Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
feos wrote:
Bump. A lot of new TASers have arrived. How do you guys do it?
I'm not exactly new, but have never responded. I do use TAStudio/TASEditor when they are available, but I also do enough DOS work (which doesn't include these tools) that I can say I do a good chunk of TASing without them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Thanks for all your work on this. Your v11.2 version with TASScript has been a huge help in simplifying TASing some DOS games for me. I've been heavily using it while working on King's Quest VI.
It's a welcome tool addition to the emulator, and I support this being considered in an official release. I'll try and do some testing on the newer 11.8 code base w/ TASScript over the next few days and see how it works for me.
I would also be interested to see what doors would be opened by a -rr fork of the JPC v2.4 base.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
FractalFusion wrote:
It's good that you don't have to wait at the teleporters now (not that I know how RNG works in this game).
I never did figure out how RNG is initially seeded, but it appears that the RNG seed value used for random calculations is only changed when a random event occurs.
In other words: to manipulate RNG, you have to allow/force a random event to occur. There are 3 ways to do this that I (with a bit of help from Memory) found running this game: two are passively controlled, one is actively controlled.
1) Passively wait extra frame(s) on a screen with a teleportation beam before moving to the next screen. Basically every frame on these screens the RNG value changes.
2) Passively wait for a crusher to drop and raise, resetting the random timer between crushes. RNG only changes when the timer is reset. I saw timer ranges anywhere from like 30ish to 70+ frames, so making this method beneficial was rare.
3) The only active manipulation has to do with the jet-pack sequence. Pressing UP to use the jet-pack causes RNG change every 2 frames. I believe the flame coming out of the jet-pack is randomized. As there are some opportunities to push UP with the jet-pack that don't hinder progress toward the goal point, it's possible to actively alter RNG at will while wearing the jet-pack.
Regarding the final teleportation beam. EDIT:The only opportunity to alter it occurs at the jet-pack sequence. The best opportunity to alter it occurs at the jet-pack sequence. There is a crusher the screen before the beam, but it doesn't make for efficient RNG manipulation. This beam can be manipulated to be white for the first time it's passed through fairly easily, but I was unable to find an RNG sequence that yielded it white for the second pass-through.
This is perhaps where someone could find improvement in the run. If they can find a good RNG sequence that allows white for both pass throughs it would save about a screen's worth of movement.
The problem is that the RNG sequence for this beam remains in-sequence with nothing to alter it on the screen where Monty picks up the key on the ship. Therefore the sequence of RNG values doesn't change regardless of how long Monty might wait on the beam screen before going to get the key. This is the one instance where waiting on the beam screen can't affect RNG in a way to be beneficial. For example, if after Monty goes to get the key and comes back, the beam changes to a particular color on frame 30000, it will always change to that color on that frame regardless of how long Monty waits before going to get the key in the first place.
In shorter words: to manipulate any particular teleportation beam, you need any random event other than that particular beam to call the RNG value. Otherwise the RNG sequence will be the same as if you never left the screen with the teleportation beam in question.
I hope that all made sense.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
After lengthy and well appreciated (at least on my part) conversation with feos off-forum, I think I can sum things up this way.
The poll question as it exists makes "meh" an illogical option; because even if the movie is generally super dull or annoying, having just a single entertaining scene means that the viewer has somehow been entertained. In fact, judges as well as most viewers treat the poll as this question: "Did you find this movie generally entertaining?" Treating it this way makes all answer options sane and everything works perfectly. The problem is, that's not how the question is currently worded. So let's simply reword it.
I'm making a final suggestion in attempt to reconcile the various perspectives presented in this thread. I'm suggesting that we simply add the word "generally" into the current poll question. Making it
Did you find this movie generally entertaining?
This makes the question explicitly subjective in nature instead of only having implied subjectivity. It also makes all three current response choices completely valid and reconciles various perspectives of the current poll question.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
feos wrote:
You can't fight human nature. The best thing you can do is working with it to get the least terrible result.
Poll being imperfect encourages people to actually post their thoughts. If a poll is perfect, no "real human" feedback is encouraged. But it can't be perfect because of point 1. So we'll end up having 2 things that don't work instead of just one.
emphasis mine
Regarding #1...I'm trying to improve what the "least terrible result" could be and make it less terrible! Yes, by our nature, humans are imperfect and nothing we do can be guaranteed to be perfect. I'd argue that most other times that this has been discussed, those wanting the poll question changed had the same intent as I do now. Not to make it perfect, but to improve what information we do collect. I never claimed that any of my suggestions were perfect, but I feel that I've well explained why they are better than the current usage.
Regarding #2: This thought process is flawed. Poll votes ARE "real human" feedback even when they are a lie. When someone feels they have to lie on the poll question to yield the result they desire, it shows that the poll question doesn't collect the proper information that we need when making a judgement using that very information.
Unless what you mean by "real human" feedback is 'readable language in the form of a forum post'; which, by the way, could also be imperfect or contain lies.
If the only type of feedback we're going to place a high value on is obtaining people's perspectives explained through language-based posts, we should just eliminate the poll outright. Then there's no speculation as to what the votes meant to begin with. There's no chance of someone lying on the poll. If someone likes a movie and wants their perspective known, they comment. If someone doesn't like a movie, they comment. If someone is unwilling to comment, then their voice isn't heard regrading that particular submission; and they would have no grounds to complain about the result if it differed from their opinion. If you don't want human feedback in the form of a clicked button, eliminate the button.
The other problem with #2 is that the poll question's imperfect nature doesn't inherently encourage feedback. If (by it's imperfect nature) the poll question encouraged language-based feedback in the form of posts, our forums would always be filled with comments. No submission would have fewer people commenting than it did votes, and judges would never have to ask for more feedback on a submission before they could properly discern the poll results. This also solves the potential of having 2 problems from the poll. No poll means no question about its results; leaving only the human nature expressed in forum posts as a problem for a judge to discern when making a judgment.
