I'm sorry if this has been discussed and explained before, but due to the recent discussion in the CT submission thread, I started wondering:
How well do emulators really emulate what happens when you reset while the game is saving? Is it a 1-to-1 accurate simulation of what would happen in the real hardware?
Glitches which are purely caused by the emulator itself and don't happen in the real console are forbidden, and for a good reason: Abusing them is completely equivalent to hacking the ROM or using cheats.
Also glitches which work differently in the emulator than in the real console are, at the very least, very dubious. After all, TASing is all about what would theoretically happen in the real console if a perfect godlike being was playing. It's not about what would happen in an emulator.
So how do we know that the glitches caused by resetting during saving work in the same way in the emulator as they would work in the real console?
I see two scenarios here:
1) The emulators emulate the hardware perfectly, and this is easy to corroborate (by knowing how the hardware works, and by studying the source code of the emulators). If this is the case, then there isn't any kind of problem.
2) The glitches caused by this are emulator-specific and do not necessarily correspond to how the real console would behave. If that's the case, then this puts into question the runs which abuse the save glitching (because, as said, it's more or less equivalent to emulator cheating). At the very least this would cause these runs to have to be demoted to "demo" status.
Yeah. I remember watch some runs and getting disappointed [pissed off even] that they were tool-assisted. I mean there is nothing wrong with a TASe video, but you have all these extra tools available and [most] of the tas runners can't do anything remotely creative other than a speed run and juggling some turtle shells?
So what you want are machinima videos, not speedruns? Then try googling for "machinima videos" if that's what you are interested in.
I don't even understand the question "what's the point in tool-assisted speedruns?". What's the point in regular speedruns? The point in TASes is exactly the same, but with a different approach: What would happen if human limitations were removed?
Personally I appreciate many, but not all regular speedruns. For instance, I'm a huge fan of the Quake Done Quick runs. I was in fact such a big fan that I bought Quake (in a Q1 Q2 Q3 combo pack) for the sole reason of being able to watch the speedruns at full resolution. (Of course I played Q2 through, and some Q3, but I would honestly not have bought the pack if it weren't for QdQ.)
QdQ is a good example of speedrunning because it really shows the skill and amount of effort put into making them. The speedrunners have literally practiced their speedrunning skills for years to achieve that level of mastery. I'm really in awe with those runs.
But as I said, that doesn't mean I appreciate all speedruns. Some of them are full of mistakes and sloppy play (usually because it's a slightly less popular game, and there might be only one or two persons even attempting to speedrun it, without any true competition and challenge to beat others' times).
Sometimes speedrunners don't care about entertaining the viewer and, on the contrary, seem to have the goal of outright annoying the viewer as bad as they possibly can. This can become really jarring at times. (Yes, I have already been extremely flamed because of this opinion in the past, in this very forum, so no need to do it again, alright?)
Othertimes the quality of the game settings may not be the best possible, considerably degrading the visual experience. (Often it's because of technical limitations because the runner has to have both the game and the capturing software running at the same time, and there's just so much that his PC can do.) Regardless of the reason, this also can get quite jarring at times.
One thing which I appreciate in TASes is that since there are no technical reasons for either mistakes, sloppy play, entertainment or poor-quality settings, the overall quality of the videos is rather high (so basically the only affecting entertainment factor is whether the game itself is fun to watch being beaten superfast or not).
Most TASes might not require extreme playing skills, but they do require tons of hard work and perseverance. In some cases they require tons of background research (eg. game mechanics, routes, etc), studying the source code, utilising of tools, and even creating new tools specifically for the task in question (eg. bot programming).
I admire most those TASes for which the amount of work put into them is simply enormous.
How about selective keeping of "historically significant" old movies?
If someone improves his own movie by a couple of seconds, without changing it significantly, there's usually not much interest for the old movie.
When the obsoleting movie is significantly different from the old one, then there may be interest in keeping the old one available as well (a good example of this being the 16-star vs. 1-star vs. 0-star SuperMario64 completion).
Of course this process cannot be automatized, so it would increase slightly the amount of work needed.
Granted, my post may be easily misinterpreted, I grant you that.
However, DarkKobold was not being an asshole because he misinterpreted it. He was being an asshole because he started his insulting namecalling without even giving me the benefit of the doubt.
I find even the thought of belittling that Bisqwit's code ridiculous. Bisqwit contributed that code to my Mandelbrot scripts page years ago, and I added it there because it was a very cool example. I was as surprised and glad to see his code at TheDailyWTF as anyone else.
Misinterpreting my post is one thing. Jumping to stupid namecalling is being a complete asshole.
Excuse me? Exactly what was it in my post that was negative? I was not making a negative or bashing post in the least. What I meant was that it's really cool when things are abused in that way to generate cool things (like the mandelbrot set).
Your weird accusation sounds like you are just an asshole who should shut up.
Stacking two 4:3 images horizontally rather than vertically will indeed not enlarge either image when viewed fullscreen on a 4:3 monitor. The reason is simple: Two 4:3 images stacked inside a 4:3 area will take exactly half of the area, no matter how you rearrange them (assuming you don't overlap them).
