Posts for DrD2k9


DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
The question is, do you count the scenario where things you haven't obtained during normal gameplay, magically appear from the outside, as an any% category?
If it's intended to magically appear from the outside, yes.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
Saved game is not related either. Saved game won't help us get rid of the additional image requirement if we want new monsters. The question is, why do you think we should judge 2 similar scenarios differently: 1) using SRAM to unlock new content not available from scratch, and 2) using additional image to unlock new content not available from scratch? How does the latter magically make it any%? Especially given how strict some people are about any% in general, the purpose of Vault is to never have to explain anyone that "well, this particular not-quite-any% is still considered any% by some people, therefore we consider it absolutely objectively clear cut, and therefore vaultable". Do excuses like this really sound sensible to anyone?
Firstly, I don't know how much of the following is appropriate to this particular submission vs. my opinions as general concepts. I understand that my personal opinions aren't always going to be the most ideal/practical for the site's policies. For what my opinion is worth though: Saved game or not, I don't feel the use of the arbitrary image/SRAM/memory card data should automatically negate a run from being vaultable. For the same reason, I don't think these two scenarios shouldn't be judged differently. If the game is started from scratch and new content is then obtained through the course of normal gameplay as intended by the publishers using any of the above methods, it is still a valid any% run in my opinion. I realize this may not mesh with everyone else's perspectives. The key to me is that the game is started from scratch. If the game is designed to read data from a source other than the original game disc/image, the console hardware, or the controller; how the data got on that additional source shouldn't matter. The game doesn't care how the data was developed, only that the data is present where it's being sought by the game. As long as getting the data where it needs to be for the game to read it is done via a reproducible method, I think the game started from scratch should still be vaultable. Even if this means the additional source (SRAM, memory card, or disc image) was custom made in a hex editor. TL:DR I don't feel that a game's publisher intended use of data from an outside source not created by the game itself should automatically make the game ineligible for vault. ALL THAT SAID, if the site wants to negate vault eligibility for the use of any additional data not shipped with/contained in/created by the game itself, then I support that decision.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Ok, I skimmed through things again. I didn't realize before that all of the above discussion regarding secondary images was only considering a starting point from a saved game (NG+) standpoint. I was thinking as if the run were started from scratch and utilized the secondary image to obtain the desired outcome. As far as a game starting in an NG+ state, I agree it shouldn't be able to make vault. If a game is started from scratch, then the secondary image is used in the course of the from-scratch game to obtain whatever outcome, I think that should be acceptable to vault. Sorry if I made this discussion more confusing.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I agree with a lot of it, including potentially avoiding copy-written discs/images as the secondary image. The only questions I have are regarding vaultibility.
feos wrote:
Vaultable? Should we allow movies using images, that don't belong to the original game, for Vault? The Vault is designed to only allow things that can be easily, clearly, and unambiguously defined. While some of the Vault rues are still quite complicated in their wording (like those for sports games, or for full completion), the spirit behind them is still simple: we want clear cuts and meaningful speed competition records. In that sense, due to all the complexity of this case-by-case exception, I do not think that we should allow use of unintended images for Vault. And the definition of intended image is the same: either the game explicitly asks for some particular image, or the publisher encourages using it, like it happens with Sonic & Knuckles and Sonic 3 (or modern DLCs maybe).
If we are requiring a custom optimal image for the secondary disk to be shared/reproduced with the publication, then this aspect for any future submissions should be considered clearly and unambiguously defined as long as the secondary image accompanies the submission (either directly attached, or complete directions on how to reproduce). As far as using publisher intended images, the publishers explicitly say to use any CD's you have. Therefore no discs/images should be considered unintended. Also considering the following:
Starting a game as it is and playing it from scratch is a vaultable concept. Using an external resource to boost your stats is not.
