SMB PAL is not a port, so this has nothing to do with whether originals are (or are not) preferred over ports.
Tell that to Nach, who insists it is one.
Ok, I will.
The more important part of the argument is that for different versions, ports, builds, or whatever you want to call them: if you want it to be published as a new branch, then you need to make the case that the gameplay is substantially different.
Precedent indicates that new content, like extra levels or enemy types unique to one version, is a substantial difference, whereas a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not; if the difference is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the game, then it's probably not substantial enough. Now I get that you're not happy with this precedent, but that doesn't change the fact that it is precedent.
See, there's a difference between a port and a version (version includes region change), so it's not just what you want to call it, it is what it is, there is a meaningful difference on TASVideos.org between the two. Aside from that, I've already argued my points on the matter.
I would vote yes on the entertainment factor, and also yes on the technical display factor, but even then I don't know if this is publishable under site guidelines. On the surface, it appears to be at least considerable (it's different enough from other runs on the site) but it may end up proving not for some bizarre reason and it may be too arbitrary.
I don't know. I like it, I was entertained by it, but as to if it should be published I have zero clue how the judges will rule on this anymore.
I can understand where Spike is coming from though. It's a new account, getting input about a recent thing that happened, with speech that is moreso informal. It definitely at least seems potential troll. That it is not is nice to know, but I can certainly understand where Spike is coming from.
Reformatted. I hope that makes things clearer for you, Feos.
I also fixed the tables, though I had to completely redo them to do so. I did not change any of the data and if there is a data point that is different from the judgment text please let me know because accuracy to the judgment text is very important.
I hope that makes the post clearer, and if not, please point out further ways in which I can do so.
Which is why I re-propose using the fastest version regardless of what version it is or what region it is (once you take into account that which TASVideos.org already excludes - title screen, language change, and cutscenes). If the fastest version is not acceptable for some reason, it's on the site to show why that version is not good enough, not on the submitters to show why their version is good enough.
Enough with region-specific rules. Pick whatever version you want, regardless of region (preference on North America in cases where fastest is identical across multiple regions), as long as that version is an acceptable version (i.e. it's not a version that current rules for TASVideos.org would reject outright regardless of region).
"Use the fastest version available as an official release. In the event that multiple versions are identical, after discounting changes due to region (title screen length, language change), preference is for North American versions, but this is not required."
I understand preference for "original" and stuff, but in reality, we're getting more and more mixed with actual speedruns, and yet our hard stance on versions has been one of the main detractors. We had a recent rejection of a TAS which is faster in every way because it is done on an "inferior version" than the current TAS. That is ludicrous, and needs to change.
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
Hi Habreno,
For me, what made it unreadable was sheer volume. I stop by TASVideos in the morning before work, or for briefly before I go to bed. Lack of time kept me from being able to read what you wrote. I don't discourage long posts, but a quick TLDR section at the bottom of the post really helps people like me who are short on time.
Unfortunately due to the sheer size of the post and everything it encompasses a TL;DR would not cover enough and would add several paragraphs on to the post. I did consider a TL;DR and was trying to write one for a good half hour after I'd finished but everything I tried ended up being several paragraphs. If you break it up over a few days, outside the tables (as I mentioned above and I'm looking at fixing them, just need to figure out how) the entire post should be able to be read. If even breaking it up it is unreadable for reasons other than length/volume, please let me know so I can format it better.
EDIT: The more I look at the first half (regarding the judgement text as in the OP) the more I see cases where things just don't turn out despite quoting the OP to copy them directly. I'm not sure why this is, and I'll have to see if there's any way to format this part better, though any reformatting will need to be done to keep things as close to the judgement text as possible to avoid any misconstructions of intent.
I started reading Habreno's megapost to give it due consideration and reply where needed, but after a few paragraphs I officially refuse. It is completely unreadable, with all sorts of tag quotes, manual quotes, huge quotes, tiny quotes, parentheses, double parentheses (seriously?), and when it all gets twisted together and overlaps in a single freaking paragraph, I protest against this post despite of all the things that it might have gotten right or wrong (I'll never know).
The tables as copied from the judgement text did not come out correctly and I need to fix this, yes. What other parts of the post aside from that were unreadable?
It's not possible to summarize it, there are far too many things mentioned to even consider doing so.
I may, however, fix the tables Nach used in his judgement text in the morning, since they do not appear to have come out properly. But it's 03:42 right now and after working on that since 19:00 or so yesterday I am tired.
Before we even get into this, let's get things straight. You, Nach, an administrator for the site, are seriously attacking people for disagreeing with you, and yet expect to still be considered a fair judge? There is absolutely no need for that (especially considering I, despite my disagreements, was very civil and objective in debating the judgement and not anything related to you as a person. Thanks for showing the same respect back jerk) and honestly, if you hadn't been so damn determined to insult me, I wouldn't be coming after this judgement as much as I am. This post probably would not have been created. But you insist on being right, and you leave me no choice.
Here we go. Let's start from the top of the judgement issued. Regardless of if it was part of the factors that led to the judgement or not, it was part of the judgement rendered and therefore needs to be considered (I have always been of the opinion that anything in the judgement text is relevant to the judgement and if you wish to say something that is not relevant to the judgement it should be made as a post in the thread, but this is apparently not how Nach operates, thus the need for this paragraph).
Judgment Text wrote:
In terms of PAL games in general, different platforms, different companies, and different games all exhibit varying levels of quality. Obviously if a PAL game is the original then it can be easily considered the main version of a game. For some platforms, there are also no difference game-wise if something is running in NTSC or PAL mode. However, for platforms designed to be timed and framed into old television sets, there are important differences between the two modes.
Once there is a difference between the two, games designed for NTSC which are not modified for PAL generally exhibit some very weird behavior. As one example, I've seen fighting games where the key combos to execute various moves barely work when playing in PAL mode, the timing is altered enough that the game doesn't recognize the key presses the same way. As many PAL ports are like this in some fashion, it's ample reason to reject them, Just play the original which works normally.
This is not a theory, but a valid fact (for older consoles, including the NES), that PAL is a different framerate than NTSC. While games not modified for PAL do exhibit odd behavior, SMB is not one of them. Furthermore, modifying the game for PAL NES does not make it a port as you seem to insist- the NES is the NES, even if the framerate differs; it's not like the NES was only released in NTSC regions and those with the PAL standard got the SEN instead. Despite region differences, the NES is the NES, and while regions may be differentiated in the rules of TASVideos.org, nowhere does it mention that consoles are as well. Even if you presume the rules intended for regions are also applicable to consoles, that is firstly not stated, and secondly, cannot truly be considered and applied given that the judgement rendered is also relying on the specificities of the rules to arrive at a rejection, and thus using the specificities of the rules against it is a completely valid option.
The only thing I can find on the judging rules and movie rules is regarding ensuring that you are using the correct settings regarding PAL or NTSC and obsoleting runs done with the wrong settings will result in a movie time adjustment for the movie aiming to be obsolete.
Movie Rules wrote:
The region settings must be correct
If you are running an NTSC game ((U) or (J)), you must set your emulator to record in NTSC mode. Likewise, if you are running a PAL game ((E)), you must record your movie in PAL mode. Any other setting will get your movie promptly rejected. Note that such settings are enabled automatically in most emulators, but it's better to check before you start recording.
If you are obsoleting a movie that was recorded with the wrong settings, that movie's completion time will be adjusted to account for the fact that PAL games run at 50 Hz and NTSC at 60 Hz.
This rule only comes into effect on older console games that have badly programmed region lock-out.
((from http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#RegionSettingsMustBeCorrect - while it is not relevant to the submission, it is the only thing I can find on the rules regarding differences between PAL and NTSC consoles, and specifically console and not game. If there is a rule specific to consoles regarding region differences that I am not seeing, please link me it in your reply.))
Regarding SMB, the game is modified appropriately (in most cases, MrWint's post demonstrates an exception) such that an autorejection is not applicable. Furthermore, the company which released the game was the same company that released the game for the NTSC regions, and, as stated below in the judgement, is a company which takes great care in ensuring that all regions it releases the game for end up having the gameplay be comparable with each other, despite framerate differences.
Judgment Text wrote:
When we look at PAL ports, we must understand that these games are adaptions or variants of the original.
You once again insist on calling it a port despite still being for the NES. As far as the rest of this paragraph, it is explanation of how past cases where a game has been different yet the same (not necessarially ports, since some are and some aren't) have been considered on TASVideos- relevant, but nothing in here needs to be addressed. Just note this paragraph addresses all types of differences with versions and games.
