In short words,
console speedrun = try to play as best as possible.
emu speedrun = do it so the video is shortest as possible.
I think you are running out of arguments and thus starting to invent braindead definitions.
How many of the speedruns eg. at the Speed Demos Archive do not try to make the video as short as possible?
Ok, there are a few where using certain game bugs are sometimes not allowed. A few. Mostly they just try to get the game completed as fast as possible, using every trick in the book. Just look at the QdQ demos.
"Timeattack" is a bad term for one simple reason: It does not describe in any way how the videos were done and thus can (and have been) confusing.
"Tool-assisted" at least gives some hint that there is more to it than just normal playing.
And besides, as I have already said dozens of times: TAS is an established term. It was used for *exactly* these types of speedruns way before this site even existed.
When you tell a speedrunner "this is a tool-assisted speedrun" he will know what it is.
Here's my take on the two. I did a single encoding test and converted to AVI (with MP3 audio), OGM, and MKV. Here's the results.
MP3 Audio:
* AVI: 84195854 bytes
* OGM: 75595725 bytes
So simply using OGM over AVI reduces file size dramatically
Just saying it like that makes such test irrelevant.
If you say "I converted this 256-color image to gif and png, and the file sizes were x and y" that's ok and very relevant. However, if you say "I converted this image to jpeg and jpeg2000 and the file sizes were x and y", without giving any additional info is a no-op.
Naturally when compressing the lossy formats you can achieve any file sizes you want. I can perfectly make an equivalent comparison and say "I converted this video to AVI and OGM and the file sizes were 1MB and 100MB respectively, thus clearly OGM sucks big time".
Is the video data in the AVI and the OGM identical, or do they use different formats? Even if they use the same format, did you re-encode the video when converting the AVI to OGM (or whatever you did) or was it a direct stream copy? Which bitrates did you use for the mp3 and the ogg? Did you try with different bitrates and did you compare their quality? Assuming that you selected bitrates which give approximately equal quality in both, how did you measure this equality? "It sounds ok" is extremely subjective and hardly a substantial unit of measurement.
And even if your test is absolutely perfect, you still saved what? A whopping 10.2% in file size. This at the cost of using a format which won't play in most people's computers.
Sorry for being unusually dense, but could someone enlighten me a bit about why this video is so OMGWTFWOWThisisnutsTruelyawesomeIsthisreallyanunassistedrun??!?!-o
Yes, I can see that it uses cool shortcuts and the
jumping in some places quite clearly has required hours and hours of practice... but I really can't see what's so astonishingly awesome about it.
Perhaps it's just that I have never played the game and thus can't appreciate the godlike skills of this speedrunner? Perhaps I have been watching way too many QdQ demos and got numb?
I find it somewhat problematic to switch from avi to another format such as ogm or mkv.
Every media player in the universe supports avi, whether we like that or not (being it a microsoft format and all...), but only a few support ogm and mkv (in some cases the player "supports" them, but not very well).
For example, I once downloaded an mkv file which had multiple soundtracks and a separate subtitle track. No existing player in my system was able to properly play it, even after I installed all the required codecs: They would play both soundtracks at the same time and show the subtitles, and there was no way to turn any of them off. I had to download a new media player specifically to view that mkv file properly (it specifically supported mkv with multiple audio tracks and subtitles).
In other words, an mkv might not work properly even if you have all the proper codecs installed.
AVI files might be limited compared to mkv or ogm, but the main question is, in my opinion, if we really need those extra features for these videos. Do we need multiple audio tracks? Do we need separate subtitles? Do we need anything those formats offer which AVI does not?
If it really is true that for whatever reason it is impossible to embed ogg audio to an avi (as mp3 audio can be embedded), that may be one valid reason to switch to ogm, but only if using ogg really reduces the size of the file substantially. Something like a 10% decrease in file size is still too small to justify the change, in my opinion (no, I don't know how much using ogg instead of mp3 reduces the size of the video file).
(Btw, just tried the radracer ogm file, and Winamp, my usual player, didn't seem to be able to show it. I had to use another player to view it (the core media player).)
Why? Because I don't simply accept the usage of wrong terminology? Because I find it questionable that people are trying to force new meanings to old words, causing potential confusion?
Why is it so hard to simply accept that Morimoto was wrong when he used the term "timeattack" to name his videos? Is Morimoto a god who is almighty and always right and should be worshipped?
Table layouts are more established than DIV layouts as well, but they're still deprecated because it's for the best.
You must always look at the long run, not the short run.
