Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
Among staff, there are differences of opinion on whether N-Payer-only (or player-vs-player) games qualify as a "video game" based on our site definition. Specifically, feos and I were discussing our different perspectives in the staff channel on discord. I want to place part of it here for other community members to at least be aware of these two perspectives.
After some discussion, I posted this
Here's how I'm understanding the arguments/perspectives.
General task presented by a PVP game (if humans were playing): One player must beat all others, no matter how well or poorly the others play.
my understanding of @feos perspecive: Because the game is being TASed by a single author, this stated general PVP game task is negated because that one author has complete control over all in-game players. Ergo, there is no in-game task and it's not a game by site definition.
my perspective: Even though a single TAS author has control over all the players in-game, the task of one of those players beating all the others still exists regardless of how well or poorly the players (are controlled to) play. Ergo, the general PVP in-game task is still present and it qualifies as a game by site definition.
Is my assessment of your perspective accurate?
feos replied
sounds accurate. also this makes it similar to tasing a trainer mode too
I'm guessing most members will fall on one side of this or the other; though they may have other reasoning for why they feel N-player-only games should or shouldn't be acceptable for the site.
To expand on my perspective, here's how I see PVP-only games adhering into the site definition:A video game is audio/visual. It presents its content on some electronic device in audio and/or video form.
PVP games qualify here
A video game is interactive. It requires repeated user input to progress.
Individual player actions/inputs determine whether or not the game progresses closer to the endpoint of one player being victorious over all others. So, PVP-only games qualify here in my opinion.
A video game poses a virtual task. It requires the player to accomplish some in-game job.
This is discussed in the above comments from discord. I feel that the virtual task of having one player emerge victorious is still a presented in-game task regardless of the TASer being the one controlling all the players. So, in my opinion, PVP-only games qualify here also.
User input is transformative. Which set of suggested in-game choices you make determines optimality level of your play.
Yep PVP-only qualifies here. In fact, how the the non-victorious players are controlled can impact the optimality of how quickly the victorious player will achieve said victory.
A video game is finite. It has an objective end point, or a community vetted one.
Endpoint = one player being victorious. PVP-only qualifies here.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
I have had conversations, with DrD2k9, on the possibility of different strategies or goals for completing this game. Between the two of us, we came to different conclusions...only to agree on this run itself. Basically, his idea was to reach the landing site without any consideration of destruction. On the other hand, I felt it necessary to protect the lander from damage or explosion.
To add a bit of detail regarding the different conclusions:
Per the game's manual, the goal of the game is to:
Land your spaceship safely on the only solid landing site on Jupiter. Make as many exploratory landings as possible before fuel runs out.
How fast the lander impacts the landing pads determines whether or not it's a safe/successful landing. There are 3 possibilities:
1) Crash into the pad at too high a rate of speed and explode on impact.
2) Actually land on the pad with the speed meter in the yellow zone. (What this run does)
3) Actually land on the pad, but with the speed meter below the yellow zone. -- When this occurs, the actual landing on the pad does happen without immediate lander destruction. But because the speed meter isn't in the yellow zone (which is required to earn points), the player is instead penalized on fuel and the game just decides to make the lander explode (well after otherwise landing 'safely').
The manual says this about scoring:
SCORING
The softness of the landing site is displayed on the meters-per-second gauge on the right side of the screen. If you land below the yellow zone — you crash. The softer the landing area. ..the more points you get. Try to land with the marker high in the yellow zone.
Simply from reading, this wording makes it sound like any speed below the yellow zone will result in an immediate crash (Option 1), but the truth is that a "crash" is forced even if you do successfully land the lander while outside of the yellow speed zone (Option 3).
Deciding whether or not option 3 should be considered a "successful landing" from the standpoint of a TAS is the issue. If one only considers the goal of the game to be actually landing on the surface pad without exploding on impact, then Option 3 becomes a valid approach for an any% run (and it would likely be faster than this submission). If one doesn't consider Option 3 as a successful landing, then this submission should be the any% approach.
Due to the scoring section of the manual, I suggested to NYMX that taking the Option 2 approach would be safest choice for a submission. But I wouldn't argue if the site felt that Option 3 was valid for acceptance of any% instead of this submission.
Frankly, I don't understand why the developers even coded in Option 3 to the game in the first place. If they weren't going to award points anyway and were just going to retroactively "crash" the lander if the speed wasn't in the yellow zone, then why not simply have any landing that's not in the yellow zone become an instant crash as in Option 1 above. It's this oddity that gives me ground to consider validity for Option 3 as an any% run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
@darkshoxx
To hopefully clear up some potential confusion:
In the past, we have basically required DOS games to be TASed using settings for the emulated PC that would have been roughly equivalent to real systems around the time a game was released. There are differences of opinion on whether this restriction should be lifted or not.
