I'll admit I haven't read most of the discussion in this thread, but I'll drop my two cents in anyway. We should choose the classification that people are most likely to think of when they're looking for the TAS (and, for whatever reason, not using Google). To me that means it should end up in either the DOS or PC categories, probably DOS. I don't think most people would expect Doom to get its own special category.
The behind-the-scenes details of how exactly Doom replays are implemented is irrelevant to the viewer. And the categorizations are intended to make the viewer's life easier.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Am I missing something, or you're suggesting to host DOS Doom runs separated from Windows Doom runs? "It's not the same game"!
According to the guidelines, we A) only accept multiple versions if they offer different content, which is not the case, so we only accept one version. B) We select the version based on originality, popularity and superiority. For Doom, the original and most popular version is DOS, while for superiority does not matter, as they are all equal. Of course, there exist ports like glBoom, but those aren't officially sanctioned and should, as such, not be considered.
feos wrote:
Elaborate on the differences between these 2, and on (again) how emulating Doom altogether is better than making an internal movie for it (have fun expanding that principle to Hourglass too).
As you yourself said; maintaining a strict policy for which game engine movies we accept is impossible, and this will eventually go wrong. This is the first reason I'm against it. The second reason is that game engine replays aren't the same thing as TASes. In the case of Half Life 2, replay files contain actor positions rather than input, which means that completely impossible movements (like going through walls) is possible by hex editing these. In the case of Doom, it is impossible to control the menu, while this is very much part of the game. If a menu related glitch was found, a TAS would be allowed to (and in fact should) exploit: something that wouldn't be possible with demo files.
As far as Hourglass is concerned: the input file isn't played back by the game itself, but by Hourglass. All input is possible, but nothing more, which is precisely what a TAS should be.
1) Final Doom (Added Episode 4 to Doom 1), Eviloution and Plutonia as well. That's 4 major games (Final Doom supersedes Doom 1 since it has All of Doom 1) for one "system."
(...)
2) What about Quake? We haven't gotten there yet, but what about that game? Does it get it's own section as well? Because there's options there too. We have the main game (Quake 1), Hipnotic and Rogue. That's three games that use the same engine.
(...)
3) ID games made Doom II for Windows 95. It is Doom on Windows 95 (and above, including NT). Not sure if that's a "Port" or not. It does run Doom 1 and 2 and the other two WADs from Ultimate Doom's bundle.
1) Just wanted to clear this up: it was Ultimate Doom which added the fourth episode (Thy Flesh Consumed) to Doom 1. Final Doom is the expansion to Doom 2, which contains Evilution and Plutonia.
2) The Quake movie format does not record keypresses (like most of our emulators) or player commands (like Doom), and can therefore never be accepted at TASvideos. (DeHackEd can probably explain the Quake movie format better.) Any Quake games will have to be TASed through JPC-RR or Hourglass (if WinQuake is allowed), and will be listed in the same place as other DOS/Windows TASes.
3) Doom 2 was released for DOS. A later port, Doom95, made Doom 1 and 2 playable on Windows. It does not have demo playback compatibility with movies made in DOS Doom 2.
EDIT: Sorry, had to run yesterday, didn't finish my thought>
To a casual viewer, it will not make much sense having Doom listed separately, while other similar games such as Quake are listed on their platform. Under published movies, Doom should be listed with other MS-DOS games. If that should be further merged with Windows, I don't know.
In the submission list however, I think it could be a good idea to still list it as Doom (and not MS-DOS). It gives relevant info to judges and encoders. The site code will have to treat it differently in any case, since it's a different file format.
I think people are getting too hung up with the underlying details, not seeing the forest from the trees.
I think everybody understand perfectly if, let's say, the terms "PC game", "Xbox One game" and "PS4 game" are used, regardless of how similar the underlying hardware design might be between those devices or, conversely, how radically different two PC's might internally be (but which nevertheless is able to run PC games).
Is the fact that there are different (and incompatible) operating systems available for PC, and therefore games made for those different OS's, relevant? They all run on a PC.
When the distinction was between DOS and Windows, then it might have made sense. But if we start adding game-specific TAS files as their own platform each, then the whole things starts being nonsensical. They are all running on the same hardware, and that should be distinction enough.
I think people are getting too hung up with the underlying details, not seeing the forest from the trees.
I think everybody understand perfectly if, let's say, the terms "PC game", "Xbox One game" and "PS4 game" are used, regardless of how similar the underlying hardware design might be between those devices or, conversely, how radically different two PC's might internally be (but which nevertheless is able to run PC games).
