ever heard of it to bother gltichless/glitched?
Are we here to dictate people what to TAS? Or are we here to reject TAS works we don't subjectively like, based on limitations that gradually render us irrelevant in this hobby?
jlun2 wrote:
It is rather frustrating there's this discussion
Being frustrated at people who dare discuss things doesn't sound very promising.
jlun2 wrote:
I immediately get the feeling the games people usually have in mind are the popular ones with glitches, with no regard in how it may work as a standard in general for most other games, or ones that have very minor bugs that affect 1 single stage.
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? It isn't revenge.
I'm actually inspired by your quote:
If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
I am a glitch hunter, so I love finding exploits to use. In this case, rules like this I find fun to utilize. The same thing happens for games. The developers make a bunch of rules (the code), and I immediately go "so what can I do to break the game?" In other words, I'm asking this not in the view of "this class bad", but in the view of "so how do I break it"?
Ultimately, what's the worst case scenario if we're wrong? A run gets published? Heavens, me! Think of the children!!!
Again, you confuse me for being against this. I'm actually asking because I want to make runs that push the boundaries. I'm not upset actually. In fact, I would be more upset if the judges backtrack and consider more movies be considered spam (then immediately ban me).
Hah, there is certainly the possibility of a lot of bad faith submissions, but somehow I do not think there will be too many of these since tasing is really time consuming. Most games are not so easy to optimally tas due to routing, rng, and lag. Maybe some really simple games are really easy to do multiple submissions with a glitchless though. I do think that those bad faith submissions like your example should be chucked in the garbage though since it is super low effort with basically no difference in the final result. Feels like creating a lot of noise and extra work for people for no benefit. Those submissions should just go to userfiles.
I am sorry if my post comes as bad faith. It is not. I do agree it is time consuming to make a TAS. That is why this rule change is a huge plus for me. I can reuse all my discoveries and scripts to make 2+ runs, rather than all that work on 1 single run. That's why I would love clarification on what is a glitch, so I can dust off past games I TASed and modify them to make something new, reusing almost everything. I see that as work smarter, not harder.
I am sorry if my post comes as bad faith. It is not. I do agree it is time consuming to make a TAS. That is why this rule change is a huge plus for me. I can reuse all my discoveries and scripts to make 2+ runs, rather than all that work on 1 single run. That's why I would love clarification on what is a glitch, so I can dust off past games I TASed and modify them to make something new, reusing almost everything. I see that as work smarter, not harder.
I remember the Mirror's Edge community famously had a similar problem.
Not to say necessarily that we should go with their solution. This is an example of why we need to have things be on a per game or per run basis. I know personally as a Judge, in the spirit of inclusivity, I wouldn't reject a good faith effort of the category because they missed an obscure glitch that people can't really agree whether it's a glitch or not in the first place.
If I were to make a standard, I'd probably say that a "glitch" would be anything a reasonable stranger who knows the game and found the video on YouTube would immediately and unquestionably identify as a glitch. To give some examples of what I'm talking about: going through walls, walking on or jumping off non-existent ground, breaking speed-cap for extended periods of time, rewriting memory addresses, taking advantage of overflow/underflow, stuff like that. Anything on the fence or more specific than those lines can be left to the discretion of the game community and the author, with judge as a deciding vote if it is needed. We don't need to go into the level of detail this video here goes into
My preferred name for what I want from the category is "glitch avoidance". I also have heard "low glitch". If changing the terms to that may help, you can think of it like that.
What about movies that only have graphical differences when a glitch is used? Should there be two movies published side by side where one has the character moonwalking and the other doesn't even though there's zero difference in the final time?
Should we define glitchless to only include glitches that would save time?
I'm starting to think this thread was cursed with –10 to reading comprehension.
Moonwalking (assuming it doesn't save any time) is an example of a stylistic choice. We aren't talking about stylistic choices. We're talking about cases where using glitches introduces major gameplay-affecting changes. So major they make people want to see a run without them: either because too much content is skipped, or because the content that isn't skipped is trivialized to an extent that makes the category less fun. Cases where TASers optimize the fun out of the movie are common, and the purpose of this category is only relevant to such cases. The goal of this thread is to come up with some general guidelines and think in advance of any challenges so that it would be easier for us decide in the future how to approach this category to maximize its purpose and fun.