Judgment Text wrote:
If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original (and this could make sense to occur in games that are not meant for old television sets). If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original. The answer to that hinges on do the engine differences necessitate very different ways to play the game, and do those differences register with the audience at large. In most cases, PAL runs should be rejected, but based on the various aforementioned criteria, there are cases where PAL runs will definitely be accepted. <p>Nintendo unlike other companies has always aimed to do a decent job porting NTSC games to PAL. Nintendo is often one of the only companies where you will see the PAL game having various timings corrected to ensure that the game-play closely matches that of the NTSC version. Nintendo is often one of the only companies that adjusts the resolution of the displayed game to match the different resolution PAL televisions are capable of. Nintendo often also does some localization, converting currency, weight, and measurements to be those used locally. The attention to detail by Nintendo in PAL porting started with early NES games, and improved as Nintendo ported more and more and with newer platforms.
Aside from once again calling PAL a port (I'll stop pointing this out from now on, but this error is basically all throughout the judgement), the judgement actually starts to get into NES vs PAL on a practical level. And regarding the statement about a "somewhat different engine" (as is the case with SMB) (("If a PAL port offers a somewhat different engine, the question becomes whether it deserves to be added to the list of accepted variants alongside the original.")) the answer here should be an emphathetic "Yes", based on the quality of the adaptation. To follow on the next sentence you state, the engine differences do not necessitate very different ways to play the game (they aim to make the gameplay as identical as possible regardless of region) and the differences in the engine, made with that goal in mind, are extremely difficult to notice. Comparing the general movement of NTSC to PAL via the comparison encode created (credit to Feos, originally posted on Page 4 of 12) you notice very few differences. Note that this compares the TAS submitted by HappyLee vs the TAS already on TASVideos.org and does not compare the TAS submitted by MrWint. ( https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YBRHMF8sHiU for reference)
However the kicker here is actually in the first sentence. "If a PAL port offered the exact same engine/quality as the original, it could make sense to have it obsolete the original [...]" (emphasis added). Nintendo, as a game company, has always aimed to offer the exact same quality across all regions of the game it releases. I would argue they succeed, and your sentiments (based on the second paragraph here) seem to mirror mine. In regards to "engine/quality" the / is indicative of "or", thus the sentence reads "engine or quality" and while the engine may not be the same, the quality is (by your own sentiments), thus qualifying this run to obsolete NTSC based on the judgement text given (unless you, a site administrator, are not actually in line with site rules in your judgement text. But that would be embarassing to be pointed out to be wrong by a mere member, so you won't admit this).
Judgment Text wrote:
For its time in history and in comparison to a bunch of other early NES PAL games, Super Mario Bros. PAL is actually a relatively decent port (although maintains several noticeable differences from the NTSC original in terms of movement and other factors). Since the game is non-original but a decent port (relatively during its debut), it definitely qualifies for consideration as to whether it should be published alongside the original as another game variant.
This game happens to also be a game I'm quite familiar with. I played many of its variants on NES (since the 80s!), SNES, and Gameboy Color. I also dabbled in its programming and made various hacks on NES and SNES versions. In my opinion, I find this game qualifies for having many branches made of it. I can also see the SNES variant qualifies for certain branches as an acceptable TAS to show off a run without as many glitches being possible, and the Gameboy Color variant for some of its challenges that earlier versions do not offer. The question of course is, is there value in this PAL variant that we have lacking from all our other variants and branches thereof?
I've got rather little to say on this pair of paragraphs. Aside from disagreeing on the "several noticeable differences", it acknowledges that the PAL version is a quality version and could be published alongside the NTSC run. The second paragraph addresses the various versions and ports of SMB and then questions if the PAL version (already stated to have been a quality version that can be published) has unique value against the whole slew of versions and ports of the game, thus drawing into doubt what has already been stated (that the PAL version could be published). Odd uncertainty visible here.
Judgment Text wrote:
The first thing I want to shoot down is the idea that SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. There are quite a few parts of the game that are non-playable. These include score countdown, castle animations, pipe transitions, 1-2, 2-2, 4-2, and 7-2 initial cut screens, level banners, vine climbing, and Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle. When comparing across versions we need to take all this into account and figure out actual game-play time. NES SMB processes the non-playable segments of the games in multiples of 21 frames and 18 frames for NTSC and PAL respectively. Nintendo altered the number from 21 to 18 because 21/60 and 18/50 is 0.35 and 0.36, which should provide a close gaming experience on the port. In actuality, using more precise numbers, NTSC has frames which are ~0.0166 seconds long, and PAL ~0.0199 seconds. This means the non-playable parts are processed in multiples of ~0.3494 seconds and ~0.3599 seconds. Since these non-playable segments run on boundaries that are multiples of these, it means that the NTSC version allows slightly more time to get in activity before the game will round upwards. Conversely, if you just went a bit over a multiple, the PAL version will proceed to the next multiple sooner.
We'll get to the actual comparisons next, but the initial statement is factually wrong. If you look at the submission times, the PAL TAS is, in fact, faster than the NTSC TAS. A possible rewording that would be at least possibly correct is that SMB PAL is slower when evaluating the gameplay segments alone. However, even this rewording ultimately ends up being incorrect when the numbers are properly evaluated. Furthermore, it is possible to sacrifice gameplay time to shorten the nongameplay time, and end with the same real time, due to the frame rule in SMB. Therefore, any gameplay time comparisons are ultimately subject to the fact that despite everything, you may end up with the "same" frame rule in the end, making gameplay vs nongameplay irrelevant in some cases.
Next, we have the comments about what non-playable parts are included, and included in this list is "Bowser drowning to our princess is in another castle" which is after the end of input and thus isn't included in TASVideos.org timing at all. I would expect an administrator of the site, including one that has stated he is "quite familiar with" to realize when the timing of the TAS would end for a game. And yet this error was made. While errors like this one may not be deemed relevant by the judge to the decision ultimately rendered, they certainly show that the judgement is made by someone whose expertise is questionable at times (including this one, especially as this is not the only error in this judgement text), and for said judge to be an administrator of the site certainly does not paint things in a better light for Nach.
As also discussed here, the alterations made for the game's transition to PAL framerates included modifying the frame rule. NTSC's frame rule is 21 frames and the game runs at 60 frames per second (roughly), or 0.35 second chunks (technically slightly less, but for some slight simplicity here we'll round to two decimal places), and the most you would wait is 20 frames (0.33 seconds) (assuming if you meet the frame rule exactly you move on "instantly"). PAL's frame rule is 18 frames and the game runs at 50 frames per second, or 0.36 second chunks, and the most you would wait is 17 frames (0.34 seconds). Therefore, to correct the final few sentences, PAL actually gets slightly more time per frame rule to sneak into the frame rule (0.36 seconds vs 0.35 seconds), while NTSC is actually faster to the next frame rule if you go barely over (0.33 seconds vs 0.34 seconds), and not the other way around, as is stated in the judgement text. Even if my presumption that you move on instantly if you meet the frame rule exactly is wrong, the second corrected statemet still holds true (0.35 seconds vs 0.36 seconds). Yet another error by Nach.
Judgment Text wrote:
In order to get a better handle on this, I went to time the actual playable segments between the fastest NTSC and this PAL run (note, there may be rounding errors, and it's possible I was a frame off either way for some calculations):
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly))
Based on this NTSC is slower by ~2.169 seconds (about 130 frames in NTSC).
Let us compare this table vs the one by MrWint (albeit comparing MrWint's PAL TAS vs the NTSC TAS, but given that his TAS matches the submission by HappyLee in real time identically, the fact that the two are different and that his is potentially "faster" should end up being irrelevant).
Given the difference is a half second, I have my doubts as to the accuracy of the table given in the judgement text, and even if you discount rounding errors and errors by a frame, a half second is far too large a difference in this case. However, since I don't have an accurate table for HappyLee's TAS and that is the one that was compared in the judgement I cannot say where the errors were (I have no way to calculate these myself since I do not own either ROM personally). Furthermore, given the relative ease with which MrWint was able to describe when the player has control of Mario and the fact that, from this thread alone, I do not see Nach asking anywhere how to make a proper comparison, leads me to believe that there was very little care put into the comparison, which makes sense if you consider that, to Nach, it was an afterthought since "it's not relevant". Except it is, even if Nach does not believe so.
