A related question: If I would buy a handheld console, it would be only to play RPG games (like those of Square/Enix). Which handheld has the best supply of RPG games?
I would really like PSP for its other features, but I don't know if there are many RPGs available for it.
OTOH the Nintendo DS is backwards-compatible with GBA, and I believe there are plenty of RPGs for the latter. (Of course a different question is whether GBA games are still being sold...)
This is the reason we don't just have bots make all the runs.
Irrelevant to the topic in question, but that is false.
The reason why bots are not used to create (complete) runs is because it's impossible, not because the run would be "boring".
Well, ok, it's not impossible to create a bot which *completes* the game, but it's impossible to create a bot which completes it in optimal time. This is because the number of possible key sequences grows exponentially with the number of frames the run takes. An exhaustive search of even a short game would require more memory than all the computers in the world have combined. A *lot* more.
Why do you think that eg. the best chess programs in the world read only about 10-12 moves ahead? You can think of each possible move as one frame in the TAS video. It's just impossible to make a bot which tests all possible combinations of more than about 50 frames. Yet even the shortest movie published so far has 1802 frames. That's utterly out of reach of an exhaustive search.
Of course it would be possible to create a heuristical bot which tries to optimize the run. However, besides being a really difficult thing to create, the result would still probably not be perfect (most probably it would be quite far from perfect) and thus not interesting.
If such a bot would be possible, rest assured that it would have already been done. However, it isn't. (The best that has been created so far is a bot which optimizes a dozen of frames in the megaman1 run. Anything longer than that would just be impractical. Much longer and it becomes impossible.)
At least some people don't seem to share your indifference given that they so adamantly respond to all my posts fighting again and again against my arguments.
Comparing me to that shinryuu is a bit unfair. Sure, I get easily trolled, I can't help it, but I try not to troll myself (as he seemed so eager to do) and try to keep things civilized.
Since several people are creating posts suggesting a name change, then let me also create a post about an alternative:
Changing the conceptual name of these videos is a huge job (we have this "timeattack" -> "TAS" transition as a perfect example) and shouldn't be done lightly.
What people object against is that not *all* videos aim for speed. (Which means "1 video does not aim for speed".)
Well, since all the other 315 videos do have speed as a goal, the solution to this "problem" is simple: Create a new "non-speed" category (or whatever you like to name it) and put that one video in it.
We already have at least one special category for videos which do not comply to all the rules of the site: The "concept demos" category. I see no problem in adding a category for the few videos which do not aim at speed at all.
This will take probably like 2 minutes and the Holy Accuracy of the site will then be restored.
The second fallacy is that you argue that people have an irrational bias against the word "speedrun" when it is in fact you who has an irrational bias for it.
I think that you have a small misconception about what I'm fighting against. If you have noticed, I have said several times things along the lines of "I don't care if someone uses 'speedrun' or 'superplay' or whatever to describe his own video". Why would I say things like that if I had an irrational bias for the word "speedrun"?
What I do object against is this strange idea that the name "TAS" to describe these videos is wrong and misleading and that it should be changed. I also find it irrational to say "we aim for entertainment, not for speed", as if they were mutually exclusive things and as if "entertainment" would somehow describe these videos better.
Another reason why I strongly object to changing the name is that changing the name of the site is just silly, and a lot of work. Just look how much time and effort it took to change the usage of the inaccurate and truely misleading term "timeattack" to the more accurate "TAS". It was a process of years, and in fact you can still find the old term used at some places.
I'm still convinced that, like the furious passion pro "timeattack" and against "TAS" some people showed in the past, this new fashion of "it's entertainment, not speed" is also a product of a misunderstanding. I believe that it comes from the fact that Bisqwit at some point wanted to emphasize that we are not competing with regular speedruns and he used an expression along the lines of "we are not trying to compete with regular speedruns, these videos are not about competition but only about entertainment; these videos are just art". What he meant with that was "don't take these too seriously, we are not trying to take anything away from regular speedrunners, just enjoy these as a separate form of art". However, it seems that some people have overinterpreted that and somehow got the idea that "we are not making speedruns, we are making entertainment" which was not what he meant.
Saying "these do not aim for speed" would be quite inaccurate for over 300 videos distributed here. I think that a better solution than trying to change the terminology is to put the videos (well, the one video) which does not aim for speed in its own category. After all, we already have a special category for videos which do not comply with all the rules: The "concept demos" category. I don't see any reason why there couldn't be a category where this one non-speedrun video could be put into.
"These movies aim mainly to be entertaining..."
versus
"The main focus of these movies is speed..."
That's exactly the fallacy in your reasoning. You talk as if entertainment and speed were mutually exclusive things. You use "entertainment versus speed" there as if they were: a) comparable concepts of equal conceptual level, and b) mutually exclusive.
The concept of "entertainment" is much broader and basically obsolete. It is obsolete because it's self-evident. Why else would we be doing these videos if not for entertainment? Is there some other possible reason why we could be doing these? Is there some confusion about it? Could someone think that these videos are not for entertainment but for something else? What else could they be?
