Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Since the choice of one ending criterion for Archon from many isn't clear (as MESHUGGAH stated), and almost no one had a problem with this choice of end (whether someone noticed or not), I'd say that "end of input" should be used by default in this case, since that is for the time given on this site. Archon isn't a game where "no input on final boss battle" applies anyway. Also, this doesn't apply to greatly glitched runs like Battletoads where the entire endgame is compromised (in other words, "end of input" applies).
I think that, if there is any conflict regarding the choice of ending as to which run or runs are faster, then "end of input" has priority and will be applied if the situation cannot be resolved in a satisfactory manner.
----
Anyway, my opinion on "end of input" vs. "true end".
Except in a handful of cases like Monopoly, I have generally disliked the idea of ending input early, which delays the defeat of the final boss, and in some cases, for a long time. I feel it is less like "Ah, he did a clever trick and got the boss to die without even touching the controller" and more like "Why doesn't he just finish the game already?" In that way it is like an excuse to stop playing before reaching the very end.
There are a few movies like that but the three that stand out are Rosenkreuzstilette "Spiritia", Seiken Densetsu 3, and a River City Ransom submission.
I don't have as much a problem with Monopoly since it doesn't fit the mold of the games described above, and relies on luck-manipulation of the whole sequence of CPU rolls after input, which is interesting in some cases.
In fact, I'm considering uncancelling one of my old Monopoly submissions. It is, after all, nearly 3 seconds faster than the published run, by "end of input" of course ;) . jlun2 wanted me to uncancel it, so now might be a good time.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Hm... it seems to be rather short. Then again, there are short Moon movies such as King's Bounty. The response is welcome for this game, so I think Moon is good.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
My concern is that, if there are multiple valid points at which input can be ended, and if it is not clarified in advance which method of ending input must be used for that particular game, then arguments over which movie is faster may occur in the future.
The "improvement" criterion ("there are improvements other than end of input") is not always easy to use since it is possible in some cases for both sides to claim improvements over the other! In other words, the so-called improvements are linked to the choice of end of input.
As an example, let's say there is an RPG. Person A makes TAS A for which the final boss is beaten and the input is ended at 3:00:00 (3 hours). Person A chooses not to obtain an item at around the 1:30:00 mark which takes too long to get even though it saves a little time in a couple areas around the 2:00:00 mark.
Person B makes TAS B for the same game, which ends input at 2:59:00, but this is right at the beginning of the final boss battle for which the boss is defeated at 3:01:00. How is this possible? Person B obtains the item above at the 1:30:00 mark, saves a little time in the couple areas around the 2:00:00 mark, and uses this item at the beginning of the boss battle (the usage is the last input). The item enables the player to defeat the final boss without any input, but it takes a lot longer than just beating it conventionally.
Person A claims that TAS A is faster by "final boss beaten". He also claims improvements over TAS B by not taking the item, since it does not pay off.
Person B claims that TAS B is faster by "end of input". He also claims improvements over TAS A by using the item to save time in a couple places.
If both TASes are submitted at the same time, which one wins? If TAS A is already published and TAS B is submitted, does it obsolete TAS A? If TAS B is already published and TAS A is submitted, does it obsolete TAS B?
Fortunately I don't think such a situation has appeared yet (not one which is extremely controversial anyway), and I'm not saying that this submission definitely falls into that category. But in general it would be nice to know more about which parts have been improved independent of the choice of ending, and which are dependent on the choice of ending, especially since luck-manipulation is involved. If that is undesirable, then at least we can claim that the run is faster by virtue of showing a smaller time on this site than the previous run, which is of course because of the end of input.
By the way, Nahoc is judging the run, not me.
I'll voice more details on my opinion of the choice of ending ("end of input" vs. "true end") later.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I would consider the frame where it says "THE GAME IS ENDED" as the true game end. So it is not necessary to bring up the credits with start if it automatically goes to the credits.
However, there is a difference between the end of input and the game end:
This submission: Input end on frame 4027, game end on frame 4786.
Previous submission: Input end on frame 4531, game end on frame 4563.
With this criterion of game end, this submission is slower by 223 frames, even though in terms of input end, this submission is faster by 504 frames.