Judgment Text wrote:
However, there is a flaw with this logic. These runs aim for overall fastest real time, and thereby performs some actions which are slightly slower in the playable segments in order to abuse how the non-playable part is played as well as avoid 3 or 6 castle fireworks animations. However, the NTSC run goes significantly out of its way in 8-2 to abuse this trade off, by ~2.379 seconds in my calculation. If the run would discount non-playable segments to achieve the fastest possible any-variant time, we'd instead be looking at:
Area | NTSC | PAL | diff
| time | time | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
8-2 | 22.4865 | 23.383 | 0.8965
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum | 193.541 | 193.751 | 0.21
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly))
In this case, the NTSC version is faster by 0.21 seconds (about a dozen frames)!
NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included in 1-1, because unlike other levels, going through that here is a decision that can be avoided. In that case the 1-1 times become:
Area | NTSC | PAL | diff
| time | time | -PAL +NTSC
----------+---------+---------+----------
1-1 | 18.1655 | 18.433 | 0.2675
----------+---------+---------+----------
Sum | 199.476 | 200.101 | 0.634
((EDIT: Table reformatted to show properly))
Gaining the NTSC run an additional 0.415 seconds (about 25 frames). All in all, PAL being necessarily faster in terms of game-play is doubtful.
As I initially mentioned in my post on Page 9 of 12 (responded to by Nach on Page 10 of 12), the first paragraph here ignores the fact that PAL also contains gameplay/nongameplay tradeoffs to avoid the firework animations as well. Once again, another error, this time extremely significant and relevant, which was dismissed by Nach as:
Nach wrote:
The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC.
- which only further questions why all these comparisons are part of the judgement text if they don't matter (as I stated near the beginning here)?
MrWint provided a corrected table for 8-2, here.
Not only do proper numbers make things closer, it actually keeps things favoring PAL, unlike in the incorrect information where NTSC pulls ahead here. And once again, these numbers can easily be accurately obtained as posted by MrWint yet Nach did not ask in this thread how to do so. Nor was it asked how to in the SMB thread on the forums, either (at least not since April, which is much before this TAS was submitted, and likely not at any point in 2017). So once again, a lack of effort in parts that Nach believed were not relevant.
Only when you get to the 1-1 splits could you possibly start to consider NTSC ahead, but a glance across the SMB thread indicates even that may not be the case. So the whole point about NTSC being faster in gameplay than PAL is extremely questionable, if not completely incorrect, and a slew of false numbers in the jugdement text support the skewed view of Nach. Proper numbers don't make the argument Nach does, though - PAL is faster than NTSC in both real time and quite likely as well in gameplay time (I say quite likely because analysis is still ongoing in the SMB thread)
So in all of this text, we have evaluated the judgement text that, according to Nach, was not relevant, and yet with the very next sentence stated is indicated to be relevant. And the text above is, while partially accurate, inaccurate and wrong, especially in the most important parts (the gameplay time). Yet despite being not relevant it is part of the judgement text. Once again, it's either relevant and part of the text or not relevant and should not be part of the text. And if you're going to reference it in text that is actually your judgement text then it certainly is relevant, and should be error free, or have minor grammatical errors at worst. And as has been shown and proven, the text is not error free, and the errors that do exist are far more than minor grammatical errors- it can be argued that the significance of these errors alone should call for a rejudgement of the TAS, but since this is our final post, we will go much further than this.
Judgment Text wrote:
Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this? I decided to ask other judges for their opinions for the different possibilities, raised a few counterpoints with them, then assessed how they changed their opinion. I will not list their names because I should be the sole person receiving any fallout for the judgment on this run. What follows is how I characterize the opinions they conveyed to me.
Before I mentioned (counter)points:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
A | Absurd | Yes! | No
B | Absurd | Yes | Maybe
C | Yes | No Way! | Maybe
D | Absurd | Yes! | No
------------------------------------------
After:
Judge | Obsolete | New Variant | Reject
------+----------+-------------+----------
B | Absurd | No Way! | Yes!
C | Maybe | No Way! | Yes
D | Absurd | Maybe | Yes
E | Absurd | No | Yes!
------------------------------------------
((EDIT: Tables reformatted to show properly))
(One judge was unique in each group)
Let me requote that first statement. "Armed with all the aforementioned information, how do we look at this?" This statement being made about information that was not relevant to the judgement that was made. If that alone does not scream contradiction, I have no clue how to show you any clearer.
What are the counterpoints presented? This is never stated. If we assume that it was the above information, not only do we now get to show that Nach is wrong, but that Nach has actively lied in regards to the judgement text made - you cannot claim something is not relevant if it is the counterpoints you yourself use in discussion with other judges to formulate a ruling on the judgement! If we assume that the above information was not the counterarguments presented, then we have the issue of secrecy. And given the errors in the information above, we have secrecy plus information that is already under a cloud of doubt, coming from someone who has attacked members of the site and is under scrutiny for his or her errors in judgement text, being crucial to the ultimate judgement rendered, for a submission that is very prominent for TASVideos.org. Either way you slice this, there are monstrous questions present here and nothing said by Nach will ever clear things fully in this regard - and this is entirely unacceptable.
Judgment Text wrote:
When I initially saw this run, knowing the differences right off the bat between variants and our aims, it seemed clear to me that obsoletion was lunacy. However my knee-jerk reaction was that I love this run, the engine is a bit different, let's just accept this as another variant. However, those are not good reasons to accept something, we have rules.
Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.
After assessing everything yesterday for one last time, I was conflicted on what to do. After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other. In conclusion, while some PAL games are acceptable, and other branches for SMB PAL may be acceptable, this TAS does not seem to be acceptable with what we know right now and how we handle these sorts of things. Rejecting.
The first statement made here is also not language I would expect of an unbiased judge. Declaring a major, valid, consideration "lunacy" is utterly absurd. Especially when, as has been shown above (and I will delve further into this later), it is a valid version for obsoletion of NTSC. The rest of this set of paragraphs goes into the final thoughts that led to the rejection of the run. "After sleeping on it, seeing no new convincing posts one way or the other, and considering the different factors listed above further, one side in my mind now slightly outweighs the other." A 'slight' difference, backed with inaccurate information acquired hastily without true accuracy that was, quite possibly unintentionally, used to mislead other judges into the ruling given, is what rejects this run. And yet this site is supposed to support accuracy, encouraging the use of proper, accurate ROMs and emulators to obsolete older TASes done without proper, accurate ROMs and emulators ( see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#PlayGamesThatAreEmulatedWell and http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ).
Finally, regarding the decision tree posted, I've already evaluated that in a post on Page 10, and it was replied to. This post is already long and I have only started to delve into things, so I will not repeat my analysis of the decision tree here.
Now for your last response to me.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Furthermore, the concept of "original version" and "non-original version" is not on TASVideos.org in any form until you mentioned it here.
You must be having a really hard time. "Original" appears 4 times on this TASVideos.org page: http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html which happens to be the Judging handbook.
I'm sure next you'll be arguing that the judging guidelines don't actually refer to how to judge these games.
http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#ManagingGameVersionsPortsOnMultiplePlatforms
I had missed that "original version" is mentioned in the judging guidelines since it is not mentioned with regard to region (only platform), but "non-original" is still not mentioned (though one could argue anything not original is non original) and what is original is not clearly defined when it comes to regions, only with regards to platforms. One could possibly argue that SMB PAL is not original based on the release dates of the game (late 1985 for J/U, early/mid 1987 for PAL) but given the NES was not released for PAL until late 1986 or even 1987, it is uncertain if, had the NES been released earlier in those regions, the release date would have been the same. Furthermore, given that the game is for the NES, the game was released for the original console and SMB PAL is therefore an original release since it was released for the original console. In short, unless it can be proven completely that the PAL NES is different enough from other regions (which Warp expressed this concern, though I have yet to see any proof of it. Framerate changes and fixing the DPCM glitch is not enough to completely split the consoles.) then being released for the original console should be sufficient enough to be considered the original version. Especially without version numbers to show some versions otherwise are not (as with some modern games, where there are re-releases that fix glitches and such and these versions are differentiable by looking at the actual game package (be it a cartridge or disc)).
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
SMB PAL is an acceptable version (and if it's not, that's on you, the judge, to show why, against all of the reasons presented in the thread)
You mean the reasons presented in the thread against it on the first pages, which quoted the Movie Rules regarding NTSC vs PAL? Many in the thread didn't consider it acceptable at all till MrWint's analysis. Also I presented my own analysis in my judging comments. Based on your comment here, it appears you're not even aware of what I wrote.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#NtscVsPalUsaJapanVsEurope
Based on the Movie Rules, which allow for the use of PAL if "there are significant technical and/or entertainment merits to using this version". And as others have stated in the thread, these merits exist. Firstly, being faster is a significant entertainment merit, especially for SMB PAL, a TAS that has seen one frame of improvement since 2009 (quoting others from the thread). Secondly, the technical merits from being adapted to PAL do not detract as they usually would due to Nintendo's efforts at adapting the game to PAL standards. There is clear merit to use of PAL in line with TASVideos.org rules, and while it may not be enough on a close decision or scrutiny, there is certainly enough that the factor of obsoletion or not should not be "lunacy" and should be examined further than a casual passing glance.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
given it is on the original console (NES) it is effectively an "original version".
