I'm not sure if this was addressed, but regarding this from the guidelines:
Good reasons to use easier difficulties are:
More health for damage boosts
Less enemies leading to less lag
Faster bossfights on repetitive bosses, especially if their lower health can lead them to be one-cycled
I just realized 1 problem. This does not take account into the movie's actual end length. For example, this recent submission actually has the last point "apply", except the fact it's only 3 minutes long overall. Does that justify using easy mode? It's not some half hour TAS either, so imo it's rather hard to sell the last point. But hey, if someone had a really short attention span, they might think so. What do?
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2793
Location: Northern California
jlun2 wrote:
I just realized 1 problem. This does not take account into the movie's actual end length. For example, this recent submission actually has the last point "apply", except the fact it's only 3 minutes long overall. Does that justify using easy mode? It's not some half hour TAS either, so imo it's rather hard to sell the last point. But hey, if someone had a really short attention span, they might think so. What do?
That's a good point. I added a line about that into the Guidelines:
"Note that every game is judged on a case-by-case basis, so these reasons do not always apply. For example, if a bossfight is only a second or two longer because of higher health, that may not constitute using a lower difficulty."
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 | CohostwarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
If you still have criticism towards something the guidelines say, then please clarify again in a way that's unambiguously about the guidelines and not a judge's personal, unenforced opinion.
Well for me one outstanding issue is what precedent, if any, accepting a run on one difficulty has on possible future runs on another difficulty.
Let's take Return of the Jedi as an example but there are other recent ones as well (Oregon Trail comes to mind.) My question is, if a run of these games is made on 'hardest difficulty' and are deemed to be highly/sufficiently entertaining, what would happen to them? Surely Jedi mode in RotJ would be much longer then easy, so if it's accepted it seems it's branch would need a separate branch 'Jedi (hardest) difficulty' even though we don't currently treat difficulty formally as a branch. What's more, the two movies would be 'entertaining' for more or less their own reasons, yet would still be beating the game 'as fast as possible' in their own ways.
So, can difficulty setting ever be considered a 'branch' in this way? Should it formally be a branch?
Besides, considering the points you've been making in this thread, wouldn't it be more entertaining to challenge yourself to do the research and provide the evidence instead of just waiting for it to land in your lap?
To respond to both of you, in that thread, it was literally posted "I don't care how much evidence you post" after videos showing damage rates on different difficulties were posted. I have a hard time believing that the situation there was going to be improved by posting more evidence. Furthermore, "time saving skips couldn't be used" is the very definition of vague. People had to ask what those skips were, and when they were stated, the justifications for why they couldn't be used appeared to be incorrect because, as you said, health was never an issue and that was the only real limiting factor. To my knowledge even now there aren't any skips that couldn't be used on a higher difficulty. It was also stated that "more enemies spawn", which is only true for the few Mode 7 stages. Those statements were absolutely too vague and/or inaccurate.
I also do not agree with that if the outcome is the same, but requires more manipulation, strategy, and effort on a harder difficulty, that is a reason to not use it. That is the very definition of a harder difficulty. It is harder to do things. If anybody tried to use that as an excuse on games like Civilization, Street Fighter, or Gradius, it'd be rejected straight out because the manipulation and gameplay then IS so easy. What makes other games special?
Edit:
I also think "enemies cause lag" should be taken out entirely, as that could be used as a reason to not use the highest difficulty for just about every SHMUP, as well as tons of the crazy-ass things like IWBTG and clones or Princess Pitch ultra difficulties which thrive on screen-filling pandemonium. I'm not sure I can think of any games where I think that would apply well. Do you have any examples of which games in particular you were thinking of with that bullet?
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Alyosha wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
If you still have criticism towards something the guidelines say, then please clarify again in a way that's unambiguously about the guidelines and not a judge's personal, unenforced opinion.
Well for me one outstanding issue is what precedent, if any, accepting a run on one difficulty has on possible future runs on another difficulty.