I'd like to know which other games brought up that situation. I heard that Super Mario Bros. was one of them (which explains why TASers were talking about "axe touch").
adelikat wrote:
You want to reject solely based on the decision of how to end the movie?
Provided that there is no conflict whether such and such movie is faster than another because of this choice of end (for example, if the TAS is the first of its game, or if it is a significant improvement having nothing to do with the choice of end), there is no problem and such movies would not be judged based on choice of end (although it is possible for choice of end to affect entertainment, but if so, that should only an issue for selecting its tier).
However, if such choice of ends causes a conflict, then at least for now the situation is unclear. Remember that the rules say "A speed-oriented movie must beat all existing records". The record obviously refers to fastest completion, but what exactly does "fastest completion" mean?
If "fastest completion" means "fastest to input end", then this movie beats the previous, and it would be accepted and most likely obsolete the other movie.
On the other hand, if "fastest completion" means "fastest to true game end", then this movie fails to beat the previous and so would be rejected.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Before watching this movie and the previous one, I thought this would be an easy accept. However, the decision is now more difficult because, even though this movie is 5 seconds shorter in input, it ends input early and the game is considered ended 5 seconds later than the other.
This reminds me of a few other movies (though nothing particularly controversial, since they were either the first for its game, or it used major improvements). I was surprised to figure out that none of the published Monopoly movies have really had this problem, though I believe that the current published Monopoly movie is optimal in neither sense, whether by shortest input, or by game end.
My initial opinion is to reject the run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
ais523 wrote:
Surely you can just end input before the cutscene plays?
I mean the cutscene/speech prior to entering the Atrus book. Though the endings are very different anyway (for the good ending, the game ends when you give the page to Atrus; for the bad ending, when you enter the book).
There are no ending credits in this game.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I'm not entirely sure anymore if the bad ending for this game (using Atrus's book without the missing page) is faster, since it appears that cutscenes cannot be skipped in the DS version, and that the cutscene is longer without the missing page.
I still have in mind a few scenarios for games in general though:
- Three minutes into a game, the player presses the cop out button and the game ends. Clearly bad ending. (This is the Metal Max bad ending submission)
- The player plays all the way to the final boss. Before fighting the boss, the player makes the choice to switch to the dark side, and the game ends. Clearly bad ending.
- The player makes a few different choices during gameplay which affect the ending. Choice A gives the good ending, choice B gives the bad ending. The player chooses choice B. No gameplay is lost as a result of this choice.
We can argue that the first two above do not complete the game. The third case may take a while to clear up though. Note that at least one submission in the past has been obsoleted because it used a bad ending and the one that obsoleted it used a good ending even though it was slower.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
jlun2 wrote:
Hi, I got a question. Why is there 2 versions of Jungle book in the vault side by side, yet Kirby's Avalanche is obsoleted by a similar yet different game? If two ports could exist side by side, why not Kirby's Avalanche?
The NES and Genesis versions of Jungle Book hardly play the same. I wouldn't even call them ports.
On the other hand, Kirby's Avalanche and Super Puyo Puyo 2 are closer to each other than ports. They are regional versions. Their core gameplay is the same.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I'm going to throw in a no for Moon vote. The gameplay is a bit too simple and repetitive. I still find it interesting as an Atari 2600 game.
I know I said that I found it to be no worse than Donkey Kong (a Star movie) a page back, but what I said doesn't mean this movie should be put in Star tier, or Moon tier for that matter.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
This game has very little open information. I can't even find links to try to justify its notability.
At the very least, this game needs a real homepage. None exists.
It also sounds like the versions are not finalized and there is some confusion between them.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I've heard opinions that unlicensed games should be allowed. That includes this game, pirate games, PC games, and some joke games. Some unlicensed games are works of art with well-deserved TASes (see Cave Story). Even if not, most of them (excluding joke games, of course) are honest games for which not a trivial amount of TAS work is required.
However, I would like to draw the line at notability. I don't think we want a person to create a Game Maker game in 2 hours and TAS it (probably with little effort), then claim that it should be published in vault.
Please keep in mind that this game is well-notable, so I don't really see a problem with that.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I'd be willing to accept this. However, I'd like some discussion regarding multiple endings in general (good, bad, whatever).
