Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
feos wrote:
How do you want us to verify and reproduce a live event? Do we need to provide a proof that it has indeed happened? Do we need to create a way for that live event to happen again for other people every time they replay it?
I don't expect TASVideos to validate live events at all, since that's practically impossible. The tools that made those live events possible can be validated for reproducibility however. That could be something TASVideos could do if they want to go in that direction. Speaking of which...
dwangoAC wrote:
Having said that, I'm in no way trying to shirk off verifiability or create some kind of weird Todd Rogers situation so I openly invite you to challenge anything done at a live event by talking to people who were there and saw it live or were involved in the production on the GDQ side. It won't always be possible to reach someone easily but this is all content done openly, on stage, with no trickery when it comes to really truly doing these things on real hardware. We're also extremely vocal and open about any changes that were made such as improvements for video quality, as evidenced by talking plainly about the passive analog RGB tap for better video. If you have any questions about the validity of something, just ask.
...the integrity of the tools is what I'm challenging. Witness testimonies aren't sufficient for that. A good chunk of said tools has been released which is awesome, but with missing parts, some reasonable doubt will always remain related to these parts.
Just to give one last example, I remember that after the Pokémon Plays Twitch event, there was a set up during a break where chat could move the camera around by posting directions, but you later revealed that it was a human operator moving the camera since the tech wasn't working that day. I'm grateful for your honesty since probably not many people would have questioned it otherwise, and it does make me trust you more in regards to your work here! However, it does prove that stage trickery can and has occurred on the GDQ stage, so it is reasonable to consider the possibility of such trickery at other times as well.
dwangoAC wrote:
Bringing things back to a more general reply, I'd like to redirect folks back to the Let's figure out how to publish TASBot's GDQ showcases thread; that was the place and time to discuss the type/class/category/process questions that Samsara raised back in July and I waited a very long time before submitting this run to see if anyone else had thoughts there.
It's kinda hard to comment on something without knowing of its existence. I generally only look at official announcements and the submission feed.
Sauraen wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
Current site rules aside, may I suggest adding said copyrighted materials as input for the corresponding open source build toolchains? It would resolve that issue.
I'm interpreting this to mean, "can you set up the build toolchain so that the user adds the copyrighted content themselves", rather than "please distribute the copyrighted content" as dwangoAC interpreted it.
That was the interpretation that I indeed meant. Thanks for the insights on the matter!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
This is an interesting glitch, but if you're going to cheat at Chess, I would expect the game to be faster than previous no-cheating submissions, not slower!
A playaround showcasing a bunch of exploits could be interesting, but as is it's kinda slow., repetitive and lacking despite the short run in my opinion.
Voting No for arbitrary goal.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I just remembered an incident from 2007 where cen, a prominent Zelda hacker, published an article on The Hylia claiming they have found along with JayTheHam a way to spawn arwings from ice trap chests in Ocarina of Time, along with a partial technical explanation, and even pointing out the relevant piece of code where this is possible, but without fully revealing the secret and instead leaving a cryptic clue for the readers to find the easter egg. (Unfortunately the original article appears to have been lost to time, but you can read about it in an old post of mine on the BS Zelda forums.)
It turned out that this article was completely bogus; the provided disassembly of the code had incorrect comments on it, and the branch which would cause the swap to occur in the chest contents cannot be reached under normal conditions. And yet, this unverifiable claim was published on a respected gaming news website at the time. (Nowadays we know that the founder of that website, Michael "TSA" Damiani, was not yet revealed to be the notorious Zelda speedrun cheater that we know he is now, which may have played a part in the editorial process, but that's besides the point.)
The point is, it doesn't matter how great the technical explanations are about something or who contributed to it if they cannot be verified independently. Again, I don't personally doubt the work by the team here, but as long as reasonable doubt remains I believe it should not be considered valid for publication on the site without a disclaimer at the very least, especially on a site like TASVideos where integrity is everything.
dwangoAC wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
The run cannot be reproduced by an independent 3rd party because some of the data needed to do so has never been released publicly due to copyright concerns.
As was the case with SMB on SMW, site rules dictate we cannot link to ROMs and as such we also can't release the full payload for the same reason, we'd be in violation of the site's rules if we did. Instead, we've released the open source portions, and those have been independently verified.
