Yep, it is my deal. That is correct. And in this discussion on this discussion forum, I'd like to convince others that it should be their deal too, and it is quite relevant to this thread as it is an aspect of this submission, as well as others. So it would be nice if you or someone else could address those points, which weren't even originally brought up by me in the first place.
Did you just ignore Masterjun's post, or...? Don't really need to explain myself any further.
Yep. And since we've already established that there are a lot more differences in difficulty than simply enemy/boss HP, I'd do it again in a heartbeat.
How about you? Which of those runs should be obsoleted by a run on an easier difficulty because that'd be much easier to make than on hard, and faster, while showing the same basic play?
Why would we mandate that chess TASes have to be on hard for a product that would be EXACTLY THE SAME as if it was an easier difficulty, only slower?
What chess TASes? You mean the ones that aren't published? Pretty poor example, tbh.
The point is that Hardest difficulty in this game is boring, and stupid. There is zero reason for me to TAS on the hardest difficulty.
I thought we had started after the latest board game shenanigans.
Fine, sports games then.
http://tasvideos.org/4482S.htmlhttp://tasvideos.org/4577S.html
Or 'racing'
http://tasvideos.org/4322S.html
Or solitaire
http://tasvideos.org/4704S.html
Or space pew pew
http://tasvideos.org/4802S.html
All would be functionally identical on a lower difficulty. Do we really want people to go through and 'improve' those by doing so?
For more direct comparisons, Fire Emblem runs have obsoleted easier difficulty runs despite being slower due to more and stronger enemies, as have (I think) Gunstar Heroes runs. If anybody submitted runs that had no differences to those but being on an easier difficulty so they'd be... easier, they'd be laughed right out.
Having fewer enemies seems like it'd be precisely a reason to NOT choose an easier difficulty, not a reason for it.
I manipulate as many enemies as possible away anyway, so why would I want to do more work for a product that would be EXACTLY THE SAME as this run, only slower? Pretty stupid if you ask me.
Why would we mandate that chess TASes have to be on hard for a product that would be EXACTLY THE SAME as if it was an easier difficulty, only slower?
Having fewer enemies seems like it'd be precisely a reason to NOT choose an easier difficulty, not a reason for it. Just about any of the run and gun games or shmups would be faster and easier to do on lower difficulties for the same lag reduction reasons, but if someone submitted a run to obsolete one of them based on that, I cannot see any way people would go for it.
There's also no discussion of the difficulty chosen in the previous submission linked above, just Feos saying he didn't agree with it in his judgement. Past decisions should never be taken as binding, that was less important than the run's suboptimality, and it wasn't discussed at all. It's not great even as a precedent goes.
automatic no vote.
i don't support any categories besides any and 100%,nice tas though,just believe it doesn't belong here.
Spikestuff wrote:
Did you find this movie entertaining?
I'm a broken record.
No matter how much the site admins would wish otherwise, the poll question will always be interpreted by most people as "should this be published?"
I have been trying to rally them to change it to reflect what users want it to mean, to no avail.
(My suggestions are: "I found it entertaining." "I did not find it entertaining, but have no objection to publication." "This shouldn't be published (describe reasons in the thread.)")
That seems like an overly wordy way of saying "Moons", "Vault", or "Reject." But yes, in the spirit of broken records, I cannot agree enough that the poll is all but useless as it is for all but a select few submissions.
I mean in general. If you feel the goal is too arbitrary choice, what you vote? If the movie is not optimal, but entertaining, what you vote? It is not "Yes", right?
Voting is solely based on how entertaining the movie is. Category arguing can happy in the thread, and is a separate thing.
You are not voting on whether or not the movie should be published.
This isn't true in usage in either direction. People vote "yes for vault" all the time.
But the quest to change the question is a long and futile one.
Well, it was claimed at 71 hours, accepted at 73, and published at 74. By the guidelines, yeah, but the spirit seems a little bruised.
This is something that's always going to happen regardless of how short or long the time limit is. Sometimes judging and publishing just don't take that much time and everything is already ready by the time the limit is up.
