Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Habreno wrote:
The problem I have with them coexisting is that, as you stated yourself, it is a different version and not a different game
If a TAS of the Sega 32X version of Doom were faster than the PC version, should the latter be just dumped, in your opinion?
Come now, it's very clear by now. You feel that the difference between NTSC and PAL is comparable to the difference between a Gameboy and a Playstation; whereas other people feel that the difference between NTSC and PAL is comparable to the difference between an English and a Spanish release of the same ROM. The former get separate branches, the latter count as a single obsoletion chain. That's all there is to it.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Habreno wrote:
Frankly the only real answer is to accept as improvement to the previous TAS
I think the NTSC version is way too valuable to do that.
What problem, exactly, do you have with having both of them at the same time? Are we going to run out of categories or something?
Well, I'm sure we can do another rehash of the arguments mentioned on the first page of this thread :) but 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".
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Kung Knut wrote:
If we do this, then all released versions of a game should be treated as its own "platform" too, meaning a game could have any% for NTSC 1.0U, NTSC 1.1U, NTSC 1.0J, PAL E, PAL A etc + all ports to other systems, including virtual console-ROMs where these are new builds.
I second that.
It is common for games to have multiple versions, and rare for one of those versions to be a "shitty port" as Potato mentions. So the rules should focus on the former situation, not the latter.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Wow, I didn't even know there was a GBC port of this!
Also, rescuing his brothers?? This is what he does with the eggs in the PC version :D
And yeah, please (also) make a 100% run that includes the hard levels.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Demon Lord wrote:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I don't know how much this is indicative to the actual usage and diffusion of the relative game versions, but it's still suggesting that are both not negligible in the cultural aspect.
It seems Nintendo sold 62M NES consoles, of which 53M were sold in Japan and US combined. (source)
I'm shocked to hear they didn't sell any consoles in Antarctica...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Fog wrote:
Taking this at face value, there are barely any differences between the two versions of the game. Also, the glitch in question which is used is exclusive to the PAL version of the game. It's most likely that the port of this game from NTSC to PAL has introduced this glitch, as it does not exist in the NTSC version of the game.
It's a good point that this glitch only exists because this is a poorly-made port of the game, basically an inferior version to the original. And, as has been pointed out, the two versions are basically indistinguishable unless you're extremely familiar with the game. I was previously in favor of obsolescence, but this is a strong argument for rejection right there. Clearly the two runs are way too similar to be distinct branches.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Dude, seriously? You're counting the people in support and not even bothering to count how many people oppose? Ever heard of "due diligence"? :D
This game pretty obviously fails point two, three, and four on your list.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I can see how this would obsolete the current movie simply due to being faster, but have seen no compelling arguments so far as to why they should be different branches. Standards for speedrunning sites aren't generally binding for tool-assisted speedrunning.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Radiant wrote:
The above graphic would give the impression that the tas has exactly average ratings,
No, for the reason I mentioned above. The average rating on a five-point scale is expected to be above four
You are still missing the point completely. I am not talking about the subjective meaning of "average", as used in colloquial language when judging a work of art. Nor am I talking about people's behavior when they estimate and rate such things. I am not talking about how the results should be subjectively interpreted from a psychological perspective in terms of the quality of the work. I am not talking about "four stars means that the work is meh". You seem to still be clinging to your complete misinterpretation of my original question "how would you interpret this graph?" I was not asking for a psychoanalysis of the mentality of the people who have rated the work, or an essay on typical human behavior.
I was talking about how the graphic visually misleading, giving the impression that the ratings are exactly half-way through the scale, when in reality they are significantly lower than half-way. Forget "average", since you seem to have so many problems in understanding what that word means. Think of the more mundane "half-way between lowest and highest" concept instead.
The reason for that is that the first star is extraneous, always lit, and makes the graphic misleading.
The reason is that you think of a five-point scale as 0 through 4, whereas most people think of a five-point scale as 1 through 5. That's why the latter is the standard and the former is not.
But the problem is that when you display the results using five stars, it leads to a misleading result. People don't think that "oh, the range is 1 to 5? That means I should ignore the first star in the image and just look at the four remaining ones." They will look at the entire image and see that the highlighted portion is covering exactly half of it, and thus come to the intuitive but wrong conclusion that the ratings are also likewise completely evenly split, when that's very far from the truth.
Too bad this forum doesn't have a "report for personal attacks" button. How about we get back to the actual discussion instead of flaming people?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Alyosha wrote:
Just as a point of reference, I looked at the official encode of the TAS BrunoVisnadi linked in his post above. That video has 214 ratings (thumbs up or down on youtube)
214 ratings is way more votes than almost any video gets on the TASvideos website. If we can improve our voting process to get even half of that, that'd be a definite improvement.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
My point has nothing to do with the reliability of the results or how much variance there may be, or anything like that. It doesn't matter how many votes there are. There could be 400 one-star votes and 200 five-star votes and you would still get the same picture as above.
Yes, so that has everything to do with how much variance (or standard deviation) there is.
What you're missing is that movies with four one-star and two five-star votes are uncommon at best, whereas movies with 400 one-star and 200 five-star are vanishingly unlikely to the point of nonexistence. So it's totally fine to have a system that takes the former into account but not the latter.