I realize that (some of) the site staff may feel discussing this topic again and again is a merry-go-round that goes nowhere. But the fact that the topic keeps cropping up suggests that it's a problem for which solutions need to (at least) be considered and (at most) be attempted. You've been willing to try new things before, what's the harm in trying more new ideas? If it fails as the last attempt did, we can always come back to the current method (then we should try and improve it yet again).
We claim that TASes are never perfect because there could always be future discoveries that would make room for improvement in them....why don't we treat our site the same way? The whole point of TASing is doing something better than status quo, why are we settling for status quo on something we know isn't that great instead of trying to make it better?
So let's keep inviting suggestions, and perhaps someone will have a usable idea that might acceptably solve these problems.
If anyone in the community is willing acknowledge that the poll question could be worded better, yet wouldn't want to use any of the suggestions already in this thread; what suggestions do you have to make the poll question itself better? Let's at least try something to make the poll and our site better. If it doesn't work...try again....and again...and again, if necessary.
We should never stop trying to improve our site, nor should we discourage suggestions for improvements.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
feos wrote:
Better compared to what?
Better in regards to getting the information the poll is seeking to derive in the first place, namely 'How entertaining does the community, as a whole, find this submission?'
Whether or not someone finds something entertaining is binary. Either they do or they don't. HOW entertaining someone finds something is not binary but exists on a spectrum.
The present poll question is inherently flawed.
As the current poll is presented, it asks IF someone was entertained. The available responses are YES, NO, and MEH. This IF question is a binary question yet we present 3 possible responses, two of which are binary answers while the third is an answer of degree; this in itself is illogical. The option of MEH doesn't make logical sense to even present as a possible answer to a binary question.
When someone is not entertained at all, the only appropriate response to IF they were entertained is "NO." Conversely, when someone is entertained (even in the slightest bit), the only appropriate answer to IF they were entertained is "YES." It is not possible to be both entertained and not entertained at the same time.
If every viewer who watched a particular submission found it entertaining, but only very slightly so, they would be forced to answer the current poll truthfully with a response of YES. This result would yield a 100% value for entertainment. But from a standpoint of entertainment value along a spectrum, those same watchers may not consider the run entertaining ENOUGH for moons tier. Therefore, if those voters would prefer the run be in vault and wanted that preference known; they would have to comment in the forum with some variation of
I was slightly entertained, which is why I voted yes, but I also think this shouldn't be published in moons tier.
Frankly, this is inefficient (which is ironic considering so much of what we do with the TASes themselves is efficiency driven).
The other option is to answer the poll untruthfully and vote NO when they did indeed find at least some entertainment value in the video.
It is this discrepancy that makes the current question's wording a problem. If they answer truthfully, they must then also comment to yield the publication in the correct tier. This makes answering the poll question pointless in the first place; because they could outright ignore answering the question and simply post a comment to yield the same publication result.
If they are going to lie on the poll, there's no point in asking them their opinion in the first place.
In short; because the way that the current poll is presented is itself flawed, the results derived from it are also flawed.
The absolute simplest way to remove the inherent flaw with the current question is to remove MEH as a response option. But this solution would not remove the ambiguity in how the question is answered. There remains an equal likelihood that users may vote based on IF they think the submission should be published in moons or not, as opposed to truthfully answering the question regarding IF they were entertained or not; this then returns to the problem of voters 'lying' and voting NO just to make sure the run ends up in vault. It also would not solve the issue of truthful voters still having to comment (in addition to voting) to have their perceived entertainment level understood by the judge; meaning it would still be less efficient than it could be.
A question that isn't inherently flawed.
A poll question that is worded regarding the degree of entertainment value would be less likely to have these problems. Viewers of the submission could simply vote their level of entertainment. There would be no YES/NO options for them to choose regarding if a run should be published or not. It would yield results that would provide the judge a better perspective of how the community perceives the degree of entertainment, without the voters having to also comment in the forum; thus efficiency is improved. This could also potentially save the judge from having to read as much text before making the judgement determination; further improving efficiency of the site as whole.
Ultimately, asking about the degree of entertainment directly, yields the information we're seeking with the poll in the first place....'How entertaining the community, as a whole, finds the submission.'
We use a spectrum based value of entertainment to move already published runs from one tier to another. We should be using a spectrum based (not binary) evaluation to publish into those tiers in the first place.
TL:DR When attempting to determine the degree to which something is or isn't entertaining: Logic suggests that a question asked about the degree of entertainment will yield better results than a question asked about IF something held any entertainment value at all.
As the ultimate purpose of the workbench poll is to answer how entertaining the community, as a whole, finds the submission, there is nothing that the current poll question answers that the following wouldn't also answer.
How entertaining did you find this movie?
Not at all entertaining
Very entertaining
Somewhat entertaining
Changing this question would mitigate the inherent problems and ambiguity with the current poll question.
In starting this thread, I never intended to imply that the current poll wording hasn't worked up to this point. I'm suggesting that different wording could yield a more efficient site.
Better, to me:
An inherently sound question is better than an inherently flawed question.
More efficient is better than less efficient.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I'm simply trying to clarify a confusing and potentially (likely) misinterpreted poll question.
If all we want the poll question to answer is how people perceive the entertainment value of a submission, we need to ask HOW entertained they were....not IF they were entertained. Simply because there are degrees of perceived entertainment. The fact that we can rate post publication on the degree of entertainment on a scale of 0-10 acknowledges that this spectrum of entertainment exists.