This fails common sense. It's not the original version and you know it.
"Original console = original version" fails common sense?!?! At least debate me with some facts.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
The onus is on you to show that there are actual differences besides the framerate which makes PAL NES a different console entirely
Why should I attempt to prove a ridiculous claim that I never made that bears little relevance?
If you wish to show that SMB PAL is not an original version, this is part of it. If you don't care if it's an original version or not, you don't have to, but then you have to show why. Which involves showing why, even if you accept SMB PAL is original, it is still not a good version, and if you do not accept it, why it is not deserving of comparison to what you deem the original. The former is not possible to do because it is a good version - you've admitted this yourself - and the latter would require showing why the same game, when moved to a different region, becomes a different enough game that it cannot be compared to another region, despite being the same game. So I ask: What is SMB PAL, then, and why is it what you consider it?
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
A direct comparison is very easy - you compare from start of input to end of input, with each set of inputs at its proper framerate, and then time them. And in this comparison, PAL is ahead, because it finishes its inputs first in realtime. The framerate changes are not hard to deal with, there is zero reason this should have even been brought up.
I bring them up because the rules do:
Keep in mind that time gained solely through basic ROM differences will be discounted for the purpose of comparison. This includes:
differences in title screen, cutscenes, and menus (unless menus are the game's main control interface).
Being that these are our rules, it is rather obvious how some of them apply to this case. (Although as I mentioned both in judgment and again in my decision tree, some of it is not clear cut.)
You bolded cutscenes, yet you fail to consider what the gameplay time does to the cutscenes. Say each of two regions has a ten second cutscene, not including the time it takes (during this cutscene) for the player to walk across the screen (which takes five seconds normally). Region A has no way to manipulate this. Region B could execute a glitch, which costs two seconds of gameplay time, but it speeds up the walking by three seconds. Which region is faster (let's assume, for simplicity's sake, this is the only difference between the two)? Answer before moving on- I'll have the answer in the paragraph after this one.
A proper comparison would be to include the differences caused by the gameplay in the cutscenes. You claim that the cutscenes differ in time, however, ignore the fact that this is due to differences in each game's gameplay time (which, as addressed above, even your comparisons on this are questionable at utter best) and the fact that SMB features a frame rule which causes such non-gameplay cutscenes to only progress at specific frame points. In short, since the gameplay time affects the cutscene time inversely (longer gameplay can cause shorter cutscenes) it is unfair to discount cutscene length when comparing versions as they are affected directly by the gameplay itself, and therefore should be included when comparing the gameplay. Regardless of how you slice this, though, PAL still beats NTSC overall, and under whatever comparisons you wish to include. Using correct information, of course.
Now, the answer: Region A, because of two seconds less gameplay time, even though it's slower in real time by one second. If you answered this, congradulations on holding out to an extremely authoritarian view of the rules. Let me further show you the rules exactly and be just as pedantic as you are about how the rules are explictly stated. You get your treat with the next quote. If you answered that Region B is faster by one second of real time and that the cutscene length must be included because of the glitch, then congradulations on getting this question right. You just showed that all of the analysis in your judgement text was not relevant because PAL beats NTSC in real time and the cutscenes inside the TAS are affected by the gameplay itself and therefore can't truly be discounted when doing a region comparison.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL.
Rules don't exist in a vacuum. Extrapolating from similar cases to decide how to handle cases where there are no existing laws is common practice. I'm sorry, you're having a difficult time with this. If these rules apply to cases where only the language changes, all the more so in cases where the changes are much larger.
If you answered the first answer, then here's your treat. The rules might not exist in a vacuum, but your pedantic insistance on treating them in an authoritarian manner here goes against you, because the rules explicitly state that comparisons between NTSC-U and NTSC-J are subject to the comparisons of text and such, and that because none of the rule includes PAL, explicitly stating NTSC-U and NTSC-J it does not apply to PAL.
If you answered the latter, let me actually address your point. Title screen may be a very small difference if any exists at all. I haven't calculated, because it's possibly a hundreth of a second or so if it exists at all. Language change is zero. And cutscenes were addressed above. So all of the rules you want to apply are either changes of zero, very nearly zero, or inapplicable due to the interaction between gameplay and non-gameplay times- and even if you do include the gameplay only, it is still questionable at best if NTSC is ahead of PAL.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Where in the TASVideos.org rules does it state that when comparing versions from different regions you need to factor in framerate changes?
How about you tell me where the rules state that this should NOT be factored in? Since it's up in the air, I find any direct comparison to be flawed.
I'm not the judge here. It's not my job to know the rules, it's yours (and given some of what's been said above, that knowledge you have is certainly not entirely correct). Show me where it says they need to be factored in.
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
"Conclusion: I don't have the slightest idea."
Then why are you even rendering a judgement if you don't know?
Why are you getting hung up on a point which didn't in the end have any bearing on the outcome?
Your whole argument here would only be valid if I accepted it as a new branch, then you could argue that it was supposed to obsolete it.
This (and several previous quotes, I won't quote them all here) fail to address various facets where the decision tree fails its fact checks despite them being "meaningless comparisons", to quote Nach. Except they aren't because as part of the actual judgement text you have counterarguments made which likely included parts of the judgement text which were not stated to be relevant, which was this part of the decision tree that is "meaningless comparisons". You can't have it both ways and have it be relevant and not. Plus, once again, you fail to adress my points and attack me as a person. And you wonder why I've been calling you out on this so hard?
Nach wrote:
Habreno wrote:
In regards to obsoletion, I believe the decision against doing so was reached extremely hastily without considering the rules of TASVideos.org as they stand now. The decision posted covers a fair bit of what is described as "extraneous content not related to the decision made" and this "extraneous content" is furthermore inaccurate and also does not conform to site rules. The decision against a new branch (assuming we are not considering obsoletion) is likely the soundest part of the judgement given yet even this has its flaws due to various factors, including partially the hasty decisions made prior.
You're welcome to make your own opinions and characterize others and their actions as you see fit. We're going to have to disagree.
Except disagreeing is not based on opinion, but facts being pointed out to you that are in most cases ignoring. Must be good to be an admin and not have anyone above you to demote you so you don't have to worry about your actions.
Now let's get to Feos's posts. I don't have a lot to quote from these since most of it has been stated, but what I do is rather relevant.
Feos wrote:
If we can't change the rules and the minds of the judges, we need to convince the audience that they weren't quite right. If we can't convince the audience, we are either wrong ourselves, or haven't came up with compelling arguments.
Part of convincing the audience involves having your facts straight and not being wrong. When your judgement text is (compared to most) riddled with errors and inaccuracies, convincing an audience that was clearly in favor of the judgement you did not choose becomes a much harder task, and you get people, like myself, which will point out the errors and inaccuracies and call for a rejudgement of the TAS. The sheer quantity of errors in the judgement text (relevancy does not matter since it is part of the whole text) certainly throws into doubt the correctness of the judgement - which leads towards the calls for rejudgement. That it has only come from one person or that it comes from many should not matter. If there is sufficient reason to revisit the judgement, it should be revisited.
Feos wrote:
Or we also can try to tweak everything: the rules, the judges' opinions, the audience's opinions, making one huge compromise. I know it works, we've done that before with little to no complaints on the result.
My analysis done here is irrespective of changing the rules (which is a different topic and I will not address here), but any move towards compromise certainly does not lend this judgement to lasting. So the judgement is not only under scrutiny from my end, but is also under potential scrutiny from a revisit due to rules changes (and you can certainly bet any rule change made is with this submission in mind and this submission, under potential rule changes, would be revisited). The house is crumbling, Nach. You can die inside it or not, it's up to you.
Feos wrote:
But the thing is, the verdict should have considered all these factors to begin with.
And it did not. And as a judge, by not considering the factors Feos included, you failed as a judge. You went against the audience with shaky reasons and questionable logic and parts of your judgement including wording such as "lunacy". And now you get to endure the wrath you brought upon yourself by being disrespectful to those questioning the judgement instead of actually debating them. You may be a judge, and you may be an administrator, but, frankly, you're an egotistic asshole, too. And if you ban me over that, that will only further prove that you have no ability to defend this judgement with logic and that this site as a whole is in need of serious change at the top. YOU attacked me first and I remained respectful up to this post, and even in here I have been respectful in the majority of what I said.