Let's take Return of the Jedi as an example but there are other recent ones as well (Oregon Trail comes to mind.) My question is, if a run of these games is made on 'hardest difficulty' and are deemed to be highly/sufficiently entertaining, what would happen to them? Surely Jedi mode in RotJ would be much longer then easy, so if it's accepted it seems it's branch would need a separate branch 'Jedi (hardest) difficulty' even though we don't currently treat difficulty formally as a branch. What's more, the two movies would be 'entertaining' for more or less their own reasons, yet would still be beating the game 'as fast as possible' in their own ways.
So, can difficulty setting ever be considered a 'branch' in this way? Should it formally be a branch?
It depends on how much difference there is between the difficulties. I can't myself really think of any example game where runs of separate difficulty modes are sufficiently different (and where one does not completely obsolete the other in terms of content) to consider them distinct categories. So I'm inclined to say that difficulty settings would in most (if not all) cases not be considered separate categories, and the preferred difficulty run would obsolete the other difficulty run, regardless of which one is faster.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
Mothrayas wrote:
I can't myself really think of any example game where runs of separate difficulty modes are sufficiently different (and where one does not completely obsolete the other in terms of content) to consider them distinct categories.
Goofy's Hysterical History Tour and Gain Ground immediately come to mind. Both have different level sequences and, in the case of Gain Ground, different stage goals on different difficulty levels. Goofy's is actually shorter on Hard vs. Medium, and Gain Ground's gameplay dynamic changes completely since you're no longer rescuing anybody.
Mothrayas wrote:
So I'm inclined to say that difficulty settings would in most (if not all) cases not be considered separate categories, and the preferred difficulty run would obsolete the other difficulty run, regardless of which one is faster.
I'm strongly opposed to any situation where a run on a lower difficulty would obsolete one on the hardest difficulty. But then I'm opposed to the whole idea of "entertainment" (an incredibly subjective notion) being a primary evaluative criterion for the site, rather than a secondary bonus (important, maybe, but still secondary). So this argument --
Samsara wrote:
Like I said in an earlier post, if you're so head-up about the difficulty choice being wrong, prove it yourself. Prove that Hardest is so much more entertaining that it justifies your No vote.
-- begs the question, at least for me and my priorities. I don't really care about proving that Hardest is entertaining; I care about whether a run overcomes the best that the CPU has to offer. If I know corners are being cut, it takes away my biggest reason for watching a TAS in the first place. Hardest is, definitionally, what I want, to the extent that difficulty trumps speed.
I'm not, however, opposed to all runs on lower difficulties, especially ones that allow for playaround, glitches that can't be executed on higher difficulties, etc. I have no problem with a funny, interesting, flashy run on a lower difficulty coexisting with a run on Hardest.
For that matter, I don't remember ever voting No on a run -- I usually just abstain. Nor have I ever harangued a contributor for their difficulty choice, though I certainly don't see why questions about difficulty choice should be forbidden, which some folks seem to imply they'd like to implement as a policy.
It depends on how much difference there is between the difficulties. I can't myself really think of any example game where runs of separate difficulty modes are sufficiently different (and where one does not completely obsolete the other in terms of content) to consider them distinct categories. So I'm inclined to say that difficulty settings would in most (if not all) cases not be considered separate categories, and the preferred difficulty run would obsolete the other difficulty run, regardless of which one is faster.
I can give an example. Valkyrie Profile. Its difficulties are a clusterfuck.
Easy:
Only Bad/Normal endings available
Easy dungeons only (some dungeons also shorter and/or begin with puzzles already solved)
Characters start at preset levels
Normal:
All 3 endings available
Easy and Normal dungeons available (~8 extra over Easy)
Characters start at preset levels
Hard:
All 3 endings available
Normal and Hard dungeons available (~9 extra over Normal)
Characters start at level 1
There are a bunch of further differences that happen because of those changes, mostly related to the pool of items available because of them (hard mode's collection is powerful enough to make its endgame much easier than other modes in regular play), but those are the core changes. Of course, for the Normal ending in any difficulty, you'd abuse a mechanic oversight and skip straight to the final dungeon and use various glitches/manipulation to kill the bosses.