Any purely cosmetic changes are completely irrelevant to this whole discussion. Besides, why would a movie with different stylistic choices but the same final time be published in a separate category? That doesn't make any sense.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Besides, why would a movie with different stylistic choices but the same final time be published in a separate category?
Because what one person finds "stylistic" is what another finds annoying?
Back to the topic at hand, I don't see why "Glitchless" would be considered unacceptable as a goal with a separate branch if "Forgoes Major Skip Glitch" is allowed, to use the wording from Wiki: Standard.
Because what one person finds "stylistic" is what another finds annoying?
Assuming it did answer the question you quoted (it didn't, by the way), do we have annoyance anywhere in our judging guidelines as a motivating factor?
I think there is (still) some misunderstanding here in regards to this initiative. Glitchless runs are needed not because glitches are "annoying". They are needed because unrestricted runs becoming more glitched over time is a natural course of things. A core aspect of speedrunning is finding more ways to save time, and in doing so, it is inevitable that at some point meaningful content—complex and creative solutions to gameplay problems that many people enjoy seeing—is being optimized out of the runs. Common examples include things like navigating a room full of obstacles as opposed to skipping it via OoB travel. OoB is often impressive in its own right, but once the novelty wears off you begin to understand that skillful navigation of the skipped room also was entertaining—but is no longer there due to being slower overall.
In some cases (i.e. route or item set optimization) this has nothing to do with glitches, and in those cases it's the job of the Alternative class to host submissions that attempt to restore the missing content that none of the Standard categories cover. But most of the time it's down to restricting the glitch use, and that in itself is common enough to potentially warrant a Standard designation. This category isn't an outlet for making things "less annoying"; that thought doesn't even enter the equation, and it'd be a big mistake to think the staff would ever want to view things in this light. It's rude, if nothing else.
Dacicus wrote:
Back to the topic at hand, I don't see why "Glitchless" would be considered unacceptable as a goal with a separate branch if "Forgoes Major Skip Glitch" is allowed, to use the wording from Wiki: Standard.
Right, and most of the time these would be functionally identical. There is, however, a relatively tiny portion of games that are so exceedingly complex and thoroughly broken that they'd warrant both a glitchless run and a run that forgoes major skips separately. Aria of Sorrow comes to mind (boy, I sure am glad the inbounds all-souls run was restored!).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
We're talking about cases where using glitches introduces major gameplay-affecting changes. So major they make people want to see a run without them: either because too much content is skipped, or because the content that isn't skipped is trivialized to an extent that makes the category less fun. Cases where TASers optimize the fun out of the movie are common, and the purpose of this category is only relevant to such cases.
You're describing how it works currently, with "glitchless" being an Alternative category that depends on how different it is from standard categories, and how fun it looks to people.
Major gameplay changes coming from skipping or trivializing content are usually called a "major skip glitch", and the category that avoids it (but not other glitches) is already standard.
If a game only has "minor" glitches but they still save time, avoiding them as a separate branch seems to cause questions in this thread. But if we aim for creative freedom, we let authors to have some questionable stuff accepted, while trying to create a trend of authors also making more brilliant works all the while. It's like a trade-off. It's a rule that would allow us to accept something we (community and staff) want to accept.
moozooh wrote:
Dacicus wrote:
Back to the topic at hand, I don't see why "Glitchless" would be considered unacceptable as a goal with a separate branch if "Forgoes Major Skip Glitch" is allowed, to use the wording from Wiki: Standard.
Right, and most of the time these would be functionally identical.
Why?
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 movies that only have graphical differences when a glitch is used? Should there be two movies published side by side where one has the character moonwalking and the other doesn't even though there's zero difference in the final time?
Should we define glitchless to only include glitches that would save time?
Are there examples of games where the only known glitch is cosmetic and doesn't save time?
jlun2 wrote:
I'm actually inspired by your quote:
If TASing is meta-play, TASVideos Movie Rules are meta-meta-play!