For example: one argument against maintaining this restriction is that it may force a TAS to use settings slower than what real humans may be actively playing the game at on modern systems, and that kinda undermines the ‘superhuman’ aspect for a TAS.
Yet, one argument for keeping the restriction is that allowing things to be TASed at whatever settings an emulator is capable of producing could someday lead to runs that are simply so fast that little to nothing of the game is even seen at all in the resulting run/video. If this occurs, how do we as a site decided when one TAS is better than another? What if one run plays through a game with perfect precision of movement, but has a longer time than a different run using sloppy unoptimized moment that manages to have a shorter overall time due to using a higher emulated framerate/CPU clock speed; which one should be published?
It’s these kind of concerns that are part of considering whether or not your submission is acceptable.
If we do consider this basic restriction mentioned above, one question for this submission is: While a modern system that disables v-sync in ScummVM can play the game at the speeds/FPS this submission demonstrates, would a PC around the time that Loom was released be able to match this kind of speed running the game natively in DOS (not in a ScummVM emulator)?
Was disabling v-sync even possible in the original game, or is that a functionality only introduced through use of ScummVM?
I can understand arguments from both perspectives on whether or not arbitrary CPU/Framerate should or shouldn’t be allowable for publications on our site, and i think this submission is at least partially spurring the discussion on which way we need to go as a site. For that reason alone; this submission has value, even if it’s ultimately deemed unpublishable. Even if not accepted for publication, this run could likely reside in Playground instead of being outright rejected.
I personally would like to be able to TAS things with unrestricted settings, but I also understand the logistical issues regarding the work of publication that arise with lifting the restrictions. Because of this, I’m not even sure which side i would officially take on the policy.
EDIT: For what it’s worth, I actually enjoyed watching this run. And i even have some published runs that visually look similar (Space Quest, Kings Quest). Those were TASed using JPC-rr at CPU speed settings based on the release date of the AGI interpreter version used in the games.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
feos wrote:
The hard part is TAS tools don't have a way to distinguish input poll rate from video refresh rate, and we can't send inputs at maximum rate the game is able to process them, without also forcing it to render at that rate, which may in theory break things.
Asi understand it: because JPC-rr processes inputs based on time passed and not based on frame number, it does process inputs as fast as the emulated hardware/software can process irrespective of framerate. It’s just the graphical rendering of that processing that that is limited by the frame rate.
In other words: yes we can send inputs at maximum rate the game is able to process them, without also forcing it to render at that rate.
The main purpose of a TAS is optimizing gameplay, not reducing real-time duration at any cost. So if some specific faster framrate helps optimize gameplay, it feels reasonable, otherwise it doesn't.
If speeding up CPU clock allows for speeding up a character movement due to faster processing, that’s a type of time optimization, even if it doesn’t change gameplay otherwise.
More importantly, there are situations where increased CPU allows for faster movement but also necessitates a different approach to optimization because the movement speed increase affects where/when inputs need to take effect to yield an optimized run. Any DOS game made by Sierra using the AGI interpreter would be an example of this type of change (Kings Quest, Space Quest, etc.)
Interestingly, there could potentially be a CPU speed and thus character movement speed that became so fast that optimized movement of the character would require unoptimized input from a timing perspective; because the characters movements would have to be tweaked so much that it takes longer to properly control where the character actually goes.
Now, if gameplay is affected at 100k% FPS and becomes quicker, but the game itself speeds up by 100k%, does it sound fine? I don't know. And even having a community discussion on this matter is hard because it depends on deeply technical issues that not everyone may even understand. We've been discussing Flash rules for a couple years now and there's still no clear cut.
Maybe it should all be decided on a case-by-case basis depending on how reasonable it feels to change framerate?
while case-by-case may indeed be the best way to approach such situations, that makes judging harder because there’s no standard to judge by. It also opens up the possibility of two different judges having opposite perspectives that would impact obsoletion chains over time.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
My thoughts as concisely as possible:
If we allow TASing with arbitrarily high framerates (that affect actual gameplay speed) in order to yield a faster run, we should also allow arbitrarily high emulated CPU speeds that affect actual gameplay speed.
I personally don’t care if we do or don’t decide to allow the arbitrary high settings (though I lean toward not allowing). I just think the concept needs to remain consistent across all PC emulation.
Allowing arbitrary framerate in libtas to affect gameplay but not allowing arbitrary CPU emulation in other emulators (i.e. JPC-rr) creates an uneven playfield for authors by giving an advantage to one emulator over the other, and it also makes judging a greater challenge.
Whatever decision is made will impact https://tasvideos.org/9181S as it also uses an arbitrary high framerate in libTAS/ScummVM.