I don't understand your point. There are rational, valid reasons to prefer divs for layouting over tables. However, I have yet to hear even one single rational, logical, valid reason to prefer "timeattack" over "tool-assisted speedrun". You are implying that "timeattack" is a better term. Can you give even one single argument?
The only arguments I have heard are ridiculous and stupid (such as for example "timeattack is not the same as time attack").
What is happening here is resistance to change, that's all. "Timeattack" was the term you first heard and started using it. Only much later you heard of the other term, "tool-assisted speedrun" and now you are resisting to change. Too bad that the original use of "timeattack" in relation to these videos was just plain wrong.
True. To mean a run-against-the-clock mode in some games.
Tool-assisted speedrun might be a newer term, but still much older than these videos here.
If the age of a term is the criteria, then we should go for something older. How about "gameplay"? Or perhaps just "game". Yes, let's redefine "game" to mean what we are doing in these videos. That should clear up everything.
So the obvious solution is to call them "infinite-segment" runs.
If anything, it would be "freely segmented run" because there can't be infinite segments.
However, that's not a good term. Firstly, it does not account for slowdowns (including pause and frame advance). Segmented speedruns are made at regular speeds, and "freely segmented" would suggest that it has been made at regular speed, just using savestates freely. Which is not the case, of course.
Secondly, "tool-assisted speedrun" is an established term, "freely segmented run" isn't.
To a casual viewer "superplay" may just mean that the player has practiced the game for years and is showing off almost superhuman skills. There's nothing in "superplay" which hints at tool assistance.
Some emulators have a frame advance feature. That is, the game is basically paused and by pressing a key you can advance the game by one frame.
It occurred to me that wouldn't going back one frame be useful as well? If you advance one frame and notice that oops, you made a mistake, you could go back one frame and try again.
This would simply need for the emulator to keep automatically the savestate of the previous frame in memory. In fact, it could keep the savestates of n frames in memory so that you can go back several frames (at most n). Memory in current computers is not a problem so it should probably be possible to keep savestates for quite many frames (at least 100 or so). This way when you press the frame recession key the emulator would just load the savestate for the previous frame kept in memory.
This way if you have advanced eg. 10 frames and notice a mistake which has to be corrected 10 frames earlier, you can take back 10 frames and do it again.
Says who? You?
Ok, let's give new meanings to other words as well by removing or adding spaces. From now on "speed run" is a run made by using savestates and slowdown (vs. "speedrun" which is an unassisted one). If someone gets confused, that's his problem, not ours. Let's also define "save state" with the meaning that no savestates were used; that is "a run using save states" means an unassisted run which does not use savestates.
Hey, I know a good one: "Un assisted speedrun" is a speedrun using savestates and slowdown (vs. an "unassisted" one). Certainly people will notice the space and immediately know that it is an assisted run. Of course we can also define that "slow down" means that no slowdowns were used. Certainly people will notice the difference; there's a space and all.
After all this sarcasm: You are wrong. A time attack is a timeattack is a time attack. The meaning does not change regardless of whether you add or remove a space. It's the same thing.
Warp, why do you start such stupid topic? You love hatred in this world or what?
Because the original use of "timeattack" was a misuse, it was wrong, it's not descriptive and it potentially causes confusion. Why should we deliberately use a confusing term? Is it some kind of pride thing?
No, no. Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "tool assisted speedrun"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because you're preferences trump everyone else's?
Simple: Because it is the standard term which has been used by the speedrun community for a long time (longer than this site has existed), because it's much more descriptive and speedrunners know what it means.
The term "timeattack" came later and was a misuse. AFAIK Morimoto used it for the first time and it was misleading. The term TAS already existed at that time and it is what he should have used, but either he didn't know that (probable) or he intentionally used a more vague term in a half-hearted attempt at fooling people but cover his own ass. (I personally am certainly not sure at all that Morimoto was not trying to truely fool people with his SMB3 video.)
So, let me ask back at you: What is your problem with the term TAS and why do you want to use "timeattack" instead? Is it some kind of pride thing ("why would we need to explain ourselves? if stupid people think these are genuine unassisted speedruns it's their problems, not ours")?
Are you going to upload the emulator's record file (the file which the emulator creates and which contains basically nothing but keypresses) or a video file of the movie (avi or whatever)?
In theory the music of videogames is usually copyrighted and in most countries it is, at least technically, illegal to distribute copyrighted music without the copyright's owner permission. This may be relevant if you are going to upload a video file of the run with sounds.