Current site rules aside, may I suggest adding said copyrighted materials as input for the corresponding open source build toolchains? It would resolve that issue.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Samsara, I think you also brought some very good points. I believe you are describing the crux of the issue here:
Samsara wrote:
I honestly can't think of a justifiable reason for why one of these runs should be reproducible in order to be showcased on the site. Verification and legitimacy don't make sense as these runs are inherently created for console playback in front of both a live audience and tens of thousands of viewers watching from home, so there's no need for them to go through a Judge or a Publisher in order to verify that they work universally. Would it be nice to have reproducible runs? Sure, of course, but there are - and will continue to be - cases where this is strictly impossible. A lot of these showcases use live input and/or read from live sources, so they can't be reproduced exactly anyway, not to mention the aforementioned occasional issue with copyright or the fact that some of the runs need additional consoles or tech.
If TASVideos wants to make completely separate publications on their website showcasing live demonstrations, I'm all fine with that personally. I too find it kind of a shame that there is currently no space for human-assisted TASes or non-emulator TASes on TASVideos, and wholeheartedly agree with your sentiment to want to publish this submission at all costs. However, it should be made very clear that TASVideos cannot fully verify their legitimacy or integrity when such verification is impossible, and that they are presented for historical and/or entertainment purposes only.
There has been multiple instances in the past where people claimed to have created a TAS which turned out to be video splicing. There also has been multiple instances in the past where people claimed to have completed a run during offline live events, which turned out to be fake or cheated. There has been at least one instance in the past where a claimed TAS verification movie on real hardware used a modded console (the green power LED NES incident). Heck, we've even had multiple live demonstrations by dwangoAC during GDQ events with deceptive commentary, willingly or not: the Super Mario Bros. 3 DPCM bug run from SGDQ 2016 incorrectly claiming game completion (more details in #6466: Masterjun & ais523's NES Super Mario Bros. 3 "game end glitch" in 00:00.78), and... this very run which by design appeared to be simply showcasing unused content already on the cartridge instead of being full-blown content injection up until the final part.
Right now, the Movie Rules clearly states that submissions must be reproducible, and wrote my previous comment accordingly. This is currently the only rule that prevents cheating issues plaguing other gaming communities, and this is the situation I personally want to prevent. In my opinion, this constitutes a valid justification to keep this rule unless a different solution can be found to deal with this problem.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
OK, so if I understand the situation correctly:
- A traditional movie file cannot be submitted due to emulation issues, hence the placeholder file in this submission.
- The run cannot be reproduced by an independent 3rd party because some of the data needed to do so has never been released publicly due to copyright concerns.
- The only evidence of the run working is through various live demonstrations by the authors, which means there is a possibility for it to be fake in some manner somehow. (While I personally trust dwangoAC and the rest of the team, I also believe that trust is insufficient as a standard of proof.)
As such, I believe TASVideos should never publish this submission as it cannot be verified. As least. as long as all of these statements are true.
On a related note, it's not clear to me from the released materials how to setup the controllers' I/O between the Linux machine and the N64. This is a potential additional hurdle for independent verification.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Last time I checked, a crash doesn't allow gameplay to resume to a top out like we can see in your video...
Gameplay also appears to be sub-optimal. I find it odd that the legal screen appears for several seconds longer than other submissions, for instance. You could also be playing closer to the top of the playfield like the other published NES Tetris movies to clear lines faster. Also, this other video showcases what appears to be a genuine crash in less lines and without pausing, which suggests better overall optimization:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_KY_EwZEVA
I'm all for an NES Tetris TAS that pushes the game to its limits. but I don't think crashing the game should be the goal in itself. Best theoretical score/lines/level before an inevitable crash would be much more interesting in my opinion.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I just wanted to point out that while I agree with the rejection, the title screen does clearly state "PUSH START", so the judgment's argument about not having the Start button in the listed controls on the game's description sounds a bit far-fetched to me.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
The list of rejected submissions is now pretty confusing due to a recent change. I used to go to Movies > Submissions then click on "will not make it" to see the page. Now you only see a list of all possible rejected reasons by doing so.
There's a link on this page now called "This page" that appears to lead to the old list, but instead it's a link to itself. The actual new link to follow on that page is the "rejected submissions" one, but I thought it was the wrong link at first because the contents of the page is identical to the main Movies > Submissions page until I realized the list of filters is different.
I like the new design and usability of the rejection list, but its integration to the site appears to be unfinished.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
benstephens1000 wrote:
I understand taking issue with the language selection, given the amount of time it adds here, but being critical of the goal choice here seems less understandable in my opinion. It doesn't feel right to judge a TAS based on criteria that it never sought to fulfill. I understand maybe preferring a different goal over the one being presented, but it seems very reductive to discuss it. I understand that goal choice is an important part of movie creation and part of the criteria that judging is based on, but considering the goal in question, "All Endings," generally fulfills the criteria of being "as objective as possible," I don't really think there's anything to pick apart here.
