https://www.google.com/search?q="publication"%20site%3Atasvideos.org
And a complete list of the times in the site the word "Publication" is used.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
You didn't answer my question. You've just implied that Air 2 has been published by some commercial entity equivalent to Apogee or Activision. I'm really curious as to when that happened, please show me a source of that.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Please show me a source for that. Published by whom, and where?
It got obsoleted.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Wasn't Bible Adventures an unlicensed game but was made by a legitimate publisher?
Well, then that would make it eligible for running on TASvideos.
I didn't say that "no unlicensed game may go on TASvideos". Rather, I said that "licensed games may go on TASvideos (if the run is good)" and unlicensed ones need to be judged in some other way.
Nach wrote:
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
Sure. But if a game is featured prominently in computer stores, then it should easily be notable enough for a run on the site here. Likewise if it got bought up by a larger company.
My point is that these aren't criteria to exclude large amounts of games, but rather that games must show a reason to be included on the site. An official license (e.g. Super Metroid) is such a reason. Being extremely famous (e.g. Cave Story) is another such a reason. If a game is neither licensed nor famous, well perhaps there's another reason to include it anyway, but if we can't find such a reason, the game doesn't get a run on TASvideos. Here's some precedent for that.
Air 1 and 2 showed their reason to be included by getting published.
Nach wrote:
I do, thank you for asking.
We could totally be BFFs!
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
Yet in the early DOS games, "My own tetris clone #24601" would be featured prominently for sale in computer stores, and possibly even bought up by a larger company.
In the early DOS days, many games where written together by 1-3 friends as a hobby on the side, yet sold commercially at some point.
For The Microsoft Entertainment Pack for example, Microsoft found a series of games developed for Windows by a single person, and bought them all up and put them in a single compilation.
As time progressed, the PC platform ended up showing a large divide between the hobbyists and the commercial as you describe, but way back, they started out being the same thing.
Two Johns; Two Carmacks; Three People: The Game.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Before the advent of Windows 8 with its store, there was no licensing for Windows. So every game is unlicensed, be it Cave Story or Doom 3.
That's a good point, but I'd say that any DOS/Windows game published by an actual commercial publisher counts as the equivalent of "licensed for the NES"; as opposed to the many games that are self-published on the internet.
For example, Commander Keen counts as the equivalent of licensed (as it is published commercially by Apogee), as does Doom 3 (published by Activision), whereas "My own tetris clone #24601" does not.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Tasvideos can afford to be inclusionist for official games because the number of officially licensed and published games is most certainly finite. The number of hacks is not. This is part of the quality control argument, as you can make a TAS for any possible hack and claim it's entertaining enough to be published.
To add to what you're saying. You can make hacks of hacks as well. Or make some small changes to a pre-existing hack and call it a new one, which is precisely what Air 2 is to Air 1.
And Mario 2j was to Mario 1.
scrimpeh wrote:
Is Hard Relay Mario similar enough to obsolete Air 2?
This seems to have been the original question of this debate, but dozens of posts of frankly ridiculous arguing seem to have steered us in all sorts of wacky directions, to the point this had to be split off in a separate thread.
Don't look at me, I was just wondering why one game obsoleted another.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
I don't understand what's so hard about this.
(1) TASvideos wants quality runs of quality games.
(2) There are three relevant kinds of games: (a) licensed games, (b) hacks of licensed games, and (c) unlicensed games.
(3) Licensed games are almost always of decent quality; even those games that are commercially panned tend to be of pretty good technical quality. The few that aren't (e.g. ET or Daikatana) tend to fall under "so bad it's good", in that these games are renowned for how bad they are, and viewers are interested in seeing how bad it really is.
(4) The overwhelming majority of hacks and of unlicensed games are total and utter crap. My apologies to any hackers and game designers in the audience, but most of them just are pretty bad; just check any site that lists a couple thousand of them. Now granted, there are numerous hacks (e.g. Super Demo World) or unlicensed games (e.g. Cave Story) that are excellent.
(5) Therefore, we accept runs of all licensed games; and we accept runs of hacks and unlicensed games if we consider them sufficiently well-made and notable. Very simple. "Extra Mario Bros" is well-made and notable, so it goes on the site. "Lololol I replaec mario with a cow and an etxra pipe in L3" is not well-made and not notable, so it does not go on the site. Of course, the run itself needs to be of good quality as well.
But then why do we need to have hacks obsolete different hacks if there is already a system in place which decides which ones get accepted? And even if an older entry eventually gets deems not up to our standards, obsoleting it to make room for a different hack is not the answer. The old hack can keep it's entry, no one ever accepts new submissions for it, and the new hack gets a new entry.
Super Backwards Day Cow Mario(NES) Walkathon: For the Children(Kobe Edition)
Kuwaga wrote:
Here's a suggestion to people like xnamkcor and Dyshonest (the order I named them in is arbitrary, not in order of importance). If you want to have a list of all the TASes for hacks that produce somewhat entertaining runs, and meet a minimal standard of quality, just compile such a list yourself. Then put it somewhere on these forums. And watch what happens.
What you are doing now is arguing that somebody else should do extra work that they think is not necessary. In fact, they even think doing that extra work would make things worse. Are you seriously trying to convince them through your brilliant arguments to do that kind of work anyway? Why not do it yourselves, if you think it'd make the world a better place? Got better things to do? Well, so do the people you are demanding that work from.