I believe the issue here is working around a maximum vertical resolution that exists on sites like youtube, where stacking the screens side-by-side will allow each screen to have a higher resolution, but may still result in the movie looking worse overall..
Well, youtube is nowadays an exception because it fairly recently started supporting widescreen 16:9 videos. Stacking the two DS screens horizontally would indeed make them bigger if the video is 16:9 (and submitted to youtube as such). On a 4:3 video it doesn't matter how you stack them.
Look, if you really want to be picky about it, so far, 56% of the votes are yes = majority of the viewers liked it.
How many rejected submission have had a minority of yes votes?
Kyrsimys wrote:
adelikat has already taken up some of the site's resposibilities, and I imagine he is now the "site coordinator" as well.
You can't deny that a "site coordinator" accepting and publishing his own submission completely regardless of public opinion (on a server he doesn't even own) sounds a bit elitist.
Why was this submitted for public vote if it was going to be published regardless, by none other than the creator of the run himself? The vote was just a farce.
At least Bisqwit (as far as I remember) has never pushed his own submissions through, disrespecting public opinion and making a farce of the whole voting system. And he has been in the exact same situation: He made the first DOS TAS ever submitted to this site. However, he respected public opinion and rejected his own submission.
Is this the direction the site politics are going to take in the future?
I'm speechless. Really.
Has tasvideos.org become your personal dictatorship where you just publish your own runs without any regard to anyones opinion?
Am I the only one who thinks that you are seriously abusing your power as a judge?
The question being posed here is if this run, being so different in concept than the old one, warrants being placed in a category of its own. If the answer is yes, there's no need for it to obsolete the old run (since it's in a different category). It's not necessarily a quality issue in the first place.
OTOH it wouldn't be the first time a run in a different category "obsoletes" an existing run. I think it happened with LoZ:OoT.
(But as I have been saying, these things should really be estimated on a per-game basis. Not all rules can be applied to all games.)
Stacking two 4:3 images horizontally rather than vertically will indeed not enlarge either image when viewed fullscreen on a 4:3 monitor. The reason is simple: Two 4:3 images stacked inside a 4:3 area will take exactly half of the area, no matter how you rearrange them (assuming you don't overlap them). Vertically, horizontally, diagonally, or in any other (non-overlapping) way, the two 4:3 images will always have the same size (they will amount to exactly half the screen area).
They will be larger only if you have a widescreen monitor. (OTOH widescreen monitors are becoming more popular nowadays.)
Another idea:
If one of the DS screens is significantly less relevant than the other, and they are not geometrically connected in content, scale the less relevant screen smaller, like eg. half in size on both axes.
If in some game the action temporarily switches from one screen to another, invert the scales to follow the action. (If the action temporarily becomes important on both screens, make both screens equal in size).
Ok, I know I promised not to nag anymore about this, but... Sheesh! Holy crap. A submission with 11% no votes and 29% meh votes, with a lively discussion going on, was published in only four days, while at the same time other submissions have been sitting there for over a month.
Yeah, clearly this one was in no way rushed to publication, and was judged completely impartially and fairly, like any other submission. And this being the very first DS TAS ever had clearly absolutely nothing to do with this rushed publication.
Yeah, sure.
Now, completely honestly: Would you be advocating the publication if this was, let's say, a SNES game rather than a DS one, knowing the flaws the run has?
Yes. If (1) the movie was not worse than another candidate movie, (2) it had no visible mistakes (i.e. ones that make you say "ouch, why did he do that, that's horrible" when you see it) and (3) was entertaining to watch nonetheless, I would approve its publication regardless of strategic discoveries made during the time the submission sits in the queue, regardless of the console it was made for.
Now, I still have no idea what kind of flaw is it that is in this movie, and consequently, whether (2) holds. I'm just saying, here's what I think if it's one of these cases.
Ok, if that's really your honest opinion, then I suppose I can't argue about it.
I won't disturb this thread anymore with my nagging, because there's no point in fighting, and I already expressed my opinion (for whatever it may be worth). I apologize for the disturbance.
(Yes, I'll watch this video if it's published, and I will probably enjoy it. It's not a question about that. I'm just being puzzled by the somewhat chaotic standards which seem to drift from one extreme to other and never settle to something clear and unambiguous.)
We publish visual performance here. I don't think I can possibly formulate an answer that will satisfy you, Warp -- it's not the first time I catch you in an utterly pedantic debate and even though I know exactly what I mean, I just cannot get it across to you in such a mechanically precise technically correct form which you would understand and accept. You're like a lawyer that is completely ignorant to the spirit of the law, going by the letter of it. Now, Kyrsimys has tried his best -- I don't think I could do better.
And I still think he is right and you are not.
You are correct: I don't understand his nor your point.
The fact is that submissions have been rejected for much less reason, even of much more interesting games. This is the first time I remember seeing "you can't see the flaws if you don't know about them" as an argument for publishing something. It actually sounds like a completely ridiculous argument.
