Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Wow, I just learned about this improvement 2 days ago when Cosmo described it during Awesome Games Done Quick 2013. I didn't expect to see it in action so soon! Thanks! :D
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Dan_ wrote:
Yes, but if you attempt to open a black box in the past, and then say no, it powers up the item so if you open that same box in the future, it is a different item. You can then go back to that box in the past and get the original item.
Huh, I didn't know that! Learning something every day...
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Holy smokes, how did I miss this submission? I nominate this to be TAS of the year! :D
The holy grail of arbitrary code execution: Transform a Famicom Disk System version of Super Mario Bros. into Zelda no Densetsu through input alone... and then back to Mario again. :D
Thanks bortreb for also providing a detailed explanation, it was an interesting read!
I also approve the idea of having sub-frame input for all input, not just resets.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I would like to address the counterarguments that have been mentioned so far.
The most important one is "it doesn't beat the game, so it doesn't follow the rules". First, the rules already allow exceptions "under special consideration". Second, rules aren't immutable. What's really important is why a rule exists. Here, the reason is because beating the game is a very interesting goal, and for me, softlocking a game as fast as possible is the same.
The other popular counterargument is "softlock is an arbitrary/uninteresting/non-valuable goal". While it is an arbitrary goal in the sense that it was not as designed, there are plenty of TAS with arbitrary goals already published, like the "reverse boss order" Super Metroid category. Also, as I mentioned earlier, softlocking a game in the general case is not trivial, and even less as a speedrun, because such a state is never as designed, again just like a "reverse boss order" run, so I see value in such a goal.
AKheon brought an interesting point about having a run geared towards failure instead of victory, but I don't think that's valuable enough as a goal since, failure opportunities are usually plentiful and very easy to achieve. It's not as clear for softlocks since it depends on the game's quality. Based on my QA experience, I don't think softlocks are that widespread and easy to achieve. One thing's for sure though, A Link to the Past is not a good example of a polished game.
Nicos also mentioned the problem of defining what constitutes a proper softlock. Personally, that would be "state obtained with input alone for which further input other than hard reset has any effect anymore on the output". The "hard" part is debatable obviously. but I think it's more interesting that way.
So the only thing that remains is the low popular entertainment value. But isn't this exactly why vault publications were created in the first place? Because these runs were valuable even if that value was not shared with most of the community? Speaking of which, submissions having a "lowest number on input" goal are in the same situation right now. I say, let these alternative runs be published in separate tiers so that those that don't see value in them can ignore them and those that do enjoy them can do so.
OmnipotentEntity wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
- The fastest method to reach that state is a NP-problem.
Most video games are PSPACE-Complete or EXPTIME actually
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Warp wrote:
There's a difference between assigning categories and just reading them. The average user can easily understand what the symbol means, but the rules on which symbols go to which TAS can be more complicated to those who have to categorize them.
If you are reading movie or game reviews, you don't need to understand what are the underlying principles by which they assign scores to them. You just need to know that higher score = better movie/game.
I disagree with both of your arguments. If you don't understand how something is attributed a specific label or score, it is meaningless.
In your reviews example, you're basically saying that full written reviews are pointless because a score is good enough, and I'm sure even you experienced at least once purchasing something based on good scores alone and regretting it afterwards.
feos wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
That's why it doesn't make sense for me to exclude them from other tiers in the new system simply because amazing publication A was arbitrarily picked over similar-but-just-as-amazing publication B.
To be well-founded, please post in the stars thread what was arbitrarily starred.
Based on your comment it's obvious I worded that sentence incorrectly, so let me clarify. I'm not saying stars are arbitrarily attributed, but rather that given two very similar publications, only one can get a star, and since this choice is subjective, it is unfair to separate these publications into different tiers.
At least that's my understanding of the star system. If I'm wrong... well it just proves my point about the difficulty of understanding the tiers even more. :/
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
adelikat wrote:
While I see some value in demonstrating a screen freeze glitch, what value is there in getting to this point as fast as possible?
For me, the value is identical to ending the game:
- You want to get the machine to a specific state as fast as possible.
- There are a lot of ways to reach that state.
- You need to exploit bugs not intended by the designers.
- The fastest method to reach that state is a NP-problem.
I understand why it feels like a pointless exercise for most though. After all, players want to avoid playthrough-stopper bugs at all costs under normal circumstances. However, I think people are just not open-minded enough to truly appreciate this type of art, which is unfortunate.
I will hold my vote until I can watch this submission.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
AnS wrote:
But these charts are not meant for outsiders, they were made for site maintainers, to let them better understand the system they are employing.
That's exactly my point. How does the average user supposed to understand how movies are classified if site maintainers need complex charts to do so?
