Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
I would say the most important reason is that a significant number of games have versions on both systems that are supposedly identical and this makes them overlap a lot. "Modern PC" might be a good term to refer to both of them.
If such change is made, maybe the name of this page should be updated as well: https://tasvideos.org/GameResources/Windows
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
feos wrote:
[*]Must break some Wiki: MovieRules (otherwise it just gets published)
Does it mean there is still a line between movies that will be featured under the new class and the currently published ones under this category?
https://tasvideos.org/Movies-play
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Let's me answer that question again then. Including them or not does not create noticeable impacts on results as far as timing for ranking is concerned because they themselves do not depend on skill levels and there isn't anything else that depends on skill levels, if anything at all since we are talking about the inputs that lead to definitive ends, after them either. In other words, there aren't more contents that showcase different skill levels for the sake of competition at that point.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Because it can be done by anyone regardless of skill level. To clarify, by "results" I meant for the purposes of timing related to ranking. Sorry if that wasn't clear.
Well, what is the reason for the original question in your mind?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
feos wrote:
Imagine excluding the escape sequence from Super Metroid timing. Or even excluding beating Mother Brain. If you think why people don't do this, maybe you'll see better why holding 2 buttons to progress through the final cutscene is not a part of actual gameplay in most people's opinion.
I don't see how this contradicts what I said. In fact, I think we are talking about the same thing, that the inputs sometimes omitted from RTA timing are generally those that can be done by anyone without noticeable differences in results. My point is that, part of the rationale for excluding them could exactly be that including them or not does not make a notable difference in most cases since they can be done whenever anyone feels like it once the point where the timing ends is reached. The question becomes different when the inputs, however "trivial" they are, required to make the game (eventually) progress into a definitive ending state become impossible to be made.
I see "why holding 2 buttons to progress through the final cutscene is not a part of actual gameplay in most people's opinion", of course I do, but that doesn't mean I agree with this line of reasoning. Something should be considered trivial only when it can be done whenever by anyone, and that's not the case here. After all, the game is a program that pulls inputs, and if it doesn't get what it needs to get into an actual self-finishing state, it won't. It doesn't, nor it can, consider the concept a person calls triviality. Again, I don't think the game has been completed in the technical sense in this case for these reasons.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Serena wrote:
Does skipping a few dialog boxes not count as "in a trivial manner"? It can be done optimally with only 2 button presses, you can hardly call that important gameplay (or even gameplay at all)
The point here is it cannot be done in this case even if someone wants to. In those cases changing the ending point usually wouldn't have impacted how the run is done before the points in question in a noticeable way, and that can be part of the reason why "trivial" inputs are kept out of timing in the first place: it is a matter of whether someone wants to make those button presses to proceed the game to a definitive ending state after the end of timing in those cases. Here, the game softlocks and there is no way to progress to the point where those trivial yet required inputs can be made to make the game reaches an actual self-finishing state.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
feos wrote:
Isn't all that input does is skipping the dialogs?
As answered by some people with enough knowledge on the game, the game would not proceed into the next part of the sequence without making inputs in that scene, and that's why the currently published movie ends the input there. It is not just a stylistic choice to "skip" an otherwise self-progressing part of the game: these inputs are actually required to make the game proceed to an unambiguous end, as this ending point wouldn't actually progress the game to that state even in a normally played out ending sequence. Again, while games have different "ending points " for timing in RTA, in most of those cases the definitive ending screen can be reached in a trivial manner after the such points, but here it is stuck in a state before the final required inputs can even be made.
feos wrote:
Can you genuinely say the game has been beaten by the player?
On the basis that this softlock happens before either the final required inputs in an otherwise normal ending are made or the game modifies the save file like it normally does, I'm afraid my answer for this question is no. I do not think the game has been beaten in the technical sense in this case. "Not rolling the credit" would be an understatement and a strawman because it's much more than that. There are just too many factors counting against the legitimacy of this supposed completion.
However, as I mentioned in a previous post, I agree it can be a good reason to not do so in this movie just so that each category is more different from each other, and vice versa. As mentioned by others, if things are done to make the ending sequence complete properly, the movie would end up being around 30 minutes long, while a new no major skip(?) category movie would be around 35 minutes long. For the sake of having each branches more different from each other, I do see the benefit in letting this category stay this way.