Then why were you frustrated at the discussion?
jlun2 wrote:
I am a glitch hunter, so I love finding exploits to use. In this case, rules like this I find fun to utilize. The same thing happens for games. The developers make a bunch of rules (the code), and I immediately go "so what can I do to break the game?" In other words, I'm asking this not in the view of "this class bad", but in the view of "so how do I break it"?
As a TASer you would need to do your best judgment on how to break a game the least, and if unsure ask judges as well. Ideally talk to the existing community for that game too. Again, the global policies, and game specific rules, are meant to make sense.
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.
Major gameplay changes coming from skipping or trivializing content are usually called a "major skip glitch", and the category that avoids it (but not other glitches) is already standard.
No, that is just a relatively small subset of the wider range of glitches to which the audience might want to see somewhat more conventional solutions.
Examples of glitches that trivialize or skip content that aren't "major skips":
Wall zips, coordinate overflow, and other similar things in pretty much every run of Sonic 3 as well as Sonic 2 and who knows how many other Sonics at this point.
Whatever glitchy mess some of the NES Mega Man games have become, particularly the first game.
There certainly is demand for runs that are easier to make sense of, or at least ones that respect the level geometry to some extent as opposed to just going through it in a straight line. I can see Kriole's in-bounds all-souls AoS run even has a star now upon being reinstated in a separate category.
feos wrote:
Why?
Okay, fair, maybe not most of the time. But as far as I'm aware, major skips are the most common case for glitchless/low-glitch categories in games.
It's mainly the exceedingly broken games like the ones I mentioned above that warrant an extra layer of limitations that cover a lot more than just major skips.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
As a TASer you would need to do your best judgment on how to break a game the least, and if unsure ask judges as well. Ideally talk to the existing community for that game too. Again, the global policies, and game specific rules, are meant to make sense.
1. I did ask about what counted as a glitch above. Your reply sounded rather hostile when I asked. I do have legit interests in remaking my old TASes, yet when I did ask I get sarcastic replies like
Being frustrated at people who dare discuss things doesn't sound very promising.
Ultimately, what's the worst case scenario if we're wrong? A run gets published? Heavens, me! Think of the children!!!
Almost all the games I'm interested have literally 0 communities. If I can't even ask a judge here, the only thing I can do is resync my old runs, remove the glitches, then submit and pray for the best.
The frustration has nothing to do with the rules. It is my personal feeling that I suspect when making this rule, most obscure games with minor bugs were not in your mind. I could be completely wrong, and you were indeed also thinking of obsure edge cases when making this rule. In that case, sorry.
Here's some concrete examples of games I am interested in:
1. Tiny Toon Adventures 2: Montana's Movie Madness (there's a single clipping bug used in 1 room, but old VBA so that needs resync)
2. Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon R (a single clipping bug in stage 2)
3. Nanashi no Geemu (A single npc bypass in stage 3, but it is in desmume, so bleg)
4. Sabre Wulf (a single npc despawn bug iirc)
5. Jenga world tour (a single stage where the blocks spontanously all fell, but it got rejected for being a board game)
6. Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Makai no Tobira (I'm not sure if the current route of making the bosses in place counts as bug, but if so then just change the fights I guess so they actually move around)
I am mainly concerned for 5 and 6. If you can, please answer do those count as bugs.
I linked a specific thread for asking about specific games. And to make sensible decisions we need as much info as possible on a given glitch.
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.
As a TASer you would need to do your best judgment on how to break a game the least, and if unsure ask judges as well. Ideally talk to the existing community for that game too. Again, the global policies, and game specific rules, are meant to make sense.
1. I did ask about what counted as a glitch above. Your reply sounded rather hostile when I asked. I do have legit interests in remaking my old TASes, yet when I did ask I get sarcastic replies like
Being frustrated at people who dare discuss things doesn't sound very promising.
Ultimately, what's the worst case scenario if we're wrong? A run gets published? Heavens, me! Think of the children!!!
Almost all the games I'm interested have literally 0 communities. If I can't even ask a judge here, the only thing I can do is resync my old runs, remove the glitches, then submit and pray for the best.
The frustration has nothing to do with the rules. It is my personal feeling that I suspect when making this rule, most obscure games with minor bugs were not in your mind. I could be completely wrong, and you were indeed also thinking of obsure edge cases when making this rule. In that case, sorry.