Now, completely honestly: Would you be advocating the publication if this was, let's say, a SNES game rather than a DS one, knowing the flaws the run has?
(If you really want to publish it, then by all means go ahead. I'm just puzzled at the seeming hypocrisy shown here. This is clearly being pushed into publication for the sole reason that it's the first DS TAS, yet being advocated by completely different, and sometimes a bit ridiculous, arguments.)
I still can't understand what would be the problem in remaking this TAS, without the flaws. How long did it take to make the current submission?
Bottom line: We strive to create entertaining movies. This is usually achieved by completing games as fast as possible. This movie is (at least to me) fast and entertaining. Even if it was 10 seconds faster, it wouldn't increase the entertainment value, hence it's irrelevant.
I disagree. Given that in both cases (ie. the current submission and a hypothetical fixed one) the entertainment value will probably be about the same, the more optimal one is better because that's precisely one of the main goals here. In this case aiming for an optimal run does not lower entertainment (in the same way as might be with some other games).
So it's certainly not irrelevant. If we claim that we are showing superhuman playing, then we should keep that promise. If from two movies the only relevant difference is 10 seconds, the faster one is definitely the better because it conforms better to the spirit of TASing.
How many times will people try to push movies for publication with the excuse of "our primary goal is entertainment"?
That argument is just ridiculous. If you want just "entertainment", regardless of what it is, go to youtube. What are you doing in this site?
I don't get what you're trying to say with that link to the "be quick" section. You don't think adelikat is quick in this movie? The guidelines don't say anything about being perfect, IIRC. And yeah, being quick is important, but as I said in my previous post, entertainment is the number one goal, right?
Entertainment is the goal, but not any kind of entertainment.
The main goal of TASes is to show superhuman achievements, ie. things which a human cannot hope to achieve by normal play. In other words, removing human reflexes and skills from the equation. Even in the few cases where the goal of a TAS is not to complete the game as fast as possible (eg. MK2), the superhuman feats goal still holds.
Superhuman feats imply perfection. In a few cases something slightly "imperfect" is allowed if it adds significantly to the entertainment (ie. the "uses speed/entertainment tradeoffs" tag). However, is this such a case? Are the flaws in this submission there to add to the entertainment? Or would the movie be equally (if not even more) entertaining with the flaws fixed?
Your argument about "our goal is entertainment" is at a bit different categorical level. If our goal was only entertainment, then what do we need rules and guidelines for? A movie can be entertaining even if it uses rom-hacking, cheats, image manipulation and even fallacious footage created by something else than the emulator. Someone could draw a "TAS" by hand, as a cartoon, and that could be highly entertaining.
But that's not the goal of the site.
Btw, reading my post above again, I notice that it came out a lot worse-sounding that I intended. I truely apologize. I was not trying to insult or anything (maybe I was just trying to be a bit too smart).
4) The movie, which everybody was ready to accept just a few minutes ago, is now somehow unpublishable, even though the movie itself hasn't changed and still looks just as cool and publishable.
That's completely correct.
If the goal of the TAS is to complete the game as fast as possible, and it clearly fails to do so, why does the movie have to be published? It would certainly not be the first time a submission has been rejected on these grounds, pending an improved version from the author.
The movie may not have changed, but our knowledge of the game has: We now know that the movie fails to achieve its stated goals, with clear concrete and significant improvement suggestions.
And this being the first DS TAS shouldn't have anything to do with anything.
More the reason to reject it. Tons of submissions have been rejected for the exact same reasons. Heck, submissions have been rejected for even less.
Why is it such a big deal? Why can't the author remake it, fixing the flaws?
That page about stupid reasons for publishing movies is half-humorous, but I am seeing many of the entries being given here as to why this submission should be published.
I'm sorry, but regardless of what you are saying, it still feels like this publication is being pushed for the sole reason that it's the first DS TAS ever.
I apologize for being so slow, but I don't quite follow the logic here. Since some windows-only emulators are being developed and accepted as "officially supported", you are considering not hosting the image files of the website. I'm just not seeing the connection here.
I say go for it [publication]. If the movie is sloppy, it gives the newcomers (or anyone else) another TAS they can try to beat! :)
I agree; in fact, to the untrained eye this movie does not look "sloppy". Of course, that argument has been made for several movies to no avail.
"Does not look sloppy" is not the same thing as "is not sloppy". We know that it has flaws, but we are relying on the fact that, if you don't know about them, it doesn't look like it has flaws?
I'm sorry, but I'm still seeing this as a publication being made for the sole reason that this is the first DS TAS ever, disregarding any quality standards and rules.
(Of course I'm not a judge and thus I don't get to make any decisions about publication.)
There are known cases of this yes. I could bring them up if you wish. There are also cases of runs known by everyone and their mums to be improvable but they still got published so yeah. It might not be a rule but it happens for the greater good.
As someone has said, past mistakes don't justify making them again.
In some cases yes: There might have been very good reasons for publishing a run with known flaws. However, is "this is the first DS TAS" good reason enough?
How long did it take to make this TAS? How long would it take to remake it with the flaws fixed?