Or, if NMS would become seemingly unable to stand by itself for reasons in the future, I think it can be a good idea to accept an any% movie that does reach a definitive ending asap as a replacement, if that ever happens. This is a question for another day, of course.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
feos wrote:
Here's a question that could help us solve this: Can you genuinely say the game has been beaten by the player? It's basically what any legitimacy discussion boils down to: whether or not you honestly believe the game has been beaten, or did it just stall in the middle of gameplay.
I think a bigger issue (other than the unlockables factor brought up earlier) in this case compared to the sequence getting stuck itself is that, it gets stuck at a point before it fully reaches a state that's self-finishing, as in no longer requiring user inputs to reach a definitive end. As we can see in the currently published movie of this game, it ends at a point after the interruption in this movie that makes the game unable to proceed.
Link to video
In other words, ending the input at the point where it is ended in this movie would actually not have been enough to lead to the "definitive" ending state.
IMO this is also an important factor that counts against the legitimacy of completion in this case because it a sense, it really stalls at a point before inputs that lead to the unambiguous ending can even be made. I would, relatively, more genuinely think the game has been beaten if the point the ending sequence gets stuck at is after those final necessary inputs in a non-glitched ending sequence have been made, to say the least.
Now, I have seen people bringing up the fact that different games have different ending point for timing for RTA. That is true, but in most of those cases, from what I have seen at least, it's just the matter of setting a point where the time is calculated for convenience. If the no more inputs are required or even pulled after the ending point in question, then the ranking would have been the same even if the point for calculation is moved to, say, the end of a credits sequence. If there are some inputs to be made after the point, in most cases it's just trivial button smashing and can be easily done without affecting anything before that point if the person wants to or if the rule of timing is changed. In other words, the differences in the ending points in most of those cases do not create notable differences in the way the runs are done, and, in most of the cases, the game is not stuck in a state that's no longer to reach a definitive end if someone wants it to. As such, "different games have different ending point for timing for RTA" is not really a relevant analogy to the discussion regarding the legitimacy of the completion of game in this case, IMO of course.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Radiant wrote:
However, quite a lot of games don't actually have save files. So is that really the best criterium?
I did mention this is concerning cases "for a game that is expected to modify it during the ending", the same way a discussion regarding credits or ending sequences in general does not apply to games that don't have them and doesn't need to take them into consideration.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Serena wrote:
Yes, there's a few dialog boxes you would normally have to skip. This is actually the part of the end sequence that breaks in this run.
Serena wrote:
I just checked to be sure, these are not unlocked by this ending
To summarize, this ending sequence is actually interrupted before it even reaches a completely self-finishing state, and the changes a normally played out ending would have done to the save file do not happen here, if I understand correctly?
In my opinion, visual interruption of an ending sequence can easily be excused if it’s in a state that really takes no further input and all unlockable features are unlocked as usual if there are any. In fact, I’m more willing to consider a game complete if it saves before an ending sequence with all flags set as intended even if it then crashes and the visuals of the ending sequence aren’t displayed at all than in a case like, well, this.
There was a discussion in the Discord server on this topic earlier, and I have seen claims that caring about unlockables is arbitrary. Well, what would be a less arbitrary factor instead? The fact that an ending sequence seems to be initiated? That is indeed the case, but we are having this discussion in the first place because it is visibly interrupted and doesn’t have the same effects, be it visual or not, as the intended ending sequence would have. What specifically makes the initiation of the sequence legit?
Radiant wrote:
If a run would play, say, three seconds of ending and then hardlock, that would arguably be cause for rejection. But this run shows several minutes of ending, and that should be more than sufficient to satisfy viewers that it's complete.
Several minutes indeed seems better than several seconds in this case, but where is the line actually drawn, especially when the interruption still happens before the bulk of the ending sequence happens, while not even reaching a point that would have normally been self-finishing?
I think the state of the save file, for a game that is expected to modify it during the ending, is one of the least arbitrary factors possible in the legitimacy of game completion when visual disruption of an ending sequence is already a given. Other factors, especially the ones like “a sequence of some sort does start playing regardless of an interruption that happens later and it is long enough”, tend to ultimately rely on “it seems this way” and “it feels this way”, which are inherently subjective and arbitrary to a great extent and not any more (or less) valid than a claim that this is not valid completion because the ending sequence is not seen in full. The state of the save file and unlockables, on the other hand, can be examined in a relatively objective manner by comparing values from something generated by the game itself with minimal human factors.