Tangent wrote:
The guidelines also say to give a chance for rebuttal, which was obviously not done,
This judge guideline refers to a judge having comments about the run that would require answering (like questions). That was not the case here, so this quotation is irrelevant.
Tangent wrote:
I think the judge guidelines need to either be touched up, or a refresher course offered.
What judge guidelines need touching up, in your opinion?
It sounds like the intended interpretation is only for rebuttal against rejection then, not a rebuttal to any decision. Why is a positive decision unassailable but not a negative?
To add onto this, I don't think there has ever been a judge's decision that was changed from accept to reject during the publication pending period, and not to harp on this submission again, but it hits the cycle of problems, from almost entirely negative feedback before acceptance, to publication immediately after acceptance, to the judge making their decision based on incorrect assumptions and failing to actually check much of anything on mechanics or optimality.
Even more tangentially, it's frustrating to ask for clarification on why decisions were made, or to bring up points about decisions, and for them to go completely ignored. Even if it's just "Mistakes were made, lessons learned, next time will be better" that'd be better than being seemingly ignored and blown off.
Tangent wrote:
I feel it'd be really useful if judges actually posted their decisions in threads when they made them instead of being tucked away in an edit on the first page. If you mainly view things through the forum, it's very easy to miss that.
Putting away judge decisions in the middle of a forum topic makes them nearly impossible to keep track of. Perhaps there could be a status update post on accepting a la TASVideoAgent/TASVideosGrue do now on publishing/grueing respectively, but this isn't the topic to go on about something like that.
Putting them both places would be best. I agree and understand that there will always be cases when someone pops up with poor timing to find issues, but I think it's still worth making the judge's decisions more visible and providing at least some period of time between making a decision and it becoming final so people actually have a chance to address it, like, say, if it was based on incorrect assumptions and needs more proof of suboptimality.
Well, it was claimed at 71 hours, accepted at 73, and published at 74. By the guidelines, yeah, but the spirit seems a little bruised.
The guidelines also say to give a chance for rebuttal, which was obviously not done, and the prevailing attitude on the site is that once a decision has been made, it is final and absolute, and any kind of futher argument against it is sour grapes from anybody who disagrees, or just as often, ignored completely.
I think the judge guidelines need to either be touched up, or a refresher course offered. I feel it'd be really useful if judges actually posted their decisions in threads when they made them instead of being tucked away in an edit on the first page. If you mainly view things through the forum, it's very easy to miss that.
Actually, notability is the only criterion listed in the vault requirements, so it's inconsistent between the two places.
http://tasvideos.org/Vault.html
At least according to there:
Hacks are ineligible for the vault.
Homebrew/unlicensed allowed based on notability alone.
Moons are, as always, whatever goes, yo.
According to our Movie Rules, hacks and homebrews should be "high quality and notable". There's no question that this WAD is notable, but is it high quality? Surely the site isn't going to accept just any hack that gets a lot of google hits?
You Have to Burn the Rope, among others only notable for how bad they are, begs to differ, most unfortunately.
Dragon's Lair is exactly the same series of inputs, regardless of when you start, because that is how the game is designed. Duck Hunt has some randomness to it as to where (and when?) the ducks appear.
A.) The rooms are randomly shuffled, and certain ones can be (and half the time are) reversed, so no, that's not true. It has just as much trivially managed randomness.
B.) There's at least one room where the speed you press the correct button controls the timing of when you move to the next scene, possibly more, so a 'speed' record is just as possible as Duck Hunt's.
So, we should unpublish Gradius and every other auto-scrolling shooter?
Gradius isn't published to the vault and is not subject to the vault's rules. Edit: Neither are the other two examples you posted and are therefore not relevant in the slightest. Might I suggest Duck Hunt or Vapor Trail as your counter examples instead?
Tangentially, I don't know why Duck Hunt is acceptable, but Dragon's Lair (or Wario Ware since it's much more complex than either) is not. Both are simply pressing a single obvious input on the first frame. They are equally trivial and fail the required standard of having user creativity affecting the game.
