I think TAS-wise, having a QFG2 run start from scratch (instead of from a saved game of QFG1) would be a better idea. For a longplay, it's great that you can import a char to the next game; but a TAS is not a longplay.
Regardless, I think that adventure games are an underrepresented genre on the site.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Great run! Yes vote, and my favorite moment is dodging under a Squash and a Tomatooth (easily the most dangerous enemies in the game) at the same time!
I would love to see a 100% run of this game, too.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
My apologies, I've been confused by a case of thread necromancy. The thread in question had its latest post in last week, and I missed that the earlier posts were three years old.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
dunnius wrote:
Edit: OK, it was unobsoleted which I think generally solves this.
Check the timestamps. It was unobsoleted three years ago and re-obsoleted now.
But yes, one of the purposes of The Vault (as of three years ago) is that we could keep runs like this one.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
And it's happened again, as a NES run of Ghosts 'n Goblins was obsoleted by the Arcade version. So far, a lot of community members express disagreement with this decision.
Linky.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
adelikat wrote:
Unless anyone strongly objects, I'm going to change the 2-player run to Vault and have it obsoleted by the 1 player as dunnius suggested.
Great, but if you're going to recategorize some runs, please check the other suggestions in this thread as well. Assuming you agree with them, of course.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
That could indeed work. We could have a "official world record for game X" for different categories, such as "no game breaking glitches" (which includes savedata corruption and ACE both of which, I think, can be quite unambiguously defined) and "wild" (ie. anything goes).
We basically do that already. Vault tier is "anything goes", and moon tier tends to avoid glitches that cuts too much out of the game.
And no, you can't unambiguously define "game breaking glitch". We had long debates on that and it doesn't reach any kind of consensus.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Seriously? You're going to spend ten minutes spamming the one same move over and over again? Heck no.
Since the command for this move is "hold kick for four seconds", this doesn't even look like a tool-assisted movie; I'm not seeing anything superhuman here, just one move that the AI falls for used over and over again.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Radiant wrote:
Note that runs of games with no clear ending are already allowed in vault tier
Are they? Most infamously board games (and some sports games) are not vaultable. If they aren't accepted for Moons, they won't get a publication at all (which I think is a huge shame.)
Wait, we're discussing two different things here.
"Games with no clear ending" means endless games, so something like Space Invaders that keeps repeating forever. These are allowed in Vault, generally by running the game until the round where it stops getting more difficult.
"Board games and some sport games" are by no means endless, but are not allowed in vault. Basically, the easiest solution to the issues pointed out in this thread would be to allow board games in the vault.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Tangent wrote:
Anything that's an improvement gets a disproportinate number of yes votes, especially if it's a significant improvement. See: Any Atari game frame war.
Feos, the quotes you give have absolutely nothing to do with the new system you're proposing. If the issue is that it's too easy for improvement runs to get Moon tier, then adding a new tier isn't going to solve that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Right now, there was clear will to have board game tases published somehow. But Vault rules forbid those,
If that's your problem then your proposed solution is way too complicated.
We can simply change the Vault rules so that board games are allowed in the Vault. Assuming there's consensus for that, of course. But there's really no point in creating a whole new (vaguely defined and confusingly named) tier just for a handful of runs.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
xy2_ wrote:
The SM64 community uses the term 'freeruns', as in runs that don't have the objective of going fast, but rather show off impressive feats. This might be a fitting name.
What you're describing is Moon Tier, though.
feos wrote:
Yes. 2 is about being entertaining. 3 is about being not entertaining but impressive in some other way.
The only actual problem is that "not entertaining but impressive" is an oxymoron.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
Unless I'm mistaken, I think he's referring to:
1: Any% and 100% best game completions.
2: Non-any% non-100% game completions (of sufficient merit to warrant publication).
3: Demos (which don't complete games, or runs of games with no clear goal or ending.)
4: A small selection of all of the above that showcase TASing (ie. stars).
Thanks for clearing that up. But frankly, I don't agree with that proposal. Note that runs of games with no clear ending are already allowed in vault tier, and I think runs of a completeable game which don't complete it shouldn't be published.