What, so people wouldn't understand "Doom game?" They're all perfectly valid options; that's why the details matter
Warp wrote:
When the distinction was between DOS and Windows, then it might have made sense. But if we start adding game-specific TAS files as their own platform each, then the whole things starts being nonsensical. They are all running on the same hardware, and that should be distinction enough.
Afaik, in this case it's because Doom works as a platform. The demo files store input only, and there are enough games using the doom engine to give it a fair number of runs. If I'm interpreting this correctly, if a game's input file doesn't meet these, it would either be categorized as its OS or not accepted at all.
I think it should be part of a PC or DOS category(which should also be the same),but should we have too much exclusive content for it,it would have it's own subsection"PC>Doom" in order not to clutter.Doom is a PC game and should be found on the section,it simply isn't a platform on the viewer's mind(some people that watch TASes barely understand we're not running the game on consoles).I fully understand it's running natively in a certain way but that won't help at all the public.
i also recommend the same for Worms Armaggedon,should we ever get one of that game's runs here and that you guys merge the vault and normal videos on the movies section.(I almost lost a few runs with the division done on the movie page)
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
What, so people wouldn't understand "Doom game?" They're all perfectly valid options; that's why the details matter
By the same logic we should consider "Super Metroid" its own platform, "Super Mario Bros" its own platform, etc.
Afaik, in this case it's because Doom works as a platform. The demo files store input only, and there are enough games using the doom engine to give it a fair number of runs. If I'm interpreting this correctly, if a game's input file doesn't meet these, it would either be categorized as its OS or not accepted at all.
I don't see how that's relevant to classify it as its own "platform". Doom is not a piece of hardware.
By that logic each emulator should be considered its own "platform" instead of the hardware it's emulating. Which would make no sense.
What, so people wouldn't understand "Doom game?" They're all perfectly valid options; that's why the details matter
Afaik, in this case it's because Doom works as a platform. The demo files store input only, and there are enough games using the doom engine to give it a fair number of runs. If I'm interpreting this correctly, if a game's input file doesn't meet these, it would either be categorized as its OS or not accepted at all.
Could you elaborate, why do you think Doom internal demos being suitable for TASVideos movie standards justifies adding a Doom platform? And (more importantly) why is it better than placing it within existing platforms? The best way to answer would be to do what Scepheo did, listing the benefits/disadvantages.
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.
(...) it would be a bit strange to see DOOM HeXen listed on the site, might be a good argument for the opposite side.)
This is the reason I don't think a separate DOOM platform is a good idea, despite all the technical details behind it. Having a computer platform with various, not necessarily compatible sub-platforms similar to the Gameboy, seems like the best idea to me.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3598)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
andypanther wrote:
Having a computer platform with various, not necessarily compatible sub-platforms similar to the Gameboy, seems like the best idea to me.
We don't do this with game boy? We separate it to GB, GBC, SGB, and GBA.
Maybe you are thinking about the fact that we combine these lists when we put a link on the Movies page? If we made the system "DOOM" we could easily make a combined link on the page.
I know realize people maybe getting confused with giving a publication a particular system id, and what GROUPS of systems we combine when making a link on a wiki page.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
Warp wrote:
Anty-Lemon wrote:
I'm against the option of PC due to the huge ambiquity of the term, so I feel DOOM is the next best option
What ambiguity? The PC hardware is pretty de-facto standardized. (It's a combination of x86-compatible processor with a certain memory and I/O layout, which allows certain specific OS's and programs to run on it.)
It's clearly distinct from other hardware architectures such as consoles and other computers (both older and newer).
The advantage of using a single "PC" platform category is that if (and probably when) in the future there's a TAS of something running on a non-DOS non-Windows OS in a PC, we don't need to create a new platform for that.
For what it's worth, I agree with Warp's point. Keep it simple.
Nitrogenesis wrote:
Guys I come from the DidyKnogRacist communite, and you are all wrong, tihs is the run of the mileniun and everyone who says otherwise dosnt know any bater! I found this run vary ease to masturbate too!!!! Don't fuck with me, I know this game so that mean I'm always right!StupedfackincommunityTASVideoz!!!!!!
Arc wrote:
I enjoyed this movie in which hands firmly gripping a shaft lead to balls deep in multiple holes.
natt wrote:
I don't want to get involved in this discussion, but as a point of fact C# is literally the first goddamn thing on that fucking page you linked did you even fucking read it
Cooljay wrote:
Mayor Haggar and Cody are such nice people for the community. Metro City's hospitals reached an all time new record of incoming patients due to their great efforts :P
We don't do this with game boy? We separate it to GB, GBC, SGB, and GBA.
