I know you're spewing more crap across threads where a lookup table or equivalent somehow turns into executing arbitrary instructions but can you please tell me where you got this ignorance and how I might be able to get it also? thanks.
I feel there a misunderstanding on which glitches involve ACE. Both things you mentioned can be achieved by conventional means. The (glitch) item which does these things exists in the game, we know exactly why it works and how, and there's no ACE involved at all. All you need to do it grab it. Manipulating RAM areas (e.g. in the inventory screen) is not ACE. The program counter stays where is should be, in the inventory screen routine, we're just accessing "items" the game doesn't expect.
I know both can be achieved through more conventional ways, like the Trainer Fly glitch being used to make Snorlax go away, etc. But obviously that takes time to set up. I meant more in reference to making an item that would do stuff like that for you.
On the other hand when you manipulate the RAM areas a bit too much...
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tNPisyK43Lc
Also, if you crash the game while doing some glitch, you basically failed due to a lack of understanding on how the glitch works.
Another part I should have elaborated more on. To my knowledge most glitches that end in a crash usually mean they have potential for ACE.
Let's go back to replying to a more intelligent topic than what's boiling down to "STFU! KURZE WURDS MAEK ME KOOL AN CORREKT AN TOTALLY DUN DIZCREDITT MEH!!!".
---
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=380205#380205
Can anyone fetch links for rejected/accepted ROM hacks?
Like, say, not acknowledging anything I said except for that last sentence. Now you're hooked on this ad hominem thing again. By your logic, no one should have taken you seriously as early as the start of the ACE thread:
Respond to people as they wish to be responded to. If you can't take sarcastic remarks you shouldn't be using personal attacks.
My comment was a sarcastic reference to his (very recent and very brief) ragequit from TASing. I did not insult him for it nor did I insult him with it. If it is insulting to mention it, he shouldn't have done it.
And also by your logic, no one should be taking you seriously at all given how many times you've attacked feos' English.
When it starts to seriously impact the ability to understand him (and it does VERY often), yes, it is justified. I am not calling him stupid. I am similarly not calling him stupid for having poor English. But if you wish to take yourself seriously in a debate or something, be clear.
Ad hominem doesn't completely invalidate a valid point.
The fact that you're focusing on the ad hominem means that you have absolutely nothing left for your argument.
that you have absolutely nothing left for your argument.
Oh the irony it hurts. Personal attacks are when you've run out of anything resembling a valid argument and thus try to discredit them with insults.
John: "1+1 is 3."
Bob: "No it isn't."
John: "Yes it is."
Bob: "Fuck you."
Bob has very little credibility when, instead of proving his part of the argument... merely resorts to petty name-calling.
I know exactly how to manage hormone-driven keyboard warriors like you, pal. You're not special, unique or entertaining. zzz. Predictable, boring, and repetitive.
@Patashu: Did you seriously just link to Gawker...? lol.
You think the job of the admins here is to please you, or every other little minority here? Well, I think they'd disagree. Who are you to tell them what their job is?
Last I recall the people running a site dedicated to entertaining people should probably be willing to do things to faciliate that. Or am I speaking unrealistic/impossible over here, expecting entertainers to entertain?
I have spare time. If we actually had hacks submitted often, I could get around to making a list (someone else can do the formatting I am programming/website-making (HTML, CSS, PHP, etc) challenged) of them and short write-ups or something.
I've been a follower of TASes for a great many years and I'm a (somewhat) active speedrunner for various games myself. So I think it'd end up well if I had material to use (aka submitted hacks).
Published as in licensed and released to the public as a real legitimate cartridge/CD game, not published as in the site terminology. I love that you're being a condescending douchebag over shit you completely misunderstood.
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Um... no? Air 2 is completely different from 1.
How so? Looks the same to me.
Dyshonest wrote:
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
Oh, but it had "official" quality control.
They had quality control, but also were very different games, in their levels, in some graphics, in the physics engine for Luigi, in having wind, in having upside down pipes, in having backwards warps, in having poison mushrooms, need I go on?
That's quite unfortunate, do you have a history of eyesight problems? I am pretty sure a game revolving around flight is vastly different than one that is not.
That differentiates itself from a ROM hack... how?
