I still think "too trivial" should be a reason for rejection.
Essentially it is, or at least I tried to make it so with the wording of the Vault description. The point of the vault is for movies that are well made but for a very niche (if any) audience. The requirement is that they are at least well made, and to some extent game choice matters as the game has to lend itself to at least allowing it to be well made.
Perhaps the question in the polls should be changed then to be what tier it belongs in/rejected entirely. Poor technical quality and/or inappropriate game choice and/or poor goal choice really aren't encompassed by "entertaining or not." TASes with those faults would presumably get the same no votes as a valid but boring Vault video. Posting in the thread itself is the only way for a user to differentiate their opinion in that regard.
Perhaps the question in the polls should be changed then to be what tier it belongs in/rejected entirely. Poor technical quality and/or inappropriate game choice and/or poor goal choice really aren't encompassed by "entertaining or not." TASes with those faults would presumably get the same no votes as a valid but boring Vault video. Posting in the thread itself is the only way for a user to differentiate their opinion in that regard.
I already suggested something like that, apparently there are technical problems with changing the question to anything but a yes/no/meh choice.
The Recommended list is about to be untied off the Stars list, to allow stars tier be actually a tier for all best runs (now it's selective). Staff discussion dwelled on a list of 10 (probably 15) movies of widely famous games that blow up the newcomer's brain, namely by playing the game the most impossible way.
Please post your suggestions in this thread!
Thread #13457: The run that blew your mind
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.
Perhaps the question in the polls should be changed then to be what tier it belongs in/rejected entirely. Poor technical quality and/or inappropriate game choice and/or poor goal choice really aren't encompassed by "entertaining or not." TASes with those faults would presumably get the same no votes as a valid but boring Vault video. Posting in the thread itself is the only way for a user to differentiate their opinion in that regard.
I already suggested something like that, apparently there are technical problems with changing the question to anything but a yes/no/meh choice.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
What about star? How about when a submission is submitted, the question generates a listing of options based on the tiers that exist at the time, plus a reject option. (I'm not suggesting this because i necessarily like it though, just that it seems to be a logical conclusion to what you are asking for).
The point of the question "Did you find this movie entertaining" was that we are trying to fish out the entertainment value of the submission from the audience and let the judge sort out its categorization. If you want to try to worry about categorization, that's great, post a comment, but that's not the primary focus on the voting system.
Now a good point was made about technical quality. You currently have no way to vote in a way that communicates "no it was boring" vs "no it was sloppy, it could be improved". However, a silent "no this is sloppy" wouldn't carry much weight anyway. A blind "looks sloppy" doesn't say much. How is it sloppy? Is there a trick you know about the author didn't? Did you test something? Do you have or know about a WIP? All of these things are far more valuable than a simple vote.
You know, this again brings me to Gman's suggestion. (I know broken record here). In that case, the "Does this movie entertain you?" question has a large effect on the eventual fate of the movie, since the other two questions (Is this movie a pure speedrun (or 100%) and Is this movie as fast as possible (to our knowledge)) are more easily answered and readily apparent. The entertainment question is the most subjective of them all. Still the ultimate decision on a movie should come more form the discussion than the vote (as it does now).
What about star? How about when a submission is submitted, the question generates a listing of options based on the tiers that exist at the time, plus a reject option. (I'm not suggesting this because i necessarily like it though, just that it seems to be a logical conclusion to what you are asking for).
The point of the question "Did you find this movie entertaining" was that we are trying to fish out the entertainment value of the submission from the audience and let the judge sort out its categorization. If you want to try to worry about categorization, that's great, post a comment, but that's not the primary focus on the voting system.
Now a good point was made about technical quality. You currently have no way to vote in a way that communicates "no it was boring" vs "no it was sloppy, it could be improved". However, a silent "no this is sloppy" wouldn't carry much weight anyway. A blind "looks sloppy" doesn't say much. How is it sloppy? Is there a trick you know about the author didn't? Did you test something? Do you have or know about a WIP? All of these things are far more valuable than a simple vote.