One of the bad endings involves using Atrus's book but without the missing page. I assume this is faster.
The question I wonder is: Under what conditions should bad endings not be allowed (for publication under vault)? Should bad endings not be allowed for any reason? Or is there a reason why a bad ending could be allowed under some circumstances?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
This game is very weird.
It looks OK, I guess. I'm pretty sure going through the gates is not the primary goal, so that explains the inconsistency.
By the way, on the Front Page, it says "NES Toobin' (any) by in 07:29.84", since the author nickname field is blank. Maybe it should use the author real name field if the nickname field is blank.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I'll let Lollorcaust (or anyone else) work on the improvement.
Here's the 20-second TAS I was referring to:
http://tasvideos.org/userfiles/info/2491746511994026
Up until the final boss, my TAS is slower by 1 second, but saves 6 seconds at the final boss. The improvement is as follows:
- First, shoot one of the center blocks.
- Then, go to the left and shoot the three blocks on the two columns at the very left.
- Now, shoot the blue moving barrier at the leftmost column and immediately for the next shot shoot the blue moving barrier at the second left column; since the dents in the blue barrier move, the second shot will hit the dent made by the first one and create a hole allowing a well-timed shot to pass through completely.
- Finally, return to the center and shoot all the center blocks and then shoot the alien through the moving hole; there is just enough time to do so.
The center block is a bit strange. Shooting just right of center clears a block of width 2 along the center, whereas shooting just left of center doesn't clear any blocks, but by shooting it enough (about 8 times or so), you can form dents and holes in the blue barrier even without clearing any blocks. The blue moving barrier also treats the center as width two. It seems like a programming bug to me.
The bird-like enemies in the third and fourth areas have confusing movements, so if anyone wants to figure out how they work, then good.
Finally, please don't let the player die to the final boss's shots at the end. Just use the shield if you have to. Also, it is probably a good idea to stop the encode a bit after when the game returns to the first area (maybe a second after) so it is clear that the final boss is actually defeated.
----
Edit: The center block bug seems to be an emulator bug, since this Youtube video indicates that the bug should not occur during gameplay.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
I think that the "final boss" could have been done faster. Also, are there any other different levels, or is it just those exact same levels over and over?
I like A2600 shooters though, so if someone does Demon Attack, that would be great.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
adelikat wrote:
The filter will still exist, so AVGN will still work, but you won't see the icon displayed any where.
Just to be clear since the message is confusing (it was for me).
Only the icons beside the movies listed under Latest Publications and The Vault on the Front Page have been removed. No icons of any kind have been removed from the publication entries themselves.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Just pointing out that this game is a homebrew, not a hack.
The Vault rules do not specifically forbid homebrew or unlicensed games, only hacks. It even says that unlicensed games are allowed, so make of that what you will.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
Current rules do not allow TASes of board games to go into vault.
This submission was accepted before I cancelled it. I think things are different now though, and if I uncancel it, I don't think judging will come to the same conclusion.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
For 2, I would just use induction and the recursion property:
● C0=1, Cn+1=Sum(i=0 to n)CiCn-i
We can write (for k>0):
● C2k=2*Sum(i=0 to k-1)CiC2k-1-i
● C2k-1=Ck-12+2*Sum(i=0 to k-2)CiC2k-2-i
So C2k is always even and C2k-1 has the same parity as Ck-1.
The statement is true for n=0 since C0=1 and 20-1=0. Suppose the statement holds for all n<m where m>0. If m is even, then Cm is even by above, and m cannot be written as 2j-1. Otherwise, m is odd. Let k be such that m=2k-1. Then the following statements are equivalent:
● Cm=C2k-1 is odd
● Ck-1 is odd.
● k-1=2j-1
● m=2k-1=2(k-1)+1=2(2j-1)+1=2j+1-1
so Cm is odd if and only if m is of the form 2i-1. Therefore the statement holds for n=m. This completes the induction.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Skilled player
(1941)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3247
A couple problems involving Catalan numbers. Let Cn denote the nth Catalan number.
1) Find all k≥0 for which Ck divides Ck+1.
2) Prove that Ck is odd if and only if k=2j-1 for some integer j≥0.
