Posts for Warp


Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Centaur1um wrote:
but I also plan on making one you might enjoy which stays in-bounds, and is more pure in the eyes of people who turn their noses to more controversial things, like OOB or using scripts too heavily, so who knows!
Btw, I don't mind OOB glitching. Breaking the game (via gameplay) is cool. (That's not to say I don't like in-bounds speedruns as well. Both are very enjoyable categories. For example both categories in Portal runs are awesome.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
feos wrote:
if that does happen, you are in no way the one that changes it by creating these threads at tasvideos.
Do you have a problem with me wanting to talk about some subject with other people, and request for opinions and different views? There are many speedrunners frequenting this forum, and their opinions are interesting. If you are not interested in this particular subject, nobody is forcing you to read the thread.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Centaur1um wrote:
It's completely unnecessary to try and control what people do in speedruns
It's a lament, not an attempt at controlling people. There is a hobby that I love to follow and watch. I find worrying trends creeping in in later years, which make the hobby less enjoyable to watch (for me, personally.) I would find it sad if this hobby would transform into something I don't like. I don't believe I am the only person in the world with this view. If more "pure" speedruns of the games I love are still being made in addition to those exploiting techniques I don't like, then it's great. However, I worry that maybe speedrunners might stop making those, especially if there is no incentive to do them (eg. no semi-officially recognized world records to break in such categories, etc.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
ais523 wrote:
Eventually we discovered that it's possible to skip a reasonably common cutscene via saving and reloading in the middle of it.
I actually intended to mention cutscenes in my original post, but forgot. I suppose it depends on whether the cutscene is interactive or not. For non-interactive cutscenes I think it's ok to use any means to skip them (eg. go to the game's menu and select "skip cutscene", or even use a non-gameplay glitch to do it) because such cutscenes are not gameplay. They are just essentially a short movie. Watching the movie isn't not really playing the game, so it can be skipped if possible. (Although I wouldn't object loudly if some ruling entity came up with the rule that cutscenes can't be skipped either. For a casual viewer cutscenes are ok.) As for interactive cutscenes, the question becomes a lot harder. I suppose it depends on the particular game.
xy2_ wrote:
Warp, would you consider this speedrun legitimate, since it uses an exploit? If not, is this one legitimate? And if not, is the one below legitimate?
It's hard to compare physical games to video games. In this case, I think you'd agree that it would be cheating to take the ball with your hand and put it in the final destination. There's nothing in the game stopping you from doing that, though... Here the player seems to be using the game's own control system to control the game, and skip parts of it. Seems quite legit to me. It's a bit like glitching through a wall or making an unintended jump in a video game, using the game's own control scheme.
YaLTeR wrote:
Would it make sense to ban you from speedrunning a game just because you have an advantage of your PC being not good enough?
Some examples can certainly be fuzzy and hard to judge. (I suppose that as long as you don't go and change the game's graphical settings mid-run, what you describe is something that just has to be accepted for practical reasons.) But the examples I gave fall in a much clearer category, and could ostensibly be made into generic rules (with allowed exceptions for particular games, if there is a very, very good reason for it. For example for games that use saving and loading as a necessary part to advance in the game, as a form of fourth-wall-breaking meta-gameplay.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Invariel wrote:
Warp wrote:
How about next time (if a new race is ever organized again) you use an existingpopular game, but set a particular special goal for the run (for which there obviously would not exist any prior TAS)?
Is what I think you meant to say.
Existing popular game, yes. (I was thinking about something like Megaman, Super Metroid, or the like.)
ais523 wrote:
The problem there is that it gives a huge advantage to people who have TASed the game before. If it's popular, there will be some.
