Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
It's funny how I can take one look at that screenshot, even though I hadn't heard of the game before, and immediately conclude "Titus". I've played lots of Prehistorik and it looks like the same artist(s) worked on this.
I like their style and it looks like a solid run. Yes vote.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Radiant wrote:
I'm not very familiar with this game, but I get the impression that Link crosses several doors throughout the run (e.g. between 1:06:00 and 1:08:00). So I don't really understand what this category is supposed to mean. Is it that some doors don't technically count as doors? And if so, what's the criterion for that?
TaylorTotFTW wrote:
You can use this ground clip to get past that door, but we don't count this as 'opening a door' since it is simply a consequence of talking to the rolling Goron, which we need to do to aquire the Goron Tunic.
So yeah. I'm not sure how a goal of "almost no doors" is tenable.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I see no problem with having eight minutes of boredom in an otherwise interesting run, particularly where this matches the design intent of the game (because yes, the player is supposed to wait with no way to skip it).
I'd suggest having a secondary video (from the same input file) that cuts out these eight minutes, if it bothers people; but I don't think that using the debug mode is a solution here.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Habreno wrote:
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
It relates to my question of where the line goes that distinguishes between two games being "the same game" (and thus not being able to co-exist in Vault), and when they are considered different games (and thus able to co-exist).
As I infer from the various linked posts, the rules can be summarized as follows. I'm obviously not a judge, but I believe the below is a decent summary of past judgments and existing guidelines.
(1) A game on a different platform is always considered a different game by default unless it's "deliberately identical", which includes (a) a platform emulating an earlier platform, such as Wii Virtual Console; (b) cross-platform compatibility such as running a GB game on a GBA; and (c) direct source ports such as DOOM.
(2) A game on the same platform, or anything falling under 1a/1b/1c, is considered the same game by default. This includes (d) translated versions of the same game; (e) different builds like v1.1, prerelease, or beta; and (f) region changes such as PAL vs NTSC.
(3) "The same platform" means that roms are cross-compatible between two consoles. This specifically discounts (g) region lockout; (h) one-way compatibility, e.g. a GBA runs GB roms, but a GB does not run GBA roms, therefore they are not the same platform; and (i) emulation, which is really a subset of h.
(4) If it's the same game by default, then author of the run has to make a good case that a substantial difference in gameplay exists. Precedent indicates that (j) new content, like extra levels or enemy types unique to one version, is a substantial difference, whereas (k) a bugfix between versions or a glitch only present in one version is not; (l) if the difference is hard to explain to someone unfamiliar with the game, then it's probably not substantial enough.
There's obviously some gray areas in this, but that's why we have judges, after all. HTH.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
More wolfy goodness!!
Out of curiosity, what's the deal with level 1? You appear to start right next to the exit door, but are forced to make a full 360' tour through the level?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I'm not very familiar with this game, but I get the impression that Link crosses several doors throughout the run (e.g. between 1:06:00 and 1:08:00). So I don't really understand what this category is supposed to mean. Is it that some doors don't technically count as doors? And if so, what's the criterion for that?
That section really needs updating, though. It basically says "in the past we preferred one version, but now we don't", and then goes on at length on how this was treated in the past.
I think "additional content" is a good criterion, and this matches both the judgment on SMB and earlier movies like the non-super Mario Bros: versions with extra levels, new enemy types, more scenes, or something similar get a separate branch. Versions with only bugfixes, resolution/frequency tweaks, or straight source ports with identical gameplay do not. $.02
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
I wasn't asking if it could be accepted to Vault. I was asking that if it would go to Vault, whether it would co-exist as a separate game with the other PoP games, as per the current rules.
Yes, because it contains major game elements not present in the original version (e.g. the second fight with Jafar, different physics engine, completely new graphics and outro sequence, and the speed setting options menu). As far as I can tell, this isn't actually a port of the game, but a wholly new version rewritten from scratch.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Like I said. It doesn't make it harder to TAS
No, but it makes it more of a Superplay (i.e. more entertaining), in addition to having a lower in-game time (i.e. faster). We judge TAS'es by how fast and entertaining they are, not by how hard they were to make.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Using a higher speed makes the game harder for a human player. Therefore, selecting the fastest speed means you're playing on the highest difficulty level, which is appropriate to a TAS.
Obviously, changing speed with an in-game option not the same thing as doing so with a ROM hack.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Alyosha wrote:
Aside from anything else that might happen with PAL, I think there should be an official channel with a garaunteed response that allows this to be practical. The impression I have right now of the site is that throwing something on the workbench is the only way to get a real answer (and not just about this rule in particular.) If there is a way to get a real answer ahead of time, I think this should be mentioned in the rules as well as the process to go about it.