Speaking of "entertainment" and "speed" as two mutually exclusive terms of equal conceptual value is just silly. Don't you see that "we aim for entertainment" and "we aim for speed" are both true? The difference is that the former doesn't say anything, the latter does.
Now, could you please answer these questions: Do the videos at SDA aim for entertainment? If the answer is yes, then is it wrong for them to use the word "speed"? Is it misleading?
I thought one exception automatically disproves a theory, or something along those lines.
You are confusing different concepts here (on purpose, probably).
"These videos try to complete games as fast as possible" is not a mathematical statement. It's a colloquial expression which describes a general property of the vast majority of videos. That statement is no more false than for example "dogs have four legs".
If someone says that dogs have four legs, telling them that it's not true because there are some exceptional cases, some individual dogs which do not have four legs, is nitpicking and missing the point completely. In regular human communication a phrase such as "dogs have four legs" is perfectly valid and true because it describes the general rule which describes dogs. A few exceptions do not make that rule false. It is not intended to be a mathematical statement.
Another example: "JPEG is a lossy format." Responding "that statement is false because there exist JPEG files which produce the exact same image as the original" is nitpicking and basically wrong: The exception doesn't make the general rule false.
Saying "these videos do not aim for speed" is wrong. The general rule is that they do. A few exceptions do not change this.
It's funny that they argument that they do not allow runs made with an emulator for legal reasons (even though distributing a video is not the same as distributing a ROM). However, they do not seem to care about the blatant copyright violation of distributing the music of the games with their videos.
Not that we are innocent in this matter either, but it feels like a bit of dishonest hypocrisy. The *real* reason why they don't allow emulated runs has nothing to do with legality.
As long as the Tecmo Bowl superplay exists, you're wrong.
There are also concept demos which do not adhere to the rules. Does that mean that the rules have been obsoleted?
One exception does not make the rule false.
really now. is this really necessary. If everyone is so caught up about it, why not change the name to BisqwitsArchive, or, Bisqwit.org. mostly anybody now who watches over videos know the name bisqwit, and what his site is about.
Because it's not descriptive and doesn't really mean anything (for people who don't know who Bisqwit is).
Sure, "TAS" all by itself isn't descriptive either, but when people see the meaning of the acronym it's a lot clearer. It's the same thing as with "SDA". However, "BisqwitsArchive" doesn't mean anything.
I think we should use "superplay" mostly so people don't think our only goal is to complete games as fast as possible.
What I don't understand is why would it be so wrong if people got this "misconception" that these videos try to complete the games as fast as possible? (And it's not a misconception at all, fwiw.)
Even if someone believed that everything we try to do is to complete the game in minimal time, why would that be so horrible?
As I have been saying many times "tool-assisted speedrun" is an accurate and established term. Changing it because of some tiny technicality (which doesn't matter at all) would be just foolish.
I believe one big reason why this small minority of regular speedrunners have such a big prejudice against tool-assisted runs is because they have this misconception that tool-assistance makes it "too easy". The very suggestion of using the word "cheat", as well as repeatedly calling the TAS videos cheating, speaks of this. They feel it's "cheating" because they believe that tool-assistance makes it "too easy".
The problem is that some of these people stubborningly refuse to get their facts right and refuse to admit even the possibility that TAS runs could be an acceptable alternative category of speedrunning. It's probably a question of pride: If someone has fought adamantly against tool-assistance for a long time, he feels he would make a fool of himself if he suddenly admitted that he was, at least partially, wrong.
I believe that it would be a rather illuminating experience for these people to try to make a TAS of some existing run in this site to see if they can make it even close. For example megaman1 would be a rather illustrative example. Perhaps then they could see that it's not as easy as they think but requires tons of work (in some cases it might even require more work than an acceptable unassisted run, at least for an experienced runner).
Of course this is just wishful thinking. If they are stubborn they will refuse to even try, and even if they tried, they would still not admit anything (but instead they would say something along the lines of "I got bored halfway through" or whatever).
Warp: because we're gaining a lot of ground and threatening nate's supremacy
So they feel threatened because we are getting so much popularity?
Of course I can't say anything about the amount of people who have stopped watching regular speedruns because of this site, but I would be quite surprised if the popularity of regular speedruns would have dropped in any significant way. There might, of course, be some individual exceptions, some strange person who says that he now finds regular speedruns boring, but my bet is that even if such people exist they are a really, really small minority.
Feeling threatened is quite unfounded, IMO.
Personally I don't mind if someone wants to use the term "superplay" instead of "speedrun" in their video. After all, the author of the video is entitled to name his video whatever he likes (well, as long as it's not deceitful, eg calling it solely as "speedrun" and nothing else).
