Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
It's specially referring to using a glitch of some sort to skip the final boss, such that the final boss is never fought, even though expectations by all normal players is that the final boss must be fought to win.
Okay, so if you actually enter combat with the final boss in any way, then it's not this tag?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
No, they are not asking the same thing.
This poll is skewed towards...
The other poll is skewed towards...
Yes, that's my point. They're basically asking the same thing but worded in a different way, so that they're both likely to get the exact opposite result. Not exactly practical ;)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
sack_bot wrote:
Ultimortal any% ? Would that be the vaultible category, or would any% Extreme be the vault category?
Tough question. Either way, you should probably go for a Pacifist run, since (1) that's a major plot point of the game; (2) it's generally faster to jump over enemies than to try to take them down; and (3) it gives you a major time saver on the first and last boss fights.
I think Ultimortal is the vault category (it is the highest difficulty, after all) but Extreme would fit well in Moon tier because it shows off more of the gameplay, such as cracking and kicking doors (which is not feasible in UM because you can't raise the skills required).
An additional option would be to make an unoptimized playthrough on normal difficulty that collects all posters; completing the game with all posters unlocks the hidden second level, so you can include that in your Extreme run.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
That depends. Does one-shotting a boss with a luck-manipulated crit count as "skipping"? Does underflowing his hit point total with a healing spell count as "skipping"? If the boss has multiple forms, does skipping one of those forms count as "skipping"?
If the final boss is supposed to be a very difficult fight but an optional McGuffin exists that lets the player skip that fight, does that count as "skipping"? Conversely, if obtaining the McGuffin is the intended path through the game and actually fighting the boss is wildly infeasible except with TAS techniques, does skipping the McGuffin count as "skipping"?
Some clarity about this tag would be good here.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Technically impressive, but not all that entertaining to watch imho, since all the levels are completed in about one second and the rest of the run is cutscenes and overworld.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
hero of the day wrote:
Saturn's run is actually much superior to the real time any% run on a technical level. He actually saves frames in every single room of the run. The only and I mean only reason he did not crush the real time run was because he went for the plasma beam at the very end of the run and lost a lot of real-time. Because of this I cannot endorse removing the technically superior run, and I cannot endorse removing the technically faster real-time run. They should both remain until a single run beats them both.
Precisely. They can both be obsoleted by a single run, and therefore they're the same branch.
So either (a) the goal of this branch is pure speed, and the "technically superior" run should be marked as obsolete because it's slower; or (b) the goal of this branch is technical quality and entertainment, and the "technically faster" run should be marked as obsolete because it's lower in quality.
Either way, there's no point in having have two seperate branch for two different ways of measuring speed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
I agree that the IGT run should be obsoleted. As a goal, it's not meaningfully different from the fastest run by input length; and as a movie, it is several years behind in discovered tricks and exploits.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
MUGG wrote:
I'm not the kind of person who TASes just any game. I'm only interested in games that I played. And as for DOS games that means I'm interested in seeing TASes of / TASing:
That makes sense. Well, I'm not familiar with most of the games you mention (except Al-Qadim, which I played a long time ago), I'm just saying it would be a shame if you put a lot of work into The Summoning and then get it rejected because of the cheat code.
Just play what you want to play! I'm all in favor of more DOS TASes!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Tell me where the poll gives the "uses x glitch" option.
I don't see how that question is relevant.
Look, my point is that you're moving too fast and making too many changes at once. Let's discuss in this thread how the various runs of Super Mario World should be named (following Nach's scheme), and once there is general agreement on that, then there is a default naming pattern that can be spread to other games.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
If the run uses the game-breaking glitch (that breaks the game execution and also cuts down the length several times), it must be labeled as "X glitch". X is figured out like that
People spent many posts arguing about this and the poll doesn't show a majority for this option, so I suggest we don't go there again and instead stick with Nach's summary of what was decided in IRC.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
If a "speed-entertainment trade off" is used in all branches but one, why you and some other people so eager to see "no arbitrary code execution" in freaking all the other branches? And why do you love to blow the labels?