As far as I'm aware, currently the only games that are not eligible for Vault-quality publications are uninteresting board games and non-notable amateur games (c.f. ROM hacks).
You're mistaken. There are plenty of games listed in the rules above and beyond just Wario Ware, most notably sports games, particularly those on a fixed clock, as well as rhythm games (Space Channel 5) / reaction games (Dragon's Lair).
This (and auto-scrollers in general) is on a fixed clock aside from the boss, which lasts less than 2 seconds. The rest is similarly trivial.
So if this is publishable, then what auto scrollers are not?
And this: "the game does require a considerable level of skill", plenty of games have been excluded for triviality where this also holds true, like the Wario Ware games as I already mentioned. What makes this special? The ear piercing sounds?
I really disagree with the judge's decision here and it sets a poor precedent for accepting any of a billion things for the vault that can be run without even using slow motion.
...you could have chosen, like, any other Coleco game.
Er, it's the other way around, I chose Zaxxon first and ended up using the ColecoVision port because it had the ability to start on the hardest difficulty. The regrettable sound in this port is a far cry from the arcade original.
I suspect anyone who actually played this game understands the difficulty of lining up shots - compare this run to let's plays and you'll notice how many bullets they have to fire just to figure out where they are in the 3D space and you'll see what I mean. This run definitely isn't for everyone, though, and I'm not offended by the feedback. Thanks for your thoughts!
It's only hard because the graphics/style make positioning confusing, which isn't really a problem in a TAS. Also, difficulty in a TAS and difficulty in regular play are two extremely different things. See: Almost every zapper and Wario Ware game.
Besides Super Turricane ( http://tasvideos.org/3460S.html ), a few others surprised me when they were accepted.
http://tasvideos.org/4012S.html
Tons of suboptimal parts and a totally different strategy posted, but the author didn't want to do it, and then it was almost immediately accepted (to the vault) after multiple resubmissions despite every previous one needing improvement.
http://tasvideos.org/3910S.html
Tons of suboptimal parts, and slower than a Japanese TAS on both single player and a harder difficulty in tons of places.
Not always. The judges tend to be pretty reasonable about missing fixes that cannot be easily edited into the movie file. For example, if you fix one second's worth of work in the first few minutes of the movie, but that throws off the randomness for the rest of the game, then you can't change that early work without effectively redoing the whole movie. Usually, if the improvements are small, judges can forgive that. (See the recent Kid Dracula movie, for instance.)
And sometimes, they'll accept things even when they're demonstrably majorly suboptimal as long as the topic doesn't get enough attention. At this point though, we're past that mark.
It's a ridiculously basic autoscroller that is utterly trivial to TAS. The only part that requires even a modicum of thought is the boss, and even that's pretty much "shoot as soon as possible." The rerecord count backs that up too.
How does this meet the standards for standing out from casual save states, or even just regular play with some practice? Even the one-shot thing isn't impressive because the game normally signals you when you're lined up with an enemy.
And not go on for infinity like an arcade Pac-Man run would, since it was recently proven that the kill screen CAN be completed without losing any lives, bringing you back to level 1...
Can I get a source for this claim?
He's probably referring to the Twin Galaxies thing from a few weeks back where they were advertising that they'd livestream people beating that for the FIRST TIME EVARRRR.
Except that it turned out they weren't using the original game version, so...
http://www.classicarcadegaming.com/forums/index.php?topic=6368.0
Edit: Ugh, links
There was also recently the Super Pitfall run, although that was changed by the authors and no official judgement was made.
On original submission, it was using a glitch to call the ending screen, but it didn't play the ending music nor activate the Second Quest by doing so. It was just erroneously loading the ending screen. The newer submissions actually call the ending so the Second Quest could be triggered from it. And are faster so would obsolete anyway, so it's kind of a moot point.
In A Boy and his Blob, you can actually walk through the ending screens on the way to... triggering the ending screens. A little different again, but still a case of seeing the ending isn't really the real ending.
