I would also say the SM64 run is not considered "glitched" because it still keeps some of the game's structure, namely doing the Bowser levels and fighting him the regular way, unlike ALttP, which just skips straight to the ending sequence three minutes in.
Additionally, the terms 0 star, 1 star, 16 star, and so on are well established in the SM64 speedrunning community, with all of them having a very specific route associated to them. This doesn't really apply to ALttP.
Question though, can you apply this definition to other games as well? Or will it lead to lots of debate on games that don't have an established speedrunning community?
I completely understand and agree with having movies that show off more gameplay than the fastest run. But here's the problem: for almost any speedrun on the site, it is possible to make an alternative run that shows off more of the gameplay. However, in many cases these would simply be (1) suboptimal and (2) arbitrary. So how does one distinguish a "non glitched" run from a "suboptimal" or "arbitrary" run? We need to be able to answer that to stay true to the site goals. Even in the few hours that this thread has run, it already has half a dozen different definitions; that doesn't help.
The "100%" category, in games where it's a sensible one, is a good way to show more of the game.
Some kind of "low-glitch" category, while inevitably often more or less arbitrary, is another. Of course the decision of whether it's publication-worthy becomes quite subjective, but it is an existing possibility nevertheless.
Btw, I oppose the notion of going back to the old system where the "main" fastest run is not distinguished from the other branches. However, there doesn't seem to be a voting option for explicitly that. (Or, alternatively, the voting options don't make it clear.)
The main issue with glitched/any% categories is that it would lead to very ambiguous 'low-glitch' categories. For example‚ if someone ever makes a 'no memory corruption' OOT TAS (i.e nom RBA/WW)‚ how would it be labelled? I mean‚ it wouldn't be the most glitched category‚ but it would still skip 8 of the 10 dungeons of the game. So the best category name would be 'no memory corruption'‚ i.e actual naming convention.
I problably made mistakes, sorry for my bad English, I'm French :v
The main issue with glitched/any% categories is that it would lead to very ambiguous 'low-glitch' categories. For example‚ if someone ever makes a 'no memory corruption' OOT TAS (i.e nom RBA/WW)‚ how would it be labelled? I mean‚ it wouldn't be the most glitched category‚ but it would still skip 8 of the 10 dungeons of the game. So the best category name would be 'no memory corruption'‚ i.e actual naming convention.
I'm not convinced the actual name used for a branch is all that crucial. You could just as well name the branch "Steve's run", or whatever you like. What the run does, what its details are, what distinguishes it from other branches, ought to be specified in its description and tags. The role of the branch name isn't to detail such aspects; it's to simply make it a separate branch. The name's not all that important. (Yes, if the branch name is also descriptive and unambiguous, that's a big plus, but I wouldn't say it's the most crucial thing.)
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6340
Location: The land down under.
adelikat wrote:
andypanther wrote:
Therefore, if the fastest way to beat the game is not called any%, this contradicts the meaning of the term.
To people voting for glitch/any, do you simply not agree with this? Or do you not care about the obvious contradiction?
Andy's point makes sense here.
Crash Bandicoot 2Crash Bandicoot 2 "glitched"
But we need to think for 2 other branches "any%" and "100%".
Which branch actually gets dropped in a sense, or do they both stay because we cannot glitch it?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
How does it not make sense there? This isn't an outlier. any% means "as fast as possible regardless of % completed, anything goes". It contradicts the meaning when there is a faster run than that.
It doesn't make sense to say "As fast as possible" and then say "Faster"
The branch name needs to be clear, it should not allow any interpretation. For example the 11 exits of SMW doesn't tell which 11 exits, it just tells this run has 11 exits. This can lead to misinterpretation as seen here: #4252: Masterjun's SNES Super Mario World "11 exits" in 08:07.53.
A lot of games just need a better branch name. The best solution would be forbidding some glitches. It automatically makes the branch name clear and doesn't allow any further interpretation.
Heavy glitch abuse is when one does sequence breaking by some in-game means (game engine faults). Soft sequence breaking. Glitched is when one corrupts the gameplay and breaks the logical conditions for common soft sequence breaking, overcoming the gameplay limitations. Hard sequence breaking. What do you think?