Maybe you are thinking about the fact that we combine these lists when we put a link on the Movies page? If we made the system "DOOM" we could easily make a combined link on the page.
That's what I meant, having all of those platforms on the same page. I didn't know that you handle GB and GBC as different platforms internally.
Just think about it: Someone wants to find a Doom TAS and visits the "movies" page. That person will obviously search for it under "computer" and not one of the consoles or handhelds, unless to find one of those specific ports. But usually it will be: Doom = Computer.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
By the same logic we should consider "Super Metroid" its own platform, "Super Mario Bros" its own platform, etc.
Individual games as platforms is not at all by the same logic, rather by game engine (not only Doom games run on the Doom engine), but I see your point.
Warp wrote:
I don't see how that's relevant to classify it as its own "platform". Doom is not a piece of hardware.
By that logic each emulator should be considered its own "platform" instead of the hardware it's emulating. Which would make no sense.
Since when was a platform exclusively defined by differences in hardware? Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Windows computer can also have a DOS partition installed. Then again, that could simply be a weakness of the Windows/DOS split
Since when was a platform exclusively defined by differences in hardware?
At TASVideos, was it not?
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 when was a platform exclusively defined by differences in hardware?
At TASVideos, was it not?
Uhm?
Anty-Lemon wrote:
Correct me if I'm wrong, but a Windows computer can also have a DOS partition installed. Then again, that could simply be a weakness of the Windows/DOS split
Exactly, this is why there is this thread here: should we keep splitting by software too, or only by hardware? I don't recall other examples than DOS and Windows.
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.
Let me throw in my 2¢.
In my opinion, hardware and OS/execution environment (if any) should (as a rule) be included in the definition of a "platform": even when a game is cross-platform and built from the same source code, its behavior can change. The simplest example is rand(): it returns a 16-bit number in Windows, 32- or 64-bit in Linux (depending on if a 32- or 64-bit distro), uses different PRGN sequence, and so on. But there is a lot of other little things that the OS/execution environment can do, such as emulate in software a functionality that is done by hardware in systems that support it, or add some lag because it processes events from other processes differently. Older platforms, such as NES/SNES/SMS/Genesis, are generally exempt from this rule because they didn't have an OS running alongside the game; so the hardware is the platform.
Regarding the DOS/Windows split: in my opinion, they should be be treated as two different things, DOS and Windows, instead of pretending that they are the same thing or even all that close. The old "but DOS games run on Windows!" argument is bullshit: DOS is a lightweight OS that basically provides filehandling, terminal output, an execution environment and a handful of other things, through interrupt vectors — you set the parameters, generate an interrupt, and DOS performs the task you asked. Other than that, DOS generally stays out of your way and generally isn't even in full control of the machine (see below). In contrast, Windows is in control of the machine, and until DirectX came along, you had to go through Windows to get to hardware. Even with DirectX had you go through it instead of hardware directly (read: through device drivers); though the "distance" was smaller than going through Windows.
Moreover, even the more DOS-heavy versions of Windows (9x/Me, and ignoring Windows 3.x and below for now), DOS acted as a boot loader and a compatibility layer for 16-bit drivers, but was stripped of almost all of its real functionality while Windows was running: Windows hooked all interrupts. If a DOS program was executed, Windows would do what was needed, and return to the 16-bit code. So basically, DOS was emulated even in Windows 9x/Me (the exception being when you booted into DOS). Windows NT needed a fuller emulation (NTVDM) because they had nothing of DOS.
As a matter of fact, DOS was in so little control of the machine that many programs (especially games!) of the era replaced many of the DOS interrupt vectors with their own, leaving even less of DOS active while they were executing. Many even forced you to write custom autoexec.bat and config.sys files to load as few stuff as possible, and most of it to high memory area, just so you could run the program/game (examples: AutoCAD for DOS, Ultima VII). Plus, if you are using any kind of memory manager in DOS (EMM386, DOS/4GW, Voodoo, etc), then DOS wasn't even in real control of the machine: the memory manager was, and DOS was running in virtual 80x86 mode and happily thinking it was in real mode.
So, in the end? Given the way DOS and DOS games generally worked, using "DOOM" as a platform makes perfect sense; but it makes just as much sense to call it PC/DOS. Calling it PC is wrong because it leaves out crucial information (the OS), combining DOS with Windows is wrong because it is based on faulty assumptions regarding the relationship of DOS and Windows.
Even though the "PC" votes are twice as many as "DOOM", and neither "Windows", nor "DOS" are even close to them, I want to state that marzo's post totally convinces me that his opinion is the most well grounded. All of us were arguing about how stuff should be organized, but he just tells us how stuff actually works!
