Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
And what's the question?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Maybe if you read more than a single sentence you'll find out that these questions have already been answered?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
It was very hard but I watched it all. At first it felt like a nice game, but I lost interest after the first 10 minutes. That's when I had time to realize that the music is dull and repetitive, the character is disturbing (why does his head look like a hand?), the levels are huge, and carrying those items around feels like a waste of time. If this all was packed in 10 minutes, I'd most likely vote Yes. But here it's a No.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Arc wrote:
Is it more precise to say that we don't want to publish movies that play a game as the creators' intended if such gameplay is trivial?
In other words, if a trivial game gets broken, it can become non-trivial.
Here is the simplest example I can think of:
Imagine a simple game that you win by walking the character 2 pixels to the right, and the character can move 1 pixel per frame.
The intended gameplay is trivial because someone could do it perfectly on their first playthrough with no knowledge of the game just by holding right for 2 frames.
But then imagine that a TASer discovers that by holding L+R, the character obtains hyperspeed and moves 2 pixels to the right in 1 frame.
Since this trick is unintended by the creators and the TASer has demonstrated special knowledge and/or talent to obtain a faster time, the "game" is no longer trivial, right?
We do recognize this in the triviality rule, here's the wording:
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial. Note that a game is considered trivial until proven otherwise. If getting perfect times everywhere is not challenging, such a game is considered trivial. If later a technique is found that makes TASing it challenging, that game becomes acceptable.
Maybe it's not exactly what you mean, but relying on developer intent alone is shaky ground, so we have to add something more verifiable. But with that requirement we still tried to account for your scenario.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
DrD2k9 wrote:
Implementation?
For such trivial-to-make TASes that would still demonstrate super-human ability, would it be impossible to publish them without authorship attribution? Or simply have authorship be attributed to "Many Tasers." Or even "Trivial to TAS"?
With any of those options, no one person has to be identified as the TAS author for attribution reasons. This would eliminate any player points comparison/headache that would result from any one member claiming they were first or that they should get the points for authorship.
The staff could even create a member with the name "Trivial to TAS" for such a purpose. Then when a trivial to TAS game is submitted, the game can be published under this authorship regardless of who actually made the submission. A note could be placed in the judgement notes describing this publication action. This would allow for publication of non-trivial-to-play superhuman runs even if they are trivial-to-make.
Regarding productivity and practicality: if a superhuman TAS is judged to have such simple optimization that it's deemed trivial-to-make, then judgement shouldn't be that hard on whether it's optimized or not (and since we're talking about Vault, there's not reason to consider entertainment). Judgments would essentially be mere formality and shouldn't require much effort on the judge's part..
This overthrows the entire purpose of the site as I explained to you thoroughly in private, but it was seemingly not recognized at all.
Allowing trivial-to-make movies will flood us with movies that hold zero speedrun record value, resulting in net drain on movie quality on the site. We spent years of effort to encourage TASers to invest themselves into improving their skills in order to be published, the whole obsoletion system is designed to recognize hard work, and as a result, optimization standards are slowly rising, the movies are steadily getting better in that regard.
We also explicitly require judges to understand the difference between submissions that are easy to improve and the ones that are hard to improve. If something is easy to improve, it means not enough work has been put into the movie, and therefore it's too sloppy to be published. You're suggesting to disregard this whole thing for movies that are trivial to make. And I'm still waiting for a single reason that would imply the site would be better from hosting them.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I can see where someone could use my basic perspective to try and argue for Dragon's Lair or a 'choose an adventure' type game, but the counter argument in many if not most of those cases would be that there's no in-game benefit/value derived by optimizing the input time.
Even in casual play, pressing a direction in Dragon's Lair on the first possible frame vs the last possible frame doesn't change the gameplay or progress; all obstacles to the predefined game progress remain the same regardless of when (in the appropriate time window) that direction is pressed. Time optimization is only affected by the frame delay within that window when the button is actually pressed (a direction press 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame adds exactly 5 frames to the overall time of the run). This isn't the case for games like Duck Hunt.