OTOH there would also be very proficient unassisted speedrunners of the game as well. (Like here, they could have a home field advantage in the form of having more time to practice said goal.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Also I found the lack of explanations bothering, even though I was more aware of what was going on. What I would have liked to see was for each demonstration, a clearer explanation of the setup. In other words, what exactly was running the TAS (the microchip on the hands of the robot) and what exactly the robot was connected to ie. which console in particular. (For example especially in the SMW total control demonstration no mention whatsoever was made about which console was being used, or even if it was a console in the first place. This could have been made much clearer. Optimally it would have also been shown on camera, although this might not be very practical.) For the Brain Age demonstration I would have liked to hear a better explanation of the setup, ie. make it a lot clearer that tasbot was really controlling an actual DS, and what was and wasn't changed about said console to make it possible. (This was done quite in passing, and I felt it wasn't even nearly enough.) Also a mention that the game was completely original and unmodified. For the SMB3 demonstration a mention that it's the original unmodified game running on the original unmodified console, with just tasbot feeding input through the controller port. I got the feeling that the presenters kind of took for granted that everybody was aware of what's going on, on the technical side (or that it wasn't all that important to explain it). I think it's important to make the viewers aware when unmodified consoles and games are being used, so that they don't immediately start thinking of hacks, mods and emulators. (Btw, not a fault of the TAS team, but it really, really aggravated me when at the beginning of the Brain Age demonstration the camera was panned so that tasbot and the console went out of the picture.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
How about next time (if a new race is ever organized again) you use an existing game, but set a particular special goal for the run (for which there obviously would not exist any prior TAS)?
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Invariel wrote:
Yeah, we sure hate publishing ACE runs, and runs which glitch straight through to the end credits on this site.
I know perfectly well that the site doesn't "hate publishing ACE runs". How exactly does that affect what I wrote?
And, in the event that you want a game that just jumps to the end without a glitch and without ACE, [1145] Genesis King's Bounty by gia & Aqfaq in 00:09.93.
Would you consider it an invalid completion of the game, even when strictly adhering to the game's own rules and gameplay?
Post subject: Worrying trends in speedrunning techniques
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I know that this is most probably not a very popular opinion, but I would kindly request that if people want to reply, they express their opinions in a civil and pragmatic manner. I would really not want this to become any kind of flamewar. Disagreeing is completely fine (and in fact welcome), but please express your opinion in a reasonable manner. I have started noticing a trend in speedrunning techniques that I really don't like. I'm referring to unassisted speedruns here. You might know what kinds of techniques I really don't like in tool-assisted speedruns (because I sometimes can become quite vocal about it), so you might guess the kind of techniques I'm referring to. Over the last few years I have really grown to appreciate the completion of games via skillful gameplay. In other words, using the inputs that the game offers to control the playable character and to advance the game. Movement, jumping, shooting, pressing in-game buttons and switches, and so on and so forth. I believe that you know what I mean without having to be too nitpicky about it. What I do not consider gameplay are the "meta" features that a game offers for practical reasons. These are things that often need to exist in other to manage your game data, so to speak, but are not gameplay in itself. These include things like saving and loading the game (necessary because of practical reasons, but not part of gameplay, and please don't nitpick about the half-dozen exceptions that exist from the millions of video games out there; please understand what I'm trying to say), and fine-tuning graphical settings, controls, sound volume, etc. Essentially, non-gameplay "meta" features are the things that you don't need to complete the game, and exist solely to allow you to continue your playing later, to adjust the visual quality of the game, and so on. Optimally, a speedrun would never use those things, because they are not playing the game. (Segmented speedruns can use saving and loading in order to start a new segment, of course, but only for that purpose, not for the purpose of affecting the actual game.) Personally, the more a speedrun uses those non-gameplay features to somehow make completing the game faster, or even glitch the game, the less I like it. It's not completing the game purely via gameplay. Instead, it's abusing non-gameplay elements to interfere with the game, or even glitch it. (Glitching itself is not the problem. If you can glitch the game via gameplay, that's A-ok in my books. The problem is when it's done via non-gameplay means.) What is worrying me is that I see more and more non-gameplay techniques being used, especially in games I like and love. Techniques that were not discovered nor used years ago. For example, in recent years Half-Life 2 speedruns have started abusing saving and loading to glitch the game. I don't really like this, nor consider it