This game however isn't the same situation as using an unintended external source (such as a game-genie) to boost the stats. Game modifiers (game genie, etc) introduce different than standard gameplay. The key with this game is that the use of an external resource (different discs) to boost stats is expected and encouraged. Therefore using additional discs/images is considered by the publishers as part of standard gameplay. For these reasons, I feel that submissions should still be vault eligible. EDIT: Regarding my earlier comment. I was just suggesting that those types of data would be valid in a real-life situation....not suggesting we accept them here.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
As far as self-created images: Assuming someone knew exactly where the game looked for data on the target image/disc, couldn't someone create a image to yield the desired data then burn it to a practical CD and use it on a real system? If that's the case, then any CD data or image that could be burned to real media should be considered valid as it would be theoretically usable on a real machine as well. I agree and fully support MESHUGGAH's reasons for restricting the data of that image for publication on the site. From a data standpoint though, the examples suggested -- (nudes, virus, justin beiber albums) -- would still probably be valid data sources.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
xxNKxx wrote:
here's explain If not do red line then green line will not work If do glitch then don't need do red line, judt need do green line If this's ok then I can remake for select last level and done around a minute
The above in better English: To use the cheat normally, you have to input a special password, then use an additional input combination (code) to access the cheat menu/cheats. The glitch bypasses the password requirement. It does not bypass the input combination (code) to access the cheats. My opinion: As the glitch only skips the first of two requirements to access the cheats, the second requirement is still unacceptable cheat code use, based on our current rules. If a way could be found to glitch past both requirements, it would be acceptable.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Patashu wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
If that's the case....is it still considered cheating to use the built-in-cheat even though it was accessed in an unintended manner?
Maybe this is similar? [1946] SNES EarthBound "check glitch" by pirohiko, MUGG in 09:01.77 used a glitch to access the debug menu, then used the debug menu to skip the rest of the game.
That example seems more like the Valkyrie Profile run that was recently accepted. For reasons that I probably can't fully articulate, I have less of problem glitching into debug to then jump to the end of the game than I do glitching into debug to activate a cheat. But I'll try anyway: 1) Glitching into debug to then skip immediately to the end seems similar to using ACE to skip to the end credits. 2) Glitching into debug to activate cheats and then playing through the whole game using those cheats just seems like an overly complicated way to cheat. If you're going to play through the whole game using the cheat anyway, why not just access the debug menu with whatever method was intended by the developers to access that menu. Now that I've typed that second reason...I don't know if the first isn't also an overly complicated way to accomplish the same thing. Meaning, if you're going to use the debug menu to skip to the end of the game, why go through an overly complicated method of access the debug menu? I think I'm even less sure now whether or not I agree with using these kinds of methods to access a debug menu. I guess my opinion would be best described by the following: If there is a normal method to access the debug menu/room of a game, whether that be a code/sequence of inputs/secret area of the game (that's normally accessible if you know where it's at), I think accessing that debug menu/room with a glitch is mostly meaningless as there is an intended way to access the same. If there is no normal method to access the debug menu/room (because the developers removed the method without removing the menu/room itself) and glitching into the room becomes the only way to access it, I feel that it might be acceptable. I still don't think this should be used to simply activate a cheat, but I feel it could be a valid method of reaching the endgame faster. It's probably something best left to a case-by-case judgement. But if this is a concept that needs more clarification in the rules/guidelines, the conversation has at least been started. EDIT: Sorry for the 'stream of consciousness' typing here....I'm really tired.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I'm not sure I'm comfortable with this TAS. These questions aren't necessarily for the author, but for the judge/staff to consider.... Is this run using SRAM corruption to access the debug menu (similar to how Valkyrie Profile reaches the debug room)? If that's the case....is it still considered cheating to use the built-in-cheat even though it was accessed in an unintended manner? Or is it acceptable because an unintended method was used to access this cheat? Using an unintended method to access these debug options doesn't seem that far removed from using ACE in a game. However, I still am uneasy about using developer programmed debug/cheat options to beat a game regardless of how they are accessed.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
An "as well as possible" run wouldn't be vault eligible then; assuming the qualification for 'beating' the game is the good ending. It would have to yield moon quality response. If PikachuMan is pursuing this approach, I'd recommend he make a backup run which ejects everywhere possible while still yielding the good ending. In the event the 'as well as possible' run doesn't get moon level response, the shorter run could be submitted with full intention of going to vault. If the 'as well as possible run' does make moons, then the other run could still be submitted for vault publication.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
In my opinion, I think a TAS of this game would be acceptable even if you ejected on all the missions that aren't vital to get the "Good Ending." It'd almost be akin to death-warping to progress to later stages. The key is to achieve the 'Good Ending' so that the game appears to be beaten.