I still believe that if the poll question were changed to a question of degree instead of a yes/no question, we would get better results.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Memory wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
1) Should this movie be published (does it adhere to the rules as you understand them)?
Yes
No
I'd like to note that this question would not contribute to the actual publication process. It's explicitly the judge's role to determine this, not the viewer.
I know that the judge is the ultimate decision maker regarding acceptance/publication and not the community.
I suggested this question for two reasons.
1) It will help us understand if the community as a whole generally understand the rules.
2) With either acceptance or rejection, having the results from this question provides the judge with information that may allow for formulation of more detailed judgement notes in regards to the rules. If the majority of voters are in agreement with the judge, the judgement notes may not need to be as detailed. However if the majority of voters are in disagreement with the judge, the judge knows that a more thorough explanation of why the movie does/doesn't fit the rules is warranted as part of the judgement note.
Perhaps a third answer option for this particular question is warranted:
1) Should this movie be published (does it adhere to the rules as you understand them)?
Yes
No
I Don't Know
Memory wrote:
Tbh I prefer when people vote honestly as to how they feel about entertainment of a movie. If you are not entertained by a movie, vote that you are not entertained by the movie. Don't vote yes instead because you think the movie should go to Moons. It makes our job a lot harder when people overthink things because that results in TASes getting moved between tiers.
I completely agree that the poll question (regardless of whether it's the current wording or using my suggestions) should be answered truthfully.
I think that the ambiguity I've mentioned also plays a part in this issue. I expect that some members are fearful that some runs will not be published at all if they vote 'No' on a run.
Others thoughts regarding entertainment polling.
If we don't want to ask which tier voters think a run should be in, we could ask about degree of entertainment in the second question:
How entertaining did you find this movie?
Not at all entertaining
Very entertaining
Somewhat entertaining
Or this question could simply be used instead of the current question and remain a single-question poll:
Instead of using
Vote: Did you find this movie entertaining? (Vote after watching!)
No
Yes
Meh
use
How entertaining did you find this movie?
Not at all entertaining
Very entertaining
Somewhat entertaining
This would at least remove the ambiguity of the current question. And it would be even less change to the current site code, it'd simply be a rewording. All the calculations would remain the same, yet the results would be more valid regarding the true entertainment value of a submission. (Assuming everyone is truthful in their votes.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Lobsterzelda wrote:
I would also like to clarify why I have a separate question for entertainment and what tier a movie belongs in, since some may think that this is redundant. With certain movies, a user may not find them to be personally entertaining, but may still be so impressed by the TAS (or entertained with the background work that went into making the TAS) that the user may want the movie to be in moons or stars tier despite not being particularly entertained by watching the TAS.
The reason most would consider your latter two questions redundant is because, the very difference between vault and moon tier is based on entertainment....not impressiveness of the TAS technical level.
Vault is the appropriate landing place for runs that aren't entertaining even when they possess technically impressive achievements.
As others have mentioned before (Warp is commonly one of them) a run being accepted to vault should not be looked at as a negative thing. Unfortunately, many in the community seem to treat the Vault as a collection place for 'bad' TASes. This isn't the case. The vault is the landing place for unentertaining TASes whether they are technically impressive or not. Bad TASes don't get accepted to begin with.
If someone is claiming that they didn't find a particular run entertaining but then say it should be published to a tier other than the vault, that individual doesn't understand that the site's tier system is first and foremost entertainment based.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
The Problem
It has been brought up a few times recently (roughly in the last year or so) that the workbench entertainment polls can be (and in some cases are) essentially ignored by a judge when determining publication tier, especially if explanation/content in the thread itself is contrary to the poll results. There are even times that the poll may be essentially ignored simply because there is little to no discussion in the forum at all. Side Note 1: We need to stop equating lack of interest with low entertainment. Just because a movie is sparsely viewed or commented on, doesn't mean that the movie itself is not entertaining to those who do chose to watch it.
Basically this means that a poll vote which is not also explained in the forum thread holds little to no value. This essentially makes the polling a (mostly) futile feature of the site in the first place. If the thread trumps the poll anyway, why not just eliminate the poll and rely solely on thread comments?
The primary problem with this approach is that it allows for ignoring the held opinions of some simply because they chose not to explain their viewpoint via words in the forum thread. It's as if we reward explained opinion more than held opinion; but all opinions are equally valid.
Side note 2: I'm not trying to say discussion of opinions isn't also valuable. Discussion can absolutely help to understand or even change opinions, but lack of discussion shouldn't be used to diminish the value of someones held opinion.
It is my understanding that the poll is treated this way, at least in part, due to the ambiguity of the results; this ambiguity stemming from the fact that some users answer the question regarding degree of entertainment, while others answer the question as if the movie in question should be published or not.
I'm aware that various suggestions have been made regarding changing the poll question/answers. I'm not going to pretend that I remember all of them, nor do I have time to go searching through the forums for all the various suggestions. That acknowledged, I apologize if the following has been asked/suggested before.
Two Suggestions/Questions1) Should the poll be outright eliminated given its minimal value that can be relatively easily trumped by comments? (I do not support this approach!)2) Would it be possible to make the workbench poll a two-question response that attempts to answer both aspects of how the current question is treated?
Essentially have two questions that need answered to submit a poll vote:
1) Should this movie be published (does it adhere to the rules as you understand them)?
Yes
No
2) If published, in which tier should it be published?
Moons
Vault
I Don't Care
This approach would yield a better understanding of how/why people are voting the way they are on submissions (regardless of whether or not they choose to comment with text in the discussion). This would restore greater value to the the results themselves and the whole endeavor of polling the workbench submissions in the first place.