So I don't think this proposal solves any current problem.
Aside from that, in my view, we currently have too many categories/groupings/tiers already. Instead of creating yet more of them, a better approach would be to get rid of the "notable improvements" pseudo-tier (there's an ongoing discussion about that) and fold "recommended for newcomers" into Star tier since they have substantial overlap.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
TIER1: all any% and 100%
TIER2: all entertaining side goals
TIER3: impressive examples of the rest
TIER4: the most entertaining runs from all of the above
First, I'm not seeing any difference between tier 2 and tier 3 in your list, and for that matter the 4th tier you describe is hardly distinct from either of them either.
Second, the word "tier" implies a hierarchy with 1 being the top; what you propose is something else entirely. Don't use the word "tier" for things that aren't tiers.
feos wrote:
Return to the "Should this be published?" question.
People love to vote based on their feelings, which can be affected by different factors: optimality, entertainment, impressiveness. Each if these alone is a ground to publish something, and if all of them are on a high level, a run can be starred.
...and that's precisely why the question should not be "should this be published". Indeed, we tried that and it didn't work.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
arkiandruski wrote:
What is currently the Vault tier (which I propose be changed to Records) will be all runs with the goals of any% and 100%.
What is currently Moon tier (which I can't think of a proposed name for) will be any runs that choose different goals for the purposes of entertainment. That's playarounds, alternate goals for completion, and glitch avoidance runs.
So if I understand you correctly, by our current system entertaining runs go in Moons, 100%/any% runs go in Vault, and runs that are both go in Moons; whereas by your system it's the same, except that runs that are both go in the (renamed) Vault. Is that right?
How do you propose to deal with the other "tier-like" categorizations we either already have, or which were proposed in this thread, i.e. Suitable For Beginners, Gruefood Delight, and Demo? For that matter, where do you propose Star runs go that are 100% runs?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
moozooh wrote:
It appears as if we are once again losing the functional purpose of all these different signs of differentiation and confusing them for regalia/badges of appreciation. Which they are not.
Well, yes. In practice, the "RFN" is used as the fourth tier, i.e. "Star Tier But Even Better".
I can see how it theoretically has a different purpose than that, but practically speaking it's pretty obvious that doesn't work.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I was surprised to learn that there currently are ZERO windows games in the Vault.
Windows TAS'ing is still relatively new, and I believe that in the initial excitement for the new platform, people were more eager to vote yes on Windows submissions than they would be for other platforms. However, the Windows platform also has a metric ton of developers, and numerous game design toolkits exist that make it very easy to create platform games in particular.
So based on their current ratings and the relatively low production value on these games, with all respect to the creators of the respective movies, I believe that the following should be moved from Moon tier into the Vault.
Since the goal of is to Moon tier provide impressive and high quality TAS movies, well, these movies are techincally sound but as examples for the Windows platform they are just not that impressive.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
In a recent submission, it was suggested that if a game is ported to multiple systems, only one version of that game should be valid for The Vault. Any runs for other ports (unless they qualify for Moon) should either obsolete that run or be rejected. Accordingly, this submission was rejected.
I was not aware that the site had such a rule, and speaking purely for myself I enjoy watching runs of the same game on different systems, such as Prince of Persia (which currently has vault runs for NES, SNES, and Genesis) or Bubble Bobble (which currently only has a NES run, but could potentially have an Arcade or a PC run as well). Often, ports will have different graphics, sounds, and glitches.
Also, if only one port is to be allowed, which should it be? The original one? The one that is fastest to run? The one that looks prettiest? The one on the most popular platform?
Perhaps we should have some group discussion about this topic...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
The arcade version of Bubble Bobble is the original one that all the others were based on (not to mention sequels like Rainbow Island or Bub Symphony). I would love to see a run of that.
The NES version is pretty good, but is ultimately just one of a dozen different ports, as this game has been ported pretty much everywhere (including SMS, GBC, PSX, C64, DOS, MSX2, and several others), and since most of the ports leave out something, I would prefer seeing the original.
