A preliminary note: the reason I am writing about this now is, of course, that I have read HappyLee's recent posts. But let me state clearly at the outset: this post is not a defense of him, and I will not comment on that situation at all. I will not respond to any replies concerning it. I am here only to continue the discussion of the issue itself.
I will raise a few questions and offer my personal views, which may also help to clarify HappyLee's views. But let me reiterate: I have no intention of going against any site rule or consensus, and I would appreciate it if you would point out any omissions or misunderstandings on my part. I may not engage in any rebuttal at all — I am new here, I do not know the full context, and writing in English is a real effort for me.
1. Does "RTA timing" need to become a submission option, or a new TAS branch?
I don't think it is necessary, and I see little to gain.
First, a TAS's game goal is not chosen arbitrarily; it needs to be representative or to present unique game content. I don't think "RTA rules" by themselves are a meaningful goal, since for speedrunning they are almost inevitably slower, and predictably most of the content would be identical to an unrestricted TAS — usually not more interesting.
Second, if it is treated purely as a timing method, it needs to have advantages over existing methods such as "TAS timing" or "in-game time" in at least some scenarios. I believe such examples may indeed exist — for instance, waiting before the game starts to adjust RNG so that time is actually saved after the start, or enabling a more spectacular performance. But for TAS, I would obviously prefer to wait in-game rather than before the start whenever possible, because other inputs can be used to increase the entertainment value.
Meanwhile, allowing two timing methods at the same time, especially when used in titles or when comparing movies, easily brings confusion and trouble. Even if, as mentioned above, using "RTA timing" yields new improvements, it would not hurt to display it uniformly as "TAS timing" in the end — one only needs to emphasize that the movie pursues the fastest time under another timing, and whether that is reasonable can be left to the Judges and the audience, just as with movies that have special goals.
2. What confusion and trouble would allowing "RTA timing" bring?
"RTA timing" is defined by each game's RTA community for real-time speedrunning, usually starting when the game content appears or when the player first takes control. I understand that it considers comparability and practicability across different hardware and player habits, but for TAS it lacks completeness. Clearly, between power-on and the actual start of the game, some inputs can be performed — even waiting may help the game itself. From the audience's perspective, I would argue that this is also part of the game time, and "TAS timing" is closer to the audience's intuitive sense of fast and slow — rather than waiting around pointlessly and then telling the audience: the total time is longer, but it's faster after the start.
Therefore, allowing TAS to use "RTA timing" is more like promoting a new concept of game time. For TAS, I think it can only be a solution for a small number of special cases; if abused, it loses its original meaning.
3. What scenarios is "RTA timing" truly suited for?
In my view, only as an alternative when "TAS timing" is inaccurate or inconvenient. For example, loading times differ between games, and emulator running speeds differ — but I believe these cases are better handled by the already existing "in-game time," rather than by adding a new "RTA timing."
As for attracting RTA players' attention in order to increase submissions, that may be necessary to some extent, but I don't think it is a sufficient reason. "TAS timing" has its tradition and its practical significance, and it should be observed and respected. And in most cases it is not a burden: it is merely re-checking the start and end of the movie and displaying the correct TAS-standard time in the title. I don't think this is difficult for players who are used to RTA and want to try TAS — TASers have always had to learn this anyway.
Finally, nobody is against diversity or opening the site to more people. The premise is truly knowing what this site can offer them — that decides who will join and who will stay away. Criticism of my values is welcome, and I will not argue. When I find that a place no longer suits me, I will stay silent, and then leave.