I think this mentality of "if I want something, I need to cry very loudly and shout at people higher up till they do something about it" is a serious problem with our modern society as a whole. If you want things to change, just do it. Offer something instead of demanding something. That's just my advice, you are free to completely disagree and call me an idiot, or ignore me, or whatever. There'll be no hard feeling from my side.
This, in turn though, makes authoritative figures/higher-ups ultimately pointless if everything boils down to "do it yourself" instead of the people above you... uh, doing their jobs.
Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
Interesting, so (licensed/"AAA") games don't have QA testing? Damn.
Nothing happened with it because I don't see anything I've said going undefended. It speaks for itself or defends itself.
Did you read the proposal and discussion in the thread Mothrayas pointed to, or just the first post and the poll itself, ignoring the proposal paper and the discussion?
Nobody said hacks aren't games. However hacks are much more likely to be garbage than a published game from a company looking to stay in business.
I really don't care to read a topic that, apparently, diverges far, far off of what the poll was intended to do.
Again, you're using poor-quality hacks as a norm.
Thanks for taking "quality control" and turning into "ensuring completion is possible".
Quite obviously "quality control" for a Kaizo hack means it's actually completeable. The whole point is for it to be masochistically hard, not aesthetically pleasing.
and experience has indicated will occur in the future
Did you use auto-translate here or is this some weird auto-correct/missing words?
How is one supposed to control the quality of hacks and unlicensed games?
How do you do that for licensed games? Don't ask redundant/pointless questions.
Not sure why you bold/underline/italic the "if". Yes, hacks are forced to follow such rules. And we won't force the same rules for all games because the majority in that poll disagreed with that, and we now have a tier system to accomodate for that.
Are hacks not games or am I missing something here?
I already explained several times (again) why that isn't possible, as did Nach. There is no quality control on hacks or unlicensed games.
Because games that DO have it end up so well...
Good hacks, like SDW or Rockman 4 Minus Infinity and others WERE tested, and yes, even the only "half-decent" ones like Air/2/HRM were extensively tested because people had to make sure they could be finished! Gaaasp!
Think of a better reason next time. maybe try something that's true?
You keep stating potential as impossibility. Exactly as you say, you won't know until it happens.
Which do you prefer, playing it safe to avoid potential management nightmares, or opening the door because any possible problems are "hypotheticals"?
Trying to avoid nightmares that will likely never happen at the expense of entertainment makes no sense. Deal with things when they're an issue. It's not like it would be a serious problem even if it did occur.
including a poll showing the majority of people disagree with applying such scrutiny to licensed games. So this is entirely irrelevant.
Perhaps you should read what YOU post for once?
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=13395
Should game choice be abolished as a rejection reason?
Should game choice [...]
game choice [...]
This mentions... what, exactly, about ANYTHING you keep claiming it preaches? Nothing. Jack-squat. It mentions game choice and that's it.
Yet you want me to "universally enforce" the same rules we do for hacks, because "a fair amount of licensed games blow rocks"? You are just contradicting yourself here.
I explained several times already why we can't accept every unlicensed game, or every hack, or every Super Metroid branch. At the same time, you're both telling me you want equal enforcement for licensed games, then also say "game choice should not be a reason to reject". Those are complete opposites. Which is it?
If hacks are forced to follow such rules, then all games should. Though I don't think either should be subject to such things and I've expressed this.
That doesn't mean they're not similar though. "HRM plays like Air" is not the same as "HRM is similar to Air".
We have many similar games.
There is no limit such as "No more than 3 SMW hacks" or "No more than 1 Super Metroid hack".
Yet you make it sound like there is.
xnamkcor does. (Well, as long as the runs are optimized, but that's still applicable to all hacks.)
[citation needed]
You and Nach weren't even reading his posts.
I'd say there easily are dozens of hacks you can make an entertaining run of. Let's suppose people actually decided to make such runs (you apparently keep dismissing that as an impossibility), then we have dozens of hacks of one game clogging up the publication listings.
You keep stating hypotheticals as fact. You won't know until it happens.
It doesn't matter if we get 100 hack submissions in a day or in a year. In the end, their impact on the publication listing would still be the same.
Your point is... what?