[URL=http://tasvideos.org/Movies/GruefoodDelight.html]Gruefood Delight[/URL] started as a list of movies compiled by (mostly) [URL=http://tasvideos.org/forum/profile.php?mode=viewprofile&u=2736]alden[/URL]. He wanted there to be a list of noteable rejected runs, so he made one. You are free to do the same.
I think this mentality of "if I want something, I need to cry very loudly and shout at people higher up till they do something about it" is a serious problem with our modern society as a whole. If you want things to change, just do it. Offer something instead of demanding something. That's just my advice, you are free to completely disagree and call me an idiot, or ignore me, or whatever. There'll be no hard feeling from my side.
Are you saying it takes more effort to make a new entry than it does to modify an old one?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
That actually sounds like it would be a fun regular event.
We could make a hack of SMB1 where all the levels are reversed, then TAS it.
Edit: Backwards Day Edition Super Mario Bros(NES) Walkathon: For Cancer(GOTY Edition).
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
So, because you're afraid of what could happen, you've decided to employ absurd database protocols?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Because hacks are games?
The only reason any of you can make the sensational argument that all hack submissions will be published if we have different entries for each hack is that you have no quality control for hacks, like you do for normal games.
Instead of pretending like all hacks are going to have TASs, why don't you just fix the problem that you have no quality control for hack TAS submissions?
feos wrote:
I'm a layperson, tell me the difference.
I'm not correcting him, I'm replying.
feos wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
There is no quality control on hacks or unlicensed games.
You should probably fix that.
OH WOW. How is one supposed to control the quality of hacks and unlicensed games?
I thought he was saying Hack TAS submissions don't have quality control.
So, if Hack TAS submissions do have requirements in order to be published, how do you expect every hack to get a publication?
Nach wrote:
Thanks for your opinion. We'll continue doing what we have experience with, and experience has indicated will occur in the future, and how best to manage the site.
Whatever experience that is, it isn't database management.
Nach wrote:
xnamkcor wrote:
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
Obsoletion means the run has been surpassed by another run for the same game, not some hacky way for you to delete old runs of other games you no longer like.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Since it's possible to make an optimized speedrun of any single hack, that means that by your terms, any single hack can have an optimized speedrun publication on the site, right?
Could.
Mothrayas wrote:
There is no quality control on hacks or unlicensed games.
You should probably fix that.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
So, if I pick a game that has no existing run, and I just record my input and submit it, it will get published? I don't think Lufia I has a submission. I think I'll play that and submit it. So then I'll be published.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
That means exactly the same thing in this case. Any other non-arguments we need to go over?
No, yours is enough.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Which can be made for every hack ever.
Could.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
There are many people on Youtube that routinely make TASes of various hacks for one game. While I do think there should be a repository for hack TASes, the current publication system at TASvideos is unsuitable for this purpose, and it doesn't need to be.
Put in the bluntest terms, it's not our job to include every hacked game TAS there is.
To put it in the bluntest terms, nobody even implied, except for the people who are being sensational, that every hack would be cataloged. Just the ones that met speed optimization requirements.
Nach wrote:
My reading of xnamkcor's posts here are that we should allow all hacks.
No, I'm saying that obsoleting hacks with different hacks is horrible database protocol.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Let's say we have a TAS published on this site for every single hack hosted by SMWcentral, we would have 235 movies of only SMW like games... I think it's too much. :o) We need to be picky.
They can be listed somewhere on the forum or a new page... or gruefood delight.
Do you honestly think we would even get close to that number of runs that pass the requirements for optimization of speed or are you purposefully being sensational?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
If you're keeping it to a minimum, why does the vault exist?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
I'm not crazy about what we do either, but the alternative means that we have no way to obsolete bad hacks that were published by poor judgment, and that hacks like these would never get published.
To put differently, if we take your approach of not allowing cross-hack obsoletion, this site would not have Air2, Hard Relay Mario, or several other hacks that we've published.
Are we running out of space?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
I don't care if it's "tradition" that a certain number of hacks can exist for a game and if too many show up your make a new hack obsolete an old hack. It's horrible database protocol.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
If Air 2 wasn't good enough to get published how did it get obsoleted? Doesn't being obsoleted mean that at one time it has a published entry? And if the new one isn't good enough, why is it now published?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Has anybody actually addressed why one hack/game obsoleted a different hack? And Air 2 was good enough to get published, and this new one was good enough to get published, right? Are we so desperate for slots in the database that we had to resort to the extremely hacky solution of merging game entries?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
Is today backwards day? Both of today's "Added" runs have a longer listed time than what they "obsoleted".
Your eyes must be going bad, this is a cross-hack obsoletion, and therefore the time isn't relavent.
If it's a different hack, why doesn't it get it's own entry?
We have to have a hack quota for every game - otherwise we could flood the site with tons of half-decent hacks of SMB or SMW or whatever. Hacks are considered an extension of the original game, and we don't want to have too many runs of one game or game engine dominating movie lists.
Also, the rest of your post is so obtuse I don't even know what to say. Obviously there is a big difference between cross-hack and cross-game obsoletion, never mind obsoletion between two very different games.
But, if we have too many hacks of a game on record, it might confuse people. Therefore we just obsolete one hack with a completely different one without explaining it in the description.
Otherwise you might confuse people.
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
So, because you can only have so many hack runs per base game, you've decided to have the system say that one hack has obsoleted another hack?
"The guy was fatally injured and wants to be covered by God's tears (rain) before he dies. God is too busy to bother because it wastes frames."
Frames 16:26