I know little to nothing about FLASH TASing and framerates, but perhaps that should also follow similar rules.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
Patashu wrote:
The 'slow' powerup slows down only enemies, unless I misunderstand.
Perhaps, it’s just an optical illusion (for me).
If that’s the case, then i can’t see any other blatantly egregious issues; and thus can’t otherwise argue against this run as a baseline/1st gen submission.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
CoolHandMike wrote:
Is there an RTA 100% example video for comparison?
I’m not sure what all difficulties were done in this TAS:
But for what it’s worth, the combined time for the human world records from speedrun.com for difficulties Easy, Classic, and Modern is 25:46.747.
I’d find it hard to believe that a human could complete both Hard and Extreme difficulties in under 4 minutes.
Edit:
this run does indeed do all 5 difficulties; it’s likely much faster than what a human could do.
I did notice one thing of concern regarding optimization: there are multiple points through the run where movement speed modifiers are obtained. While some of these sped up the player, others slowed the player down. Simply by watching the encode, I cannot see a reason why picking up these slow-down modifiers would be desirable. I would assume maintaining a higher movement speed would be the more optimal approach.
If there’s no intentional reason for getting the slow modifiers (that somehow leads to a faster finish overall), I’d struggle to agree that it’s not sloppy play/rushed TASing.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
feos wrote:
So I suggest having 2 default branches, for easiest and hardest difficulty, and if there's a difficulty mode that's more optimal (read faster) than both, it can become a third branch.
PS: Interestingly, it looks like we've never actually approved low% for Standard officially, even tho it makes perfect sense, so maybe we should do this now as well.
I’m for adding the difficulty breakdown to Standard. I also agree with specifically adding low%.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
CoolHandMike wrote:
Is that select button trick to heal yourself with 3000000 considered a cheat? Is there any other way to get $0? There are some debug leftovers in the game so wondering if that is part of it.
To my knowledge, there is no way of finishing the game with $0 unless the healing trick is used. Given that the game has a specificly coded ending for such a scenario, I’d argue that it’s not a debug leftover. Why would developers include a special ending just for the debuggers/play testers?
Whether or not to consider it a cheat: Because using the trick costs the player score/money. I’d argue that it’s not simply a cheat, but more of a hidden technique. To me, a cheat wouldn’t generally cost/hurt the player. Some games have such things that aren’t mentioned in the manual; and some manuals hint at such special techniques, but don’t explicitly say how to perform them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
jlun2 wrote:
The run itself will never see this screen, since I won't die.
While the password would technically have been “earned” by reaching a certain stage; because death/game over is required to show the password, the password would never actually be seen in the run. I don’t think this should be allowable.
If the password were seen (even if only for 1 frame), I’d say it would be a fair approach.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
If any, it would be:
Unlicensed game - A commercial game by an established developer for a proprietary system, that failed to meet console manufacturer's policies and get an official "seal of approval".
But even then, the original was officially licensed by Nintendo. So if anything, this game being effectively a regional release of the original; maybe pseudo-licensed?
Regardless, I think we can probably treat it the same as a licensed game for judging purposes; though we may catalog it as unlicensed. I’m not sure how we’d handle submissions from both regions. I’ll leave those decisions up to publishers/senior staff.
I’m not sure exactly what you’re asking here, but we don’t have any current publications of Prince Valiant.
I think that this game would likely be considered in the same game group as Prince Valiant, just with a different title due to regional licensing issues.
I also don’t think we should consider this game an “unlicensed clone.” For all appearances, it seems to be a legit release of the game.
Bootleg games must not be direct clones of a licensed game on the same console. Unlicensed ports with unique gameplay, such as demakes, are allowed.
Does this apply?
I don’t think bootleg rules apply.
The game is purchasable from Piko Interactive
https://www.pikointeractive.com/home/Little-Lancelot-BACKORDER-p132666224
It appears to be a valid release of the game for NTSC systems. The title change appears to be due to licensing issues; probably due to Prince Valiant comics holding a trademark in the US.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
GJTASer2018 wrote:
In all honesty, I'd rather see a run that shows off all the minigames/content in the game rather than a very repetitive and confusing "any%" run. Besides all the different gags that can be unlocked, there's also a bunch of character coins to collect. I think an "all gags and coins" run would be a much better idea for this game than an "any%" one (assuming it's possible on the emulator given that closing the DS and using the microphone would be required for it.)
An “all gags/coins” run may qualify as a “full completion” type run, but an any % runs is valid even if if it’s repetitive or confusing.
That said, I’m not sure if more than this particular mini game needs done for this game to be considered enough for any %.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
KusogeMan wrote:
KI Gold speedruns have 2 categories on speedrun.com , one that is very fast with cheats for faster speed and removing blocking as well (i really dislike the fact they remove blocking), and one which is cheatless in the fastest speed possible for cheatless( which would be the second best speed, behind only the cheated speed).