Air was obsoleted because people didn't think it warranted publication anymore when Air 2 was submitted, and Hard Relay Mario was published as a superior hack to Air 2. I don't see the original Air have much of a chance, unique gameplay feature or not.
I agree with your logic. Which is why we will continue doing what we're doing, because it's less complicated that way.
If your approach was the one that was less complicated we would have used it long ago. We computer people running the site are lazy at heart and like as little complication as possible.
You don't understand my logic though you agree with it. The main problem is you openly admitted to treating everything surrounding judging and such in an overly complicated, legal manner, when there's no need to do so.
Mothrayas wrote:
Dyshonest wrote:
This way we ensure we have a limited, but high-quality and diverse selection of hack runs on the site.
This should be enforced universally or not at all. It shouldn't just be hacks/unlicensed games considering a fair amount of licensed games blow rocks.
Your own post only serves to prove me right - game choice should not be a reason to reject.
You are lying through your teeth if you are telling me either Air hack or HRM play like SMB, very little original gameplay is left.
It is apparent Air 2 will remain obsoleted, and to be frank I don't really care, I was merely pointing out the problems it causes with an unrelated hack obsoleting another.
You keep talking about how there is no "limits" or anything, but then go on to talk about them as if they exist. No one wants "all hacks" published. If all "half-decent" hacks were accepted that even got submitted in the first place (you missed this part massively! You act like we get 1,002,232 submissions per day...), nothing would be "overclogged". Hacks are purely for entertainment value. If no one finds it entertaining, it doesn't get accepted. If people did find it entertaining it makes no sense to put it in a deathmatch with another one on who gets to be the published video...
Though maybe it is time to re-test the waters to see if the original Air hack has merits being published alongside it? Yes, it was a difficulty hack. However it had a very unique feature for SMB hacks---flight.
We have no policy for unpublishing a movie. We also very much treat runs as legal issues, and have a legislation system (rules), and rely on precedent.
Sure things can change in the future, but this is the system we have now, and it works pretty good, aside from the occasional pothole or hurdle.
Overcomplicating things for the sake of doing so isn't a good reason, and you literally just said that things will remain overcomplicated for the sake of it because they were, at one point, overcomplicated.
This way we ensure we have a limited, but high-quality and diverse selection of hack runs on the site.
This should be enforced universally or not at all. It shouldn't just be hacks/unlicensed games considering a fair amount of licensed games blow rocks.
Let's say we have a TAS published on this site for every single hack hosted by SMWcentral, we would have 961 hacks (including the legacy ones) of only SMW like games... I think it's too much. :o) We need to be picky.
You're (poorly) using hyperbole in an attempt to try to prove something wrong but no one has ever eluded to allowing all hacks.
No, it's your opinion that it's a bad protocol. Dyshonest agrees with you. Everybody else, however, does not. You lose.
On the other hand nothing has actually been posted to show why arbitrary limits for games/hacks are actually helpful, just that they're there and they should be respected.
"It is what it is. Do not try to change it."
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
Such poor decisions, as you put it, shouldn't be made.
Or rather, if they are... why is it such a big deal to revoke something or just leave things where they are? It's not like we're dealing with political bills over here, it's simple movies. Changes can be made very easily...
As far as I can tell the videos here are for entertainment value first and documentation (i.e.: the non-entertaining "to the vault" movies) second. Even a lot of the stereotyped, poorly-made Kaizo hacks are more entertaining than a lot of games here (fighting games, endless autoscrollers, bad games like E.T., etc). Why do hacks get treated differently? The game engine? There's more to a game than that.
Exactly as I said. The reason behind hacks judgments that I gave was ignored. Do we need any more proofs? We aren't going to get anything but pure flamewar here.
If you read what I wrote, I stated that multiple hacks can be published as long as they cover a different niche. Most standard SMW hacks, which have new level design designed for regular playability and maybe some custom graphics, would compete with SDW for the "good/entertaining hack" spot. If it's an impossibly hard type of hack, it competes with Kaizo. And so on.
Why do they have to compete instead of merely being published? You keep saying there's no (arbitrary) limits, then why is it so imperative hacks compete with eachother?
Also, nowhere did I say they had to be entertaining.