Feos wrote:
It's clear to everybody that this run has enough entertainment merits. See how the rule doesn't require both. And again, the technical aspect of that game that allows this one glitch there is the main part that makes it so entertaining to everyone. It is very minor. Yet it in reality turns out as an incredibly powerful and exceptional thing, I explained why. Not only because the game is fully known and suddenly the run is different. But mostly because it is still shorter in real time. That's the part that generates all the madness here, and it is as clear as the entertainment value of this run.
Quoted for emphasis. Judge rules don't require both, only one, and this run certainly has it and multiple people have said it. Not just myself and Feos, but many other people in this thread.
A quote from Chanoyu's post that was replied to by Nach:
Nach wrote:
Chanoyu wrote:
Therefore I think that the judge guidelines, as the OoT example shows, provide opportunity to at least soften the "lunacy" of obsoleting a "perfectly valid original".
I think you're attempting to compare apples and limousines.
No, comparing regions and versions for OOT and comparing regions for SMB is not apples to limousines. It's a very relevant one.
MrWint's post (which I have quoted the tables from above, this is regarding other aspects of the post) and Nach's reply:
MrWint wrote:
There are more things that are not recognized that would favor PAL. The suspicious time gain of NTSC in 8-3 is caused by the fact that doing the flag pole glitch costs (playable) time, and NTSC doesn't do one in 8-3, so these would be another couple frames gained by PAL in this calculation.
My main point though is that the PAL version is faster than the NTSC version, not only on technicalities, even when only considering the actual gameplay. The individual level times show that PAL is consistently a tiny bit faster. And the only reason it is even that close overall is because of the water section in 8-4, PAL is significantly slower while walking or swimming (they used a factor of 7/6 instead of 6/5). The ruling misrepresents the facts by how they display the data.
Firstly, it's nice to see numbers from someone who is able to create proper data. Interesting to note the slight error in 8-4's water section which makes things as close as they are- would be interesting to know the difference had they used 6/5 instead of 7/6. But regardless (let's ignore the hypothetical question since it's truly irrelevant, the game uses 7/6 and not 6/5), perhaps since you mentioned unrecognized differences these should be clarified?
MrWint wrote:
This doesn't invalidate the reasoning in the ruling, according to the helpful decision tree the same path still applies. So why is this relevant at all then? The reason it is relevant, the reason it was probably included in the ruling to begin with, is that it makes the decision much less defensible.
When you can show that PAL is only faster based on a technicality, it is easier to discount it as a port that doesn't reach the glory of the true original. It demonstably convinced other judges into changing their opinion. However, if that isn't actually true, you're not left with much to justify the decision.
I strongly believe this to be the case. If it is, Nach certainly won't admit it. God forbid.
MrWint wrote:
I can understand why people are upset about this decision. The way it looks like to me is that you have a submission on a different version of the game than the currently published one. It is faster than the currently published run no matter how you slice it, and also well-liked. It has been rejected because it is apparently too different to allow obsoletion, but simultaneously too similar to warrant its own category (source: decision tree). This is a middle ground I don't think should exist, at least not for a high-profile game like SMB.
It's a middle ground that should not exist at all, regardless of the game's notoriety or fame.
MrWint wrote:
And the decision relies heavily on the "original" vs. "non-original" distinction, which I don't understand at all. Whether or not something was on the market first has no relevance by itself. Actual possibly valid reasons are usually only results of this fact, like when the original was significantly more popular than later versions, or when later versions were poorly made compared to the original. It'd be great to get some elaboration on this point. The way it stands now it sounds like a handwavy way to justify a biased opinion about PAL games being intrinsically inferior due to being "not the original". The way Nach describes it as "Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" suggests that not much thought went into why that would be the case. Being the original doesn't make it better by itself.
I am glad I am not the only one that sees this.
Nach wrote:
None of the other judges had seen any numbers I came up with prior to me posting the judgement. The numbers didn't have anything to do with how they were convinced either. Nor were numbers even relevant to any point any judge thought of except for one of them. This was also already mentioned in this thread.
So now we know that the counterpoints which you posed to the judges that caused several opinions to differ is not even something you felt was relevant to disclose to us, seeing as it's not what you posted prior to the "Judgement" portion of the judgement and it's not part of the judgement itself (because there's absolutely nothing in there that could possibly make a counterpoint -
Judgment Text wrote:
Thinking about how this run actually differs from the NTSC when viewing, it's not by much. More than that, there's nothing that really necessitates a difference. Just because one run decided to randomly jump at some point does not make it different from a run which does not. It has to be different as a branch in a significant manner, not just how it was played back in a particular run or mere moments of it. The new glitch, while new, does not look so different going through the wall than going through the wall otherwise. Also, I'm not convinced every run of this PAL branch would require this glitch being abused. So looking at changes across the run, they seem minor, and 4/5 judges I spoke to are now in favor of rejecting.
- these two paragraphs are the only possible part that could possibly include a counterpoint and it's not in here at all) this mysterious counterpoint which is not in the judgement text despite being extremely relevant as it caused two judges to change their opinion and affected the others as well, coming from a person who has invalid data and wrong facts and is incorrect in the rules of TASVideos.org. You can understand my extreme skepticisim here.
Nach wrote:
Instead of attacking me claiming not much thought went into the decision (which I spent over a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges), or my opinion of PAL which I laid out in the judge notes which is contrary to your conclusion regarding my opinion, why not consider that you yourself may be a bit biased because of the game or the effort you put into it.
And yet you attack others all the time (no, I won't bother to quote every single one starting from your first response to me, you can look it up yourself) but cry foul when you get attacked. And yet you're an admin for the site. Shouldn't it be on you to be professional instead of attacking people and then crying foul when you get attacked? I have a strong feeling your butt would not be handed to you on a silver platter as often if you had more respect for people. But that's just my opinion.
To respond with some facts, if you spent a month weighing and obtaining positions from the other judges, perhaps part of that time would have been better spent doing fact-checking and getting all of your data straight. Relevant or not, having wrong information in your judgement comments does not shine a positive light on the judgement itself. Furthermore, MrWint's bias should not be a factor here - MrWint is not juding this TAS. You, on the other hand, Nach, are. Your bias is extremely relevant for that reason.
Nach wrote:
adelikat provided an argument for why it does, see some of my earlier posts. Also, whether it's better or not isn't really grounds whether it should obsolete another. I think Super Mario All-Stars is better, should it obsolete everything?
And if we abstract from the time-saver tricks and just take gameplay alone that's faster, that's where we need to clarify our rules. The reason to pick a PAL ROM version over NTSC should be superiority only IMO. Even if the two versions are similar in their quality, switching to PAL whenever it's faster feels like it reduces the challenge that has been traditional there and gives cheap time advantages. A similar thing happened to startup RAM state: we don't want to give this cheap method to everyone until we have a solid reason to. The solid reason being certain console possibility.
This points towards rules that need to change (not the topic for this thread, but making that note). Rules that, once they change, will likely result in the rejudgement of this TAS eventually.
Feos wrote:
Similarly, we should only switch to PAL if it's justified, makes sense, and in my earlier post I suggested these to check superiority: better media, gameplay, difficulty, challenge, glitches, routes. Some of these, or just one, but hugely superior. The decision to switch over should be a consensus between the viewers and the judges (and the author I guess?).
Superiority here hasn't been proven, the PAL version is just shorter by its nature, and not the biggest part of the crowd wants obsoletion, and the judges disagree with it, so there is no consensus here.
And yet being shorter by its nature (in elements that matter) is completely accurate and valid and should be enough reason. It's not a different game, and it's not shorter in ways TASVideos.org rules ignore when doing comparisons.
From MrWint's final post:
MrWint wrote:
I can only go on what you wrote though, and my comments reflect the impression it had on me (and possibly other people). When you write a long paragraph about debunking that PAL is faster then NTSC, and then present a "before" and "after" judge voting, the obvious conclusion is that you used the material you presented in previous paragraphs in your discussions.
While I'm still not convinced this wasn't part of what you used with your counterarguments (and nothing you can say will ever change that, you have lost my trust as far as that goes), I'll at least entertain that your counterarguments you presented to the judges was not based on the data given (which, by the way, we still have no idea of).
