Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
I found this movie entertaining, but I can't ignore the fact that the published movie is in Vault, even though the goal for that movie is different (full-completion).
So I need to ask: did you find this movie entertaining? Why?
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Let me premise that I'm much amazed and delighted to see such a TAS made. It truly is a perfect example of what knowledge and skills with reverse-engineering can achieve. But on the other hand, I didn't enjoy watching the movie in the slightest, as there wasn't much to see. Even playing it at 1% speed wouldn't help.
Maru wrote:
What do we consider as gameplay? This TAS is going to force us as a community to reevaluate this concept all together.
Indeed. In my opinion, this TAS is also going to force an update to Vault Rules.
While I can't see this TAS going against any of our current Movie Rules, I have to note that it goes against the original purpose of the site, that we can reassume as: showcasing superhuman gameplay. With all due respect to the technical quality of this TAS and to anyone who contributed in crafting it, I have to note that it lacks everything of it:
It lacks "gameplay", as the playable character doesn't appear on screen nor is controlled in any way for even 1 frame.
It lacks "superhuman", as there is no gameplay to compare.
We are only left with looking at the work behind the making of this TAS, but that would mean that we're looking at something from the eyes of human possibilities, as this TAS was in fact made by human beings (although well above the average).
It lacks "showcasing", as what we display for the community are the resulting movies to watch.
The site was initially restricted to entertaining-oriented TASes only, and all efforts were oriented towards trying to appeal the people with what TASing could display that unassisted gameplay can't. Years later, Vault tier was introduced for record-keeping purposes, but we're still talking of "tool-assisted superplays" or "tool-assisted speedruns".
In my opinion, even if Vault doesn't take in consideration the entertaining value at all, it should only include TASes that feature actual gameplay, as I don't see any meaning in publishing a movie that doesn't feature anything that could be seen on video or compared with unassisted gameplay in any way, not even theoretically.
Now answering more thoroughly to your question: What do we consider as gameplay?
In my opinion, it can be objectively defined with two rules:
1) The movie must trigger the beginning of the playable part of the game, and it must do it the the supposed way, i.e.: from the relative game's main menu or title screen. This can be objectively defined and verified with some basic trace logging, after that we identify the function that starts the play. This can also safely include "demo glitch" movies that starts the game from an in-game demoplay or scripted cutscene (984M, 2285M, 3471M, 3557M, 3567M)
2) The movie must not make use of a glitch or gimmick that could save even more time if performed before starting playing the game in its supposed way, or before that the game begins playing the demoplay or the cutscene normally, for cases where that is used for beginning the play.
Maru wrote:
That brings me to my next question, which is: Does this TAS have any gameplay improvements compared to the published run?
To answer that question, you will need to consider the first question too.
As a logic following of my reasoning: no, it doesn't have any gameplay improvement, as it doesn't feature gameplay.
Maru wrote:
This next question is unrelated to the others. If this submission is accepted, should it obsolete the published run based on the fact that the published run was thoroughly outperformed in terms of time?
At TASVideos and especially with games like SMB3, new categories of games have to show significant differences from the existing categories in order to be accepted. This brings up the next question. Is this type of game end glitch significantly different from the published game end glitch TAS to warrant the creation of a new category? This is relatively unheard of for game end glitch TASes, but we all have to be open to possibilities.
If this movie gets accepted, I think that it should be published as a new branch, as in my opinion the currently fastest-completion publication features enough different and entertaining contents.
Maru wrote:
Another question does come to mind looking at this TAS from a viewer's perspective. Since the ending is almost instant, do viewers see some similarity or resemblance to entering a password in-game to skip to the credits? No passwords are used in this TAS, but whether people find it similar to using one is a question that needs to be answered. I could see arguments that any sort of game end glitch could look like using a password to skip major portions of a game. However, it is worth mentioning that prior to the credits, Mario's face is not seen in any way, shape, or form. All a viewer sees is the curtains prior to reaching the credits.
Interesting question. Indeed, in-game passwords, in most cases, consist of hard-coded input sequences that can lead to intentionally unfair advantages or outcomes. For some games, passwords may also require certain input timing. So, if we really want to be pedantic, yes, we could see some similarity or resemblance. What makes it worse, is that many games have some still undiscovered passwords coded in, so there could even be (theoretically speaking) cases where such could slip in, as we can't detect something with trace logging if we don't know which function are we needing to watch. And even if, ad absurdum, we reverse-engineer the full code of a game, we still will never be 100% sure that a password was coded in some obscure way that we couldn't notice or figure out.