I disagree with this, since it still wouldn't really work for movies that don't have memory corruption glitches but are heavily messed up like Link to the Past (It's a simple clip glitch, which means the movie that doesn't use it would still have "no clipping/mirror-jumping/mid air-saving/variant of exploration glitch").
You disagree with what? With Link TAS being named glitched? Well, if it doesn't corrupt the gameplay maybe it shouldn't be. It would depend on the way it skips to the end. I have no idea what it does, can anyone tell briefly?
adelikat wrote:
andypanther wrote:
Therefore, if the fastest way to beat the game is not called any%, this contradicts the meaning of the term.
To people voting for glitch/any, do you simply not agree with this? Or do you not care about the obvious contradiction?
I addressed that already. If we remove this contradiction, we get into many other troubles. If we force clarity in one place, it breaks in others.
So I'm asking, why invent ways to highlight the fastest branch by not having a label at all? Why serve up that holy cow? It worked when branches were limited, with Moons it just doesn't. If fastest is the default goal, all the rest break, since people seem to be unable to come up with terms that both camps would consider clear. Each camp believes their option is clear as day, and they disagree, so then both options aren't objectively clear.
I can understand when World Record gets hyped about in the real-time community, where it is constantly drifting from one guy to another. But WR exists for all categories they speedrun, not only for fastest. But why showcase the shortest possible WR by dropping the label? Can anyone please list the benefits that aren't contradictory to something other we need to handle here?
My proposal tries to consider both camps' points and reconcile them, but it also introduces something new, as that Moons system is new and there's no good way to handle it. And the situation will only get worse as new branches arrive.
If the game's engine stays intact, only some bugs in it are used to do sequence breaks, it's normal run. Not glitchless, since it would still have heavy glitch abuse. Normal runs should have labels telling the type of game completion (amount of players, if there's such an option, used character, whatever the game allows).
If the game engine gets damaged and completely ignored at some level, game execution gets broken and manipulated, sequence breaks concern corrupting and overcoming the gameplay logics, it must be labeled as "foo glitch". Not "glitched", because there may be dozens of ways to do that, and they can co-exist. Just some common ways to break stuff. "Game end glitch" works for quite a few games, "SRAM glitch" may work for some others, and if the glitch can't be abstracted, like "X-Ray glitch" is a thing-in-itself, then just put it exclusively.
This way we would be able to label "hard sequence break" runs as "foo glitch" and prove something that was mislabeled shouldn't have such label. It would divide all true game-breaking runs from normal ones ("soft sequence breaks"), and also keep their names unambiguous, yet common.
On the other hand, some normal runs would still need to have no label, if they don't do anything particularly exclusive conceptually. We just need to define the level of conceptuality. As I said, gameplay options provided by games must become such concepts.
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
feos wrote:
adelikat wrote:
To people voting for glitch/any, do you simply not agree with this? Or do you not care about the obvious contradiction?
I addressed that already. If we remove this contradiction, we get into many other troubles. If we force clarity in one place, it breaks in others.
*A lot of stuff I expect everyone to read thoroughly, and will re-link everytime they dont'*
So I hear you answering the question as "We know it is a contradiction and dont' care, it is the lesser of two evils".
If this is correct, please confirm. And thanks for the answer.
So I hear you answering the question as "We know it is a contradiction and dont' care, it is the lesser of two evils".
If this is correct, please confirm. And thanks for the answer.
I fail to see where you get the "dont' care" part from, but overall it's this:
"None of the first 2 options in the poll is perfect. Each leaves a huge room for contradictions and arguments. So here's something different from both."
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.
The branch name needs to be clear, it should not allow any interpretation.
I doubt that can be achieved in all cases. And as I said earlier, I don't think the precise wording used in the branch name is all that important. (IMO it shouldn't be the role of the branch name to describe the run. Its only role is to distinguish it from the other branches. If it's also descriptive that's a bonus, but nothing more.)
The details ought to be defined in the movie's description and with the tags.
Btw, any opinions on my earlier suggestion of making two types of tags ("major" tags and "minor" tags), the major ones perhaps appearing on the run's identifying info line?