But hacks have to be?
Several posts in a row he is wondering why one hack of a game obsoletes another hack of the same game, and now he is saying those are hacks of different games.
Man, a hack is when one picks a game, and applies his edits to it. We do not obsolete hacks of one game by hacks of another game. And as long as the game being hacked is the same, hacks can not be called different games with any seriousness. You're constantly missing your own points once again. Please stop trolling.
This may be a novel idea (only to you), but can you learn to read?
"Different hacks are, for the most part, different games."
What part of this is so hard to understand for you? Different hacks play and LOOK like different games. There's far more to a game than the game engine.
I don't even know where you're trying to go with this. Most half-decent hacks don't have TASes made for them or submitted here, in part exactly because they have to compete with superior hacks like Super Demo World for the "entertaining SMW hack" spot.
You seem to push for all half-decent hack (Air 2 really can't be called more than that) runs to be published alongside each other. There are tons of half-decent hacks for SMW or SMB or SM or MM2 or whichever.
How many of said entertaining ones end up here? Not many.
Different hacks are, for the most part, different games.
However, if you're going to publish additional hacks alongside the current hacks for the sake of publishing them alongside the current hacks, where's the limit?
Why should there be one period? You said it yourself - data space isn't an issue.
Certainly a pinnacle of entertainment right there.
20 Yes votes isn't bad at all. If a hypothetical run had 100 Yes and 90 No, are you going to say it wasn't viewed as "entertaining"? Quite clearly, it was, it just also had vocal opposers.
Also, there is no "arbitrary limit". As SMW proves, different hacks can be published alongside each other if they have their own niche and aren't redundant to each other. But we don't need 20 different runs of "Super Mario World with different graphics and new levels (read: different ways to jump/cape right for justice)" or "Super Mario World Ugly Superhard TAS-only Stages Edition".
It is indeed arbitrary if both Air 2 and Hard Relay Mario have to be obsoleted by each other when both serve different purposes (Air 2 being a more Kaizo/difficulty-based hack whereas Hard Relay Mario is more puzzle-oriented).
The last bit of your post also doesn't apply to anything we've discussed - good hacks.
At least those games are built from the game engine up, instead of building directly on top of an existing game. Also, generally such games aren't hacks of other games.
A lot of the times it's hard to tell, so many games nowadays even feature the same glitches or quirks.
No, because those are licensed and published games. They as games don't need to compete for publication on this site, unlike hacks.
Why?
There actually used to be something like that, but it was removed a few years ago. Not exactly sure about the reason, but that page always felt somewhat messy because it threw together hacks of every kind of platform/game.
I thought it seemed familiar... Why not have it though? It's a good idea.
Keeps the hacks away from the regular, "licensed and published" games. They're here if people want to see it, but not "cluttering" anything.
Also, giving Super Metroid its own page is kind of overdoing it imo. It isn't that special unless you want to include literally every branch ever thought up.
There is actually a system in place for listing all runs of a game, although it's not easily accessible.
When each branch generally includes radically different gameplay dynamics or solutions to the various problems presented by the game I think it is justifiable.
Again. People here find them entertaining. If they had their own page instead of cluttering up and adding to the "limit" of the SNES page, problem solved, yes?
to be fair though Air 1 (which never had a run here, sadly) was a thousand times better than Air 2...
Both of these were rejected in part because the judges decided Super Metroid already had enough branches.
One of them is pointless (PAL? Seriously?) and the other breaks the rule regarding button codes.
Technically no, but that doesn't mean we can spend all our movie page space on everything. If we did that, everything would become a cluttered mess. It's also bad for movie variety if half the runs on the site were runs of SMW hacks.
You seem to think I'm pushing for all things to get immediately accepted and pushed to Moons, or something.
Most SMW hacks are quite... ugly and not entertaining. We currently have three distinctly different ones (SDW, Kaizo and that other one that mostly uses Mega Man things... TSR or something?). I am sure many, many more than three SMW hacks have been submitted but rejected.
Hacks should be accepted because they're entertaining, not because "the current quota of hacks for this game has yet to reach its arbitrary limit". If people find it entertaining (people obviously found Air 2 entertaining)... why not have it?
It's still the same game engine.