Maru wrote:
I would love to hear people's thoughts on these questions. Remember that there is no right or wrong answer to what I have asked here. All of these questions are open-ended.
The decision for this TAS is going to be a very difficult one to make. The goal here is to set a good precedent for future game end glitch TASes, especially ones of this type. I do not want to set a bad precedent for future game end glitch TASes here.
Indeed, I'm speaking out my mind with the awareness that some people may dislike these ideas, and I think that everyone should feel free to expose differing thoughts, as long as these are useful and respectful.
Edit:
DrD2k9 wrote:
With power-on being our start point, it's my opinion that any inputs after power-on should be considered part of 'gameplay' for a TAS even when they occur on (or even before) the title screen. Consider games in which RNG can be manipulated by either delaying title screen input or pressing buttons that don't appear to have an effect on the title screen itself. Changing these title screen inputs changes the outcome of the TAS itself and therefore is part of the TAS gameplay.
To answer the the third question: Yes it is a gameplay improvement. Since I consider title screen (and pre-title screen inputs) as part of gameplay, this submission is indeed a gameplay improvement over the current publication.
I agree that pre-title screen is part of gameplay, in fact I think that we should keep our current TAS timing from power-on to last input.
On the other hand, I disagree that pre-title screen alone can constitute gameplay, for the reasons that I expressed above in this post.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
You can get Undertale Linux v1.001 either by simply downloading it from the steam Betas tab, or by downloading the current version of the game, typing "download_depot 391540 391544 3991795236625517204" into the steam console, and replacing the downloaded "game.unx" file with the one in the origional download.
Can you please tell me more about how to find this "original download"? I downloaded the game by typing the command in the steam console, however I only got one download, and thus one game.unx.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
<TASVideoAgent> New submission! Go and see #6463: Shinryuu, aglasscage & FinalFighter's NES Rockman 2 in 23:44.5 at http://tasvideos.org/6463S.html
* TASVideoAgent has changed the topic to: Official IRC channel of TASVideos.org | Latest publication: [4000] A2600 Pitfall! (USA) by Lobsterzelda in 18:11.2 >> http://tasvideos.org/4000M.html | Latest submission: http://tasvideos.org/6463S.html
<TASVideoAgent> New topic by TASVideoAgent (WorkB: #6463: Shinryuu, aglasscage & FinalFighter's NES Rockman 2 in 23:44.5): http://tasvideos.org/forum/t/21213 [a:1]
<muggphone> Oh??
<Spikestuff_> ye
<shinboi_> hit me in the face if my formatting sucks
<ThunderAxe31> less than 10 minutes passed since submission. movie is 23 minutes long. someone has already voted. someone lied.
<shinboi_> This was actually done around a week ago
<shinboi_> and I've shared it for a minimal group beforehand, I also noticed that
* ThunderAxe31 is defeated! you gain 3.1 exp points.
<shinboi_> OH NO
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Mothrayas wrote:
Baddap1 wrote:
Because Hard difficult only adds some enemies all over the Stages and some minibosses have more HP and it's not too different from normal mode so i decided to go for the fastest way because that's the goal of this movie.
In my opinion, adding more enemies in stages is a good reason to use hard mode instead, as it would mean requiring more creative opportunities to dodge or defeat enemies that are in the way. (See also the guidelines on difficulty.)
I fully agree with Moth. Picking an easier difficulty just because it's "the fastest way" feels cheap, especially when it's in fact detracting part of the optimization challenge.
Mothrayas wrote:
I don't think this would be a large deal-breaker (depends on further audience opinion), but I'd say that hard mode probably would be preferred for this game.
Ok, but if this movie gets accepted, then how would be compared with future submissions that use the hardest difficulty? I don't think that a decision of obsoletion should be based on audience reception alone, but more on the technical merits between the two movies compared. And comparing technical merits becomes moot if these use different difficulty modes.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Since both the current and the obsoleted publications have borderline ratings for entertainment, I'd like to have a more firm reception for this submission, just to be sure.
By the way, here is the list of improvements:
Level 1: 22 frames saved
Level 2: 3 frames saved
Boss 1: 27 frames saved
Level 3: 1 frames saved
Level 4: 0 frames saved
Boss 2: 22 frames saved, of which 10 in the fight and 12 in the score screen
Level 5: 10 frames saved
Level 6: 8 frames saved
Boss 3: 89 frames saved
Level 7: 17 frames saved
Level 8: 4 frames saved
Boss 4: 206 frames saved, of which 16 in first phase, 4 in the second phase, and 186 for last movie input.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
feos wrote:
If there's actually more variety in boss fights, not simply "more of the same", and if less player health means more dodging (since there's no damage boosts here), hardest difficulty has value. But the game is boring either way, so for me personally difficulty changes nothing.