I think this discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
Looking at Super Mario World, the question is how we distinguish Masterjun's 1:39 run from Bahamete et al's 9:57 run. If we can't make this distinction, then they would be the same branch, and one should obsolete the other. However, making the distinction is straightforward: the former run uses what's know as the "credits glitch", and the latter does not. Of course, both runs also use a number of other glitches, but this is the main difference from a technical perspective.
So the debate is really whether
(a) Masterjun's run should be unlabeled and Bahamete's run should note that it avoids the credits glitch, or
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch, or
(c) both should be called something else.
How exactly we note that (and where, in the title or the description) is up for debate. By the way, the recently rejected submission also uses the credits glitch, but it is slower than the 1:39 run mentioned above.
The exact same thing applies to VVVVVV, with the recently discovered "text storage glitch". Either the 0:47 run should be unlabeled and the 13:30 run should note that it avoids the text storage glitch, or the 13:30 run should be unlabeled and the 0:47 run should note that it uses the text storage glitch. Or, of course, both should be called something else.
I think this discussion would benefit from some concrete examples.
Looking at Super Mario World, the question is how we distinguish Masterjun's 1:39 run from Bahamete et al's 9:57 run. If we can't make this distinction, then they would be the same branch, and one should obsolete the other. However, making the distinction is straightforward: the former run uses what's know as the "credits glitch", and the latter does not. Of course, both runs also use a number of other glitches, but this is the main difference from a technical perspective.
So the debate is really whether
(a) Masterjun's run should be unlabeled and Bahamete's run should note that it avoids the credits glitch, or
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch, or
(c) both should be called something else.
How exactly we note that (and where, in the title or the description) is up for debate. By the way, the recently rejected submission also uses the credits glitch, but it is slower than the 1:39 run mentioned above.
The exact same thing applies to VVVVVV, with the recently discovered "text storage glitch". Either the 0:47 run should be unlabeled and the 13:30 run should note that it avoids the text storage glitch, or the 13:30 run should be unlabeled and the 0:47 run should note that it uses the text storage glitch. Or, of course, both should be called something else.
Funally!
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch "game end glitch".
The 13:30 VVVVVV run should be unlabeled and the 0:47 run should note that it uses the text storage glitch "game end glitch".
Battletoads now:
[2403] NES Battletoads "game end glitch" by MESHUGGAH, feos in 00:56.76 -> "game end glitch"
[1920] NES Battletoads "warps, 2 players" by feos & MESHUGGAH in 11:04.72 -> "2 player, warps"
[355] NES Battletoads "warpless, 2 players" by nesrocks in 24:57.47 -> "2 player, warpless"
[320] NES Battletoads "warpless, 1 player" by Phil, Genisto in 24:20.12 > "1 player, warpless"
You see what we do there? We don't rely on the rule set that we use for particular branches. We rely on the features the games allow. And if they allow gameplay corruption, it's also a feature! Not all games allow that, and for those that do, we would have a label that unites them ("corrupts memory" wouldn't).
And if the game allows some "simple" completion, like [1049] NES Batman by Aglar in 09:21.93, it doesn't need to label the gameplay features that were used, just because they aren't optional!
PS: bahamete's run may need some label still, showing what in-game features were used, to make the label tell us more than no label.
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.
Viewer chiming in here.
Here's what I usually want to know before I'm watching a game video:
1) Do I know the game?
The game title obviously answers this question.
2) Do I have time to watch it now?
The length of the video obviously answers this question too.
I will watch any movies less than 5 minutes on the spot, whether I know the game or not. I will watch a movie less than 20 minutes right now if I'm fond of the game, definitely later if I at least know the game. If I really like the game, I will find some time over the next few weekends to watch >1 hour ones.
3) How much of the game will I see?
low%, 100%, quickest route, etc. is a good hint on that.
I'm a viewer, which means I like to "view" stuff. The more content that makes it into the video, the more entertained I will be. That includes limiting redundancy. For example, a fighting game always showcasing the same few combos will definitely lose entertainment points for me. Same for zipping-around or early level ending glitches. If I'm unfamiliar with the game, I will prefer watching runs from most content to lesser. If I'm familiar with the game, then I will gladly watch ALL of the non-obsolete runs.
