Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Scepheo wrote:
This is ridiculous, these runs are the fastest, and objectively so.
Great! So you don't need a flag/imagery to tell you which is the shortest.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
TASing (and with that, TASVideos) has always been about 1 thing: creating an as short as possible input file that, when played back, reaches the end of the game.*
There are rules that can be broken that may disqualify it. Such as using cheat codes.
(In the vast majority of cases using cheat codes disqualifies even from publication, but there are always exceptions...)
Sorry, what's exactly being suggested here, that speedruns be labeled as speedruns? If so, that seems a bit redundant since not-speedruns are already labeled as not-speedruns.
Or is it being suggested that for games with multiple runs, we pick the category we like the best and flag it as the record?
Actually I think you are making a good point here at a more general level.
I find myself slightly confused about the topic being discussed. Could someone write a short summary of what the problem is exactly, and what the proposed solutions are? Like a kind of short distilled recap of the entire thread.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
TASing (and with that, TASVideos) has always been about 1 thing: creating an as short as possible input file that, when played back, reaches the end of the game.
Your notion is subjective. Please use statistics if you want to prove that point. For now, Moons+Stars (movies that are so entertaining that they don't need to be fastest possible) are about 50% of all ever published movies, and Vault runs (minus those of them that can be done faster, hence can't be speed records) are about 40% of those.
I know that in many cases those overlap, and speed was entertaining, but your notion even contradicts reality, since even fastest possible runs hat weren't entertaining were being rejected up to the last year. Which is 9 years, over 1 that we have Vault.
Why does this contradiction happen? Because of absolutization. Refer to this post on that matter. I will retell the main point: TASing relies on determinism in 100% cases. Which doesn't exist in reality. Some runs can sync on console, some of them can't. We don't consider invalid what can't sync on console. Because the limited sphere where it does work (deterministic emulation) is too awesome to kill such a huge part of it due to absolutization and demanding it to be 100% true to reality. If we don't let it go a bit, we won't have it on the current level of joy.
Truth is, nothing in this universe can be considered absolute. Neither can "the only goal of TASing" can be considered such. Because it's all subjective, as long as enough people disagree.
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: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
Inzult wrote:
Sorry, what's exactly being suggested here
Actually I think you are making a good point here at a more general level.
I find myself slightly confused about the topic being discussed. Could someone write a short summary of what the problem is exactly, and what the proposed solutions are? Like a kind of short distilled recap of the entire thread.
I can make a new thread, abstracting there all we have up to now, avoiding all those "subjective" things and not relying on them. It would summarize all that we need the audience for. Do you want it?
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
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
The true goal of TASing is actually to showcase what's possible in games when you reach beyond human limitations of delivering input.
The means by which we showcase this is dominated by aiming for fastest completion, or fastest completion within some restriction. But it doesn't change the fact the the higher level is what is really the goal, and encompasses a variety of creative tactics to showcase this (and even new ones are being created, like turning a game into an entirely different game).
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Nach wrote:
It's hard to predict the future, but say Masterjun made the following:
Super Mario World now has the Tanooki suit from Super Mario Bros 3, you get it every time you hit a Yellow switch block. It also has the Hammer Bros. Suit which you get from Green switch blocks. And this in-game hack is now used for a playaround to go crazy within the game completing 96 levels in the most absurd manner possible.
The above would be quite different than what you want to currently label as playaround. What would you label this case?
I didn't in fact suggest "ACE: playaround" as a branch. I suggested using "total control" whenever the goal is NOT fastest completion of something. Otherwise total control is only a slave and can be thrown away if it appears possible faster without it.
Similarly, speed entertaining trade offs can be some kind of a playaround within the general speedrun condition, or even a playaround can be done without speed sacrifices: we don't label such runs as a playaround, since those can be very well done without it, and still count, playaround there is only a nice feature, not the dominant goal. We only label playaround the runs where the speed is NOT the main goal at all.
Nach wrote:
You suggest we only more descriptively subtag label runs in case of more branches being created for a single game. I disagree, certain subtags will end up carrying connotations as to how they're used. Playaround right now is used across the site to suggest a long winded but insane abuse of the games psychics engines, bug demonstrations, incredible activities, and more. I would not consider adding on new games or a pony cutscene to be the same category.
We should aim for subtags which work across all games, and choose them up front.
The problem is, we don't have reliable statistics with total control runs to make reasonable abstractions yet. If there are 2-3 times more such runs, I promise to revisit the case. For now it's such a microscope issue that it's more of an exception, that can be handled whatever way. I only try to let it as simple as possible, not complicating things for future and preset.
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
The problem is, we don't have reliable statistics with total control runs to make reasonable abstractions yet. If there are 2-3 times more such runs, I promise to revisit the case.
Even now with the few runs we have, I see a clearly defined set of things people are doing.