Isn't that what these forums are for? Although I'd agree that the workbench gets way more coverage. I can think of at least one game where an author was told in those forums not to do X, and he did it anyway, and then his run got rejected for precisely that reason...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
For what it's worth I don't agree with the argument that we could have many more branches (e.g. because speedrun sites have those, or because we could rework the site design). This is a matter of quality vs quantity, and I find quality more important. Otherwise we'd get all kinds of odd branches like "fastest game crash" or "least amount of button presses" or "lowest score" and I don't see that as an improvement (this is not hypothetical btw, all of those are actual submissions).
So I completely agree with the judgment that NTSC and PAL should not be two separate branches. Either consider one version the default (because it is technically superior and/or more popular with TASvideos audience) or compare the times and take whichever one is fastest (discounting menus and custscenes).
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
I'd personally prioritize:
... Version preferred by majority of audience ...
The following suggested criteria I would not consider at all not even one iota:
... Version popularity/sales ...
What do you see as the difference between the most preferred version and the most popular version?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Jenetrix wrote:
My only real other question is though, Would the differences in Neu/Gen be considered enough to get their own branches, or the same one?
Let's face it, people want to see that sans battle.
Anyway there's a number of different boss fights in the Gen run so it strikes me as a separate branch.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Radiant wrote:
They play the same roms (without requiring emulation and discounting region lockout) therefore they are the same console.
I'm not sure that's enough of a criterion. The Nintendo DS can play GBA games, but that doesn't make them equal.
GBA roms and DS roms are not interchangeable, because the GBA cannot play DS roms. Furthermore, the GBA accepts GB roms and the DS does not. Therefore they are not the same console.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Is the Famicom the "same" console as the NES? If not, where do you draw the line?
They play the same roms (without requiring emulation and discounting region lockout) therefore they are the same console. If not, would you give every Gameboy ROM a separate branch for being played on the Gameboy Color, which obviously has different hardware?
Is the NTSC version of Super Mario Bros the "same" game as the PAL version? If I understand correctly, the two versions are not bit-by-bit identical, as there are changes in the executable binary. If you consider the the "same" game, on what basis do you assert this, and where do you draw the line?
Many games have various versions, e.g. a 1.0, 1.1, and 1.2 release; or an English vs Spanish language release. These are clearly not bit-by-bit identical. Unless there are intentional major changes to gameplay (such as extra levels added, or a wholly new enemy that doesn't appear in another version; but not minor things like bugfixes) I see no reason to have separate branches for Sonic The Hedgehog 1.0, Sonic The Hedgehog 1.1, Sonic El Erizo 1.0, Sonic Der Igel 1.0, and Sonic Der Igel 1.2.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Reject - 3 (10%)
Oh right, because it's entirely TAS policy to judge submissions by vote count. That's also why this run, which had a 70% vote in favor, got accepted... :P
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
2) The PAL version is vastly superior objectively (Lufia 2 E is objectively vastly superior to Lufia 2 U (but not necessarily Lufia 2 J)).
This is the "judge instinct". I'll read Radiant's take later (pretending it matters), but I need this to be elevated above instincts and set in words, that would nicely match what Rygar and Blaster Master happen to have.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Now about "significant technical and/or entertainment merits". Neither the rule, nor the above cases clearly define what is considered significant here
It looks pretty clear to me.
For Rygar, the branches are not for different versions of the game but for different goals. The first run is any%-with-warps, the second is any%-without-warps, and the third is low%. It strikes me as pretty obvious that a European low% run could obsolete the USA low% run, or conversely that a USA any%-with-warps run could obsolete the European any%-with-warps, assuming it was faster of course.
The same thing applies to Blaster Master. Again, the branches don't exist for different versions but for different goals.
For Mario Bros, as the judge points out, the two have different levels (20 levels vs 23, for starters), and then there's a type of enemy that's present in one version but not the other. That's a pretty big difference that would be obvious to even a casual player. That's important; you don't have to delve into technical minutiae or cause a casual watcher's eyes to glaze over to explain this.
I'd say this is comparable to why "no running" is a valid branch for SMB whereas a category like "avoids this particular glitch but not that particular glitch" gets rejected: one is exceedingly obvious to everyone, and the other requires technical minutiae to explain the difference.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Good idea for a thread.
Under the second bullet point, I'd suggest an exception for games where the PAL version is the original; i.e. the game was verifiably made and first published in Europe, and later ported to USA/Japan. However, I am not sure if there are any examples of such games, so the point may be moot.
If a run on an English ROM is compared to one in (e.g.) Japanese language, the judges typically discount the rate at which text is displayed for calculating which of the two is faster. It may help to clarify that the same principle applies to non-interactive parts of the game on a different framerate. For instance, if the run for one region is faster solely because the cutscenes run quicker, then that doesn't count.
Regarding what Nach posted, the line "In the past, we generally preferred" is not a guideline but a description of site history. Therefore it should not be on a page with guidelines. As to the section "There are several observed schools of thought", I am curious if there is consensus among judges as to which of the three should be applied.
