I can't say I was able to figure out what was going on here, but I suspect it failing to meet as many as 4 vault criteria.
How about
•If a game consists of presenting a story, with little to no user creativity altering the game in any way, then it is unacceptable
Aside from the story part, it fits. Would also cover rhythm games and similar where the only meaningful user input is pressing the button at the right/earliest time, which is completely trivial.
Alternatively, rewriting or adding to the the "must stand out from non-TAS play" segment to include something about being non-trivial. Even if it's just pathfinding.
For the purposes of the Vault is this a sports game?
Depends on what you mean by a sports game. It's set up like Track and Field except with half the events involving punching/kicking your opponents. N minigames based loosely on sports, half combat, half set courses. Between them you can use medals you earned (either by picking them up in previous games or awarded for winning) to buy power ups for the next one. All the combat events have the same 'ringer' team as the last battle in it so that team always wins first or second in them. In fact, you can win the whole thing without actually placing first in a single event just by collecting enough medals. If you choose Crash's team, there's an actual ending.
What about star? How about when a submission is submitted, the question generates a listing of options based on the tiers that exist at the time, plus a reject option. (I'm not suggesting this because i necessarily like it though, just that it seems to be a logical conclusion to what you are asking for).
The point of the question "Did you find this movie entertaining" was that we are trying to fish out the entertainment value of the submission from the audience and let the judge sort out its categorization. If you want to try to worry about categorization, that's great, post a comment, but that's not the primary focus on the voting system.
Now a good point was made about technical quality. You currently have no way to vote in a way that communicates "no it was boring" vs "no it was sloppy, it could be improved". However, a silent "no this is sloppy" wouldn't carry much weight anyway. A blind "looks sloppy" doesn't say much. How is it sloppy? Is there a trick you know about the author didn't? Did you test something? Do you have or know about a WIP? All of these things are far more valuable than a simple vote.
Star, moon, whichever.
The issue as I see it is that the vote shows no reflection of the (perceived) technical quality and/or game/goal appropriateness. Discussion and the like is always more elucidating, but it also takes more time to do and read and you can't expect everyone to put in the time to investigate personally. If things APPEAR sloppy, then the author should explain/account for it in some way regardless, and I highly doubt people will suddenly stop commenting altogether on such either.
Something that appears obviously substandard or inappropriate should ideally have that reflected in the votes as well as the comments, not appear the same as a technically solid movie. The question of entertainment still exists when voting for categorization instead of entertainment. A star/moon vote is akin to saying "This is entertaining AND appears to be technically solid." Vault is "this appears to be technically solid but not entertaining." Reject means that it's neither or inappropriate for some reason which will very likely be completely obvious depending on either the game or the run.
Perhaps the question in the polls should be changed then to be what tier it belongs in/rejected entirely. Poor technical quality and/or inappropriate game choice and/or poor goal choice really aren't encompassed by "entertaining or not." TASes with those faults would presumably get the same no votes as a valid but boring Vault video. Posting in the thread itself is the only way for a user to differentiate their opinion in that regard.
I already suggested something like that, apparently there are technical problems with changing the question to anything but a yes/no/meh choice.
I still think "too trivial" should be a reason for rejection.
Essentially it is, or at least I tried to make it so with the wording of the Vault description. The point of the vault is for movies that are well made but for a very niche (if any) audience. The requirement is that they are at least well made, and to some extent game choice matters as the game has to lend itself to at least allowing it to be well made.
Perhaps the question in the polls should be changed then to be what tier it belongs in/rejected entirely. Poor technical quality and/or inappropriate game choice and/or poor goal choice really aren't encompassed by "entertaining or not." TASes with those faults would presumably get the same no votes as a valid but boring Vault video. Posting in the thread itself is the only way for a user to differentiate their opinion in that regard.
But isn't this exactly why vault publications were created in the first place?
Unless I have fundamentally misunderstood something, no, it's not. By the argument you've proposed, then ANYTHING with ANY goal choice could be put into the vault as long as someone finds it entertaining, but entertainment is supposed to have nothing to do with the vault anyway so...
Edit:
Specifically
•Goal choice is limited to fastest completion time (any%), or full-completion (such as 100%, best ending).
◦Other goal choices are not eligible for this category.
◦Goal choice criteria must be clear and non-controversial
What is with all this seriousness all of a sudden? I thought this entire website existed for fun. Since when have we become so serious and grumpy?
Can someone give an actual argument why this TAS should be declined, other than "it doesn't finish the game"?
A nonstandard goal must be justified, not the other way around. Else the site would be overrun with arbitrary things.
Yeah, I did, which is exactly why I question the point of something that aims for nothing in particular.
It suits the vault well then. (yes the new system is a pain to figure out, once you understand it, it's all good.)
A Vault submission is ideally aiming for something specific, despite being (generally) unentertaining. I think it's in poor taste to ignore max score AND not trying to get the fastest playthrough. Max score would probably make for the most interesting run, IMO.
The highest score run of this game has been ruled not worthy of the vault, so that's out. A faster run is either impossible since it's all on timers which would indicate it doesn't belong at all, or would be accomplished by choosing different minigames which falls under the "large improvements known" category, also disqualifying it. Entertainment isn't supposed to matter meaningfully for the vault so that's out too.
Edit:
"Plays suboptimally for entertainment purposes" just seems to me to be exactly opposite of the vault's overall description.