It would eliminate the ambiguity (as described above) of the current poll:
The first question obviously answers whether or not the viewer feels the movie if valid for publication. The second question establishes the degree of entertainment value in the movie. Side Note 3: I did not include Star tier in the second question as it's an individually curated (while open to suggestion) tier. I suppose it could be included in the poll, but I wouldn't recommend it.Implementation (At least for the second suggestion)
If this would indeed be an approach desirable to the community...How difficult would it be to implement this on the site?
I recognize that the coding for the workbench polls would need changed. The submission list page shouldn't need much change as it could maintain the vote percentages (using much the same calculation as is currently utilized) by the following variable conversions:
(old question answers) = (new question answers)
Yes = Moons
No = Vault
Meh = I Don't Care
This would still offer 3 entertainment level choices in the poll while yielding a general % entertainment value that would theoretically be more accurate than results generated by the current polling method.
What are people's thoughts on this?Note to site staff/moderators: I realize this may have been better categorized under Site -> Open Forum: Feature Requests, but I made a new topic in hopes of obtaining more attention/feedback. If it absolutely needs moved/merged, please do so.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Super Mario Bros 3, and Morimoto's original run of it, arguably started the whole tool-assisted speedrun phenomenon and community. It can be argued to be the first one, the one that kickstarted the whole hobby.
The original run caught the attention of a relatively large public because of how marvelous it looked.
(Back then Morimoto did not make it at all clear that it was created with tool-assistance, in an emulator using slowdown and savestates, and many people mistakenly thought it had been played in real-time and felt deceived and disillusioned when it was "revealed" that it was made with an emulator, not in real-time. This hurt the reputation of TASes, which were deemed as "cheating" by many (including many unassisted speedrunners.) However, years of hard work fixed this reputation, and TASing has been considered a legitimate separate independent and appreciated branch of speedrunning for quite a long time.)
It spawned an entire community around a hobby, and has resulted in extraordinary runs that continue to marvel people all around.
But now it has been reduced to this. What was once a marvelous show of extraordinary superhuman gameplay, with the player seemingly achieving superhuman feats that are essentially impossible for mere mortals... is now but just an ending screen, and that's it. This is what the grandfather of TASing, the precursor, the originator, has been reduced to. Just an ending screen. There's nothing to see in this run anymore but just that. No gameplay, no marvelous superhuman feats, no extraordinary maneuvers, nothing. Just an ending screen.
For this to be done to the original one, of all. I would be lying if I said that I'm not deeply disappointed. What a disgrace.
I must confess that my passion for following TASing is getting worryingly low. Game after game is being broken more and more, until there's nothing left of what made TASing so marvelous in the beginning. TASes are becoming boring. It's like taking something beautiful and extraordinary to watch, a marvelous piece of art, and hammering it into a minuscule boring cube of trash that has nothing interesting to it. When the most "interesting" part of a TAS is reading a miles-long wall-wall-of-text technical description, something has gone horribly wrong.
Meh.
Just as there's nothing preventing others from making TASes that you find boring, nothing is preventing you from making TASes that you find entertaining. But you seem to only want to whine and complain that the entire community doesn't follow lockstep with your opinions.
Regarding calling this submission "a disgrace" simply because you personally don't like it: You're welcome to your opinion; but allow the rest of us the same concession, and let us have our own opinions. Once you've expressed your opinion, you don't have to keep repeating it every time someone else shares an opposing opinion just so your echoed opinion is the last one in the thread. Managing to speak last doesn't make your opinion any more valid than anyone else's.
Regarding comparing this run to Morimoto's original and using that work as a point of complaint: For all you know Morimoto himself may have found this submission to be an absolutely amazing achievement and may have found it very entertaining....or he may (like you) have found it boring. Regardless of how entertaining he found the run, I'd dare to suggest that he'd be impressed by how far our community has managed to develop his concept and the achievements that have been made all stemming from a video he posted.
If you want to see more entertaining runs submitted and published, get to work. (Unless you're currently banned from submitting for some reason of which I'm unaware) No one has prevented you from submitting for the past 11 years.
TL:DR If you want more control about what ends up on the site, you have options:
1) Want more entertaining runs published? Make more entertaining runs.
2) Join the staff and change the rules.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I'm really curious about this glitch/feature so just in case it helps anything...
1)The manual says nothing about the Player 2 controller.
2) I did a bit more testing on the code at $E70D that reads 0x0017. The following code snippets are traces of $E70D and following being executed. The code is executed every frame that Scrooge is in free-fall, not just when screen transitions are happening or when he's falling through non-death gaps.
Both these tests were done with no ground gaps visible on screen during a jump. The code is not executed while Scrooge is in the rising portion of the jump, but triggers as soon as he starts his descent.
0x0640 is Scrooge's position on screen. When falling in a death pit, he dies when 0x0640 is approximately equal to a hex value of D9. Thus he never gets to the value of E0 needed to trigger the code here:
This makes me wonder if the death pits have a hitbox of sorts. If so, i'm curious if finding a way to clip through a normal floor would allow for this P2 UP thing to skip other areas of the game because the clip through the floor may not hit a death-gap hitbox.
Ultimately the main thing that holding UP on controller 2 does with this above code is skip the portion that looks to see if Scrooge is crossing the bottom limit for a screen transition. The reason he appears at the top seems to be a simple RAM rollover from 255 to 0. It still seems to me an odd thing to have intentionally coded only for these non-death gap situations.
Based on all this, it seems quite different than the gravity altering of MM3 mentioned above.
Another interesting thing I discovered while testing this: If there is a ledge at the top of the screen where Scrooge reappears after falling through the floor, Scrooge can jump back up out of the bottom of the screen and out of the pit (again, likely just RAM rollover from 0 to 255). If he enters the free-fall portion of the jump while below E0 threshold, he'll immediately trigger the screen transition (assuming UP has been released on P2 controller). The transition will not occur while he's rising up out of the pit as the code at $E70D won't be executed until Scrooge is in free-fall.