Even if the entertainment could end up being perceived unchanged, we still have to take a stance, as we can't accept submissions made with both difficulties. If we accept this submission today for obsoleting the current publication, and in the future a new Arcade Mode movie gets submitted, which features superior optimization but longer final time due to mode differences that can't be overcomed by optimization alone, what would we do?
Since we can't really compare technical quality of movies made with different difficulty modes, we instead have to decide which one of the two difficulty should be used for any acceptable movie made for the specific game. This also means that if we decide to allow a different difficulty mode than the one from the current publication, it means that we declare the current publication as invalid, as we can't objectively compare optimization made with different difficulty modes.
I'm not saying that we should never change our stance about the preferred difficulty for a published movie, but rather I'm saying that we can't indiscriminately accept submissions made with any difficulty mode just because it has a shorter movie length. We need to take a stance for each game on a case-by-case basis, looking at which difficulty mode features more entertaining merits (IMO technical merits should be also considered). For cases where it's unclear which difficulty mode is better, we go with the hardest one, just like the guideline suggests.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
From what I can see, the PCE Mode and Arcade Mode are actually difficulty settings, rather than game modes, so only one should be allowed for publication. And we already have a published movie that uses Arcade Mode. Now, while using the hardest difficulty is often preferred, it's not a strict rule but rather a guideline, for which we decide preference on a case-by-case basis. See more below:
Difficulty Guideline wrote:
When a game has multiple difficulty levels, it is preferred to play on the difficulty that would make the most interesting and entertaining run. Usually, this is the hardest difficulty, and as such it is the most preferred choice for a TAS. However, there are cases where harder difficulties do nothing but add repetition to runs, such as only giving enemies and bosses more HP, where the extra work required to kill them is uninteresting. In these cases, it is preferred to use an easier difficulty in the interest of reducing repetitive actions which do little to entertain upon frequent use.
Good reasons to use the hardest difficulty are:
More stages, such as Contra III
More interesting boss fights, such as new attack patterns, and new variety of methods used to whittle down their HP
More overall action without repetition, such as more enemies in a game that are interesting to kill
Miniscule time differences between difficulties
If you're unsure, always go with hardest
Good reasons to use easier difficulties are:
More health for damage boosts
Less boring enemies leading to less lag
Faster bossfights on repetitive bosses, especially if their lower health can lead them to be one-cycled, and they are not interesting to fight for longer periods
Note that every game is judged on a case-by-case basis, so these reasons do not always apply. For example, if a bossfight only requires an extra hit or two because of higher health, that may not be repetitive enough to warrant using a lower difficulty.
From my personal point of view, the fact that in PCE Mode the player gets hit multiple times and the bosses have much less health gives an obvious feeling of "easiness" which in my opinion brings only demerits for the entertaining value.
On the other hand, I think that having less health for the player and more health for the bosses results in a more challenging and interesting routing for a TAS, similarly for Shinobi Legions (less player health) and Metal Slug games (more bosses health).
I think that the fact that the easier mode is preferred in the RTA community doesn't change these facts. Is there anything that I'm missing? Does PCE Mode feature any particular merit for entertaining or technical value that Arcade Mode doesn't?
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Spikestuff wrote:
Looking about at other hacks on romhacking I don't think this is the best choice of hack to go with.
Googie City, Star Wars, Binary City are the notable three I had a glance at.
The first being a somewhat vanilla mod and the other two being a bit more enhanced and more above and beyond.
Well, the first is in fact a vanilla mod in all aspects.
The second is just a re-skin and level hack that doesn't introduce any game mechanic, but it's actually removing all the items, the destructible tiles and the eagle base (seriously?).
The third one is a very extensive hack that introduces a lot of new concepts into Battle City, adding different game mechanics for every level, more or less like Zeng Ge Hack. However, the game mechanics introduced are different, so I think that both could be published independently.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Fortranm wrote:
1. While the process of getting to the Maria vs Maria fight is indeed not visually entertaining, its novelty itself adds to the entertainment value of the run.
Uhm. Indeed, there may be some people that may find that to be the actually more entertaining choice. You know, for situations like this, I think that the best idea is to make and submit both TASes at the same time, in order to see what the community finds more entertaining. Also, community agreement may affect full-completion definitions (if that is applicable for this goal).