What would be acceptable in tasvideos?
Cheatless and cheatfull?
Cheat for speed only and not use the other cheats to make the game easier? There's a faster speed without cheat codes but it's not the fastest.
you need to use button codes to access these other options and it's a billion of them
Only the run without using the cheat would be eligible for Standard class publication.
From the rules:
In-Game Codes: In-game codes that add gameplay are allowed for a separate branch, as long as such codes are used optimally. Codes that modify or disable in-game mechanics are not allowed, unless they unlock an in-game item or a skill that does that.
I believe the run using cheats may be acceptable for Alternative class, if it garnered enough entertainment value; but I’d need confirmation from other judges to be sure.
EDIT: If it’s the speed code I’m thinking of, I personally would enjoy watching it. I remember playing (horribly) using that code with friends.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
I would like to make an endorsement for a Star acceptance for #9092: Arc & ShesChardcore's NES Maniac Mansion in 05:19.47. My arguments:
- This movie and its author have a 20-year-long!! history of non-trivial improvements
- For anybody familiar with the game, the current submission is beyond impressive. The disregard for the game's rules and the many glitches used makes for an amazing watch.
- It has received entirely positive comments and votes.
This to me an ode to dedication to a game, and the hobby of TASing. As a TASer, it makes me proud to showcase it as a banner of the passion we put into this.
Copied from Discord:
ok, I’ve watched through the Maniac Mansion run, read through the submission notes, and watched the human WR speedrun.
I am relatively familiar with adventure games and have TASed a few myself (i.e. [https://tasvideos.org/5505M]).
I have to agree with Niss3 [https://www.speedrun.com/posts/0kd4f] that this run didn’t immediately appear to have much stuff that’s obviously not human doable, but what it does, it does with excellent precision.
I’ve never played Maniac Mansion myself, so i know nothing of the difficulty or how much of the game is skipped in the speedrun. But what i can say, is that the TAS looks like a fairly typical adventure game speedrun, just played expertly.
I’m not set against it getting a star, but i don’t think that i can directly endorse it for one either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
There are improvements coming to this run. On some of the stages, the last bomb isn't caught at the highest point, which delays moving on to the next stage.
I'm going to try and re-code the bot to address for this, but if I can't, I'll use the original bot for the bulk of the stages and manually ensure the final bomb of each stage is caught at the highest point.
I should have caught this originally, but it was just an oversight on my part.
EDIT: I've fixed the run and updated the submission accordingly.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
Would you be able to end input earlier by finishing in the blue lane and this have a longer distance to travel after the last turn, or does the gas/speed nullify that possibility?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
feos wrote:
The solution is very easy.
"Any%" is either shortest possible input to make the player win eventually, or quickest possible win with whatever input is required.
"Maximum score" is maxing out whatever the game gives you as a "score".
"Full completion" in this game would simply be maximum yardage since it'd be the main optional metric to maximize to consider the game completed the fullest.
From this perspective, i was erroneously blending “maximum score” and “full competition” criteria.
Sorry, i didn’t see the separation before. I change my stance and can see this run being accepted as “max score”; a max total distance being a “full completion” run; and a shortest frames being the any %.
EDIT: FWIW, the three frames needed for the maxed final drive is fine to keep as a stylistic choice.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2176)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1050
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
I will have to agree with DrD2k9's opinion here. IMO, the only two acceptable categories I would entertain for this game are:
* any% - reach the win screen in the least amount of frames, heavily manipulating the CPU to reach the least yards in every shot and only beating it by one the least amount of times.
* max score - make the further possible shot, every time. The final score sheet contains 12 numbers. All of them should be maxed, not only 2 of them.
In my eyes, this submission achieves neither. As a consequence, it does not feel like superhuman play (fundational requirement for a TAS) but rather like a relatively good player recorded it RTA and achieved a max drive once.
I can't agree that this doesn't feel like superhuman play. As I mentioned in my original post:
this does seem to be a well planned out and executed run
I feel there's enough evidence to qualify as superhuman simply due to the precision shown in the TAS. I just disagree with Winslinator on what should be considered maximum score.
I'm not going to complain if the majority of respondents are on the side of Winslinator's opinion regarding "maximum score"; if that's the community consensus, that's what we need to go with.
I was asked for my perspective; I shared my perspective; I further clarified my perspective after Winslinator suggested changing the submission notes; and my perspective hasn't changed. What I definitely do NOT want is for this thing to become a big emotionally charged issue.
If anything within my posts has come across as attacking Winslinator personally, it was unintentional; and I apologize for any such confusion.
Regardless of the result of the maximum score definition. I'd love to see what Winslinator can do in an any% run from the perspective of getting a 6-5 win as quickly as possible.