MrWint wrote:
You're also not innocent in this, though. I didn't gather this data yesterday, I have a spreadsheet with more detailed frame comparisons (also for the non-playable parts) which I created when investigating the feasibility of this run. Just because I didn't write about it doesn't mean nobody paid any attention. I just didn't think it was relevant to the conversation until you brought it up in the verdict, with numbers that didn't match mine. I still don't think it's a fair way to time the versions, but I think we're on the same page there.
I doubt you two are, but regardless. MrWint is completely correct in that if you wanted to put such data in your judgement text (relevant or not) you had ample time to figure out how to make this data right. And you screwed it up. Badly. You can see where this draws doubt into your arguments, Nach.
MrWint wrote:
Regarding the original vs. non-original discussion, I admit I didn't read all posts in the thread in detail. I did however read all your responses (except the small-print you clearly don't want me to read), and you pointed to the Judging Guidelines, and gave an example of how acceleration changes difficulty in some sections. The difficulty argument is frankly debatable, you are assuming intention where none may exist. Just because you experienced the difficulty in NTSC a certain way, doesn't mean they specifically designed each jump to have a certain difficulty. Of course a certain progression was clearly intended, but not everything that's different is automatically "non-original". If I wanted to play devil's advocate here, I could claim that the PAL version is the true original, and they just didn't get it right the first time with the NTSC version, so they tweaked it intentionally for PAL.
My point is not that this is unknowable (you could ask someone who worked on it), my point is it should be irrelevant, they are no more than differences, not making one version intriniscally better. You don't want to go out of your way tracking down what the actual developer intentions were for each section of each game to judge a submission for how true it is to the original intentions, and you can't assume just because it came out first that this must be the intention (if that were the case, no 1.1 versions would exist), so you can only see them as what they are, differences without any preference. If the differences are large enough, a new category might be warranted, and if they are not, obsoletion might be warranted. That is why I think the originality argument based on "indisputable authenticity" (source: Judge Guidelines) is flawed and not actually that indisputable.
Just pointing this out to show I'm not the only one who is debating the use of "original".
Warp's last post, posted shortly before I was about to submit this:
Warp wrote:
Swordless Link wrote:
This is a speedrun. The version that saves the most time should be published.
It's a speedrun of a different game. As in, the games are not identical. The difference in speed is not because one run is more optimized than the other, but because one is using a different game, with functional differences, than the other. Personally I find it a bit silly to argue "this TAS is faster than that other TAS, therefore it should obsolete the latter", when the TASes aren't even running the same game binary.
Because they are not bit-by-bit the same game, if both deserve publication, they should be published side-by-side.
There are many cases where games that were not bit-by-bit identical obsoleted each other. No, I won't find these, they're rather numerous. Region and/or version change can be responsible for changes in the exact sequence of bits that makes up the game, such that the published run is being obsoleted by a different run. As an example given above, OOT has changed from a 1.2 version to a 1.0 version to a different region of 1.0. All of these include changes to the game binary and yet obsoleted each other. So clearly the argument that ROMs that are not bit-by-bit identical should not obsolete each other is not supported by precedent and is also not supported by site rules (no such requirement exists). Furthermore, one can show that changes to the game binary are recommended in cases where the original run was not done with a proper ROM, as in the case of ROM errors (such as overdumped ROMs) (see http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#ObsoletingAPublishedMovie ). http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#UseTheCorrectVersion would not need to exist if we relied on the game binary being identical, as well.
In short, the game does not need to be bit-by-bit identical for obsoletion on TASVideos.org. Precedent and site rules both prove this.
No, I will not be providing a TL;DR (EDIT: Tried to, many times. Ended up being several paragraphs and too wordy). I put over eight hours into crafting this post just in this sitting, and over eighteen hours total into research and thinking about this one post. I don't expect you to put eighteen hours in to reading it. If you take anything away from this, take the fact that someone's put a lot of time into a set of points that are likely to be ignored by a site admin that is adamant about being wrong and insulting those who question him and think hard about how this site runs if one of its admins acts like this.
And if Nach bans me, then it only lends more credence to my points.
EDIT: Formatting (9/9/17)
"Having a non-original game replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, [...]" is not something an unbiased judge should be saying.
Let me finish including these developments. I worked two 11 hour days this weekend, so my apologies on not having a reply sooner.
But even with the current rules, I highly doubt that anyone is going to reject, for example, a Twilight Princess TAS using the nearly identical PAL version to save a few seconds with the German language.
Interesting you bring this up since the TP TAS is, in fact, being done in German. Though this was likely intentional. To bring up a more interesting point, by TASVideos standards, USA 1.0 is actually the fastest version of Skyward Sword, though JP is faster RTA, since the text speed is that much different.
That said, my vote now goes to Yes, and Obsolete NTSC. It's not a port, it's SMB. That it has different glitches due to being adapted to PAL standards rather than NTSC standards is what makes it faster. Not text speed. Not "bad porting" - ESPECIALLY since it's not a port at all. Different, and better, glitches. And regarding the rule about using NTSC over other versions, it should be changed to:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
Quoting my own post from the SMB PAL submission thread (Page 5 of 11, if you're inclined to look it up) and I won't be cutting anything out to show the whole quote. But the last statement made here is important, and what I wish to focus on:
"Use the fastest version of the game available as an official release. In the event that, excluding any potential text speed (from language change) differences, multiple versions are identical, NTSC is preferred but not required. Note that time gained or lost due to text speed (from language change) alone is not considered when comparing versions unless the majority of the run is text based and should not be factored in when choosing the 'fastest version' of a game."
You might adapt this to include stuff like title screen differences, but this is one simple rule that covers NTSC-U, NTSC-J, and PAL (and any other version or region you want) and makes it clear that differences from changing version that matter (text speed and title screen changes being excluded here) are present and fine. Is "fastest" potentially confusing? Possibly, though it shouldn't really be - what reaches the credits/end screen faster?
As to what is the "same game" that is a decision the publishers (not TASVideos.org publishers, but the actual physical game publishers) make or made when they release(d) the game. What do they call it? As an example, you have The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. There are several versions, all with the same name, across two consoles. For GameCube, you have the game in three regions, USA, PAL, and JPN (and yes, there are some glitch differences between USA/PAL and JPN), and the Wii has USA 1.0, PAL 1.0, JPN 1.0, USA 1.2, PAL 1.2, JPN 1.2 and a KOR release of unknown version (USA 1.0 and PAL/JPN 1.0 have a glitch difference, and the differences between 1.0 and 1.2 are several as well). ALL of them, all ten of those versions, are the same game: The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess, despite the sometimes significant differences between each. There's ALSO The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess HD, released for the Wii U, with three versions of its own (USA, PAL, JPN) - but since this is not the same name, it is considered a different game despite being extremely similar (and yes, there are glitch differences between the "SD" releases and the HD remake) and these three versions are all the same game in comparison to each other, despite their differences.
In short, we really don't have to decide what is the same game or not in 99.99% of cases, since the publishers of the game already made that decision for us. Regions can differ and yet still be only different versions of the same game.
At least I am aiming to look at this objectively without attacking you as a person- anything stated in regards to what you have done regarding judging is in relation to things that you have already posted and statements you have already made. I edited out many a comment where I was harsh on you as a person because that's not what is relevant- who you are as a person has nothing to do with the judgement you have made.
Glad to know you are showing the same respect back. /s
EDIT: I will reply properly in the morning, after I have slept and had time to formulate a proper response. Even though I know you will not change anything, this is the hill I will die on.
So what is the purpose of all the time calculations then, if they aren't a factor?
You quoted it yourself:
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
I addressed various subjects people were discussing in the thread in some way, be it rule change, be it speed, be it entertainment, be it how this relates to other games, even though in the end, the judgment had nothing to do with any of those factors.
Let's call this thoroughness.Habreno wrote:
What is the reason for rejection and what argument lies behind it?
Again you quoted it:
Habreno wrote:
Nach wrote:
But in any case, the run was rejected for too much similarity with the original version's warp branch.
Which was the concluding section labeled: "Judgment". Anything in prior sections is just my views on the various subjects raised in this thread and to what extent it influenced my views (or didn't).
Alyosha wrote:
Nach wrote:
I also raised questions that it's hard to estimate some of it due to a variety of factors.
You did? Where?
In my conclusions regarding the run:
Nach wrote:
If the run would discount non-playable segments
Nach wrote:
NTSC improves further if we decide that the mid-level non-playable segments must be included
Alyosha wrote:
Given Hebrano and HappyLee's statements, the timing analysis seems incomplete and certainly not conclusive (and may even be incorrect.) If it doesn't factor into the judgement, I think it's better to remove it.
