Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
fsvgm777 wrote:
TASVideoAgent wrote:
This submission's 'ROM' is a unique cartridge image file that I created. As it was created from the same disk image that adelikat used in his run, I assume anyone else using Disk2EasyFlash on that disk image should be able to create an equivalent cartridge format image to verify this submission.
Yeah....no. For one, the game was never released on a cartridge. So, we're limited to either the tape version (and deal with absurdly long load times) or the disk version (which is often a cracked release, which adelikat used in his TAS), not a cartridge image you created yourself with some tool.
Thanks for your input. The whole point of this submission is to get feedback from the community's perspective.
Also for clarification, most of the tape releases out there are cracked versions also.
Memory wrote:
Just because we're unfortunately limited to illegitimate images, doesn't mean we should be modifying them further to be even more illegitimate...
Thanks for your input as well.
For the sake of debate and trying to consider all perspectives: What makes one illegitimate image any more/less valid than another illegitimate image?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
feos wrote:
Solution
When the game asks you to insert a certain specific image (in-game or through the manual), it is considered a part of the game. And it can only be inserted when the game explicitly prompts for that. Inserting disks that weren't asked by the game is not allowed.
When a game asks you to insert an arbitrary image, you need to have an image that's been generated exactly for this movie, you need to have instructions how to recreate it, and you need it to serve the goals of your movie as optimally as reasonably practicable. Only such "arbitrary" images are allowed, and only when the game duly prompts for inserting them.
This was approved by Nach and liked by judges. Opinions, suggestions, complaints? Also maybe I forgot something?
So am I'm reading this correctly...
The "arbitrary" disc image being generated specifically for the movie submitted, in effect, is being made non-arbitrary due to the nature of it's creation. Thus it's going to be allowed for vault?
Or is this just a site standard for any run of these types of game that utilize additional 'arbitrary' CD data, and they still aren't vault eligible?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Omnigamer wrote:
...but in my opinion makes any disc-less submissions far less interesting/entertaining to perform or watch.
As much as I like your concept of the extra CD being simply another form of input similar to controller input...this particular statement unfortunately does nothing to support allowing the extra CDs for vault runs, because the vault doesn't care about entertainment.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
feos wrote:
You said it yourself. Catching them all is not any% for pokemon games, it's full completion.
But trading can still be done to get better/different monsters that would otherwise be unobtainable in a run not using the link. If the goal is to beat the game fastest and it can be done by trading for a specific pokemon, that's the best method regardless of how many pokemon are caught otherwise.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
DrD2k9, in this post I brought up why I consider obtaining monsters with this feature to result in a non-Vaultable movie; I'd like to hear opinions and thoughts about it.
Since it's in the previous thread page, allow me to copy-paste:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
The usage of arbitrary images introduces the same problem of secret passwords, codes, and input sequences: these rely on a knowledge external to the game and its official manual, and thus giving an unfair advantage to the player. So a movie that makes use of an arbitrary image should be allowed only if it introduces gameplay that results enough different from the Vaultable branches, as well as meeting the entertainment requirements of Moons tier.
Below I show the relative text in the Movie Rules page (bold mine):
We allow playing unlockable content using in-game passwords
Using in-game codes[1] or passwords at the start of a game is allowed if it makes the game harder or if it makes cosmetic changes to the game, as long as parts of the game are not skipped.
Using in-game codes or passwords at the start of a game to unlock a special game mode, character, level sets, or otherwise play the game in some unusual way is allowed. However movies of this nature are not considered to be one of the primary branches for the game.
Please tell me if you agree with my interpretation.
Putting a different CD into the PSX is not relying on knowledge external to the game, just data external to the game.
A player who inputs a code must know the specific code before inputting it to yield it's result (and it can be generally assumed that the player knows what that result will be before using the code).
A player sticking a different CD into the PSX doesn't have to have a specific CD nor does the player need to know the result of the CD used to continue with the game.
Further, the use of the CD is intended as part of normal play, not play enhanced/altered by a secret code/input sequence. I generally look at codes/passwords/etc. as things that either intentionally make the game easier/harder. The CD swap with the MR games is not a guaranteed result of easier or harder (it could in fact yield a neutral result).
The fact that someone at some point in history figured out how the game uses the other CD's data (which then allows us to pre-define that CD) doesn't change the fact that the game is still using the information as if it's a normal unenhanced playthrough.
The CD swap is a 'luck' situation. Getting the best possible monster from the swap is like getting lucky in picking the right disc when playing on actual hardware. We just manipulate the luck to yield the best outcome.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
Location: US
Required, No. But they are intended/expected to be used as a resource to beat the game.
It's kind of like Generation 1 pokemon games. Through normal gameplay (not using glitches) it's impossible to catch all the pokemon without trading with another player via a link cable attached to another gameboy (an outside source of data). Doing so isn't necessary to beat the game, but it can be used as a resource to yield different/stronger pokemon that may allow for beating the game faster than playing through without trading. (yes I realize the presence of glitches makes this moot for pokemon games specifically, but the concept of the outside resource is sound.)
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2081)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1018
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.
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