Skipping to the end of the game
Skipping to the end of a level
Modifying something in the game to cheat your way through it
Just put on some show (cut scene) that really has nothing to do with the game
Create new game(s), and then play them
Break out of one game into another (This happened in a rejected Wii Zelda run which jumped into Kirby Pinball Land's ending)
I can also see:
Adding on new things to the game and playing with them (power ups, enemies, levels...)
I agree that we haven't seen it all, but we have seen a few of these used multiple times already, and things like creating a brand new playable game (or several) should be distinctive enough to not even currently to have to be in the same category as other things.
Now perhaps future runs may be more diverse, perhaps someone will instead of adding on a game, create a calculator. Maybe for modern platforms, we'll see them create a word processor or spreadsheet software. Yes, we haven't seen it all, but we could come up with terms to define what we currently have seen, which will only in unlikely scenarios need to be renamed.
Key point: Whatever we do, let's not lump together things into a single term which we can all agree are dissimilar in payload objective.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I don't see which part of my suggestions you disagree with. With the fact that there are only 2 runs that actually use total control they've taken? With labeling only these 2 "total control"? With not labeling them "total control: something"?
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I'm sorry feos, but I don't understand what you're saying.
In order to help you, all I can do is clarify my position and hope it helps.
1) Tags should try to be generic yet clear.
2) "arbitrary code" or "total control" is too generic. They should always have a sub tag explaining what kind as we initially agreed in IRC.
3) Playaround as a tag or sub tag for things which do something other than play around the existing built-in physics engine and mechanics is a bad idea.
4) With the arbitrary execution that we've seen in submissions and publications, various payload objectives are already emerging.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Tags should try to be generic yet clear.
This is obvious.
"arbitrary code" or "total control" is too generic.
This is subjective. I don't see anything too generic when there are only 2 published runs with it.
Playaround as a tag or sub tag for things which do something other than play around the existing built-in physics engine and mechanics is a bad idea.
This point is agreed about, don't see anyone disagreeing.
With the arbitrary execution that we've seen in submissions and publications, various payload objectives are already emerging.
They are, but statistics is too poor to make abstractions (to decide when it's generic enough, not too much, not too little).
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
"arbitrary code" or "total control" is too generic.
This is subjective. I don't see anything too generic when there are only 2 published runs with it.
Yet it seems there are more that we should consider labeling as such. I won't take current labeling situation as any indicator as what we should and shouldn't do.
We've also seen plenty of submissions that weren't accept that can give us an idea of what people are looking to accomplish.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Nach wrote:
Yet it seems there are more that we should consider labeling as such.
I know of 2 that are published as such. I know a few that were rejected. Rejected runs don't need labels. I don't know people's opinions on that very well, maybe a new thread is needed, just to discuss ACE runs taxonomy.
Why don't you address the opinion that only non-speed-oriented runs must be labeled as "total control" (ACE/ECA/whatever)?
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
feos wrote:
Why don't you address the opinion that only non-speed-oriented runs must be labeled as "total control" (ACE/ECA/whatever)?
I think even speed oriented runs need it, as a significant portion of our viewers feel such runs should be categorized and should not obsolete otherwise fastest runs.
We should consider tagging various runs from these lists:
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3058Y.html (Corrupts memory)
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-C3057Y.html (Corrupts save data)
Edit:
While using my browser to scan the first link for "arbitrary code", 5 runs ended up matching the search (which is not to mean that only 5 runs need to be considered to be tagged as such).
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
So you mean, the runs that do some significant game code corruption need a label? In most cases it's not "total control" at all, and arbitrary code portions are so insignificant I wouldn't even label them as arbitrary code. If you want some other label, suggest it. But I don't see anything is needed besides the usual movie classes.
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Movie classes which are used to create new branches probably deserve to tie into the branch naming.
Maybe viewers want all such runs to be labeled exploits memory corruption: sub tag.
I'm not going to speak for our users as to what the ideal labeling should be, but it is a topic we should be discussing.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
I realize that this has been said may times before in many different ways, but here it goes:
It is hopeless to define a movie by what it does (such as the tag "uses memory corruption"). Instead they should be defined by what they do not do, such as "no warps" or "no x glitch".
Every single movie could be cleanly and unambiguously labeled, and there would be no doubt what category a run belongs to, because all you would need to ask is "does it do any of the things that this branch does not allow?"
An example: imagine some crazy memory corruption glitch allowed SMB1 to be beaten in 8 seconds. The new any% run would use this glitch to have an overall time of 8 seconds. The current ~5 min run that does not do this could be (at the discretion of the site and judges) moved to a branch that is labeled "no memory corruption".
No ambiguity, no wierd distinctions like the "11 exit" run where a newer faster movie that meets the goals is inexplicably disqualified from a branch who's goals it meets.
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.