An any% Normal Ending would probably be on Easy (shorter intro dungeon, everything else identical to Normal and not meaningfully different from hard (characters on level ~5 instead of 1), but a 100% Normal run and a 100% Hard run would feature about 30% different dungeons between them, more if you count 100%ing Hard Mode to include clearing the gigantic post-game Seraphic Gate that has the actual hardest bosses in the game. The Gate can be unlocked on Normal, but it's impossible to 100% (items from Hard dungeons are needed to unlock various chests and characters). I have no idea what you'd do re: 100% Normal Ending. I'd say it's not worth it personally, although that does mean an entire dungeon isn't in any 100% runs.
It'd probably be a messy mess.
In terms of the boss HP issue, I'd prefer to phrase it along the lines of "Do not use a higher difficulty if the only change is adding extra repetitive sections to the run.". This means that if higher boss HP adds interest to the run (e.g. forcing the player to dodge more patterns, or collect defensive items), the higher difficulty is preferred, and expands the boss HP clause to other uninteresting cases such as autoscrollers that repeat more times on higher difficulties.
I should also mention An Untitled Story and I Wanna Be The Guy, as potential counterexamples for the "the highest difficulty is more entertaining" principle.
The largest difference between difficulty levels in An Untitled Story is the number of hits you can take between save points. The very highest difficulty, this value is locked at 0, meaning that you can never damage boost. Seeing occasional damage boosts is probably more interesting, although you could make a case for it being less interesting as HP management becomes less important. (There are also enemies removed on lower difficulties; a TAS of An Untitled Story 100% would probably play on the second-highest difficulty.)
Meanwhile, higher difficulties of I Wanna Be The Guy remove save points. There are some interesting glitches that you can use with the save points, which means that the higher the difficulty, the closer you have to stick to the intended path. The TASes of the game that I've seen tend to play on the lowest difficulty because of that (on the basis that because they never die, the difficulty level effects the run only in the ability to use glitches). This could potentially generalize to other games in which the only change in higher difficulties is restricting some of the player character's abilities.
Besides, considering the points you've been making in this thread, wouldn't it be more entertaining to challenge yourself to do the research and provide the evidence instead of just waiting for it to land in your lap?
Tangent wrote:
To respond to both of you, in that thread, it was literally posted "I don't care how much evidence you post" after videos showing damage rates on different difficulties were posted.
There was a hell of a lot more to my choice of difficulty then damage rates, which is something you would know if you actually did any research into these games.
Tangent wrote:
I have a hard time believing that the situation there was going to be improved by posting more evidence. Furthermore, "time saving skips couldn't be used" is the very definition of vague. People had to ask what those skips were, and when they were stated, the justifications for why they couldn't be used appeared to be incorrect because, as you said, health was never an issue and that was the only real limiting factor. To my knowledge even now there aren't any skips that couldn't be used on a higher difficulty. It was also stated that "more enemies spawn", which is only true for the few Mode 7 stages. Those statements were absolutely too vague and/or inaccurate.
Further proof that you didn't actually do any research. More enemies spawn in the regular stages, alongside more enemies having to be killed in the Mode 7 stages. Enemies lag the game. That's bad.
Tangent wrote:
I also do not agree with that if the outcome is the same, but requires more manipulation, strategy, and effort on a harder difficulty, that is a reason to not use it. That is the very definition of a harder difficulty. It is harder to do things. If anybody tried to use that as an excuse on games like Civilization, Street Fighter, or Gradius, it'd be rejected straight out because the manipulation and gameplay then IS so easy. What makes other games special?
This makes zero sense. Super Star Wars games are already probably the worst games out there to TAS due to the amount of luck manipulation required to get drops, kill enemies, and get boss patterns. Hardest difficulty doesn't actually make things harder, it just makes things more annoying because you're still doing the exact same thing, only with a poorer end result because bosses have more health and the boring shooter sections take longer.
How many times do I have to repeat the exact same points, over and over, until you get that? Just because I did Return of the Jedi on Easy doesn't mean I was actually taking the easy way out. The over 100,000 rerecords, all done without TAStudio may I add, should be ample enough proof that I wasn't bullshitting it.