completing the game by playing it. What is worse, a newer abuse is to go to the game's menu, delete a save file from there, and then try to load it. This is most definitely not gameplay. It's not even a question of "if it's supported by the game, it's ok." Everything supported by the game is not ok, not even by the speedrunning community. What non-gameplay techniques are and aren't allowed is quite arbitrary. Why is it, for example, allowed to go to the game's save menu and delete a save file from there, but it is not allowed to, for instance, to go to the game's menu and load the next chapter (without completing the current one)? Or why isn't it allowed to open the game's console and write cheat codes there? After all, everything mentioned is supported by the game itself. So it's not a question of "if it's supported by the game". (And the above was a rhetorical question. I'm not asking for an answer to this situation in particular. It's a way to open up discussion.) In some games you can go to the game's menu and select "restart checkpoint" (or similar). In some of these games this can be abused to make completion faster. (In some cases it only saves a few seconds, but in other cases it can skip an entire long level, when coupled with certain out-of-bounds glitching.) I'd say this is a bit borderline, but personally I still don't like it. It's once again not gameplay; not really. It's not something that's an integral part of playing the game, nor do you need it to complete the game (with good gameplay). One trick in The Talos Principle speedruns requires the game to be running at 20 frames per second. It won't work if it's running faster. "Luckily" the game offers such a setting in its graphics menu. Uh... no. Just no. Perhaps the most extreme and obnoxious example I have seen was a Minecraft speedrun where the runner alt-tabbed to Windows, started the task manager and killed the game from there, and then restarted the game. That's most definitely not gameplay. I most certainly do not consider that a valid completion of the game. You could just as well launch a hex-editor and modify the savefile; not much of a difference. As said, I'm seeing this trend more and more. The "purity" of completing a game as fast as possible by actually playing it is being marred more and more. If you can just mess up with the game's save files from menus, of even the system, that's just not speedrunning anymore. Will I ever see, for example, a HL2 speedrun that uses the most recent gameplay techniques to complete it as fast as possible? Or will every single run be ruined by the abuse of non-gameplay techniques that are arbitrarily allowed for it? Is that famous HL2 speedrun a few years back that did not use any of those non-gameplay tricks the last "pure" speedrun of the game that I will ever see? I don't like this a bit.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
arandomgameTASer wrote:
I guess you missed the part where the credits rolled, you know, in the run.
No I didn't. I mentioned right there in my post. If there were a way to trigger arbitrary code execution in the first second of starting the game, and this were used to make the program execution jump to the end credits, would you consider that a game completion? I don't. It didn't complete the game. It showed the end credits. Not the same thing. There would be a really, really easy way to solve all this bickering and stretching the definition of "Moons" beyond recognition in order to accommodate whatever popular demonstration and glitchfest is currently the hot topic: Create the demo category. Keep the definitions of the different categories clear and well-defined.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Masterjun wrote:
It turns out that watching a not self-explaining, completely new game isn't all that fun.
Most casual viewers have never seen before at least 90% of the games being speedrun. To them it probably makes no difference.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
This would be a perfect fit for the long-proposed "demo" category. Which doesn't exist. As it is, it doesn't really fit into any category. The major reason is that it doesn't complete the game. Even "playarounds" complete the game. It's one of the fundamental rules. Sure, it shows an "the end" screen, but that's not completing the game. If we start accepting anything that's "entertaining", then we'll have to start accepting runs that only go half-way through the game, or just demonstrate a funny glitch and that's it. That would be perfect for the "demo" category (if they have enough merit for publication), but nowhere else. Create that category, and you get ten thumbs up from me. Otherwise, no.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I think that the fact that tasbot got disconnected from the console at the beginning was a blessing in disguise, because it really drove home the fact that yes, it really is connected to the controller port, and is feeding input to the console solely in that manner.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
You're a smart guy, Warp, and we're not your math instructors. Go study limits and/or non-standard analysis. They aren't that hard.
So you are saying that with n/k, when k approaches zero, the result approaches infinity, and therefore the result is infinity without k being zero. So "approaches zero" means "is not zero", and "approaches infinity" means "is infinity". Because reasons. Yes, makes a lot of sense now. How didn't I see that before?
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
Okay, guys! Pack it up! A forum member on a video game website with no formal education in higher mathematics just found a flaw in over 300 years of mathematics, completely dismantling calculus and all of the subjects that follow from it. Please collect your Fields Medal, Warp.