We should not combine DOS and Windows, but where Doom belongs should still 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.
I voted for combining everything, but I would call the platform "computer" instead of PC.
Hmm...
PC at least has the x86 Wintel thing going for it, but afaik all definitions of computer (sans a person who computes) includes every platform in general. You don't generally call a game console a computer, sure, but that's just because you're being more specific.
Also, you'd have the C64, Amiga, and MSX to deal with, even if excluding consoles
In my opinion, hardware and OS/execution environment (if any) should (as a rule) be included in the definition of a "platform": even when a game is cross-platform and built from the same source code, its behavior can change. The simplest example is rand(): it returns a 16-bit number in Windows, 32- or 64-bit in Linux (depending on if a 32- or 64-bit distro), uses different PRGN sequence, and so on. But there is a lot of other little things that the OS/execution environment can do, such as emulate in software a functionality that is done by hardware in systems that support it, or add some lag because it processes events from other processes differently. Older platforms, such as NES/SNES/SMS/Genesis, are generally exempt from this rule because they didn't have an OS running alongside the game; so the hardware is the platform.
This has one problem: There is no one single "MS Windows" OS. There are several. Even if we use extremely inclusive criteria to classify different versions of Windows, and even if we drop out outliers from consideration (ie. NT and versions of Windows prior to 3), we are still left with two rather radically different versions of Windows by your own criteria: Windows 3.x, and Windows 95 & its successors. (And even then you could draw a line between the Windows 95 family and the Windows XP and its successors, because the latter was a merge of Windows NT and the mainline consumer version of the OS, and was quite radically different from the Windows 95 line.)
One of the major differences between Windows 3.x and Windows 95 is that the former used cooperative multitasking while the latter used pre-emptive multitasking (or at least attempted to; Win95 was notoriously bad at being a competent OS). This ties closely to what you are describing above. In fact, what you are describing does not describe Windows 3.x very well (because of its cooperative multitasking design, which means that any program could hijack the entire computer for itself and the OS could do nothing about it.)
Moreover, Windows 3.x ran on top of DOS. It never bypassed DOS or replaced its system functions. It simply ran on top of it. You could in some ways call it a GUI program for DOS. (Windows 95 was the first Windows to try to replace DOS rather than running on top of it, but still did a poor job at it. Windows XP is probably the first version of Windows that replaced DOS completely, relegating it to a compatibility mode box run inside the OS on demand. This is probably because XP was basically the next version of NT, which in itself was an almost completely independent OS, developed separately from DOS or the Win3 or Win95 lines.)
The line between DOS and Win3 is really blurry in this regard. Are they different platforms, or are they simply a bunch of libraries running on top of the same platform (ie. DOS running on a PC)?
If your argument is that they work so differently that they have to be considered different platforms, then you can use the same argument to argue for Win95 (and its successors) having to be considered a separate platform, and perhaps even WinXP (and its successors).
It all becomes much simpler if we just look at the hardware all of this is running on. The OS could be some kind of platform subcategory, if needed.
I would actually be OK with having separate categories for DOS, Win 3.x, Win 9x/Me, early Win NT, and Win 2000/XP, Vista/7, and 8. They are different enough platforms to warrant that.
3.x is DOS based, yes, but it adds a lot of things (such as some hardware abstraction, which is completely absent in DOS) and also replaces interrupts from DOS. With Win32s you can even run some Win95 programs in Win 3.x.
But yes, even Vista split from XP — check DirectSound for an example why. And yes, 8 from the rest — you can check that 8 has been banned from overclocking competitions/ranking because its real time clock is unreliable (or at least this was true last time I checked).
There is a reason why all of those versions have compatibility modes for the previous versions. The Windows family seems like a large and happy family until you delve into the details and see how much crap Microsoft had to add to keep stuff working.
If Windows and DOS are combined, we could do a smart move and put OS instead of region!
Right now, there are some DOS games that have "freeware" as a region, and some Japanese versions of Windows games. All the rest are missing the region, and some only have version numbers.
Any thoughts?
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.
If Windows and DOS are combined, we could do a smart move and put OS instead of region!
I think that would be an efficient use of an existing publication page feature, and also easily distinguish versions of games that were released for both DOS and Windows.
Also, if DOS and Windows are combined into PC, it might be possible (after some discussion) to get Windows 3.1 and 95 game submissions accepted on JPC-rr without them having to be labeled "DOS", as Hourglass doesn't seem to run old Windows games like Chip's Challenge at the moment.
