I'm not sure we have very strong legal grounds for requiring any kind of credits.
Games, including their music and graphics, are the intellectual property of the companies that made them. We don't get copyright, or any kind of other right, for gameplay video or any other kind of derivative work. Thus we have no legal grounds to demand any kind of credits. (But IANAL. This is my limited understanding of copyright law.)
At most we can ask for credits as a sign of good will.
(What this means in practice is that this person is in the same situation as us with respect to potential copyright infringmenet / fair use. It may very well fall under fair use, but that's between this person and the IP owner.)
This guy does acapella versions of video game music, I think he's really awesome. Here's Chemical Plant Zone from Sonic 2:
The more songs I listen from him, the more convinced I become that he's using a program like Melodyne for pitch correction.
(Not that it would make it less cool, but...)
So since a run completing a certain game mode has already been published in the Vault, setting the precedent as Tanooki Teabag said, what's stopping this run from being published too?
I think it has always been an informal policy of the site that nothing sets precedents, and the adage is "past mistakes don't justify repeating them."
(I'm not saying that publishing that run was a mistake. I'm saying that precedents shouldn't affect anything.)
Oh man, this once against brings up the question of what it means to actually finish the game...
In the normal game completion there's almost 2 minutes of ending scenes between the final hit to the boss and the beginning of the end credits, and this run completely skips this.
One could argue that this is ok, because the game still progresses to the "The End" scene, which is all that counts.
Anyway, voting yes but on the condition that this is published on its own category and doesn't replace the full game run.
It ends on the first possible frame (as per the rules)
I don't think there are definitive rules on when the input should be ended, because the definition and requirements are not unambiguous.
Having the movie end at the earliest possible moment after which the game progresses to the end, without any further input, is a bit controversial. (Sure, situations where there's a significantly long amount of time between ending input and the game ending happen extremely rarely, but it has happened.)
Personally I like most the principle "the input should be ended in the earliest possible frame so that the game progresses to the end, and the end of the game cannot be made to happen sooner by providing further input." But it's not a hard rule (and probably couldn't even be.)
So you think that dyslexics just don't try hard enough?
Dyslexia is a real disability, and if reading more can help them to function better, it is not your place to force them to do it.
If his point was that we shouldn't patronize people with disabilities, I really don't understand what your point is.
Hi, I've been Looking into TASes for several years now and I Must say "Good Job" on your Runs. I would Like to work on my own ocarina of time TAS to beat the Game with all of the Dungeons. However, is it O.K. for me to do this if I have Autism? I've been diagnosed with Asperger's Syndrome but I Love ocarina of time TAS. Is this allowed?
If you are being serious (and not some kind of strange troll) I'm not exactly sure what is it that you are asking. Perhaps you meant to ask something that you didn't actually express in your post? I mean, something like "is it ok if the run isn't perfect or beat any existing records, because it's difficult for me to make such a run due to my condition?"
If that's what you are asking, then I don't think such exceptions to the standards of quality would be in place (although I'm nobody making policies here, of course.)
But if you could swap games without cutting power in the emulator, and store that in the movie file, then i'd call that legit.
Why do I get the feeling that we are getting farther and farther away from what speedrunning actually is, by bending definitions and artificially moving goalposts of what's "allowed" and what's not...
Didn't have any problem playing the two encodes with mplayer (on an i5). The video in the embedded flash player seemed a bit jittery even though it was not taking even nearly all of CPU time, for some reason.
Streaming arbitrary data through a port. not okay, in my book.
Btw, I don't understand why anyone would even think it's ok. I see little difference between that and streaming arbitrary data through the game cartridge connection (thus effectively allowing you to modify the game in any way you want.)
Which makes no fucking sense unless we go with what my current favourite theory for explaining away the whole movie is: The entire thing takes place in Twilight's head.
I'm not sure that makes much sense either. AFAIK, humans don't exist in the G4 universe (or at least not in the same dimension) and thus Twilight shouldn't have any notion of such beings.
It makes sense to me, but it's a logic that can't be perfectly applied for TAS because you can bet for sure that the game design rules are different than how the game is programmed. For example, while a game designer can think in terms of probabilities, an algorithm cannot generate randomness, only simulate it. Hence, you can't ban luck manipulation, and yet you can't fully manipulate it either.
I think there's still some misunderstanding left. I'm not talking about abusing luck or glitches in the game. I'm just talking about doing it via gameplay (rather than via external influence such as the reset or power buttons.)