Star, moon, whichever.
The issue as I see it is that the vote shows no reflection of the (perceived) technical quality and/or game/goal appropriateness. Discussion and the like is always more elucidating, but it also takes more time to do and read and you can't expect everyone to put in the time to investigate personally. If things APPEAR sloppy, then the author should explain/account for it in some way regardless, and I highly doubt people will suddenly stop commenting altogether on such either.
Something that appears obviously substandard or inappropriate should ideally have that reflected in the votes as well as the comments, not appear the same as a technically solid movie. The question of entertainment still exists when voting for categorization instead of entertainment. A star/moon vote is akin to saying "This is entertaining AND appears to be technically solid." Vault is "this appears to be technically solid but not entertaining." Reject means that it's neither or inappropriate for some reason which will very likely be completely obvious depending on either the game or the run.
As far as I have understood, there can be a Vault run, and a slower Moon run for the same game with the same goals.
Can there also be a Moon run, and a slower Star run on the same game with the same goals? Then we would have to un-obsolete one NES Battletoads movie, and we would need to do some changes in the obsoletion chain for threeSM64movies
Hi, I got a question. Why is there 2 versions of Jungle book in the vault side by side, yet Kirby's Avalanche is obsoleted by a similar yet different game? If two ports could exist side by side, why not Kirby's Avalanche?
Speaking of SM64, what are the chances that the latest version of the 16 star which never got published (or possibly even submitted) might get published now?
Hi, I got a question. Why is there 2 versions of Jungle book in the vault side by side, yet Kirby's Avalanche is obsoleted by a similar yet different game? If two ports could exist side by side, why not Kirby's Avalanche?
The NES and Genesis versions of Jungle Book hardly play the same. I wouldn't even call them ports.
On the other hand, Kirby's Avalanche and Super Puyo Puyo 2 are closer to each other than ports. They are regional versions. Their core gameplay is the same.
The logics behind the new obsoletion system is that ports to different consoles can be published even while the gameplay is SIMILAR, but when it's just versions of the same game (like modern Wii/GC/PS3 games), the game is really the same. Thought there's no straight line yet, I think it can be discussed.
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.
Hi, I got a question. Why is there 2 versions of Jungle book in the vault side by side, yet Kirby's Avalanche is obsoleted by a similar yet different game? If two ports could exist side by side, why not Kirby's Avalanche?
The NES and Genesis versions of Jungle Book hardly play the same. I wouldn't even call them ports.
On the other hand, Kirby's Avalanche and Super Puyo Puyo 2 are closer to each other than ports. They are regional versions. Their core gameplay is the same.
Then what about the rejection message:
Unfortunately, after watching both runs, this game seems like simply an inferior version of the Genesis game. The colors are dull, the bonus scenes drag out, and there isn't much to see in the different versions of the map. Rejecting for bad game choice.
Unfortunately, after watching both runs, this game seems like simply an inferior version of the Genesis game. The colors are dull, the bonus scenes drag out, and there isn't much to see in the different versions of the map. Rejecting for bad game choice.
DK was thinking within the old policy (reject and obsolete as much as possible, we don't need too many movies).
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.
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
Since someone talked about Puyo Puyo, I have to jump in real quick. Puyo Puyo 1, is DIFFERENT from Puyo Puyo 2. Puyo Puyo 2 added Offset. Offsetting is where you match Puyos and reduce or eliminate the enemy's attack. Also added in Puyo Puyo 2 is the All Clear bonus. Get an All Clear on your side and the next attack is much stronger (adds one Red Puyo).
Puyo Puyo 2 to Puyo Puyo 4, are the "same." I think. I am not sure if Dr. Robnick's Mean Bean Machine and Kirby's Avalanche uses Puyo Puyo 1 or Puyo Puyo 2 rules.
Puyo Puyo Fever and any game beyond that point, are DIFFERENT from all other older Puyo Puyo games due to the addition of Fever mode (uses offset to add to the fever counter and gives preassembled chains in rapid succession).