The above graphic would give the impression that the tas has exactly average ratings,
No, for the reason I mentioned above. The average rating on a five-point scale is expected to be above four (e.g. see this article for an explanation. )
The reason for that is that the first star is extraneous, always lit, and makes the graphic misleading.
The reason is that you think of a five-point scale as 0 through 4, whereas most people think of a five-point scale as 1 through 5. That's why the latter is the standard and the former is not.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
If you see this rating, how would you interpret it?
I would interpret this as mediocre to awful. People tend to use only the upper part of the scale as a matter of courtesy (e.g. 5 = excellent, 4 = pretty good, 3 = meh) so anything getting an average of three or below is probably not worth watching.
Would you, however, believe that that rating is the result of two 5-star ratings and four 1-star ratings? (Which, in other words, means that twice as many people gave it a minimum rating than a maximum rating.)
Of course, the answer to your issue is to not show ratings until there are a minimum number of votes (e.g. 10), because such situations become vanishingly unlikely as the amount of votes rises. Alternatively, show only ratings if the standard deviation is below a certain threshold, because high SD indicates lack of consensus.
Of course, if we want more votes then the obvious thing to do is create a single-click voting bar right on the movie page. It's kind of silly that the facebook LIKE button is right on the movie page, and for voting I have to first navigate to a subpage, then read two separate tabs explaining what I'm supposed to vote for, then use four separate pulldown menus, and finally hit an easily-missable 'send' button that is not anywhere near the vote box (and isn't labeled 'vote'). It's basic interface design, people :D
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
So it's a poor man's version of GTA made for a poor man's SNES, and many years after both originals came out? That's kind of weird.
I like the run. It's short enough to stay interesting, and the part where you 'chase' the guy by staying ahead of him is funny. Yes vote.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Mothrayas wrote:
Forgoing tags like "forgoes death", "forgoes damage", and so on are generally taken to mean that they could've been used, and could have made a faster movie had they been used, but were deliberately chosen to be avoided.
Ah, that makes a lot more sense than feos's explanation.
Making tags like these have to apply to the 70% or 90% of all movies that don't do the described thing of course would make no sense.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
If you label, say, 30% of the runs "Uses a special goal", then you also have to label the rest 70% "Avoids special goals".
That doesn't appear to be the case. Only 309 of all movies are tagged with either "Uses death to save time" or "Forgoes time-saving death". Only 123 movies are tagged with "warps" or "no warps". Only 178 are tagged with "skip glitch" (which is somehow distinct from "heavy glitch") or "no skip glitch" (which for some reason is different from "no time-saving glitch"), and so forth. There isn't even a tag for "not a playaround", "no speed/entertainment tradeoffs", or "uses real time instead of in-game time".
...it seems that a number of tags aren't consistently used throughout the movies.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
There are literally thousans Super Mario fangames, and with the current availability of tools and graphic sets any halfway-competent coder could make a new one in just a single afternoon.
So what's so special or notable about this one?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
This is less entertaining than the current run, so voting no.
Also, if you're going to use a cheat code to swap the language, why not simply take the international ROM instead?
(edit) Also, non-TAS speedrunners do this on Expert level just fine.
You know, I've always wondered why (per the guidelines) the intro page of a movie shows the encoder's name promintently, but not the person who made the run. Shouldn't it be both?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
"The Plethora cheat requires the player to access a very specific area of a map and press an odd button combination that causes no effect anywhere in the rest of the game."
So yeah, that's clearly a debug code. Sorry man.
That's not quite it. Both of these are the fastest any% run for now, and their threads suggest that there are known improvements. That's not the same as having two actually existing runs for the same game, and it is not unusual for a movie to be published if some improvements are known to exist.
Getting back to your question, if somebody were to submit a run for either game with improvements, would this (1) obsolete the current movie, or (2) be a new branch? That's actually what you're asking here, yes? Given that neither of these runs is considered particularly entertaining, I'd be happy to bet that they will be obsoleted if a faster run is made. That is in line with my post above.
Conversely, if a slower run was made for either game, it's pretty obvious that this would this be rejected as being slower, and not published in a new branch, unless the slower run was somehow particularly impressive or entertaining.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
klmz wrote:
The question will a "game end glitch" run be accepted when there exists a faster run that doesn't use it
Irrespective of how people want to define a "major" glitch, this question has a pretty straightforward answer.
The hypothetical run you propose is not eligible for the Vault, because it is clearly not the fastest Any% or 100% run. The run is eligible for the other tiers only if people find it entertaining. It's hard to estimate if they will, but it seems to me that short GEG runs are usually preferred over longer ones. So unless your GEG is particularly unique or impressive, I'm going to say "most likely not". IANAJ.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warepire wrote:
Publishers: Can the images in the submission be archived somewhere so they won't get lost once this TAS is published?
Speaking of which: the second image of the loss of gems if you die could simply be replaced by stating that your amount of gems gets divided by four, rounded down, then multiplied by three. It's effectively losing 1/4th of your gems, but with unusual rounding.