I haven't had a chance to look through a complete disassembly of the code to see if any other reads of P2 controller happen.
EDIT: Another minor bit of info. Cheating in a higher screen Y-position value into $E715 causes screen transitions to occur when Scrooge is higher from the bottom of the screen. Too high of a value can cause weird effects.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
MESHUGGAH wrote:
1. Requires a vine on the bottom of the screen
If there is no vine on the bottom, you just die.
Examples: Amazon 1st row last screen, climbing down to lowest row.
Moon 2nd screen: https://imgur.com/a/jIkJy62
It doesn't matters if you climbed and jumped off from a vine previously.
A rope/vine does not have to be on screen.
I just tested in the Himalayas in the long multi-screen drop by freezing the value at 0x0017 (p2 up press), and it appears to work for any pit that would otherwise scroll the screen down. In other words any pit that simply isn't a death pit.
The following is 13 ticks of the in-game timer, and I didn't start this until Scrooge was already a couple screens below the rope at the top of the world.
MESHUGGAH wrote:
I think there is a misunderstanding about the purpose. It isn't about "allow screnwrapping", it is about "allow falling through the bottom of the screen".
As it's only possible where screen scrolling would normally occur when Scrooge falls off the bottom of the screen, the effect of the feature would actually be best described as "preventing screen scrolling, but only while Scrooge is falling (not climbing) through a gap that would otherwise initiate screen scrolling."
If it was simply about enabling falling through the bottom of the screen and being sent to the top of the screen; it would be a desirable testing feature for ANY pit, not just the non-death/scrolling pits.
Regardless of whether the purpose is to prevent scrolling or to allow warping Scrooge to the top of the screen, the other question is why program it to only work when he's falling and not while climbing down the ropes that initiate scrolling?
It's this last part that I think I struggle with most in believing this was an intended feature. Why prevent scrolling only when falling in these few instances where it's a not a death pit, but not prevent scrolling when Scrooge is on a vine/rope? It seems a VERY limited feature to have specifically programmed, even for testing purposes. The only reason I can see this being the case is to specifically test the scrolling initiated when climbing down a vine.
Another reason why this wouldn't be a very good debug feature is the cases where using the feature can result in Scrooge being out of bounds. The feature would only have helped testers in very few situations and would have made testing more tedious in others by getting them out of bounds and forcing them to either reset the console, manually re-position Scrooge, or somehow find a way back in-bounds in order to continue testing intended game features. Testing is about breaking a game....not trying to figure out how to get back to normalcy from a broken game state.
Other considerations:
1) This may be a leftover feature that originally had an intended in-game purpose, but that reason was removed from the final product. Thus this feature may not a debugging leftover, but an unused feature.
2) This was a debug feature, but only part of the code for that feature. Meaning that what we're abusing isn't how the feature was intended to be used. This would mean that this submission is a valid use of this button combination/effect; abusing poor programming (or more accurately, poor removal of programming) to yield a result unintended by developers in normal play.
I just feel that the presence of this one snippet of assembly code that shows how the effect happens (skipping the code for screen scrolling) is not enough evidence to claim that this particular effect was intentionally included as-is for developer testing purposes.
If we had further evidence (for example, something published from any of the developers or Nintendo itself) claiming it was an accidental leftover, we could disallow use. But as we have no other evidence beyond this four line assembly code snippet, we can't make that assumption.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
What I don't understand about the possibility that this is actually an intended function accidentally leftover by developers is why they made it so you have to be OFF a rope/vine (in free-fall) to make Scrooge zip to the top of the screen.
From a testing standpoint, it would have been just as beneficial to have the zip occur while simply climbing down off the bottom of the screen via a rope as it would be to occur during free-fall.
If this on-rope option was also done, why only take one of the possibilities out of the game code before release?
It's hard for me to believe that it was meant as a developer tool.
I think we're missing something here.
Is the RAM value at $0017 ONLY for storing controller 2 input, or do other things change it in the game code?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
Firstly, I can't think of a game off the top of my head that fits this description and wouldn't be better categorized by a more descriptive genre than "Action Adventure."
Games like LoZ:OoT and Super Metroid are generally classified as "action-adventure". How would you classify them? ("Metroidvania" is a rather informal term.)
...and wouldn't be better categorized by a more descriptive genre than "Action Adventure."
Neither of these games (or any in their series) fit the description of a primarily adventure type game that includes action elements. Both of these games are just the opposite. They are primarily action games that happen to have some minor puzzles or minor inventory item management, but there's rarely (if any) challenge in deciphering what the inventory item is used for in the game.
I personally don't consider either of these game series as having enough adventure driven elements to to even be classified as adventure games at all. In my opinion, the problem with an "Action Adventure" label in these cases is that the "adventure" part is the problem, not the "action" part.
As far as a specific genre/category for these two games: Super Metroid is by default a Metroidvania game; it's a game from one of the two series that the genre's name itself literally comes from.
While it may also be somewhat broad/informal, "Metroidvania" is still more descriptive than "Action Adventure" and is thus a better descriptor and the one which would be more appropriately used between these two labels.
The Zelda series are very much a similar style game to the Metroid series with new items mostly granting the ability to open new doors/paths. The biggest difference (at least in the first game of each series) is in camera perspective. After those two games, camera perspectives may have changed, but the driving mechanic of gameplay remains Metroidvania style with movement and combat being the primary progression mechanisms. Where inventory is concerned in the Zelda series, it's mostly there to open/allow new doors/paths, not as an internal challenge of figuring out what the inventory items themselves are even for. Sometimes simply having them in inventory is usually enough to get the necessary effect. Even the trading sequences in Zelda games aren't overly challenging in figuring what stuff is for, it's typically very obvious for the player if not outright told to them.