A side point of my interest of watching TASes is to see games I simply will never have the time to play of finish. So, for example, me first watching a quickest route of Super Demo World would kinda defeat that purpose as the whole point of the hack is to create a lot of new levels that I will simply be unable to see otherwise (yes I could play it, no I don't have the time as I still have many unopened games waiting for their turn).
4) How faithful is the game to its intended gameplay?
Here comes the glitch-related part.
I like to watch "pure" gameplay. I also like to watch game-raping glitches, total control hacks and everything in between. But I WANT to know what I will be watching in advance. Hence, I find it very important that the level of "glitchiness" is hinted in the branch name.
The wonderful thing with glitches is that they are game-specific. Their effect, that is. The technical cause of glitches might very well fall into standard categories (buffer overflows, off-by-one errors, collision detection failures, etc.), but that is superfluous information to "hook" the viewer. These details belong in the description.
I see the level of "glitchiness" as game dependant and subjective. If I were to still give a scale, it would look like this:
- reactive: Plays exactly as expected by the game designers, without even knowing anything in advance. Does not really belong to this site, IMHO.
- (default): Plays as expected by the game designers, but with knowledge of the future. Mostly luck manipulation.
- (also in default): Uses only a few, easy to do glitches only, such as jumping on the side of bricks in SMB.
- low glitches: Uses non sequence or game breaking glitches. The game should still be completely recognizable. Includes actions that usually require a modified controller (L+R,U+D), or rapid sequences of frame-precise inputs (walking over pits in LttP).
- heavy glitches: Use sequence or game breaking glitches. Includes zipping around and early end of level triggers.
- total control: Puts data into the game RAM and jumps the execution pointer there somehow.
That's all what influences me into watching a movie.
Now, a few opinions on what others seem to consider important:
"How about World Records?": Simply sort the listings from the shortest to longest movies for a game and it will be made self evident. Or add an extra icon on these movies, the same way there are Moon/Star/Vault or Console Verified icons. Just make sure to remove it if it is no longer the "World Record". IMHO, triggering a game ending by manipulating the game's RAM should not really considered having "completed the game", but that's another can of worms.
"How about branches with different glitches?": Put the major distinctions is parentheses and the minor ones in the movie descriptions. So we will have "Super Metroid, low%, low glitch (X-Ray)" and "Super Metroid, low%, low glitch (Pause menu)" and the viewer will be just fine. On a related note, avoid mentions of UNUSED glitches ("No whatever") as it should be the default.
Finally, I don't see why there is a sudden need to be so strict and objective about branch names. Some subjectivity and context sensitivity should be enough.
Hi Demon Lord, thanks for your thoughts. Please look at my previous post above and tell how well does that system match your expectations as a viewer. If you want the full picture, go here, thanks.
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.
So the debate is really whether
(a) Masterjun's run should be unlabeled and Bahamete's run should note that it avoids the credits glitch, or
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch, or
(c) both should be called something else.
The solution is easy, relatively speaking: Which one of them should be considered the "official world record" completion of the game? The other one gets a branch name.
This thread is cursed. Questions get asked several times and no one sees them. Answers are given several times and no one discusses them... I'll try once again.
Warp wrote:
The solution is easy, relatively speaking: Which one of them should be considered the "official world record" completion of the game? The other one gets a branch name.
feos wrote:
"None of the first 2 options in the poll is perfect. Each leaves a huge room for contradictions and arguments. So here's something different from both."
feos wrote:
So I'm asking, why invent ways to highlight the fastest branch by not having a label at all? Why serve up that holy cow? It worked when branches were limited, with Moons it just doesn't. If fastest is the default goal, all the rest break, since people seem to be unable to come up with terms that both camps would consider clear. Each camp believes their option is clear as day, and they disagree, so then both options aren't objectively clear.
I can understand when World Record gets hyped about in the real-time community, where it is constantly drifting from one guy to another. But WR exists for all categories they speedrun, not only for fastest. But why showcase the shortest possible WR by dropping the label? Can anyone please list the benefits that aren't contradictory to something other we need to handle here?
