Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
This is a thread to facilitate discussion of creating a new tier to showcase technical runs. The full proposal can be found here: Wiki: Nach/RFCTierTechnicalShowcase
In brief, the proposal calls for creating a new and unique tier that would be used for technically interesting runs that do not fit in the existing categories. The types of runs this tier is aimed at include TheAxeMan's Final Fantasy no resets console verification run and the as-of-yet-unsubmitted Pokemon Plays Twitch and other runs shown at AGDQ 2015. The proposed tier rules described in the RFC above are not set in stone and are subject to debate and after consensus is reached there will be a nontrivial amount of work to add the tier, but I feel it's worthwhile to at least get the discussion started.
Thoughts?
In a sense, a tier of the ultimate superplays...the other side of the TAS spectrum from the Vault.
I can't provide any input now but will (probably) update this post later with thoughts. The tone of the RFC is good. Details are bad but what is a post about tiers without complaints about details.
Oh, what a great idea!
As someone who doesn't find TASes generally interesting to watch, but is fascinated by the more clever and technical things that can be accomplished, I strongly support this idea.
I would say the 'technical requirements' section as written now is maybe over specific, but I think its a good start.
Defining the goal is the hardest part in a Demo tier, because we want to prevent endless debates of what technical achievement deserves publication and what doesn't.
Why would such a movie be impossible to publish to other tiers? Mostly because its main goal is not gameplay itself. Its goals are what can be achieved only with a lot of effort/research/knowledge and is only somewhat related to gameplay, the latter being used only as a platform to showcase the former at.
To allow various kinds of achievements, we should not draw a clear border or direction, but do our best to figure out what we don't want to have in that tier either! And not just state things, but give examples. But I'm personally bad at that due to my inclusionist nature.
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.
Yay, I can't wait for BoboTheKing's Beetlemania to be rejudged and accepted :p
As far as I am concerned the only reason to have a tier for such runs is for reasons of preservation. But as things like the Pokemon Plays Twitch video are already available elsewhere, I don't see the need to have a special tier in tasvideos for them.
*Add to the game new code which demonstrates a new game or software application that did not exist in the game or within the console prior.
*Adding to a game the ability to interface with new devices that the platform was not officially able to interface with previously, and the new devices can be used with the game to introduce new capabilities that did not exist within the game previously.
*Overcome a limitation that would make it difficult to consistently complete a particular game with prerecorded input on reference hardware for the platform.
Hmm. At least these technical requirements prevent things like make a bot (regardless of how simple or hard the minigame is) and complete it, minimum input, or find some loophole to get killed quick, but the latter will make me laugh hysterically if something that was initially difficult to overcome was eventually found to be trivial in real time.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3596)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4738
Location: Tennessee
My concern based on reading the current proposal is with judging. How is a run deemed a "Showcase" and NOT a "Moon" (Let's assume there was a case where one had a lot of yes votes and got good viewer response).
I think distinguishing between Vault and Showcase could be solved by simply adding a rule that a showcase movie must NOT be vault eligible.
Yeah, let's focus on this new tier that probably won't ever have much in it instead of the multiple other re-tier proposals. Great idea.
While I'm not a fan of the snarky tone, I sort of agree with the sentiment here. This seems to be a tier created for *GDQ showcase TASes and other ACE TASes, even though there are other examples of Technical Showcase that don't really fall within the definition. It'd be nice to add a tier that could be a catchall for board/sports/rhythm/shmup games, potentially in addition to this tier. It seems like there have been more of those that got rejected than, say, ACE tases.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
z1mb0bw4y wrote:
It'd be nice to add a tier that could be a catchall for board/sports/rhythm/shmup games, potentially in addition to this tier. It seems like there have been more of those that got rejected than, say, ACE tases.
Warp had the same question, and indeed, this tier is a separate discussion from the (already debated) "board game" tier ideas that have been floated around in the past. I won't discuss that topic further here as I'd like to keep this thread on discussing a technical showcase tier, other than to say I'm an inclusionist and I feel that there is no harm in making content discoverable for people with nostalgia.
Having said that, I feel there is a very big difference between a large quantity of "low entertainment value" board / sports / linear games as opposed to a sparse number of technically challenging, interesting, or otherwise highly visible content. I completely understand where Samsara is coming from in that there are only a handful of runs that would currently be placed in this proposed tier but at the same time the current situation is that content that was performed in front of a large audience isn't even posted on TASVideos anywhere for people to discover. This has indirectly caused press coverage of the TAS block at AGDQ to neglect even *linking* to TASVideos in some cases, which clearly compromises the potential publicity for the site. I think having a searchable tier is probably the best solution to this particular aspect, but if you have another idea for how to publish this kind of content on TASVideos I'm sure the staff would be open to them.
Thanks for the lively discussion!
Yes, the page states it all like it's primarily for GDQ-like demos. But I want to say that it can't be limited to such content, because you never know what direction someone's creativity could go.
Then, to address adelikat's concern, not being Vault eligible is some default understanding, yes, but primarily, Demo tier runs have specific goal (that also makes it Vault ineligible too): not showcasing the super optimized gameplay, but something conceptually totally separated.
Also, unmoonable goals should be able to go there, like if people find something too boring, but there's something to showcase to such a run that's still worth attention, as it had significant effort.
The best example that comes to mind is that old "minimal presses" SMB. It's definitely unvaultable, but it's not described by that alone. Its goal is too boring for Moons, it's too slow for Vault, but it's something one can optimize and improve, but still it would only work when using a DDR script along with it! Then one could really understand what's being published: that whole concept.