Having looked up a little more on this, it's not meant to be the fastest, nor the highest scoring, so... what exactly is this? Just "I used some tools to play the set of mini games I like the most"?
Look at the last one at the bottom quoted by Nach On the last tas then you'll understand why.
Yeah, I did, which is exactly why I question the point of something that aims for nothing in particular.
Having looked up a little more on this, it's not meant to be the fastest, nor the highest scoring, so... what exactly is this? Just "I used some tools to play the set of mini games I like the most"?
Wouldn't this (and any other game that's just reaction time) still fall under the category of inappropriate game choice given that it's utterly trivial in a TAS setting? Given that this is on 100% on timers, it doesn't even have luck manipulation that something like Wario Ware might. The only difference between this and a normal run is the speed of selection between things and a somewhat higher score.
I admit to not fully understanding how the new tier system works though and how it accounts for these, rhythm games, and such, if at all.
Being on Atari is not a free pass to be be uninteresting or badly programmed either. If this was on any other system besides Atari, I really couldn't see it being accepted, and it's not like some of the early PC (Apple 2?) games that have come up are any better in terms of the aesthetics or entertainment either.
The core of my message, which is explained better and going into more discussion and detail in the link that jlun2 posted, is that it's not about entertainment.
Allow me to put it more coarsely.
I don't want my ability to find a game TAS inhibited by what -other- people decide is entertaining or not.
The search bar doesn't work on your internets? That must make it hard to find anything.
Being on Atari is not a free pass to be be uninteresting or badly programmed either. If this was on any other system besides Atari, I really couldn't see it being accepted, and it's not like some of the early PC (Apple 2?) games that have come up are any better in terms of the aesthetics or entertainment either.
turska: It's great that you got it to sync. Though I noticed your encodes have these horizontal transparent lines in the clouds in Luste's stage, which I think are not supposed to be there.
There are a ton of those error lines all through the entire encode, that's just the most noticeable. They're also all over the place in Grolla's stage in the floors, and on I think every single ladder. It's really bad in the stained glass boss's stage too where the lines are bright red.
Same thing I said for MvSF. I saw very little in here that the fighting community didn't already have numerous videos for long long ago. I expected/hoped for a lot more finesse and creativity instead of mostly the old and played out infinites.
Voted nay. With input speed making monsters a non-issue, it becomes seemingly entirely pathfinding, which is too trivial a reason. To me, most people don't seem too impressed by the movie and admit that it's not interesting, but excuse it due to the short length. The game can be easily beaten in just a couple minutes even without TASing anyway. There's no luck manipulation or glitches. There are a number of these Adventure clones as well with little different between them than the map. A poor game choice remains that to me regardless of the length.
/$.02
Echoing support of all of Nach's points. It's only reasonable possible for 99.9% of players to beat it using save states or other TAS tools anyway, so the only part that's particularly different is the autoscroller section. One autoscroller, which practically every Mario game has, plus a couple sequence breaks using tricks known for years and I'm fairly sure most, if not all, of them are in the other Mario TASes already, so an easy no for game choice.
I'd be a lot more amenable if it was one of the hacks that DOES require the game engine be utterly broken open since those tend to show off a lot more of the glitches, particularly the more esoteric ones. This is just a halfway middle ground relic from years ago with poor design. Its intention certainly IS to force the player into a tunnel of 'perfect' play which is trivial for a TAS. That the hack screwed up and accidentally left a couple ways to get out of that tunnel doesn't really speak too much to its favor to me when the rest of the aesthetic design is utterly terrible.
Two things I did miss though.
Ken's Shipuu Jinrai Kyaku is invulnerable from oncoming attacks, even hyper combo's as he's pulling his leg back, it's funny to see someone use say Berserker Barrage X against Ken, nothing happens, and then Wolverine gets clobbered.
Chun Li has a midair hyper combo which does a ton of damage (or was that added in Marvel Vs. Capcom?), that isn't largely known.
+Spidey's screenlock and Hulk's dash glitches, and I'm sure others.
Given how notoriously glitchy its successor is, I was a little underwhelmed, but I've been part of the combo video scene for a long time, so the basic infinites and unintended chains that have been known for ages didn't do much for me. YMMV.
This is a rockman-inspired fangame, but the enemies show attack patterns and bullet patterns that are clearly meant to be dodged as in Touhou games, and dodging them requires skill and looks cool.
Taking damage in this game, as in Touhou games, means that you failed to follow the pattern. The designers allow you to make some mistakes before you lose the game, and as in Touhou games, failing a pattern lets you skip it, so it's actually faster to fail some of them.
But that doesn't show superhuman skill, it makes it look as if it's badly played. This TAS should be a "takes no damage" run, as it would imply the player succesfully dodges all the enemy patterns, a perfect play.
So, by taking the faster route, this run loses all its appeal for me. It's not a "perfect play" of this game, even if it ends being faster, thus why I vote no.
You've just described practically every game ever made.
Interesting situation with the spacebar. The button is part of the standard controls and is mentioned in the game. That seems similar to Legend of Zelda where it was deemed appropriate to use controller 2's Up+A.
I'd say it is legal, but maybe it might lose entertainment value to the audience? I say make a TAS that uses it and let's see what it looks like.
It's listed in the controls right next to how to jump. I'm not sure under what standards a button that makes the game faster and more difficult would be considered a cheat.