Post subject: Vault's negative reputation
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Warp wrote:
Anyways, could we please stop considering putting a run in vault a "demotion"? I'm still rallying for the bad reputation of vault to be removed from the common consciousness. It shouldn't be considered a garbage dump where all the "boring" runs are thrown into. It shouldn't be a shame to get a run into vault. If you get your run published, that means that it's, essentially, the world record TAS for that game, and that shouldn't be something to be ashamed of. That should be an achievement worthy of pride.
I share your perspective on the value/achievement of vault runs. I enjoy creating TASes even when they are fully expected to land in the vault due to current guidelines. Unfortunately (at least regarding the vault), the emphasis of the site is on entertainment. From an entertainment perspective, having a run moved to vault is indeed a demotion in perceived entertainment value. While the vault does carry this inherent negative connotation when perceived from an entertainment perspective; a TAS having a reputation as being unentertaining does not necessarily equate to it having a bad TAS reputation. Example: Atari Dragster is vaulted and has poor entertainment value, but quite high technical ratings. Omnigamer and MrWint's work had a huge impact on gaming history and was a generally well received submission. In my opinion, the fact that the vault exists proves that the community (or, at minimum, the current/past site staff) does place a value on these runs. The vault's mere presence honors these works for they achievement(s) they are. That said, I doubt you're ever going to change the minds of those who do view the vault negatively.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I thought using debug rooms to get to the end of the game wasn't allowed. Or is that only in the case of using codes to access the debug room? Is it acceptable here because save corruption was used to access the debug room?
Post subject: Suggest invalid publications that don't meet site rules here
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
There has been concern regarding some publications (some older, some newer) that they no longer meet current site rules/standards. Discussion has taken place on such runs regarding whether or not they should be unpublished/identified/listed/etc. As there is no current easy way to identify these runs, I've started this topic to house suggestions of runs that members feel are invalid. If you feel there is a specific publication that doesn't meet current standards, list it here. This topic is only meant as a launching point for obsoleting runs that may be invalid. No judges/staff are (currently) curating this topic, so it will be strictly member opinion. The impetus on staff/judges to re-judge the current publication will only be after a new run (which attempts to obsolete the old one) is submitted. The burden of submitting a new run longer than the current publication would be on the author; namely to note in the submission comments why they feel their longer run is more up to par with site rules than the current publication. For those who care to help eliminate invalid runs, use this topic as a starting point to know which current publications to look into. Just because a game is suggested here, does not mean that it's invalid; just that someone feels it is. If you agree with a particular suggestion and want to help the site, the impetus is on you to work toward obsoleting the current publication. EDIT: If the staff finds this topic useless...please send it to Threaded Gruefood
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
This would not require re-judging If a judge/mod/staff member agreed on a particular game/publication recommendation
Is it really so hard to see? Without staff member approval, this is just feelings of whoever is suggesting invalid publications. With approval, this is a re-judgment. Because how can a staff member approve this without re-evaluating everything? And potential infinite suggestion spam hasn't been worked around either.