To put it simply, Both OOT and Super Metroid fit into the Metroidvania classification better than the Adventure classification. "Metroidvania" is more descriptive than "Action Adventure" and thus a more appropriate label for these games.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
What would you classify such a game as, if not "action adventure"? I mean, let's assume that it has all the hallmarks of a pure adventure game (open world, large inventory, need to find and collect items, need to use those items in a non-trivial manner eg. in puzzles to advance) with the exception that there's also a real-time combat element to it?
Firstly, I can't think of a game off the top of my head that fits this description and wouldn't be better categorized by a more descriptive genre than "Action Adventure." (But that is kinda beside the point on a hypothetical question.)
Perhaps it's wrong of me, but I'd argue that it's rare for a gamer to be looking for a game that combines heavy aspects of both of these genres. Most players wanting to play an adventure type game aren't wanting heavy action involvement in the gameplay. Similarly, players seeking a primarily action oriented game don't typically appreciate heavy thinking/puzzle solving to be a major part of the game's progress.
The reason for this comes down to the type of gaming. Players typically are seeking a specific gaming experience when choosing a game to play. They don't want the desired experience arbitrarily/randomly interrupted just because a developer was trying to force together two significantly different styles of gaming. Due to this, there simply aren't many games that contain significant quantity of action elements into a true adventure driven game, or vice versa.
But if such a game did exist, I'd categorize it based on the PRIMARY method of progress. If the adventuring is designed to be the primary limiter of progress and there is simply some occasional combat, I'd describe it as an adventure game. If the combat was designed to be the primary limiter of progress and there were simply some adventure parts, I'd categorize it as a primarily combat (action) game.
As I've already mentioned (and is also stated in the above linked wikipedia article), "Action Adventure" is a very broad category; where games that would qualify can better be described by another genre that is more descriptive of actual gameplay.
If a game as you've described above exists with equal emphasis on both gameplay styles, it could be best described as a 1st/3rd Person Combat Adventure; but I doubt that the game would sell or be reviewed very well due the drastic gap in the two forced gameplay styles.
The term "action" could also likewise be used with other genres, like "action RPG" (which would describe a type of RPG that uses real-time combat requiring skill and reflexes, rather than a turn-based take-your-time combat system).
True, but there's little to no confusion on what "Action" means when describing RPG's. Even still, there's could be a more descriptive method of describing such a game: Turn-based Combat RPG, Real-time Combat RPG, Dungeon Crawler (as many Dungeon Crawler's have real-time combat and RPG elements), etc.
This is just another example of my original assertion that "action" is too general of a term for describing gameplay (even when not trying to attribute it to adventure games).
TL:DR
To develop a game that truly balanced action and adventure styles equally in limiting progression would be to force a gamer to completely (and consistently) shift from one style of play to another simply to make continued progress. This is contrary to the way most gamers want to play games. They chose a game based on the type of experience they want, and they don't often appreciate being forced into a different style.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Memory wrote:
What are people's thoughts on me claiming co-authorship? I had to edit the end of team 4's second to last stage and one portion of team 7's final stage to get it to sync.
Claim it. Re-syncing is a part of authorship when combining parts from multiple runs.
Think about it this way. If we had two published runs of some game (a 100% and an any%) and you saw ways to combine parts of each to yield an even faster any% run;
the combination and re-syncing is your contribution. In this case it would be appropriate to include yourself as an author on the new submission even though you didn't necessarily add anything new/novel.
The only difference between that hypothetical scenario and the Donald Land situation is that Donald Land isn't currently published. You're still contributing via combination and re-syncing, so you should get authorship credit.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Personally, I think the identifier "Action Adventure" is a flawed term.
I find Action and Adventure concepts as mutually exclusive when considered as the primary driving mechanic of a game. A game can't be primarily driven by both action events (i.e.e real-time combat) and adventuring (the puzzle solving/adventure themes as discussed above). One or the other will dominate progression:
1) When a game's primary mechanism of progress is reflex based (platforming, real-time combat wins, etc.); adventure elements become secondary and act more as gate mechanisms to separate new combat arenas/sequences. It'd simply be an action game that contains adventure-like elements. Frankly, this is why I feel the Metroidvania & Dungeon-Crawler categories aren't adventure games.
2) When a game's primary mechanism of progress is the story-driven puzzle solving as discussed in the above posts, action sequences in that game simply become (mostly) unnecessary interruptions to progressing through the puzzle solving story of the game.
In fact, these type of reflex-based action sequences are often complaint points of adventure games; especially when they outright prevent progress just because the player doesn't have the reflexive skill to complete the action portion. It's this exact reason that some adventure game developers included the option to skip such action sequences in their games (though there is sometimes a penalty for not at least attempting the action sequence). For example, in the original EGA version of Space Quest 1, there is an unskippable arcade sequence of riding a skimmer (personal hovercraft type vehicle) across a boulder filled desert. Some people really struggled to complete this portion of the game; effectively halting progress half way through a game otherwise driven by puzzle solving, simply because the players didn't have the action-game-level reflexes to complete the sequence. Due to complaints, Sierra released the VGA remake of SQ1 with an option to simply skip the skimmer sequence (they also introduced a method of negating the slot-machine portion).
In my opinion, most games that would be given an "action adventure" label would likely be better categorized as Metroidvania, Platformer, Shoot-em-up, etc.
Frankly, the term "Action" itself is too general of an identifier when categorizing games. We have various categories of Action games (those just mentioned) into which games can be more specifically categorized. Adding "Action" to "Adventure" and trying to categorize a game as "Action Adventure" likely ignores better, more specific categorization in a different category.