Is sarcasm a new form of mathematical proof that I haven't heard of? A volume of non-zero size has finite mass but infinite density. Perhaps it's you who should be collecting those medals. You are inventing new physics.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
This is why I suggested you study limits. You are not speaking from mathematical experience, only your intuition. When we take the limit as n approaches 0 from the right, a positive number divided by n approaches infinity (it grows arbitrarily large).
You are still arguing that the result of the limit becomes infinity without the divisor becoming 0. At the limit the divisor is 0, and the result is infinity. You can't have the divisor as non-zero and the result infinity.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Firstly, there is no such a thing as "the smallest real number larger than 0." Such a real number doesn't exist. Likewise there is no such a thing as "a real number that's larger than all other real numbers". Secondly, you are arguing for n/k to be infinity without n being infinity nor k being 0. That is a contradiction.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
That Stepmania playaround really showed some superhuman skill. Quite incredible.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
Warp wrote:
thatguy wrote:
An point of infinitesimal volume and infinite density would have a non-zero finite mass.
"Infinitesimal" means explicitly "non-zero". If the object has non-zero volume and a finite mass, its density cannot be infinite. If it had infinite density, then it would have infinite mass.
No, thatguy is right. Study limits. Or study non-standard analysis.
Ok, explain to me how an object with non-zero volume and finite mass has infinite density.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I haven't watched even nearly all of them, but from the ones I have, I liked the Kaizo Mario 3 run.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
thatguy wrote:
An point of infinitesimal volume and infinite density would have a non-zero finite mass.
"Infinitesimal" means explicitly "non-zero". If the object has non-zero volume and a finite mass, its density cannot be infinite. If it had infinite density, then it would have infinite mass.
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
thatguy wrote:
It's somewhat of a misconception that the singularity is this infinitesimal point with infinite density.
"Infinitesimal" would imply that it has non-zero size (the very definition of "infinitesimal" is a quantity that is explicitly non-zero). However, GR does not allow it to have a non-zero size. It just collapses to zero size. If it has a finite mass but zero volume, then the density is, technically speaking, infinite. (OTOH, does it make any sense to talk about the density of an object of zero volume? Density is defined as a function of volume, and there is no volume in a singularity...)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
This is complete and absolute layman's guessing, but I'm guessing that the existence of singularities is taken more or less for granted because any claim that singularities don't exist would contradict general relativity at a very fundamental level, and that's not something that can be done lightly. Any model that predicts there not being singularities would need to agree on everything else that has been observed as factual in general relativity but explain away the singularities, which GR predicts. It would need to be a rather drastic revision of GR (in the same way as GR is this to Newtonian mechanics.) GR predicts that it's just not possible to maintain a shape of non-zero volume within the event horizon of a black hole. No matter what you do, you cannot avoid approaching the central singularity. (I don't even know if traversing back in time, if that's even possible, would avoid it. Would it?) Any model that forbids singularities would need to explain how exactly the matter within the event horizon is able to maintain a shape of non-zero size. Quantum mechanics might provide a feasible answer, but the problem is that QM and GR are incompatible at a very fundamental level (a subject that I have basically zero knowledge and understanding of, so I can't give even a layman's version of it.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
The rendering engine itself obviously transforms and projects all triangles onto the screen in order to render them. I don't know if the N64 does this in software or hardware. Is it possible to access these transformed&projected coordinates from the emulator using lua script? That would be an easy solution. If it's not possible, and you only have access to the enemy model 3D world coordinates and the camera parameters, you'll have to do the transformation&projection yourself. It's difficult to give a concrete answer in code without knowing exactly what camera parameters are available. You'll probably have to give more detail about this. But in general, for each point you want to project, you need to convert that point from world coordinates to camera coordinates (there are several possible ways of doing this, one of them is using a transformation matrix, which might even be directly in the camera data, depending on how the rendering engine works) and then project it to the screen (again, there are a couple of ways of doing this, one of them also being a transformation matrix, which might be in the camera data itself.) Essentially you would be doing a few point-matrix multiplications. What those matrices are exactly, it depends on how the camera parameters are defined in the game. (Edit: Oh, and I forgot that there are a few more steps you need to do in order to clip coordinates that are behind the camera, else they would be mirrored in front of it. But this is relatively easy to do.)
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
* Learn from past mistakes and become a better person. * Become a hunk.