AnS wrote:
If Stars meaning has changed to "the most entertaining movies" then yes, they can be automatically attributed, but until their meaning is (was) "the showcase of the site content", they have to be manually picked.
I completely agree. With the old system, each Star publication demonstrated a unique aspect of TAS. They were more of a "first-time visitor" thing than anything else. That's why it doesn't make sense for me to exclude them from other tiers in the new system simply because amazing publication A was arbitrarily picked over similar-but-just-as-amazing publication B.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I always like fastest crash runs, and softlocks are close enough in my book, so I voted Yes.
However, after doing so, I considered the possibility of soft-reset (X+B+Start). I can't test it right now, but if it works, then can it really be considered a softlock?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
If you guys need to create 3D graphics and flowcharts to explain the tiers system, you can be sure nobody will understand it outside of the community. Even I'm not sure I do after reading this thread.
Personally I don't understand why we should separate movies into tiers in the first place, considering movies already have user ratings and can be sorted as such (at least for 8.0+ ratings). Why have a parallel system? Shouldn't stars and moons be automatically attributed based on that rating?
--
The thing that really bothers me though is submissions with alternate goals. Currently, if the goal is not "beating the game ASAP", it needs to be reviewed for entertainment, which is for me contradictory with the idea of allowing more interesting publications to the site.
My solution would be to put goals under vote separately from submissions. Indeed, as long as the goal itself is considered valuable and its objective is not subjectively measured (like artsy runs), I don't see why such movies wouldn't be automatically accepted.
--
tl:dr version:
- Use existing user ratings instead of tiers
- Publish based on goal value rather than movie value
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
adelikat wrote:
arkiandruski wrote:
I have a question. What about character choice as another category?...
I think the proposal states this quite clearly. The answer is no, the faster one wins, as fastest completion and full completion are the only categories. Using a sub-optimal character (the one with the longer completion time) would not be vaulted, it would have to be judged by moon requirements.
This reasoning doesn't make sense to me. Why couldn't there be multiple categories for the same game in vault publications? Warpless, glitchless, 100%, 1P/2P, suboptimal characters and alternate endings would automatically be ruled out of the vault if they're not judged entertaining enough. If a category is considered valid for a game, its entertainment value should not matter for publication.
As for multiple versions of the same game, I think it's better to allow them all, even if the strategies used turn out to be identical. This will make the records more credible IMO.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I fully agree with the idea of a separate pure speed tier for any type of game.
I think the only reason "game choice" should be kept is for unapproved hacks.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
TASVideoAgent wrote:
I move two steps, paused the game, wait until the screen moves twice, and walk left to finish this game.
Voted no for this. While this is a cool glitch showcased here, anybody can reproduce this sequence of events very easily. It would just take a couple of attempts to reproduce this by hand with frame-perfection.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Voting meh. It's quick and well optimized, but this game is very primitive and there's not much going on from the viewer's point of view.
By the way, the encoding hides E.T.'s health at the beginning because of the TASVideos message. This should be fixed if this is published.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
If this is published, the encoding should be redone; the inventory is hidden by the TASVideos message.
As for the actual run, I'm voting meh. This run appears very well optimized and shows lots of variety in a short period of time. However, Atari 2600 games are just too primitive to be speedrun-worthy in my opinion, even when considering that this one is probably the most complex.
By the way, I don't understand why you stay completely stationary during the waiting period. I thought the playback stopped working and had to double-check. I think you should re-do that part to dance around a little if possible.
henke37 wrote:
And now we can check off another AVGN reviewed game on the list.
He didn't... yet. That's the movie he's working on.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
jlun2 wrote:
You can lie about your age though. He might have said he's 9 to make his troll attempts seem like innocent acts of misunderstanding.
That's always a possibility of course, but I doubt it in this case considering some of his other YouTube videos clearly show a child recording himself about tech toys. But, hey, you never know.
Besides, I wasn't pointing out his age to make him look more innocent (an opinion I don't even agree with) but rather to point out a cause of irrelevant submissions.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
OK sure you get to a victory screen really fast, but there's absolutely nothing interesting about giving yourself an unfair advantage by changing the rules of the game or ending the game manually.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
feos wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
In a perfect world, I would say that the time it takes to reach the end state is what matters first, and then ending input at a point where extra input cannot change this outcome second. In reality however defining what exactly is the end state is not trivial and testing for extra input is a NP problem. The only reliable way to measure the length of an arbitrary TAS is by the length of its input, even if it means delaying the actual game end. There has been multiple precedents of this (Monopoly just to name one), so I don't see why Battletoads should be judged differently.
Ah, I had completely forgotten about that submission. So there has been precedent for both cases then.
My opinion doesn't change however: while a quicker game ending is always better in theory for me, measuring it is not trivial in the general case unlike input length and this will inevitably lead to conflicting goals in some runs, including this one potentially.