Here's some concrete examples of games I am interested in:
1. Tiny Toon Adventures 2: Montana's Movie Madness (there's a single clipping bug used in 1 room, but old VBA so that needs resync)
2. Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon R (a single clipping bug in stage 2)
3. Nanashi no Geemu (A single npc bypass in stage 3, but it is in desmume, so bleg)
4. Sabre Wulf (a single npc despawn bug iirc)
5. Jenga world tour (a single stage where the blocks spontanously all fell, but it got rejected for being a board game)
6. Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Makai no Tobira (I'm not sure if the current route of making the bosses in place counts as bug, but if so then just change the fights I guess so they actually move around)
I am mainly concerned for 5 and 6. If you can, please answer do those count as bugs.
yeah sounds really cheap you coul post a run while changing a very small fraction of the game, which isn't signfiicantly different for the rest of the run when compared to the original slightly glitched run
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
Here's some concrete examples of games I am interested in:
1. Tiny Toon Adventures 2: Montana's Movie Madness (there's a single clipping bug used in 1 room, but old VBA so that needs resync)
2. Bishoujo Senshi Sailor Moon R (a single clipping bug in stage 2)
3. Nanashi no Geemu (A single npc bypass in stage 3, but it is in desmume, so bleg)
4. Sabre Wulf (a single npc despawn bug iirc)
5. Jenga world tour (a single stage where the blocks spontanously all fell, but it got rejected for being a board game)
6. Yuu Yuu Hakusho: Makai no Tobira (I'm not sure if the current route of making the bosses in place counts as bug, but if so then just change the fights I guess so they actually move around)
I am mainly concerned for 5 and 6. If you can, please answer do those count as bugs.
I don't have enough info on 5-6, but I would sure hope 1-4 would rule out any sliver of involvement in a "glitchless" category.
I don't see the point in having the category unless it's seriously glitchless.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
Honestly, I would hope anybody doing a glitchless run would be doing it just as much to suit the category as it is to be fast.
Seems like there's a few people in here so hellbent on being as fast as they can, that they would be willing to skirt the idea of the rules for this category, and to say that I'd say stick to standard runs.
Perhaps I'm the only one thinking this way, but I would find a certain pride in specifically trying to avoid all glitches for this sort of thing, just as I take pride in FINDING glitches in glitched runs. "How fast can I push the boundaries of this game without breaking it?" As in, even doing a single glitch would feel like a total bummer to me, because you're doing it for a reason and that reason certainly isn't to be faster that record. So you're either playing incredibly slow, or playing a little less incredibly slow, by using a glitch or two. Using glitches in a glitchless run, even one or two, would just kill the whole idea and mood for me.
Not sure what else you'd get out of it besides the pride of not using any glitches. It's not like you're settings any records with the speed. It's not like you're showing off any cool stuff. Really the only thing the category has is the genuine faithfulness of living up to it's name, and if that isn't there, I really don't see a point of having it at all. Then it's just an unoptimized bastard child of a standard TAS.
Plus it's a slippery slope. Judges let one glitch go, then suddenly it's five. Then ten.
Oh, and this is just discussing acceptance of a submitted run. This is going to be a dumpster fire when it's a submission that wants to obsolete somebody else's run, if any sort of glitches are involved. That's going to be one hell of a thread.
Published TASes: #1, #2, #3, #4, #5, #6, #7, #8, #9, #10, #11, #12Please consider voting for me as Rookie TASer Of 2023 - Voting is in December 2023My rule is quality TASes over quantity TASes... unless I'm bored.
I think it would be fair to have a default guideline similar to this: "If some technique causes questions, it's better to avoid it". Of course for pre-existing definitions it should be acceptable to just rely on them, but making them stricter for a TAS would be worth a preference IMO.
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.
Since attempting to formulate a generalized definition of “glitchless” seems like it may be difficult, and it appears that it may ultimately become a game-by-game decision…If we do implement “glitchless” in standard class, perhaps the opposite approach would be beneficial. It may therefore be wise to have a posted list of events/activities that we (as TASVideos) definitely do consider as glitches regardless of the game or its community.
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.