TL:DR "Action Adventure" to me is an unnecessary term trying to introduce an (overly broad) special category of gaming that simply isn't a necessary distinction compared to game categories already commonly used which themselves are more descriptive of the game type (Metroidvania, platformer, shoot em up, adventure, etc.).
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
In order to understand what's happening, even if you know it's a TAS, you need to read some background info on what's happening and how it was achieved.
This part of your statement is true. To understand specifically HOW the gamepad input reaches the end-game scene, you need to know the technical background.
The video alone, all in itself, offers not much entertainment without that technical background info....
This is the part that I don't agree with you, because this part is not true for everyone. It may be true for you, but it's not for everyone.
Some people can find entertainment in a sub 1 second video that jumps straight to the credits simply by knowing the result was done with gamepad inputs. They don't need to know any further/deeper details on how it was accomplished beyond knowing it was gamepad input. In other words, they don't need to know the technical background to find it entertaining.
In this case, however, any possible entertainment comes from the background info, not from what's happening on screen during the run.
What this argument doesn't allow, is for others to find the complete lack of anything happening on screen while still reaching the credits to be entertaining. For some people it is exactly that aspect that they find entertaining....the fact that nothing visible happens but the credits are reached anyway via gamepad input.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Yea...that's a pretty good summary.
There are exceptions to the "doing nothing for a long time will not cause any sort of penalty or game over in any situation" generalization; but when present, the time limits allotted to accomplish a particular goal are typically very generous allowing the game play to stay relatively slow-paced.
I'm sure the features of Adventure games, which games qualify, and which ones don't belong could be discussed ad infinitum. And there will always be some subjectivity to it.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
So, if the definition of "adventure game" is "progress is based primarily on the collection/usage of specific inventory items to solve a specific intellectual challenges/puzzles; hand/eye coordination and/or reflexive skills are rarely a main aspect of these games", could someone give examples of very representative and archetypal adventure games, other than point-and-click ones?
I mentioned Grim Fandango earlier. It (at least originally) wasn't point & click; though that option for input has been added in the re-release of the game.
Another example is Dreamfall: The Longest Journey.
Obviously any text parser based yet graphically presented game where mouse input isn't present (many older Sierra games) wouldn't be 'point & click' but would follow similar mechanics.
I'm sure there are probably others, but I can't think of any more specifics off the top of my head. The bulk of archetypal adventure games do fall into the 'point & click' category.
For reference, here's a list of the top 100 Adventure games (at least according to that website). The bulk are point click.
That list does include games like Portal (which I've already mentioned is more of a 3d puzzle than an adventure IMO).
Games in the Myst series are also mentioned in that list. I'm not sure how to categorize them as they fall between 3d Puzzle and Adventure to me. They typically have little inventory management and are more a series of strictly intellectual puzzles. But if you consider information/clues presented in-game (like the various alphabets/numbering systems) as a kind of of intellectual inventory item that must be used elsewhere in the game world, they show some similarity to adventure games. This is often the case in the Myst games as the information is often obscure and some distance from where it is utilized; forcing the player to figure out what the information means first then use it (this again is like Adventure games). Contrast this to 3d puzzle/Portal-type games, where information is often presented directly to you, you know what it means almost immediately, and often use the information immediately as well.
Categorizing games is truly a difficult task...especially as developers find more and more ways to blend genres.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Let's admit it, this run isn't very "entertaining" to someone who has no knowledge of what's happening behind the scenes, ie. without having to read a long (highly technical) explanation of how it was done. You can't just give a video of this run to someone to watch and expect it to be entertaining, because it essentially just shows the ending screen of the game.
In general, I disagree with this statement.
It's true, that in a presentation devoid of any background information, this video doesn't offer much entertaining. But that's simply because (in that scenario) there is a complete lack of understanding of what the video even is. Many things outside of the video game world that are presented as entertainment aren't entertaining until you understand WHAT the entertainment is supposed to be in the first place. Sports are a great example. When someone doesn't even understand what the sport is, it's hard to be entertained. But when they do understand what it is (even if they don't know every individual rule in the rule book) it becomes more entertaining.
So someone who doesn't understand that this is a TAS can't be entertained by the TAS aspect of the video. Side Note: Some people may still be entertained even given the lack of knowledge by simply watching the end scene itself (for example, people who've never personally beaten the game before nor seen the end any other way).
Here's an important consideration: Since when do we intentionally obscure/omit the fact (for any TAS we publish) that the video is indeed a TAS?
We don't! We blatantly broadcast that our publications are TASes and are meant to be understood as such; because it's the primary background information necessary to even understand a TAS video, let alone be entertained by one.
Claiming that someone can't find this movie entertaining because they don't know the background is a moot argument because we always present the background information with our publications; both the acknowledgement that the video itself is a TAS along with the published links to the submission notes.
Besides, it is absolutely possible for someone to find a video like this entertaining even if they've only being given the limited background information of "This game was beaten using gamepad inputs to get to the end scene as fast as possible."
So long as this brief preface is given, it's possible for a person to be entertained by the resulting video while still knowing nothing about the detailed technical aspect of how the TAS was made. Heck, as long as they know it's gamepad input that's causing the game to end so quickly, they don't even necessarily need to know it's TAS input to perceive the video as an entertaining result of gamepad input.
It's therefore not necessary to thoroughly read and understand the submission notes and comprehend the intricacies of how it works to find entertainment in this video. They key to a video like this being potentially entertaining rests on the platform that the person watching understands that gamepad inputs made it happen.
Would this video be entertaining without that preface: Probably not.
Can this video be entertaining once one has the simple knowledge that gamepad inputs made it happen?: Yes.