Good thing the timing analysis was under the section labeled NTSC vs. PAL in practice -> This game in particular and not under Judgment.
So it's rejected for being too similar to an already-existing category yet it was barely considered by any of the judges to have it obsolete the already existing category? Before you say "we voted against obsoletion" what is the reason for voting against it? Let me just assume that the decision tree you posted is roughly accurate for your logic here.
"Having a non-original replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me, and would not possibly be what typical players would expect. 3 other judges thought exactly the same from the get go, and one other suggested the same later. One judge liked the option, but was somewhat moved off it when I pointed out that comparing a modified variant to its original has issues."
SMB PAL is not a port, it is a different version, and versions obsolete each other all the time. Furthermore, the concept of "original version" and "non-original version" is not on TASVideos.org in any form until you mentioned it here. SMB PAL is an acceptable version (and if it's not, that's on you, the judge, to show why, against all of the reasons presented in the thread), and given it is on the original console (NES) it is effectively an "original version". Therefore, the entire point about a "non-original replac[ing] a perfectly valid original" is invalid. If you disagree, then further explain why SMB PAL, a ROM for the NES, is not a valid version of SMB, despite being on the original console. And no, saying that it's a different framerate and therefore a different console is not enough since that logic does not hold water on its own (I'm not saying PAL NES is identical to NTSC NES, I'm aware that it runs a different framerate. The onus is on you to show that there are actual differences besides the framerate which makes PAL NES a different console entirely, since framerate alone is not enough to justify this opinion).
"I further found any direct comparison hard because how do we compare framerate changes? What about all the engine differences, which goes far beyond what we normally have to worry about when we go across versions. Comparison becomes much less fair and less straight forward when in-game changes are considerable."
A direct comparison is very easy - you compare from start of input to end of input, with each set of inputs at its proper framerate, and then time them. And in this comparison, PAL is ahead, because it finishes its inputs first in realtime. The framerate changes are not hard to deal with, there is zero reason this should have even been brought up. Engine differences can be slightly harder to figure out, but one can examine MrWint's dissassembly of the SMB PAL ROM to understand it further. However, I don't believe that's necessary because of MrWint's informative post on Page 6 (this is on Page 10) where he goes over a fair bit of things.
Assuming we accept the fact that this should be considered to obsolete (I will go over the other side shortly), we then encounter this quote:
"Any assertion 'SMB PAL is definitely faster' is in doubt. How do we account for framerate differences? What about changes to momentum, jumping distance, enemy hitboxes? What do we do with changes to non-playable segments? What do we even include and exclude in the non-playable segments? Times are cloes enough as is that without definite answers to the above, any comparison would be flawed."
The only assertion that needs to be made is that, from start of inputs to end of inputs, SMB PAL is faster than SMB NTSC. This is a certain fact - you can look at the timings yourself. Now, firstly: Where in the TASVideos.org rules does it state that when comparing versions from different regions you need to factor in framerate changes? Please link me this, because I'm certain it does not exist (the only rules regarding framerate changes are obsoleting a run done with the wrong settings in the first place where a PAL run was done with NTSC settings, which is not the case here). Secondly, the only rules about comparing playable and non playable content is with regards to NTSC-U and NTSC-J. None of it is in regards to PAL. See http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#NtscVsPalUsaJapanVsEurope and the section right above regarding NTSC-U and NTSC-J http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html#JVsU . IF you presume that the second link is also applicable to changes between NTSC-U or NTSC-J and PAL, then that rule change would need to take effect before using it in this scenario, since as the site stands now it does not state this.
Moving on from that part, the next sentence, regarding momentum/jump distance/hitboxes/etc. is completely frivolous because those factors are entirely irrelevant by this point in the decision tree. These factors need to be addressed back at the "Given other variants, is this game even enough quality to consider as a valid TAS" - and even if you address them there, I'm still nearly certain that it would not change the consideration of SMB PAL to warrant a reject for poor version. Especially given it's still SMB for the NES. Regardless, I will also be assuming you wish to consider these here, just to cover the bases. Let me post a quote from the link above, regarding NTSC-U or NTSC-J vs PAL: "Console versions of PAL games run at a lower framerate than NTSC games, running at ~50Hz compared to NTSC's ~60Hz, and the games themselves are often not modified or poorly modified to accommodate to the change in timing." SMB PAL is actually an exception here in that Nintendo modified the game appropriately to create as close an experience as possible and as such this quote does not truly apply here. You can look over MrWint's post and analysis of the SMB PAL ROM to understand further here, but ultimately these considerations cannot be considered for timing changes because, as version differences due to region change involving PAL, they are not subject to timing analysis per site rules as mentioned above.
Finally, as yet another point, even with your flawed timings and a "suboptimal" TAS, the difference was less than one second (I believe you stated 0.625 seconds, though I don't remember specifically) with you bending things as much as you possibly could in NTSC's favor (regardless of the fact that these comparisons are, according to your own statements, irrelevant, and according to site rules, irrelevant). If we had been using MrWint's TAS instead of HappyLee's TAS (which are identical in RTA because of frame rules) we could possibly have a TAS that, even with as much skew as you throw towards NTSC, still beats NTSC in this meaningless comparison. And yet a TAS of identical time length would prove questionable in this comparison, which only further shows that comparing gameplay content and non-gameplay content as a whole is of questionable consideration when gameplay content can affect non-gameplay content- the only true consideration here should be to consider the gameplay content and non-gameplay content together in cases where the real time of a section is identical (perhaps due to a frame rule) even with a variation in the gameplay content and non-gameplay content frame counts. Note that this does not exclude things like title screen length changes since that is entirely non-gameplay content, nor does it exclude timing changes due to text differences, since those are explicitly addressed by site rules (which happen to not be applicable in this scenario, but text differences are also not applicable in this scenario either, so it's a wash in the end). In summary, the consideration of gameplay and non-gameplay timings being separate is of questionable logic when, as in the case of SMB, a frame rule means there can be more or less gameplay frames and an inverse amount of non-gameplay frames but the real time is identical, so even if these timing comparisons were applicable under site rules...
"Conclusion: I don't have the slightest idea."
Then why are you even rendering a judgement if you don't know? I would certainly hope that if you had even considered obsoletion this would have been more fleshed out. A judge stating that they "don't have the slightest idea" certainly gives pause.
Now, let us consider non-obsoletion but separate publication, as much as I disagree with this consideration.
"As much as I would like to think this TAS was different enough, it wasn't. 3 judges I spoke with from the get go thought it was different enough, 1 did not. I then asked them how did it differ from existing and would they consider these level of differences sufficient enough to allow other NTSC vs PAL cases? At that point 2 of the judges said the differences were not large enough, and 1 other judge who was not asked prior also said it was not enough. 4/5 for reject."
Firstly, judges being asked are ambiguous. Based on the 4 of 5 for reject posted at the end I am going to assume that the two judges that said the differences were not large enough were both judges that had previously stated they felt it was, though this point is unclear. The the thing to consider here is that you request differences, which is completely correct and should be done, and request how these level of differences would impact further NTSC vs PAL cases. While it is fine to ask both questions, they should be considered in sequence and in isolation. The submission at hand should always be the first consideration, with how the submission sets a precedent being a second consideration. Since we do not know how these judges would have reacted given this order, let us assume, for example, that the judges could not point out enough significant differences explicitly and for this reason changed their mind. I can presume that you would have thus stated that the judges could not explicitly find enough differences and the whole point of precedent would not have been reached. Given this point was reached, it is a possibility to assume that the differences were able to be found and only when considering precedent were minds changed, which is likely because the questions were not posed in the correct order or were posed simultaneously, which is an error in polling. If we pose the questions appropriately, it could thus be argued that the issue of precedent clouds the view of the submission, which puts the submission under undue considerations sooner than it should have been. Since we have no way of knowing, the ambiguity of this entire part, and that there are issues with the judgement in other areas as well as the logic used (applicable or not to the end decision), this part is extremely questionable, and that is without taking into account the final point below.
Finally, one can argue bias and viewpoint as it was previously stated that "having a non-original replace a perfectly valid original seemed lunacy to me" which is extremely indicative of a very biased viewpoint, and there is no way to verify with certainty that the questions posed to the other judges were phrased in a way to eliminate this bias.