I fully agree with you there, and if I sounded critical of yep2yel's goal, I'm sorry as that wasn't my intention. My only concern about the goal choice is whether it qualifies for Standard or not.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I know that Movie Rules currently exclude regional differences (although I would be surprised if such a ridiculous difference in timing was ever realistically considered when this rule was added), but we're talking about increasing the movie time by about 50% strictly for the purpose of entertaining English viewers in a SPEED-oriented goal.
This whole situation just feels wrong to me unfortunately.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
To clarify, I brought up the door 3 omission because I personally feel that it should count for full completion, since it's basically an entire level being skipped otherwise. (Door 3 contains the shower room.)
It's also worth clarifying that the Knife, Submarine and Axe endings are not required to achieve the True ending, so this run is obviously not a fastest completion either. (Doing so would also skip door 2, which contains the confinement room and the torture room.)
There's nothing wrong with "All endings" as a goal, but skipping an entire escape room in an escape room game just feels wrong to me, and if I were a judge, I would be rather conflicted to qualify such a run for the Standard class for this reason.
Oh by the way...
yep2yel wrote:
As for the debate on Japanese vs English, I still stand with using English, that way most of the viewers can follow what's going on. I don't find the additional 3 hours to be a problem as the ability to follow along adds to the experience.
yep2yel wrote:
I personally don't like trading speed for entertainment.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
A TAS of one of my favorite games ever. This is going to be interesting.
First of all, I also agree that if the Japanese version could save time, it should have been used, ESPECIALLY for several hours of nothing but cutscenes. In particular, there really is no benefit for this time loss from a viewer perspective since the gameplay is understandable regardless of the language used.
Also, since the submission text is missing this information, here is the general route used from what I skimmed from Spikestuff's temp encode:
- Playthrough 1: Doors 5, 7, 6 for Knife ending
- Playthrough 2: Doors 5, 8, 2 for Submarine ending
- Playthrough 3: Doors 5, 8, 1 for Axe ending
- Playthrough 4: Doors 5, 8, 6 for Safe ending (prerequisite for True ending)
- Playthrough 5: Doors 4, 7, 1 with the 4 story checks for Coffin ending, then door 9 for True ending
For the purpose of obtaining all endings, I believe this route is indeed optimal.
What personally irks me however is that door 3 is never entered, and thus an entire set of puzzles is completely skipped. Personally, I would consider playing through all puzzle sections a requirement for full completion, and I find this omission disappointing. I understand that this is open for debate however since this is not tracked on the file select screen.
I will refrain from voting since I don't have the time to sit through this entire movie even on fast-forward, but I believe I would have voted Meh because of the above issues.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
CoolHandMike wrote:
Not really sure what is even going on in the game. You jump up and touch the cage and get points? Could you give more detail about how this game works and why this is fast?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Fortranm wrote:
To be fair, a more glaring issue concerning the technical validity of emulation here would be the fact that a DSiWare like this is present right after the system is formatted. :P
I believe you can put pretty much anything on the SD Card prior to initial booting, so that part didn't bother me.
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
Consider right now completely wild west for DSi TASing [...]
Yeah I figured. That's why I wanted to point out oddities related to the system configuration so judges don't overlook them.
Fortranm wrote:
For clarification, the goal choice is simply to beat a loop on the highest difficulty ("ending after a loop ends with the highest difficulty" vs "ending after a full loop is done on the highest difficulty" can be a point of contention, of course). A maximum score is reached because of how difficulty works in this game. It is part of the means, not the ends.
OK... you just opened up a can of worms. XD
First, it's not clear when this max difficulty threshold actually occur, or if there is one at all. Reading your submission notes, it assumes that it occurs when reaching 990 points like ThunderAxe31's analysis of the Game & Watch 4 version you linked to, but it's not something that can be easily verified.
Second, if your goal was indeed equivalent to "end a loop after reaching 990 points", then your movie is clearly not optimal. One of the iterations you free Donkey Kong at occurs at score 986, while the x2 multiplier is active. Technically, the points you get from that action made you reach the required score threshold then, which caused the loop to end past that point, so it sounds like you should have stopped playing right there. However, I'm assuming you meant that you wanted to reach the max difficulty threshold first, then free Donkey Kong afterwards, but if that's the case then there is the issue that you already brought up in your own submission notes, namely that you only needed to jump over 2 more enemies to gain the 4 points needed to reach the required score, again saving you the trouble of picking up 4 extra keys and wasting time watching cutscenes.