From a casual play perspective in Duck Hunt, the frame on which a duck is shot does result in changes to gameplay action and therefore adds potential for an in-game benefit/value of time optimization. If not shot immediately, the duck will fly around based on RNG; meaning the gun would need repositioned/aimed. Also the randomized position that the duck flies to before it's shot determines the fall distance and thus introduce another factor in time optimization beyond simply how much time it took the player to pull the trigger; a duck shot higher on the screen falls a further distance and costs extra time beyond the number of frames the player delayed before the shot (shooting 5 frames later than the earliest possible frame may result in greater than a 5 frame delay on the overall run). This means that the both aiming time and firing frame of the gun are actions that impact time optimization from a in-game benefit/value standpoint. This potential in-game variation due to game-play choices provides the in-game benefit/value of optimization: 'Shooting a duck lower on the screen, yields waiting less time before the next duck releases.'
Yes it's trivial to make the Duck Hunt TAS itself because of the tools available. Shots can be made to occur on the first possible frame with the gun pointed in the right place. It's not hard to optimize. But the in-game benefit/value optimization is still present This is the point in optimizing 1-duck mode in Duck Hunt; killing the ducks as quickly as possible to minimize fall distance. It just so happens that it's easy to do this optimization in a TAS environment.
The grey area with the in-game benefit argument is games like Deja Vu or Shadowgate. Speed of input doesn't necessarily affect the gameplay result or create in-game changes. However, those games still at least have the argument of cursor movement optimization beyond general menuing (where Dragon's Lair, choose an adventure, and such games do not even have this optimization challenge).
To put it shortly, there is a reason to optimize the shot frame in Duck Hunt beyond it was the first possible frame to do so.
This reason is the reason the game is not trivial and a speed record of it has value.
EDIT: I want our site to offer even more comprehensive picture of how TASing is superior to human play, but the current approach to triviality prevents some obvious superhuman TASes from being published.
Optimization is not a binary thing, and just having it there is not enough to have a published movie. Optimization is a scale, and we want as much of it as reasonably practicable, because it directly determines the movie quality. We want movie quality to be high. Low-effort movies get rejected because of that. If optimization is not challenging, the movie quality is also low.
You rely so much on what's possible for humans, but humans are evolving as well. Over the course of 10 years I've been watching TAS and RTA scenes, humans were able to pull of TAS strats on nearly daily basis. Exactly because competition is there! They just strive to optimize it, and it gradually gets better for everyone.
Dragster TAS times have been matched by humans, even though we couldn't envision that 8 years ago when Vault was made, to demand that all human records must be beaten and the movie must obviously look better than the best human record. Humans got better and they're catching up with TAS!
Demanding that a movie must be clearly superior is not reasonable anymore, because then we end up with old published TASes that have been beaten by RTA, but no TAS improvement gets accepted because "humans have matched the times".
Relying on "majority of casual players" is even less convincing, because that requires collecting statistics about a sphere that's completely separate from what we deal with here, and also impossible to collect. Vault requires clear cuts, and you suggest to introduce "human element", however vague and subjective it may be. And for what purpose? In order to be able to reduce the overall movie quality. Brilliant.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
The publication process hasn't started. BTW:
Judge Guidelines wrote:
Improvements and obsoletions
Avoid meaningless publications. It may turn the audience away when a large improvement is possible, yet each small incremental change with no visible differences in gameplay finds its way onto the main page. If the submitted movie is clearly improvable as well, it should (usually) be rejected.
Small improvements have and will be published, but only in a situation where it seems reasonable that only those small optimizations are left. If larger known improvements aren't implemented, it may be grounds for rejection.
While it is expected that the new run should use all tricks and techniques known at the time, it is not uncommon for new time-saving techniques to be found during the later stages of making a run. Ideally, the run should be restarted or edited to allow for inclusion of these new discoveries, however, if restarting will be especially time consuming, exceptions can be made to this rule per judge's discretion
.