For those that want to feel retro, Puyo Puyo 15th anniversary, Puyo Puyo 7 and Puyo Puyo!! 20th anniversary have classic Puyo Puyo and Puyo Puyo 2 modes included.
Thank you.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war.
The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
This is seperate and a repost:
Can the "Notable Improvements" Icon get changed to this? Or at least something that's not a bad resize of the Moon icon?
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war.
The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Currently, Stars, Moons and Vault all have their own stated purpose, rules specific to each of them (with Vault being the worst offender in this regard) and they're called tiers.
What is a tier?
a row, rank, or layer of articles; especially : one of two or more rows, levels, or ranks arranged one above another
Are Stars, Moons and Vault tiers? Let's take a look at a few examples: the two Ing's Adventure runs currently sitting on the workbench (#3771: Abahbob's Windows Ings Adventure "No OoB" in 06:57.23 and #3760: Abahbob's Windows Ings Adventure in 03:04.02), and published Sonic 3 & Knuckles TASes.
Under current Moons/Vault rules, the "No OoB" Ing's Adventure TAS would be accepted for publication in Moons. Great! That makes sense, given it has good viewer response. But what about the "glitched" TAS? Its poor viewer response means it'd go into the Vault, but homebrew/unlicensed games that are not notable are to be rejected from Vault according to its rules. So a legit "low glitch" TAS of Ing's Adventure is an acceptable goal and game choice and is to be published in Moons, while "fastest time at any cost" Ing's Adventure is rejected for not being an acceptable game choice in any tier.
Then for S3&K. Out of the several published TASes, only [1656] Genesis Sonic 3 & Knuckles by nitsuja, upthorn & marzojr in 29:51.20 is in the Stars tier. But the other published S3&K TASes also have excellent viewer response and are easily as good as the one in Stars. Why is this? If two excellent TASes of different games are made, both of them can be in Stars, but if two excellent TASes of the same game are made, only one of them makes the cut and the other is arbitrarily thrown down to Moons.
Let's take another look at what a tier is:
a row, rank, or layer of articles; especially : one of two or more rows, levels, or ranks arranged one above another
An example of a hierarchy of tiers would be power rankings of characters in fighting games. They're very straightforward: characters that fare better go into higher tiers, and worse ones go to lower tiers.
The current "tiered publication system" is not comprised of a hierarchy of tiers. It is comprised of three separate publication classes that are not a direct hierarchy. It is not a row of ranks arranged one above another. Stars, Moons and Vault have overlap and they are aligned differently, with very different stated goals and rules. It is essentially similar to the old publication system, except instead of a single, convoluted publication class, there are three separate convoluted publication classes.
The system as it is is fundamentally broken at a very basic level, and completely unsalvageable without a complete overhaul.
How a hypothetical actual tiered publication system should be in my opinion is as follows:
*Rules for game choice, goal choice, verifiability, game notability, unlicensed/homebrew/hack status and just about everything, whatever they may be, are global and common across all tiers.
*Submissions that violate the global rules are rejected, while the ones that follow the global rules are published in one of several simple, hierarchical tiers based on viewer response and entertainment value.
Probly beating an old horse already but, I like this change, its going into the right direction (imo), the bad/good game choice restriction was kinda ... how to say gently... un-adapted to the gigantic library tasers are facing nowaday, im not sure how many games tasing emulators are covering but if it was over 10 thousands I wouldnt be much surprised, in such equation it was getting a bit tedious to have to choose between A and B solely because of popularity or "acceptability", it surely restricted people, giving them less liberty in the end, so less creativity one way or another, I like also that you still want to make the old site spirit a priority, not just a site about "all tas" but also about the "best of the best", by making a distinction you clearly draw the line between quantity and quality; it doesnt matter much anymore but I would have vote like the vast majority, good job guys keep going :p
I need a clarification about some classes regarding to their vaultability. Hardest difficulty seems to be pretty vaultable, even though it is in most cases a time trade off. Will a run on easier difficulty obsolete the slower one done on hard? Or the opposite? It's all just for Vault yet.
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.