I'm not suggesting that these argument should make everyone find this entertaining. I'm simply showing how it's possible for some people to find this video entertaining with only a very superficial comprehension of what makes the video happen the way it does.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
I see your points regarding Zelda being a primarily metroidvania game series based on my above distinctions; I don't disagree with those perspectives.
Warp wrote:
I also think this classification principle would make The Talos Principle and adventure game. Maybe it is?
I'm not personally familiar with The Talos Principle, but I watched a youtube clip of the game. It strikes me as more of a Portal type game; or a series of environment manipulation puzzles.
Perhaps that's too nitpicky of a distinction from an adventure game for some people.
I guess the distinction I see between Portal/The Talos Principle type games and adventure games again comes down to item use.
Management/use of multiple inventory items to solve challenges (especially when there's nothing in the game that teaches what each item is for) = adventure game
Manipulation/management of environmental objects (especially when the use of the items is obvious or deliberately taught by the game) = Portal type sequential puzzler. Another example of this type of puzzler (also 1st person) would be Quantum Conundrum
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2056)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
In general an "Adventure Game" is one who's primary mechanic of driving game progress involves collecting inventory items from various locations which are then used in other locations to solve some puzzle that is preventing progress in the game. Adventure games almost always contain some degree of mental/intellectual challenge in solving these puzzles through the inventory/puzzle based primary mechanic. As others have mentioned, the various Sierra "Quest" games are good examples.
In regards to free-roaming/non-linear play: This should not be a requirement for something to be deemed an adventure game. While some areas in adventure games may be freely roamed, many adventure games do follow a linear progression through the game. In these cases, backtracking either becomes pointless or impossible depending on how the game is coded. Again the "Quest" games are good examples of this forced progression/linearity within an adventure game.
EDIT: Another quick thought on backtracking/non-linearity. If the backtracking is only present to allow for secondary objectives that aren't necessary to complete the game, this level of backtracking alone isn't enough to qualify a game as an "Adventure" game. : END EDIT
Regarding RPGs as adventure games. The key differentiation here is in the primary mechanic that drives progression of the game. IMO Adventure games, have the inventory focused puzzle solving as their primary driving mechanic, where RPGs have leveling-up and character development as their primary driving mechanic. There are some games that appear mix these two genre's together (example: the Quest for Glory series), but even these tend to focus more heavily to one or the other. The Quest for Glory series does indeed use various character stats similar to RPGs, but it still drives the game primarily via inventory based puzzle solving. The character stats/classes only really serve to determine which path(s) a character is able to take in solving the progression of puzzles.
MetroidVania games as adventure games? While these games often have a similar situation where progress is limited until a certain item is acquired, the difference between these and adventure games lies in the use of the item. Items collected in adventure games tend to allow progression by enabling the player to solve one (or in some cases a small number of) specific puzzle(s) using that item. Items collected in Metroidvania games by contrast are more akin to power-ups that tend to allow for infinite uses to allow a more widespread exploration of the game-world, but not necessary allow solution of one (or a few) particular puzzles. Another key difference is that Metroidvania games quite often include developing skills of action/platforming as a primary means of progressing through the game. Adventure games rarely require a significant level of reflex based (hand/eye coordination type) gaming skills, but instead tend to focus on challenging the minds ability to think through a solution to a problem.
Regarding open-world platformer/action games like Assassin's Creed, GTA, etc: These games rarely have the 'get object in one place and use it in another to solve a puzzle' as the primary mechanic that drives the game, IMO. They are instead more non-linear disjointed objectives/quests that can be completed however the player chooses. In many cases, these games contain MANY objectives/side quests that are neither necessary nor required to progress through the game. Further, even when inventory items can be collected in these various disjointed objectives, they are either power-up in nature (similar to Metroidvania games) or they are rarely required (or even able) to be used in a different objective/side quest. In these games, the progression through the main game is usually accomplished by completion of a series of objectives that themselves are unconnected and in some cases un-ordered. Contrast this to adventure games that require collecting an item very early in the game in one location only to hold it in inventory nearly the entire game before it's proper use becomes apparent in a wholly different location where the action using the object is finally performed.
Comparison to classic text adventure games: Another way to help identify an adventure game is to compare the driving mechanic of the game to classic text adventure games from the 70's and 80's. These games usually followed the 'get inventory item/use inventory item' mechanic necessary to progress through the game. The difference between these and more modern adventure games was simply in input method (text vs. point/click vs. console controller) and game display (text vs. graphical); but the primary mechanic of solving puzzles with inventory items remains.
For example compare two shining examples of the Adventure genre: the early Infocom text based Zork series and Lucas Arts' Grim Fandango which is graphical and (originally) had a tank movement based control scheme.
TL:DR When differentiation between game genres is considered, the genre distinction should be based on the primary mechanic of game progression.
Adventure: Progress is based primarily on the collection/usage of specific inventory items to solve a specific intellectual challenges/puzzles. Hand/eye coordination and/or reflexive skills are rarely a main aspect of these games.
Action/platforming: - Progress based primarily on the act of movement through the game world, especially focusing on rewarding development of improved hand/eye coordination skills.
RPG: Progress based primarily on developing character skills/traits to be able to conquer tougher opponents as the game progresses.
MetroidVania: Progress based on finding and utilizing power-up based improvements to a character.
Open-World/Objective Progression: Progress is based on the completion of a predefined group of objectives which themselves are often unconnected to each other and can often be completed in a variety of orders.
Strategy (Real time or turn-based) Progress is often linked to wise resource management.
These categorizations aren't meant to suggest that a game can only belong to one genre. But what is identifiable as a game's primary progression mechanic should be the overriding factor in determining a game's primary genre.
Unfortunately, some games are enough of a blend of these categories that it makes it hard to determine the overriding primary mechanic. For example the Zelda series is a combination of Action, Metroidvania, and adventure genres.