Considering how demanding this game is to publish (its dump doesn't fit on a half-TB drive, takes lots of time to get around to investing the required space and encoding time while other submissions are also there), I'd suggest spending more time on making sure whatever strategy you're using is the best, instead of submitting every intermediate update.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
I don't see you taking any of my arguments and explaining why they are bad or wrong, you simply keep declaring your own statements and posing rhetoric questions that have already been answered.
I pointed out several times that this rule is only for games that may be eligible for Vault, yet you spend paragraphs describing how the whole site isn't meant to only target competition. It doesn't! The site targets both entertainment and speed, one being subjective (artistic merits that can be recognized by viewers), another being objective (time competition). Vault only holds the latter.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
What kind of "double standard" and how are the authors related?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Analog controls are planned in the future.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
DrD2k9 wrote:
(rhetorically) So if a TAS already exists as published and humans manage to match it, that's ok; but if the best a TASer can do is to only match the absolute best human out there, it's not ok just because in the grand spectrum of time a human has already achieved that performance once? (end rhetorical question)
It doesn't make sense to hold a 1st generation run to higher standard than improvement runs simply because there happens to be 1 or a small handful of humans who have managed to attain the best possible performance at some point in time prior to the game being first TASed. If the majority of humans can match that performance, then it's a different story: the game is trivial and the restriction is valid.
Assuming that a game isn't trivial for most humans to play, the best possible TAS of that game based on known information is still the best possible result and deserves to be documented on the site as such.
Sure, if a TAS and the best human run are equivalent, someone could absolutely go watch the best human run instead of the TAS. But the fact that someone can see an equivalent performance elsewhere doesn't restrict TAS acceptance otherwise. If there's a TAS video of a game on YouTube or NicoVideo that achieves the best possible performance but that TAS was never submitted to our site, we'd accept a submission from a different author even if it only matched that other run for time. So why does it matter if the other run being compared to was human instead of someone else's TAS? If a submission in question matches the best known existing time (regardless of whether a human or TAS made the run), it should be acceptable. We'd never reject a submission solely because another TAS (which isn't published on the site ) is just as good as the submission in question.
People don't only watch our videos to see only what human's CAN'T do...some (probably quite a few casual watchers) watch to see what's the best that CAN be done. They don't care if a human can match it or not, they are simply trying to see what's the best possible (which, in-theory, is a key part of what TASing is all about).
The above quote specifically points out the dichotomy. In one case, you're arguing that updates to an already published TAS are allowed to be only as good as the best humans, but new TASes aren't allowed to be only as good than the absolute best humans.
We need to stop considering Vault runs from an "experience" standpoint. Vault is supposed to be a place that doesn't consider entertainment value. Thus, whether or not someone can obtain the same experience watching a run equivalent to a vault publication elsewhere is a moot point. The vault is effectively an archive for the fastest completions (or maximum score runs), it's not about the experience.
Distinction between trivial games and trivial movies is crucial and resolves your questions. If the game in its nature is trivial to TAS, any TAS of it is rejected, because it won't be a meaningful tool-assisted speedrun record. But if the game is complicated and affords serious TAS competition, its movies are accepted, even if human record matches a TAS, as long as there's nothing more to improve with the current knowledge.
#6614: The8bitbeast's SMS Zool: Ninja of the "Nth" Dimension "game end glitch" in 00:21.61
So for non-trivial games, the movie rule that demands beating or at least matching human records simply allows a seemingly-trivial movie to be accepted, to establish the current state of art and to encourage further developments, where a TAS may outperform humans again, or get beaten by them and compete with them again. This is possible because the game is complex enough.
This is the reason we don't particularly care how many humans can match the TAS record. The current Zool record can be matched by infinity of humans, and it won't mean the game has magically become trivial in its nature, all the future movies of it must be rejected, and original acceptance was a mistake. That assumption would be unfair and discouraging to people pushing this game to the limit.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Your whole argument starts from complete misreading.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html -> Rules for games -> The game must be acceptable -> Vault -> Must be clearly definable as a game, which has achievable goals
That is a requirement for games to be acceptable for Vault.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html -> Rules for movies -> The movie must be good -> A speed-oriented movie must beat all existing records
That rule is for movies and their optimality. Yet in your wording you treat them both as rules for movies, resulting in moot arguments.