What I do object to is this strange opposition of using the term "speed". I don't understand why people hate it so much. They will find even the slightest reasons for not using it. I find that attitude exactly as silly as if someone said "hey, I found a video at SDA which does not aim for speed; they should immediately stop using the word "speed" in the name of their site!". That would be just ridiculous.
I said it was a "so-called" TAS problem, meaning that TASes generated a problem, not that they were a problem.
What exactly is this problem, and is this problem real or just perceived (by prejudiced speedrunners)? Perhaps the problem is in attitude and thus the solution would be a change of it.
The attitude is certainly not in our side. We like regular speedruns at least as much as tool-assisted ones (or at least I do). I personally am a big fan of the QdQ speedruns and I regularly watch others too (the HL2 speedrun is also one of my favorites).
I don't remember anyone here having a condescending attitude towards regular speedruns (even though theoretically there could be arguments for that). On the other hand, a minority of regular speedrunners do have a grudge against the tool-assisted community, a basically unfounded one.
So I would see this as an attitude problem, nothing else, and the ones with the wrong attitude are the ones who have the grudge.
It is of my understanding that the speedrunning community accepted the tool-assisted Doom speedruns as a curiosity, not something hateful and "fake". There was no hatred nor grudge there. Why are tool-assisted speedruns of other games and platforms so different?
Warp, do you know why we make these movies? Because we want to entertain people.
Then, why is speed our goal? Because speed usually provides great entertainment.
Then what is so wrong in using the term "speed"?
There are an endless amount of different forms of entertainment. In these videos speed is usually the main or at least a goal. It's the one single tangible thing (besides tool-assistance) that is common to all the videos.
Why do you think people make regular (ie. non-assisted) speedruns? For educative purposes? School assignments? Research projects? Academic publications? No: It's for entertainment too. Entertainment is also basically the only driving force in speedruns. Is it wrong for them to call the videos "speedruns" because they are entertainment? Of course not. That would be a rather silly idea. Why would that be wrong?
Now, that is what I don't understand about this mindless objection about the term "speed". What is so wrong with it? It's not misleading because it is the goal in basically all the videos in the exact same way as it is in regular speedruns.
Some people talk as if doing something for entertainment would somehow be mutually exclusive with doing something for speed. What else could these videos be besides entertainment? Entertainment is quite a self-evident feature of the videos. I don't see why there is a need to emphasize that. What else could they be? Could someone get confused and think that these videos are *not* for entertainment? What else could they think?
The way we achieve this entertainment is by tool-assisted speed, and that's exactly what the term TAS is implying.
Some people object to using the word "speed" because it can be confused with what regular speedruns do. They say something like "we don't aim for speed but for entertainment". That's quite silly. That would mean that regular speedrunners do not aim for entertainment (because they use the word "speed"). If regular speedrunners aim for entertainment too, wouldn't it also be wrong for them to use the term "speed" then?
These videos are, after all, speedruns. They are a special kind of speedrun, but they are speedruns. What's wrong with that?
Entertainment is our primary goal, not speed.
That sentence is just silly. It implies that "entertainment" and "speed" are mutually exclusive terms of equal value as concepts. Those two terms are in no way mutually exclusive and at a very different conceptual level. Of course we aim for entertainment. What else could we be aiming for? It would be silly to make these movies in the first place if nobody enjoyed them.
However, what is the primary goal to achieve this entertainment? Completing games as fast as possible. IOW making speedruns.
If speed was not our primary goal, why are people developing tools to make faster runs? Why are there book-length discussions about how to make runs faster (just read for example the thread about the Zelda run)? Why is the number of frames published alongside the movies? Why in the vast majority of cases faster runs obsolete slower ones?
Saying that "a movie was rejected because it was not entertaining enough" is quite vague. What was the *specific* reason why it was rejected? Was it too slow? Was the playing sloppy? Is the game boring and not suitable for speedrunning? Is the game too repetitive? There are tons of different concrete things for judging a movie, but the one thing which is most prevalent is speed.
I think that you, too, are confusing the concept of "main goal" with the concept of "only goal". Nobody has said that speed is the only goal in the videos. However, it is the main overall goal in them. There may be a few exceptions, but in average speed is the one single main objective.
Since speed is the main or at least an important goal in at least 99.68% of the published videos, why is it wrong to use the word "speed" to describe them? Why do you hate that word so much?
I see no problem.
I am not going to change anything.
I totally agree. The only "problem" is that a minority of speedrunners feel that people are "cheating" and taking away their achievements. They either are really prejudiced or they just don't know what they are talking about.
Why don't we reverse this petition? I want a 1 minute introduction to every (non-assisted) speedrun explaining how it was done. How about that? After all, some people might confuse them with tool-assisted speedruns and they are way too sloppy and could hurt our reputation for achieving perfection.
Wow! 1 movie that doesn't have speed as its goal! I'm baffled. There was one.
What does it make? 0.3% of all movies?
Yeah, you are right. Since 0.3% of all movies do have a speed as a goal, using the term "speed" would be *really* confusing.