In short, there is enough uncertainty and ambiguity and potential bias that the polling of the judges is extremely questionable and without knowing what was asked for certain it cannot be ascertained that this section of the decision tree is valid. Furthermore, there is nothing that can be said by the judge of this run that would be able to change at least my opinion regarding this facet of the decision tree. While this part of the question may be of less fact and more analysis it at least presents enough to which draw in further questions, plus it is also a part of the tree that ultimately should fall under less consideration as it is underneath an option which bears less merit than it was originally given. That all stated, if we actually assume that this part is reached, there is enough here to given pause to rejudging, despite the various issues presented, though it is certainly a part of the decision tree which has a foggy picture.
To finish and summarize:
In regards to obsoletion, I believe the decision against doing so was reached extremely hastily without considering the rules of TASVideos.org as they stand now. The decision posted covers a fair bit of what is described as "extraneous content not related to the decision made" and this "extraneous content" is furthermore inaccurate and also does not conform to site rules. The decision against a new branch (assuming we are not considering obsoletion) is likely the soundest part of the judgement given yet even this has its flaws due to various factors, including partially the hasty decisions made prior. If we actually consider the rules of TASVideos.org the only true contention is if this is to obsolete NTSC or reject because of suboptimality (after which we would likely then have to go through the entire process again with MrWint's TAS which likely would not have the option to reject for suboptimality, despite both HappyLee's and MrWint's TASes being of identical real time length due to frame rules). If it is somehow properly justified that this cannot obsolete NTSC under the site rules as they are now, then there is consideration for both a seperate publication and rejection for being too similar, and only if the argument against obsoletion is entirely sound could the decision of rejection truly be considered.
So here's the issue I have with the judgement- it's 100% invalid. You discuss how NTSC makes differences to optimize nongameplay time but yet you ignore that PAL also did the exact same thing and did not adjust its framecount appropriately. If you watch the encode from 3:05 on (where 8-2 starts) you will note that at 3:12 he hits a spring, because he's wasting frames for the xx2 ending instead of the xx3 ending.
Requesting rejudgement based on this glaring error in calculations.
The time consideration only matters if it were to obsolete NTSC. As I wrote in the judgment, I find that position from the outset to be lunacy, and most of the judges agreed it's absurd.
I also mentioned that the times I posted may be slightly off, and you're welcome to perform your own comparisons. I also raised questions that it's hard to estimate some of it due to a variety of factors. But it doesn't matter, the reason for rejection had nothing to do with time.
Also for your beloved time which I disagree with, you'd need to show more than 0.625 seconds were wasted there to argue that PAL was definitely faster.Warp wrote:
While I appreciate the work put in the judgment text into the technical details of analyzing the speed differences in individual levels of the game between NTSC vs. PAL, I don't really understand why this analysis is there. The length of playable portions vs. non-playable portions has never been any sort of factor in determining whether a submission is publishable or not.
You are correct that the speed differences was not any sort of factor here. In my judgment I addressed various subjects people were discussing in the thread in some way, be it rule change, be it speed, be it entertainment, be it how this relates to other games, even though in the end, the judgment had nothing to do with any of those factors.
I addressed the speed difference people were raising saying that based on how we view speed across different variants, I don't think such an argument holds true, and in any event requires research on how to handle certain issues. But in any case, the run was rejected for too much similarity with the original version's warp branch.
So what is the purpose of all the time calculations then, if they aren't a factor? Why deliberately mislead people if that is not what you are basing your judgement on? I should not have to ask this, but apparently I do since the rejection information is extremely vague if it's not based around the "fact" that PAL is slower (which, as HappyLee mentioned, was slightly intentional since frame rules. Plus there's the unsubmitted TAS from MrWint which ties the submission because of said frame rules!).
What is the reason for rejection and what argument lies behind it? Do not state "reread the judgement posted" because that judgement has all sorts of extraneous information you apparently aren't considering for your judgement. I want the pure reason without any fluff because what you've posted has a whole hell of a lot of it.
While I appreciate the work put in the judgment text into the technical details of analyzing the speed differences in individual levels of the game between NTSC vs. PAL, I don't really understand why this analysis is there. The length of playable portions vs. non-playable portions has never been any sort of factor in determining whether a submission is publishable or not. Only the total length of the run has ever mattered (besides the submission not breaking any rules, of course).
This is also extremely true. Region change has only ever discounted time lost from text differences and I believe maybe title screen length. Never anything mid-gameplay that was not text based. Even discounting my previous point and assuming that is explainable , this is still reason enough to request a rejudgement based on incorrect application of region rules.
So once again. I request rejudgdement based on fatal flaws in judgement issuance reasoning. 8-2 is misappropriated and even assuming that is explainable none of it should be factored in in the first place since region change does not care about anything but language change and title screen differences. These errors in the judgement issued are absurd and go against current site rules.
EDIT: I have several other arguments I *can* make as to why the judgement is wrong. But I want answers on the ones already presented first since those are glaring issues and really should not be in any judgement at all rendered on this site, let alone one of a submission of this prominence and importance. Furthermore, I question why these were not picked up by the other judges from which Nach invoked input from. I suppose, in short, this topic will be active for a fair bit still, and the judgement rendered from Nach is under some heavy scrutiny. Sorry. I'm going to fight this fight and die on this hill. And I'm okay with the TAS's rejection- my issue is not there but with the reason behind it.
So here's the issue I have with the judgement- it's 100% invalid. You discuss how NTSC makes differences to optimize nongameplay time but yet you ignore that PAL also did the exact same thing and did not adjust its framecount appropriately. If you watch the encode from 3:05 on (where 8-2 starts) you will note that at 3:12 he hits a spring, because he's wasting frames for the xx2 ending instead of the xx3 ending.
Requesting rejudgement based on this glaring error in calculations.
Because it should be obsoleted since it's beaten by a faster TAS.
A TAS for a different version of the game for a different console?
That that TAS changes regions to use different glitches which make the run faster should not be an issue, but because it's PAL, once again, this site has a hard time accepting this region.
Why should accepting a PAL version of the game mean that the NTSC version must go? What problem do you have with both co-existing?
The discussion is not about rejecting this PAL version. You are making it sound like it is, with all that "we hate PAL" stuff.
How is the PAL NES a "different console"? Running at a different framerate with different video and audio outputs does not a "different console" make. And PAL SMB is not a different game, it is a version change (as you stated), which means that it *should* be compared to other versions of the game (which happens to include NTSC). Please, educate me since you're making yourself sound like you know things most people don't.
The problem I have with them coexisting is that, as you stated yourself, it is a different version and not a different game, and there is not enough of a difference in the run to warrant NTSC being a standalone category, in my opinion. And yes, I do fear that this will be rejected because it's PAL and it's not NTSC.
I'll finally throw an opinion on the stack.
This is HappyLee's creation, and all other things being equal, I'd rather defer to what he wants done with his work:
HappyLee wrote:
I'm against obsoleting the NTSC run
...
Those who favor replacing the NTSC run, if you don't think the PAL warped run is less entertaining than NTSC run, you can be sure that the PAL warpless run would definitely be more boring.
If this should be published, I'm in favor of CtrlAltDestroy's idea of publishing this to the Vault, as a "bad port" of a game that's not recommended for TASing.
...
If people find this too controversial or not enough to make an exception, the best solution would be to reject it, and maybe put the submission link to where people might be interested in.
So my vote goes to HappyLee's suggestion. Either vault it (which I'm not sure is possible under the rules), or reject it. Actually, if the decision is made to obsolete the NTSC run, I half-expect HappyLee would cancel his submission before it could be published anyway.
Finally, I don't think we're ever going to get to consensus on this, so at some point the Judge is just going to have to judge.
It's always possible that Happy could cancel the submission, but remember that MrWint has a TAS of I believe identical framecount already created and *he* could choose to submit *his* and we'll still be in the same boat. But yeah, a judge is just going to have to make a judgement on this. I highly doubt we'll get a consensus on this.
Habreno does have a point that the main argument for having both runs boils down to "really old runs may not be obsoleted because of nostalgia".
I don't think the age of the run has anything to do with it. But some games and their TASes do have more notoriety than others; that's just reality.
Habreno wrote:
Which is why it goes in Obsoletely Famous.
Why should a TAS that has not been obsoleted go there?
Because it should be obsoleted since it's beaten by a faster TAS. That that TAS changes regions to use different glitches which make the run faster should not be an issue, but because it's PAL, once again, this site has a hard time accepting this region. The timesave is not due to text speed being faster, which was already a condition where switching regions is not an acceptable timesave and will not be considered when judging an improvement. These are actual region-exclusive glitches and mean that for Any% PAL is fastest.
Instead of just asking me why it should be obsoleted, since that point has been shown by many people in this thread, tell me why you believe it should *not*. Nostalgia is not a valid answer - focus on the gameplay itself, since the PAL arguments also do the same.