DrD2k9 wrote:
The current rules for a vault run say
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial. Note that a game is considered trivial until proven otherwise. If getting perfect times everywhere is not challenging, such a game is considered trivial. If later a technique is found that makes TASing it challenging, that game becomes acceptable
The current rules for beating existing records say
If your tool-assisted movie is slower than the non-tool-assisted world record for the same game, aiming for the same goals, your movie will be rejected.
Given the recent change from "not faster than" to "slower than" for speed rules; these two criteria are now somewhat in conflict.
One criterion (in the rules on triviality) essentially says a run must stand out from human play to be acceptable, while the other criterion (in the rules on speed) essentially says a run simply can't be slower than human play to be acceptable.
DrD2k9 wrote:
In my opinion, a game's triviality should be based on the ability of humans to present a perfect (or near perfect) performance, not how challenging it is to make a TAS of that perfect performance...especially when acceptability for Vault is in question.
If the majority of humans can easily beat a game unassisted with perfect or near perfect performance, a game can be argued to be inherently trivial (Desert Bus).
Duck Hunt is a good example of the triviality dilemma.
TASing a perfect time performance in 1-Duck mode is extremely easy to do as it's simply a matter of watching a timer and duck location in RAM then firing on the first possible frame. However, it'd be nigh impossible for a human to accomplish this same feat.
While it doesn't make a very interesting TAS to watch, it would still meet all other criteria for acceptance into Vault as the fastest completion of a game.On a side note, it's also obviously superhuman.Side note #2: I don't believe that a max score run would be trivial as the score per duck can vary (even in 1-Duck mode IIRC) and would require some RNG manipulation to accomplish.
Yet, this mode of the game is currently prohibited from vault based on triviality of how difficult it is to make the TAS.
As vault is meant to be the location of fastest known/possible TASes of games (when entertainment isn't considered), what argument is there to restricting games simply because the act of making the TAS is extremely easy?
Even when a game is extremely easy to TAS perfectly; if it isn't also that easy casually, it's not inherently a trivial game.
TL:DR
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
Should we modify the Vault rules in the following ways?
1) Eliminate the concept that game-play must visually stand out from human play For Moons, this requirement could be maintained.
2) Clearly define how triviality is determined
The point of our site is to publish impressive movies from a perspective of entertainment (moons/stars), speed only (vault), or both.
Therefore, I simply don't see any value or purpose in banning a game from publication(especially when a TAS shows obvious perfection or superhuman play) simply because the creation of the TAS was itself an easy (or easily repeatable) process.
This tier contains speed-based movies that don't have much entertainment value, but still represent meaningful tool-assisted speedrun records. Game choice is tightly limited. Vault rules filter out games that don't hold much weight when tool-assistance is applied in accordance with the TASing guidelines on optimization. Vault needs clear cuts, so whenever something can not be clearly distinguished, such a movie gets rejected.
If something is trivial to TAS, it won't be a meaningful record, and TASing it would make no sense, because tool-assisted speedrunning is meant to be a competition. Competition involves variety of skills and room to develop them in order to beat the previous record. If the previous record is extremely hard to beat, because research and execution behind it looks exhaustive (SMB), that's one thing. If the previous record involved zero TASing skills and was unbeatable only because the game is trivial once you grab your tools, that's another. We want to encourage competition based on how skilled the TASer is, because that way people push themselves to the limit while pushing the games to the limit. The quality keeps increasing, the records remain meaningful, the site is happy.
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
All I see in your post is statements, and no real reasons supporting them.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
It's planned, but I'm not sure about the best way to implement it.