Of course, I’m not saying a criterion with the least human factors is automatically the best one. If enough people reach consensus on whether a sequence visually seem complete “enough”, it can be a good factor in decision making. This is simply to say the state of save file / unlockable contents is a very useful, if not one of the best, measure and should be an important factor in cases like this, and in this case, not unlocking those contents is a big factor against the legitimacy of the supposed game completion, at least in my opinion. This is not to say this should be a single decisive factor that makes this movie unacceptable, as there are plenty of other factors worth consideration, and speaking of that…
Serena wrote:
Additionally on the "only a few minutes" comment: in low%, which is unable to do the skip in question here, the RTA record loses 4 minutes making the detour to open impact zone.
If you do make a visit to the zone in question, how similar or different would the section of the movie be compared to the section in that zone from runs of other categories, be it low%, no major skip, or completionist? If the section would be identical to the counterpart in any of those, then it can be a good reason to not do so in this movie just so that each category is more different from each other, and vice versa.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
the game will fail to reach the credits after completion.
What happens instead, out of curiosity?
This is reminding me of this movie and this submission:
[2725] SNES Final Fantasy VI by keylie & KadMony in 3:11:39.46#6933: DaSmileKat's NES Extra Mario Bros. "bad ending" in 05:24.35
I think one easy way to resolve this is to consider whether the game unlocks anything after completion, the same criterion used for many other cases like this. If the ending is supposed to unlock stuff that this movie doesn't, then it is fair to say it fails to complete the game properly. On the other hand, if it does trigger what a normal ending would have triggered, or if the normal ending doesn't do anything beyond playing a sequence of visuals in the first place, this movie does seem to trigger an ending sequence of some sort and is fair to be considered completing the game.
Maybe "credits" shouldn't just be narrowly defined to be the part where literal texts involving developer names appear, you know?
Also, would a properly played-out ending have required any more input after the end of input in this movie?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Unfortunately, that all bosses WIP desynced at some point. Maybe I'll turn it into any% at some point.
https://tasvideos.org/UserFiles/Info/637777476010997839Link to video
In the mean time, I have decided to repurpose the old submission into a glitchless all bosses movie. This WIP continues from a certain point during the old WIP 9.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
Kirby's Avalanche and Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machin have the same number of stages as we see in the movies. I'm not sure if this counts as apparently identical gameplay.
Of course, this is on the basis of them being localizations of releases of the same base game. Puyo Puyo 2 shouldn't obsolete a localization of Puyo Puyo for sure, even if the core mechanism is identical. It's not like glitchless, gimmickless, plain old Tetrisgames are made to obsolete each other on the same platform.
Once again, I am setting this to accepted, so long as it obsoletes the current Kirby's Avalanche run. I would also like to apologize to the encoder who put forth the time to publish the recent K. A. run while a decision was being made on this submission.
Basically, a movie of the second entry in the series was made to obsolete a movie of the first one.
We don't do this anymore, right?
But then there is the question of whether the release of the first game on Genesis (localized as Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine) is similar enough to the SNES version for cross obsoletion, maybe.
[2252] Genesis Dr. Robotnik's Mean Bean Machine by Flip in 07:15.70
The movie uses an incorrect FPS setting, which causes highly distracting visual anomalities with this particular game. 50 seems to be the correct setting; this movie uses 60.
turska wrote:
NOT unrejected under the neo-TASVideos publication system, since the technical issues regarding the Hourglass settings are still sufficient for rejection.
I suppose this has more to do with technicalities than rules, but has anyone tried if it still syncs once the frame rate setting is adjusted?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Experienced player
(781)
Joined: 10/19/2013
Posts: 1116
duuuuude5 wrote:
It likely would save a bit of time in a regular Genocide TAS if we could do the glitch on versions with Japanese text. The original Genocide Punch Card TAS was only 90 seconds slower than Tommy's TAS that's published on the site, and it also misses some optimizations.
In that case I think it makes the most sense to have a Genocide movie done on v1.0 as the actual fastest completion for that category, since it would actually feature the fastest gameplay disregarding the texts. If it's different enough from the Japanese one, it might even be worth it to keep both. When that happens the uniqueness of this movie might become questionable, but that's something to worry about only when that happens.