We would be in a world of trouble if PS3/360/more current PC TASing was possible then with how much engine recycle goes on nowadays. :P
It really doesn't bother me either way, but it's a pretty silly rule to have regarding hacks. Should Mega Man 1 and 2 be removed because they "share the same game engine"? Or Mega Man 4-6?
Possible compromise... why not just have a category amongst the other ones here (http://tasvideos.org/Movies.html) specifically for ROM hacks?
I proposed something similar for Super Metroid at one point due to the myriad of branches (seven movies in the SNES category are the same game. That's not a bad thing. SM runs are entertaining. But at that point don't they deserve their own page?).
Is today backwards day? Both of today's "Added" runs have a longer listed time than what they "obsoleted".
Your eyes must be going bad, this is a cross-hack obsoletion, and therefore the time isn't relavent.
If it's a different hack, why doesn't it get it's own entry?
We have to have a hack quota for every game - otherwise we could flood the site with tons of half-decent hacks of SMB or SMW or whatever. Hacks are considered an extension of the original game, and we don't want to have too many runs of one game or game engine dominating movie lists.
Also, the rest of your post is so obtuse I don't even know what to say. Obviously there is a big difference between cross-hack and cross-game obsoletion, never mind obsoletion between two very different games.
I have not yet seen or done a concrete example of this doing something useful, but I have executed parts of RAM with it during some testing I did some time ago. I made a list of destination addresses for different text IDs in Viridian forest (this map is especially interesting for the any% category), there are a few useful ones (e.g. ID 0x10, 0x16 and 0x1c jump to 0xd7f3), setting the RAM up to do useful things for you is the hard part, especially early in the game. That's why it is of limited use in the any% category as of now, but it's definitely possible to do.
I wonder how far into the game you have to get for it to jump to useful bits of RAM?
That's exactly the point. All runs you have seen (especially for any%) use the glitches to trigger ACE. But you don't have to, they can be useful even if you don't.
To what extent are you using them that has nothing to do with ACE though? Making sprites disappear? Making a walk-through-walls item? I'm just a bit confused here as to how those glitches are useful outside of ACE potential considering 90% of the time they fry the save file or just crash the game.
I admit it's a bit counter-intuitive, but the trick is not to use the glitch to its fullest (ACE is far too powerful for anything else than any%), but to control it and let it do something useful in a more conventional way. If you ban everything that can be used for ACE, there won't be much game for you left to play.
I'll be looking forward to seeing it. The only other use I could think of is an "encounter anything" script similar to the one I linked to above in the video, which I guess might be faster than repetitively doing the Trainer Fly/Mew Glitch to get Pokemon? Though again, that's still ACE (assuming you're using item underflow and there's not some hidden thing to CoolTrainer that also triggers odd encounters).
Then again I fell massively out of loop a few years back with Pokemon glitches - it astounded me to find out about the item underflow glitch + ACE, even further it astounded me that both are possible in real time.
What happens afterward though, is ACE, and doesn't necessarily need save corruption, it just makes it faster obviously as it's quicker to use save corruption than item underflow.
One can argue that the stuff that happens with item underflow isn't ACE, but CoolTrainer? No, that's definitely ACE. Executing arbitrary things in the RAM as "valid" code.
i.e.: Executing box names and their contents as code which translates to "warp to the Hall of Fame".
I can really only see two uses for these, and I think both of them break your rules for it...?
- to get an absurdly strong glitch Pokemon to powerhouse through everything
or
- to trigger something like this (fast-foward to about 13:10), a catch-anything program.
The ID of the text box displayed before the Trainer-Fly fight is stored and can be manipulated by various actions like talking to NPCs. If you set it to an ID which doesn't exist in the Trainer-Fly map, you can get the text pointer into ram. Texts have the awesome feature of inline assembler (byte 0x8) which lets the game execute everything after it. Hard to set up, but probably the fastest ACE in the game (without save corruption).
I remember when the Viridan City crash was posted, but what ACE potential does it actually have? Has anyone got it to do anything useful?
Neither of those force the PC (program counter) to jump to a location like the save data/party data/controller input that can be freely handled by the player; item underflow in particular doesn't move the PC at all. So they aren't arbitrary code execution.