In practice, however, I don't think the makers of the game care.
if a poll is made, tool-assisted speedruns might win. Go back a year though, and I'm sure timeattack would have greater chances. Logically speaking, an appeal to popularity is a fallacy. Since most people prefer X, it doesn't make X true. I don't like the whole 99.9% idea either. Where does this number come from? Was calculated statistically with a large sample size? Is it representative? These terms are just intangible constructs, fighting vitriolic arguments over them seems somewhat unavailing.
I know: Since the popularity of the meaning for a term doesn't matter at all, let's call these videos "legit unassisted speedruns". So what if the vast majority of people will get confused by that term? Appealing to popularity is a fallacy after all. The fact that the vast majority of people think from that term that the videos have been made in a certain way doesn't make it true, so we shouldn't worry.
I think that you are not getting the point. Deliberately using a term that will mislead most people is not a good thing.
'Tool-assisted' just sounds so ridiculous and uncool.
When will you realize that that term was not invented by us? It was invented by the speedrun community before this site even existed.
You can think of it as being as ridiculous as you like, but you still can't change the fact that it's a standard term.
Someone can think that the term "popup menu" is ridiculous. However, does that mean he should invent a completely different term because of that and start using it (specially if the new term has a different meaning and will confuse people)?
You say that since these videos are not speedruns a different term should be used. Even if that is so, why use an existing term with a meaning different from what these videos are?
Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "timeattack"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because that's the term you heard first and you have always used it and now you refuse to change?
I don't think that a timeattack is a) a time attack
Semantics. To 99.9% of people they are the same term.
or b) a type of speedrun.
The term directly implies that the run is done as fast as possible. It means that the player is running against the clock, trying to get a time as small as possible, attacking the time.
Why would you call the gradius video a timeattack? Which time is being minimized there?
Granted, tool-assisted speedrun is not a good term for the gradius video either, but tool-assisted run sounds just perfect. If you have a problem with the "run" part, then perhaps "tool-assisted play" might be better. However, "timeattack" just isn't it.
To add some more fuel to the flames:
Arc's homepage, http://home.comcast.net/~arcthelad/info.html has the completely opposite opinion; that Timeattack should be considered the correct definition and that Tool-assisted is a bad and non-descriptive term.
He might not like the term, but he can't change the fact that it has been the standard term even before Morimoto published his first SMB3 video. He also can't change the fact that "time attack" means the same as "time trial" and is a standard playing mode in many games (and which has nothing to do with tool-assistance).
He is wrong saying that tool-assisted speedrunning has nothing to do with (unassisted) speedrunning. They both have the same goal, they both need same techniques (eg. planning routes, knowing game glitches and peculiarities, etc) and in both the end result is similar. The means to make them is different, though, and that's exactly what "tool-assisted" is telling: It's a speedrun which has been made by different means than normal unassisted runs. However, "time attack" not only means a different thing, but even if used with the meaning of TAS it's confusing and nondescriptive and doesn't tell what it is all about.
I admit that the term "tool-assisted speedrun" is long and tedious to write every single time and the acronym TAS is also cumbersome because it's difficult to write it in plural, so one is tempted to use a shorter form. And of course I can't dictate what other people can and cannot do. However, it would be nice if everyone would try to use the terms in a way that minimizes the possibility of misunderstandings.
When someone here says "I have been attempting to make a speedrun on game xyz" we naturally know what he is talking about, but a casual viewer who doesn't know what it is all about may get the wrong impression.
Naturally completely avoiding misunderstandings is impossible (where there is communication there will always be a big chance of miscommunication), but that doesn't mean we should not try to minimize the possibility...
Many people have thought that because the wrong usage of the term was widespread in the beginning. However, it does not mean that. We should avoid further spreading it.
Could we please stop using the term "time-attack" at last? A tool-assisted speedrun is not a time attack. Although they are somewhate related, they are nevertheless clearly different things. Just look at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Time_attack for a definition of time attack.
Some games, specially racing games, have a "time attack mode" (also called a time trial). It's a feature the game itself supports and the game will count lowest times as records. It has absolutely nothing to do with tool-assistance. It's just a playing mode (usually supported by the game itself). Some people may perform time attacks on games which do not directly support it, but it's still just regular speedrunning, no tool-assistance.
The term "tool-assisted speedrun" is a standard term among speedrunners and means exactly what we are doing here. For example the Doom speedrunning community has an entire subgenre dedicated to tool-assisted demos. See eg. http://www.doomworld.com/tas/main.shtml
I don't know who started using the term "time attack", probably Morimoto himself, but it's wrong and misleading. We are not making time attacks, we are making tool-assisted speedruns. So please stop using that term.