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
EZGames69 wrote:
Edit2: my concern for including this boss is that it will lessen the entertainment value for the run. if there was a smoother way to enter the boss then I wouldnt be against including it. I think if unintended bosses are possible to fight in movies then it should be up to the author if they're included in the run, I do not think it should be a requirement unless the publication already includes such a fight without it hindering the entertainment value of the run, such as the Julius Vs Julius fight in Aria of Sorrow.
I understand your reason for being concerned about this. Indeed, since including this glitched boss could be detrimental for the entertaining value of the branch, it could lead to a rejection for not being applicable for Moons.
I also think that an "all bosses" goal should include every possible boss, may some be intentionally accessible or glitched, as we will never be able to know the developers' original intentions for sure. I see that in this case it's a pretty obvious unintended boss, but my point is that we can't go with a case-by-case basis when defining a branch goal. We need to apply the same yardstick for all situations, in order to avoid the creation of any kind of bias or double standard.
However, from what I understood, this hypothetical "Maria mode, all bosses" branch goal could count as full-completion for the Maria mode. If that is the case, then it could be allowed to avoid fighting against the glitched boss, if the community considers this to be unintended for the specific game mode. We allow a certain degree of freedom for determining full-completion definitions, if that meets all of ours rule requirements. What I'm saying now could seem to be contradicting with what I said earlier, but I have to note that full-completion definitions often need a certain degree of flexibility, as they are often much more complex than Moons-only goals. Quoting from the Movie Rules page (bold mine):
Full completion rules wrote:
A clear consensus is required on what constitutes full-completion.
Some games reward the player for something internally defined as maximum completion goal.
Sometime full completion requirements are explicitly mentioned in the game instructions.
Full completion can only consist of optional one-time, irreversible, or otherwise strictly limited accomplishments that can be objectively measured and maximized.
[*]Conditions that are imposed unofficially by players are only eligible if they originate from fundamental game-play features.
[*]Community agreement is required when defining newly invented full completion goals, or if existing definitions need to be revised.
Please note that I'm not saying that the glitched boss should or shouldn't be included in the goal. I'm just saying that both cases have their chances to be accepted and to be rejected. I think that the only way to be sure would be to have an actual submission to judge.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
I already compared the two submissions. The only reason why I didn't reject this submission yet, it's because I first have to confirm that the faster submission is legit and syncs correctly.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Yeah I'm still on it
Edit: so, I've found out that the movie file swaps disc at an unintended time, from frame 1380068 to frame 1381535. Luckly, this doesn't affect sync.
Lil_Gecko, do you agree with replacing the current submission file for removing the unnecessary disc swap inputs? (I already made the new movie file and confirmed sync)
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Is this caused by emulation inaccuracy? In that case, I think it would be nice to make an issue on github.
Note that this movie also syncs on BizHawk 2.3.2 (mGBA 0.7.2 core)
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
feos wrote:
ThunderAxe31, when judging this movie, please verify the cyclecount and suggested movie time that originates from it. Also there's another movie that needs to be verified on the same subject, I think it'd be handy to do check both at once.
All right, I did check myself and I confirm that the cycle-based timing brought by TiKevin83 is accurate: 1:29:53.187.
I'll confirm the other movie you mentioned soon.
Edit: confirmed the Yellow movie timing as well: 9:47.009.
By the way, there is no need to use a Lua script. In BizHawk, go to File > Movie > On Movie End > Pause. Then, after that the movie playback has reached its finishing point and emulation is still paused, open the Lua window and type emu.totalexecutedcycles() in the Lua console, then hit enter and the cycle amount will be outputted. I got the very same results as the ones from TiKevin83, so it seems to be applicable.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
As other people already said, you need to upscale your video before uploading it to YouTube, in order to have a height of at least 720 pixels.
Link to video
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Spikestuff wrote:
I think it was resubmitted cause the author was on about providing their own encodes not realising the rejection message stating information for a better run?
Yes, that could be the case. Edit: actually, when Juarez cancelled the [submission=
6414]very first submission[/submission], I already wrote in this post that a submission should not be replaced by a new one, but edited.
Spikestuff wrote:
So figuratively speaking this one hasn't been judged accordingly and should be done so now?
I'd like to, but I need the author to un-cancel the original submission, as it wasn't cancelled by me. Though I was about to reject it as well.
Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Skilled player
(1288)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Juarez wrote:
What is Temp Encode?
It's a temporary video encode of TAS movie, uploaded on an online video hosting service like YouTube. It's useful because it allows forum users to watch your submitted movie without having to play it back on emulator. This makes it much more likely to get more opinions and thought about a submission, which often helps with the judging process.