I see your points. But wouldn't the topic even without a staff-monitored list be beneficial? Even if it was only suggestions from other members, it'd still be a starting point. I may be ignorant on this concept, but I don't foresee a ton of spam on suggestions. If someone feels a particular game doesn't follow the rules, they are free to suggest it. Then it'd be up to whoever wants to redo the run to try to update the run. Nothing would be needed from site staff on the front-end. Then the impetus on staff/judges to re-judge the original would only be after a new run which attempts to obsolete the old one is submitted. Further, this re-evaluation of the original would only truly be necessary if the new submission was longer than the current publication (as a shorter run could just be judges by modern rule standards). The burden of submitting one such longer run would be on the author; to note in the submission comments why they feel their longer run is more up to par with site rules than the current publication. With this approach, the only additional work for judges/staff is on the back-end of a submission when the judging for a workbench item takes place. I just feel that any collection/list (however it's generated) of sub-par games is a better launching point than not having a list at all.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Could we start a forum topic for games perceived as sub-par? Members could recommend publications that they feel don't meet the current minimal requirements. This would not require re-judging, but would still provide a starting point for those who want to work on getting the sub-par runs obsoleted. If a judge/mod/staff member agreed on a particular game/publication recommendation; that game could then be appended to a list in the initial post to maintain a quasi-record of sub-par games. As these sub-par publications become obsoleted, they get removed from the list. This adds minimal workload for judges/staff yet would still hopefully spur action on new TASes of those games. The only thing it doesn't provide is an indicator on the publication page for current runs of sub-par quality.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
I tried to watch this on an older emulator version....seemed to sync through a couple missions, but then desynced as the main character stopped ejecting. My thoughts/questions: How is this 'Bad Ending' different than a 'Game Over'? It fails the missions, which is akin to losing in my perspective. In my opinion, this TAS does not 'beat' the game and is thus not acceptable for publication. Also, button mashing by a human can achieve this ending result in a similar time. Perhaps an encode would change my perspective, but I doubt it. EDIT: FWIW, Encode didn't change my perspective. This game isn't beaten...it's lost.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
What about adding a label/movie class of "published under sub-par standards" or something of the sort?
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Very nice run and improvements.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
While I understand the reason (mediocre ratings) that a bunch of runs are being recommended for demotion to vault...it's still a bit discouraging to see that so many runs aren't considered very entertaining.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
Entertainment was not even the critical factor back then, at least not the one explicitly asked by the poll. People did find it somewhat entertaining back then, and voted YES IT SHOULD BE PUBLISHED, but then changed their minds and gave it shitty ratings. Nothing new here.
Thanks for the clarification. I didn't realize the poll used to be based on publication worthiness as opposed to entertainment.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Memory wrote:
DrD2k9 wrote:
EZGames69 wrote:
[1003] SNES U.N. Squadron by georgexi in 18:33.27 to vault
This is one of those games that I don't think should be dropped to vault simply due to less than stellar post-publication ratings. Even though the ratings aren't fantastic, the forum feedback and voting from when it was submitted was quite positive.
I believe the reason for this was because it was prior to the existence of vault. If a game did not get positive feedback for entertainment on the forums, it did not make its way onto the site. Therefore it might have received some inflated feedback while on the workbench as a result.
So if it was entertaining enough to be published before the vault existed, doesn't that automatically make it better than vault level entertainment? Edit: If not, every current publication that was accepted before the vault existed needs to be re-evaluated to see if it needs to be demoted.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
EZGames69 wrote:
[1003] SNES U.N. Squadron by georgexi in 18:33.27 to vault
This is one of those games that I don't think should be dropped to vault simply due to less than stellar post-publication ratings. Even though the ratings aren't fantastic, the forum feedback and voting from when it was submitted was quite positive.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Alyosha wrote:
Great block of content! I was a bit confused by what the GBA was supposed to be doing, but it sounded cool!
The GBA was what was sending the input to the GC.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
feos wrote:
So I think for this game, a movie should complete 3 loops of mode B, so difficulty goes 2, 3, 4, and then it freezes gameplay-wise, even though the value of the address keeps increasing after new loops. ... It checks if difficulty-1 is above 3, which indeed means difficulty caps out at 4. NOTE: If all the content of the difficulty 4 appears earlier, then it'd instead be the point to stop the movie after. I just haven't tested every difficulty thoroughly. But this video gives some idea, even though it's for mode A.
So does the above make this game an example of one where a future submission that completes all the proposed loops would obsolete the current publication even though the future run will be a longer time than the current?
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Expert player, Judge, Published Author (2037)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1009
Location: US
Alyosha wrote:
If it were a situation of 'you must have this player rank to do this thing on the site,' then figuring out the best way to calculate it would obviously be more important, but it's not, it's just a number.
Very good point.