So let's try to focus on such a definition: Runs can be published to Demo tier only if they showcase some unique and notable concept and have significant effort put into its creation.
Board games aren't that actually, they are still pure speed records, so let's not try putting them to Demo tier. Let's define the term "notable concept" instead!
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.
Hey, I'm not sure would it be worth the "minimum presses" if the only main reason people seemed interested was the DDR script when played back. Would that be similar to say, TASing a fastest crash, then use lua to do some nice animation at the crash screen? :P
Fastest crash requires little to no effort, and does not beat the game, while "minimal presses" takes huge effort to plan and is a completed playthrough. In theory, I'd say yes to a single fastest crash run that was picked from all of that kind, if it had something unique to it over all the rest.
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.
Moderator, Senior Ambassador, Experienced player
(898)
Joined: 9/14/2008
Posts: 1007
If I had to summarize the thoughts in this thread, it seems that overall there is support for the idea but some tweaks might be needed to the verbiage that Nach proposed. Does someone want to take a crack at a revised version that's a bit cleaner? From chatting with Nach a few months ago, his goal was to make absolutely certain that there was no possibility of the tier being abused but assuming the judges are using common sense and have a good set of guidelines I think the verbiage can be relaxed a bit.
I'd prefer someone else combed through the tier guidelines seeing as I have a bias toward creating the tier (as in, I have something to gain by being able to publish the movie file I created with the help of others that p4plus2's payload was ultimately appended to). Any takers?
Well since I did say I strongly support the idea, I will at least take a shot this.
Overview:
I think the overview section is fine.
Technical Requirements:
Demonstrations should:
-execute a novel concept on a gaming device beyond that which is attainable through controller inputs alone.
OR
-Use controller inputs to perform a novel action aside from beating (or simply crashing) the game.
In addition, demonstrations must be considered a significant new contribution to existing material, and be demonstrated on reference hardware.
Notes: I think the section as originally written uses existing examples to shape the requirements a bit too much, so I personally prefer something broader like this. TASing itself originally could have been considered a technical demonstration, yet it wouldn't fit the original definition.Entertainment Requirements:
I think the first and third bullets are fine, with the second bullet unneccesary
Speed Requirements:
Maybe someone else can add useful input here, I'm not sure what to make of it.
Goal Choice / Obsoletion
Looks good to me
Documentation
-All parts of the Demonstration should be sufficiently documented such that it can be reproduced substantially from the submitted material.
Notes: I add in a documentation section as this tier is supposed to bring novel concepts that add to the knowledge base, and as such should be thoroughly documented
In addition, demonstrations must be considered a significant new contribution to existing material, and be demonstrated on reference hardware.
What's the point of such a limit? Are we only supporting console replays as demos or what?
Alyosha wrote:
Notes: I add in a documentation section as this tier is supposed to bring novel concepts that add to the knowledge base, and as such should be thoroughly documented
Good point.
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.
In brief, the proposal calls for creating a new and unique tier that would be used for technically interesting runs that do not fit in the existing categories.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier; if it didn't get into Moons, then most people wouldn't find it technically interesting for the same reason.
We don't need a whole new tier to deal with a relatively short contest.
@feos:
My thought there was that since these demonstrations are meant to showcase technical prowess, they should meet the highest standards of verifiability (use real hardware.)
This isn't to say that console replays alone are the tech demos, but whatever technical process is being demonstrated should have a console verified component along with it, at least in my mind.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier; if it didn't get into Moons, then most people wouldn't find it technically interesting for the same reason.
We don't need a whole new tier to deal with a relatively short contest.
Being technically interesting has no relation to Moons. A run could be absolutely straightforward, but well-received, and for that alone reside in Moons. A run could be maximum technical in all terms, but look boring, and if it's a speed record, it can be in Vault. It's been said enough times what difference is there between the proposed Demo tier and the others.
Alyosha wrote:
My thought there was that since these demonstrations are meant to showcase technical prowess, they should meet the highest standards of verifiability (use real hardware.)
Verifiability is a factor of emulation accuracy, not technical prowess of a run. What if I write a bot and make it do a full TAS of a Wii game? "Sorry, only console verifications, your concept demo is nothing new and too sloppy"? LOL.
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.
Alyosha, re: your overhaul, keep in mind there are more human inputs than controller inputs. There may also be some sort of non-standard input that could make for an interesting showcase piece. The exclusionist nature of TASVideos over the years has had a backbone in rigid rule following (and much related drama) so while the intents should be clear, the specifics perhaps should not be as much.
Radiant wrote:
dwangoAC wrote:
In brief, the proposal calls for creating a new and unique tier that would be used for technically interesting runs that do not fit in the existing categories.
I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier; if it didn't get into Moons, then most people wouldn't find it technically interesting for the same reason.
This in fact is NOT the case, which is why this is being discussed.
Alyosha wrote:
My thought there was that since these demonstrations are meant to showcase technical prowess, they should meet the highest standards of verifiability (use real hardware.)
also to feos: Perhaps this is a qualifying component. But certainly some demonstrations could be possible that just can't be verified right now. Would this branch/tier idea be discussed if it wasn't for verifications, though?
I'm not really seeing the point of this. It seems to me that any technically interesting run already qualifies to be in Moon tier; if it didn't get into Moons, then most people wouldn't find it technically interesting for the same reason.
I thought that a TAS has to, at the very least, complete the game. If it doesn't complete the game, then it's hard to call it a speedrun at all. (Because that's the very definition of "speedrun": To complete the game as fast as possible.)