Calm down dude, no need to get personal.
As Nach wrote, "2) All significant differentiators should be tagged where applicable. Even if this means every run for a game now has several tags.". To me, that suggests that all of the Super Mario World runs should be tagged as "warps" or "no warps", for example, or that this run would be "princess only, warps".
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Nach wrote:
feos wrote:
SM with X-ray glitch would be "X-Ray" or "X-Ray glitch"? X-ray can be used without glitching.
According to rule 1, X-Ray is most certainly not descriptive enough as you pointed out. The latter may also not be if there's more than one kind of X-ray glitch. So perhaps it should be something along the lines of X-ray bound breaking
As long as X-Ray glitch is complicated in its results, and quite similar to Crash Bandicoot 2's box glitch in that, and neither skips to ending, their meaning can be put into movie description, and the label be "X-Ray glitch" and "box glitch", telling it's still a game-breaking glitch by its wording.
It strikes me that most people, even fans of the game, may not know what a "box glitch" really is. So it may be a good idea to instead name the effect instead, e.g. "out of bounds". That would be clearer.
Aside from that, we have an interesting situation now over at Battletoads. Specifically, the "warps, 2 players" run is obsoleted by "warpless, 2 players", whereas the "warps, 1 player" run is obsoleted by "warps, 2 players". If I understand the system correctly, there should be five distinct branches here, i.e. "warp 1p", "warp 2p", "warpless 1p", "warpless 2p" and EGG; so perhaps some chains should be switched here.
Sounds good, I agree. I suppose that "best ending" or "julius mode" would also fall under this.
2. The run uses the self-imposed conditions not suggested by the game as options (pacifist, walkathon, arbitrary code execution, playaround, 100%). Not using is implied, since otherwise the labels will blow.
I agree with most of that, but I don't think that arbitrary code execution is a self-imposed condition. Rather, the opposite (no ACE) is a speed/entertainment tradeoff, so that would be a self-imposed condition.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Then I'd suggest to try one of the classics of the early DOS age. We've already got Castle Adventure, so how about something like Pharaoh's Tomb, Captain Comic (much better than the NES port!) or Alley Cat.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
CoolKirby wrote:
I also support the idea of movie flags and think that icon is perfect. That would go up next to the Vault/Moon/Star logo for each movie, right?
Yes, that sounds good.
Do the slower Takeshi no Chousenjou, Contra 3, Kirby's Adventure, Crash 2, and SML2 runs still need branch names now that you added something similar to "game end glitch" for each of their faster counterparts?
Maybe we should call them "End Game Glitch" (EGG for short) and then give them a little egg icon :D
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
1) The most important point is to give labels which properly define what the run is about. If the labeling needs to be edited upon obsoletion, it shows it was not defined correctly in the first place. Specific numbering should be avoided unless it defines a maximum. In the case of minimums, new minimums may always be discovered, or other routes which shows the wrong tagging was used to define some sort of minimum.
2) All significant differentiators should be tagged where applicable. Even if this
means every run for a game now has several tags. However, we should try to find the most meaningful and least arbitrary tags, so we don't end up using multiple tags to take the place of a more generic but precise singular tag. Tags which define avoiding normal gameplay do not need to have counter tags listed in other branches. Meaning, tag walkathon and pacifist, do not tag uses running and kills enemies. However, something like warps and forgoes warps should be tagged on both sets of applicable branches.
3) Sub-tagging is an option, and should be used. For example, regular unrelated tags on runs could be "warpless, pacifist". But where one is a subset of the other, use sub-tags: "low% - grappling hook", "low% - skeleton key".