Regarding games with no good dump, they turned some of those warnings into errors, but Karnov seems to be working fine.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
phoenix1291 wrote:
Killer Instinct, Street Fighter III: Third Strik, San Francisco Rush etc.
Here is a list (I don't know if they are all listed)
Should be working already, just put the chd folder near your rom.
Fortranm wrote:
Donkey Kong II: Jumpman Returns (hack, V1.2)
When I load a save state taken at the initial loading sequence during a later phase, the game glitches out.
The program seems generally prone to crashing while TASing this game.
Nothing to be done about improper savestates aside from reporting each instance to the MAME team.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Give me an example game that uses it (arcades only, preferably something simple).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
What is that?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
No plans to change it. The reason it's done that way is because MAME roms require special treatment hawk isn't ready for in its regular loader.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
phoenix1291 wrote:
What are the steps to launch a MAME game with Bizhawk?
File -> Open Advanced
phoenix1291 wrote:
Which file should be loaded in the zip?
The arcade rom, same as regular MAME.
phoenix1291 wrote:
It only works with the MAMEhawk version posted at the beginning of the topic
Yes.
phoenix1291 wrote:
Is MAMEhawk in the "Choose a Platform" list?
No.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Pulled latest MAME.
Added hex editor functionality.
Sound problems will be there for now.
Redownload/retest against 0.220 (MAME and romset).
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Memory wrote:
There is an important clause in the section you just quoted.
"unless game-play is significantly different".
From my understanding the intent of the rule was to prevent having multiple movies of games where the only differences are roster and graphics.
Watching this very briefly, I noticed a couple differences from the ability to set the minimum score lower and how the ball gets handed off. In this one, one of the players just has it whereas in the other they have to do a jump grab thing for the ball. These to me read as significant differences.
I can't agree with your interpretation of "significant differences". Take this rule as an example:
Use the correct version wrote:
If there are significant in-game differences between different versions of a game, movies which take advantage of such differences can be published side by side. This can include things like different weapons or routes available to the player, different levels being present, or different bosses fought. If a particular version introduces a mechanic which can alter how the game is played, such as where players re-spawn when they die, and this mechanic can significantly alter how the game is played, movies which utilize these changes can be published side by side.
The way this is worded, significant differences in gameplay are what makes the 2 movies look like 2 different branches. It is exactly why we published [4059] GC NFL Street "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 1:14:20.35 and [4127] GC NFL Street 2 "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 25:52.90 side-by-side. This thread highlights how different those 2 games are.
Do the 2 One on One movies look like 2 different branches? To me, they don't. The games rules have slight difference, but the main strategy is identical: you remain on the same spot and just immediately throw the ball. In one of the games you have to also jump. In neither movie you have to prefer some other strategy in at least half the levels. Having to do the same twice doesn't change the main strat. Having to catch the ball doesn't change the main strat. In one game, one character makes you throw the ball while falling down. In another, one character makes you take the ball away from him. In neither you have to move anywhere.
If we take into account the main aspect we're supposed to compare the 2 runs by, I don't see essential difference in TAS technicality showcased in those 2 runs.
I'll ponder the triviality aspect separately.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
BruceShankle wrote:
OoT MQ was released on GC in the form of a n64 rom, and because of this it can be ran in an n64 emulator. I see that there has been an exception made for MTA's unfinished MQ TAS, so I was wondering if I could also do the same. The alternative is Dolphin, but working with Bizhawk is much easier for me. I have not started on my MQ TAS yet because I am still planning the route for it. Thanks for a response.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Either way, console verification is a valid reason, as well as the other on I mentioned.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
Since this movie was re-adjusted for the purpose of console verification (AKA making it run in GBC in GBA mode and adjusting some of the inputs due to different lag), is it possible to add both the file for the original GB and the console verification file in the publication? Or should the verification file replace the GB one in this submission? (Verification syncs in 2.4)
Since the console-verified movie is also shorter, I'd prefer full replacement. Having 2 movies per publication is not yet an officially supported feature, but a database hack.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1236)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11270
Location: RU
Fixed.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