Also, I loved this:
adelikat wrote:
So I hear you answering the question as "We know it is a contradiction and dont' care, it is the lesser of two evils".
feos wrote:
"None of the first 2 options in the poll is perfect. Each leaves a huge room for contradictions and arguments. So here's something different from both."
adelikat wrote:
So you don't agree that it is a contradiction?
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.
IMO the "official fastest completion" is needed for clarity, and as a resource for people searching for that information (either out of personal curiosity, or even for some research, eg. for an article.) This is what I mean with the "official" part. It's saying "looking for the fastest that this game can be completed, under our rules? It's this one." If someone asks, let's say for an online article, "what's the fastest that this game can theoretically be completed?", the official answer is "this".
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
(As I commented in the other thread that started this, not every single game would necessarily have an unnamed "official world record" branch, if the game is such that it's not suitable for speed completion. The Brain Age TAS would be a perfect example.)
IMO the "official fastest completion" is needed for clarity, and as a resource for people searching for that information (either out of personal curiosity, or even for some research, eg. for an article.) This is what I mean with the "official" part. It's saying "looking for the fastest that this game can be completed, under our rules? It's this one." If someone asks, let's say for an online article, "what's the fastest that this game can theoretically be completed?", the official answer is "this".
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
(As I commented in the other thread that started this, not every single game would necessarily have an unnamed "official world record" branch, if the game is such that it's not suitable for speed completion. The Brain Age TAS would be a perfect example.)
This, 100%. I don't I've ever agreed more with any forum post, ever.
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
Yes, and what's the benefit of using exactly unnamed branch for that purpose? What if someone isn't looking for "fastest ever", but needs to know the gameplay conditions? For most unnamed branches gameplay conditions would differ, just as do most of our branches differ. Which means the goal set fails to be represented by that unnamed branch name. It's also inconsistent: all games have branches that show what game features they use to complete the game, and bam! suddenly some refuse to tell the viewer that information. As Demon Lord stated, highlighting the fastest branch can be done the soft way, and he suggested 2: adding an icon or sorting game groups by length by default.
Then, where, except for the Judge Guidelines do we tell the viewer that the unnamed branch is "fastest possible"? Then, why people keep thinking that only "fastest possible" needs that kind of highlight? Why not 100%? Why not a starred branch?
One may answer: "Well, it was traditionally there and all was ok". There are counter-arguments to that.
Glitched branch was also traditionally there, but people think it's not ok (and I proved it's not ok anymore as it was, so it needs some tweak, but not removal).
It was ok when the problem didn't exist, and the branch amount was limited. Now it's not limited, we will get a huge load of new categories on our site, and the viewer would need telling labels.
And what label is more telling than which is based on the in-built gameplay options? Such label would give at least 2 benefits:
Clarity (finally), since we would no longer serve up the single "anything goes" category by building all the other category names around it not caring how little sense they make. The viewer that doesn't have any knowledge of the game now would see that it has some options ("Richter", "hard mode", whatever) that are labeled consistently for all games. And those who know the game would see which gameplay options were used, rather than "whatever arbitrary goal set was spare from the any%".
Future-proof, since we won't be handling mostly 1-2 branches, but 3-5 (in a few years), and "blank" vs "some other" won't work anymore. The system is no longer WR-based, it's diversity-based and joy-based. Which means, our actual main and default goals are to entertain the audience, not to put records of various boringness.
If I'm wrong in my conclusions, quote and disprove. If my benefits are false, quote and disprove. If there are bigger benefits in the opposite side, please list 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.
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
Yes, and what's the benefit of using exactly unnamed branch for that purpose?
There isn't necessarily any. But this branch is 'any%', and some time during the site's history people decided we didn't label runs 'any%' anymore. It is, however, still the "anything goes" as-fast-as-you-can category, so even the glitched jump-to-the-credits movies are simply 'any%'. I'm okay with bringing back that label, but labeling some of the anything-goes-fastest movie 'any%' and others 'glitched' is just inconsistent and unclear.