If we continue with the football game metaphor, abusing luck in the game would be like in the football game a perfect player making a one-in-a-trillion shot from one end of the field to the other, which has just the right amount of spin and velocity, and bounces ten times from the ground, other players and goalposts, and might even fly 50 meters high at some point, and ends up in the opponents' goal through astronomically small chance. There's nothing wrong with that.
Zipping through a wall is like the ball suddenly quantum-teleporting through a player, a chance that's so astronomically small that it just doesn't happen normally.
This guy's not kidding. I've put some time in it, but I've held off for a while now because I am actually scared.
It gets to brainbleach levels of disgusting towards the end (although most of it is more implied than directly shown, which is possibly even more effective), so it might not be for the weak of mind.
That being said, it wasn't very effective in my case. Seems that no horror game is, as of late. Somehow I have got so completely immunized against horror games that nothing scares me (except the few cheap jump scares that some games throw here and there). For example, I bought F.E.A.R. because some people recommended it as a really scary horror game, but it had zero effect on me. It wasn't a bad game, mind you; it simply failed at being tense or scary, in my case.
This was rather different in the past, like 15 or so years ago. Would you believe that playing through the Area 51 levels of Tomb Raider 3 was a really tense experience for me (even though nothing really happens there; it was just the atmosphere.)
That said, I see merit in both following the rules and abusing the rules.
To clarify, the "rules of football" I used above as a metaphor was a simile related to the hardware. In other words, just because a game "should" add eg. savedata checksums to make sure that savedata is not corrupted, and many games don't, that's not part of gameplay. In the same way as the superhuman players could abuse the fact that the opposing team can get sick doesn't mean that's what the spectators want to see, likewise just the fact that power can be cut from the console is not necessarily something that the spectators want to see. In both cases the spectators (or at least me) want to see a game being played with absolute perfection, not abuse of ancillary unrelated things.
I still oppose the claim because "jumping the shark" means, approximately, "the moment when a series took a permanent dive into mediocrity or worse". You can't make that assessment until at least a half dozen or so new episodes are produced. A single bad episode doesn't cut it.
However, it is possible to do such actions, and the hardware has been designed for that. Not only that, but proper handling of those actions are literally requirements for licensed games. (For example, I've seen a Wii game fail certification because the power button triggered a save before power off.)
I'm not sure I can agree with the sentiment that since the power button can be detected in some modern consoles, it has to be allowed in all consoles, even those where it simply just cuts the power to the machine and that's it.
Nevertheless, perhaps I could clarify what I mean when I say that I don't like it if non-gameplay-related things are abused to corrupt the game data.
Assume a hypothetical case where a team of all-powerful beings, in the form of humanoids, were to demonstrate how to play an absolutely perfect and flawless game of football against a normal human team. In such a demonstration one would expect exactly that: A perfect game of football, with both teams playing to the best of their abilities, and the superhuman team just mopping the floor with the other team by constantly making absolutely stunning football performances.
However, what happens? All the members of the normal team get so sick that they cannot play, and have to be removed from the game. The all-powerful team then simply plays in an empty field by just kicking the ball constantly into the now-empty opposing goal, thousands of times. Certainly this would be a complete letdown, and not what one wanted to see.
When asked why they did this, they argue: Well, the case where a player gets sick is right here in the rulebook. Since it's in the rulebook, making them sick a perfectly valid option, isn't it? Surely it wouldn't be there if it weren't a valid strategy, now would it?
Well, the game's rulebook might contain some section about what to do if a player gets sick during a game, but that's not really what we wanted to see. We wanted to see the game being actually played...
As I see it, there can be two camps of thought:
1) We want primarily TASes that are entertaining, but we also want a collection of speed records of every game in existence (where completion speed has some kind of rational meaning.) Therefore games where speed has no rational meaning, and for which an entertaining-enough TAS cannot be made because of the kind of game it is, do not get TASes.
2) Every game (at least every game that has an ending) deserves a TAS, no matter which game it is.
If we wanted the latter (count me in that camp, btw) then we need a fourth tier. The tiers would then be:
- Star: A small list of selected TASes that showcase TASing in a very exemplary and outstanding manner.
- Moon: TASes that are entertaining enough that they would have been published even under the old system (or a bit stricter than that.)
- Vault: TASes where the main goal is completion speed, but which did not get to the Moon tier.
- Yet-to-be-named: TASes of games where speed has no logical or sensible meaning, and which did not get to the Moon tier. In general, only one TAS per game is allowed here (unless there are some very exceptional circumstances.)