So, uh, I'm really not sure what you meant there. ^_^'
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I wrote a long comment and it unfortunately got lost when I tried to post it, and I'm too tired to re-write it neatly, so I'm going to summarize it instead:
- Out of the many, many versions of this game (I know of at least 5), the DSiWare version seems to be the worst one to TAS due to the long initial system setup.
- I'm not sure if a DSi firmware originating from the Pokémon World Championships should be allowed.
- I'm not sure if allowing an emulator that injects its own user name and message during initial system setup should be allowed.
- The goal choice feels arbitrary to me. I get that saving Donkey Kong can be a legitimate goal, and I also get that achieving a maximum score (999 or 9999 depending if we care about the in-game score of the leaderboards added to the DSiWare version) can also be a legitimate goal. Having a weird combination of both of these goals in a row just makes no sense to me, especially when considering that each stage of freeing Donkey Kong does not change anything other than the number of points awarded. My personal preference is a maximum score goal since gameplay progresses by the same amount regardless of how points have been obtained.
- There appears to be missed opportunities for points, such as a missed fruit drop at 251 points, and a missed key swing at 854 points due to a forced jump at 846 points that could have been avoided by killing the enemy earlier. These may not be actual mistakes, but they look like it.
- I'm really not a fan of Donkey Kong Jr. constantly moving back and forth the screen for no reason. It makes it hard to appreciate the action.
Voting Meh more due to my love of the Game & Watch series making me over-analyze this movie rather than the performance itself.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Spikestuff wrote:
Fun fact: The author started the game a frame too early meaning you never get to see this message at the end of the level:
The only reason I bring this fact up, is because this same bug exists in the final release where starting a frame too early means you won't progress to the next level.
Wait, am I to understand that the demo version contains the full game and could theoretically be beaten 1 frame faster because of this quirk? O_o
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
First of all, the game name in the submission is wrong. It's actually "Ultimate Frogger Champion", not "Ultimate Frogger Championship".
Second, this is a homebrew game, a fact that is not clear in the submission and may affect judging.
Third, the creator of this homebrew, Kevin Hanley, released the full version for free on their website back in 2020, so the budget argument against it is invalid.
Finally, I would also like to point out that a senior judge requested you 2 weeks ago to hold off from doing new submissions for the time being because they were overwhelmed, and you still have 3 other submissions that have yet to be processed.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
This is an easy Yes vote for me! I never would have considered waiting on the GBC BIOS screen to manipulate RNG! I would be really interested to know why this works in more details.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
I just realized that my movie doesn't have the Fastest Completion flag on its publication, even though I believe it qualifies. Can someone look into this?
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
adelikat wrote:
SmashManiac wrote:
AdI'mditional feedback:
- Most lsnes builds are still using an insecure HTTP link.
This is not an issue with the new site, but with the old. I can't magically fix this on the new one. If there are https links that can be added, this needs to be brought up in an appropriate thread.
I don't think so. The affected links are hosted on subdomains of this site, specifically ilari.tasvideos.org and nach.tasvideos.org.
That means Firefox blocks the download of the recommended version of lsnes on the new site only, and that also means HSTS cannot be fully deployed on the main site without breaking the download link in all major browsers as well.
Therefore, I believe this is the appropriate thread to raise this.
It's worth noting that the build archives on lsnes.tasbot.net does not include said recommended build for some reason, so there's no official HTTPS mirror for it as a workaround. (More precisely, it is hosting version rr2-β23, but not with the SGB Core.)
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
Samsara wrote:
Either way, 15 years is never too late to make your first submission to the site (it took a lot of personal restraint to not make the "Welcome to TASvideos!" joke), and it's definitely not too late to have said first submission accepted as a new branch. I've relabeled the published run "100%" to fit that as well.
I only needed to find the right opportunity. ^_^
Also, thank you everyone in this thread for your comments!
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Player
(12)
Joined: 6/17/2006
Posts: 501
For those interested, I made a new temp encode which includes the the 463 frames improvement:
https://drive.google.com/file/d/1I9pV6z1MYqPn4lF7SZQlrZfTGBLP7-Fm/view
Note that I'll probably delete it once this submission is processed.EDIT: File removed in favor of the official encodes.
The only reason I bring this fact up, is because this same bug exists in the final release where starting a frame too early means you won't progress to the next level.