(etc)
That sounds like a very workable approach, and "arbitrary code" is a clear and objectively defined term, so good to use here. It looks like this will settle the recent discussions well.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Yes, the problem is runs where one no longer can see the border line between "completely broken", "largely broken" and "slightly broken". But if they are in Moons, we would still need some names to tell what's different about them. It would require picking up the list of such runs where it is already ambiguous and working out the solution. Instead of telling it can't be figured out.
The solution is very simple: use a more precise term.
For example: some people believe that any movie that uses sequence breaking is "glitched". Other people don't. The straightforward solution is to use the more precise term instead: if a movie is sequence breaking, label it "sequence breaking"; and the issue is resolved.
The clear outcome of this poll is that we shouldn't use the terms "glitched" or "any%" in movie names, because there is disagreement over what they mean. That's ok, we can use more precise terms where they apply. For example, "sequence breaking" or "memory corruption" or indeed "End Game Glitch".
TAS'ing is all about precision, so we shouldn't be afraid to use precise terms to label a movie, when there's disagreement over a broad and general term.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
You should stick with End Game Glitch; at least that is objective and clear.
How does definition of game breaking glitch contradicts the use of "Game End Glitch" to label a certain type of it? Not all runs that used to be called "glitched" use game end glitch. Right?[/quote]
Right. Because the term "glitched" was never consistently applied, and people have widely different definitions of what they mean by it. You can see that in this thread, there's at least five distinct definitions here that contradict each other, and all of them are subjective. It simply leads to endless debate, which isn't helpful.
That's why we need something objective. An End Game Glitch is a glitch that lets you end the game directly. Very simple, very straightforward. This is an End Game Glitch. This is clearly not (but you could argue for hours about whether the trick at 3:10 makes it "glitched" or not). So an End Game Glitch is actually a distinction that we can base different branches on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Pokota wrote:
I'm not sure I'd use "conventional route" language for games like Advance Wars because there's no meaningful route branching and the game can be perfected through raw strategy and a fair chunk of RNG manipulation.
Yes. But for other games it's also problematic. For example, Super Mario World has a "conventional route" to get to Bowser in 11 exits. It goes YI2-YI3-YI4-Castle-DP1-DS1-DSH-Starworld-Bowser.
However, our current so-called "conventional route" run of SMW doesn't use that route. Instead, it takes a side trip through YI1, dies there, then skips all of the first castle with the "chuck eat glitch".
It's a good TAS for sure. But it's not the conventional route any more.
feos wrote:
What do you think of that definition?
It's a circular definition, and that doesn't help. Everything relies on whether the game is broken enough or whether the so-called standard route is deviated from enough because every TAS breaks and deviates to some extent. This is the exact same issue we had months ago.
You should stick with End Game Glitch; at least that is objective and clear.
Yes, and to be accepted, that run had to prove it was unique enough for its separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
That's what I'm talking about. Is using an End Game Glitch an accepted normal way of TASing (because it's faster), or is it something that needs to be justified as a different and sufficiently entertaining branch (because it diverges from normal gameplay). This question is why we're having the discussion in the first place.
This appears to be a list of runs that use a password to access either a higher difficulty level or a different level set; I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
feos wrote:
Here you again re trying to solve the issue picking only 2 possibilities. If we only had 2 branches maximum, it would work,
Nope, this works fine with multiple branches. If we take SMW as an example, we get the following:
If we assume End Game Glitches are like warps, then SMW's five runs are called "executes arbitrary code", "", "96 exits", "11 exits", and "small only"; and we write in the description text that the first two use an End Game Glitch and the latter three don't. We could still change "" to "fastest" or "world speed record" if you like.
If we assume End Game Glitches are like cheat codes, then SMW's five runs are called "executes arbitrary code", "end game glitch", "96 exits", "", and "small only"; and we write in the description text that the first two use an End Game Glitch and the latter three don't. We could still change "" to "fastest" or "world speed record" if you like.
In both cases it's clear that the recently rejected SMW run belongs to this branch and not to that one, since it uses an End Game Glitch.