But what do I get in return? Just constant nags that, oh, you did the run on Easy. How DARE you do the run on Easy. This run is shit because you did it on Easy. What's that, you have REASONS for doing the run on Easy? Screw you, I obviously know the game MUCH BETTER then you, even though I don't know anything about this game. Over and over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
So needless to say, I'm sick of explaining myself to you. This entire freaking topic was created because you couldn't deal with the fact that Return of the Jedi was on Easy, and had to go vent about it because people were getting pissed at you in the actual topic for beating a dead horse.
In summary:
Tangent wrote:
I also think "enemies cause lag" should be taken out entirely, as that could be used as a reason to not use the highest difficulty for just about every SHMUP, as well as tons of the crazy-ass things like IWBTG and clones or Princess Pitch ultra difficulties which thrive on screen-filling pandemonium. I'm not sure I can think of any games where I think that would apply well. Do you have any examples of which games in particular you were thinking of with that bullet?
This is literally the exact reason difficulty is a case-by-case basis.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
How do you believe someone should provide evidence showing if a claim is incorrect or inaccurate in the future?
Let's assume that someone makes a claim. eg "In Mega Man 2, I chose Normal because bosses on Hard have 10 seconds of invincibility between hits." What do you believe is an appropriate way to show this is incorrect?
Coincidentally, Mega Man 2 is a good example of a platformer with an Easy mode that'd clearly be faster than the current run which I would hate to see obsoleted due to a difficulty change.
I also do not agree with that if the outcome is the same, but requires more manipulation, strategy, and effort on a harder difficulty, that is a reason to not use it. That is the very definition of a harder difficulty. It is harder to do things.
There's a difference between what we find "entertaining", and what the wider public (mostly consisting of gamers) finds "entertaining".
I can definitely agree with this, but I'd like to think that a casual viewer would be more impressed by the speed of a boss being taken down.
I'd say that in many cases (perhaps even the majority?) that may be true only if the viewer is not aware of the game's difficulty settings, and which setting the run used. I am convinced that in many cases if they then learned that the run was actually run on the easiest difficulty, it would be a letdown, a disappointment. The impressiveness of the run would be diminished by the fact that there was not as much challenge to it. Sure, the boss might have been beaten faster, but not because of superhuman skill, but because the boss was crippled by a difficulty setting favoring the player. In essence, the player got a handicap. A handicap that a superhuman player should not need.
It's not impressive to beat the computer at its weakest. It's impressive to beat it at its best.
But what do I get in return? Just constant nags that, oh, you did the run on Easy. How DARE you do the run on Easy. This run is shit because you did it on Easy. What's that, you have REASONS for doing the run on Easy? Screw you, I obviously know the game MUCH BETTER then you, even though I don't know anything about this game. Over and over and over and over and OVER AND OVER AND OVER again.
If people want to see a run done on the highest difficulty, you are not going to exactly convince them otherwise with that kind of attitude. Hostility is not the answer.
@arandomgameTASer
And what would your justification be for the 3 minute spider man run? I checked both the comments and the past revisions of the submission; your intention was:
But for a TAS whose intention is to go as fast as possible, why should I deliberately go slower just to satisfy an archaic guideline? That's literally the exact opposite of my goal.
In other words, saving frames justifies more so than anything else (or what I interpret). This has nothing to do with only the Jedi; you've been doing this for other games.
Warp wrote:
It's not impressive to beat the computer at its weakest. It's impressive to beat it at its best.
Let's try to backtrack the discussion a little bit.
The guidelines state essentially: Play the most interesting difficulty - which is usually the hardest difficulty, but if the hardest difficulty only adds repetition, easier may be preferred instead for the interest of speed. When it's unclear which one is better, we can accept whichever if it is justified well enough.
All right. In my view,
(1) The goal of the site is to provide superplays, runs that show superhuman ability in beating the computer. It is obvious to me that in general, beating a game on the hardest difficulty fits this goal better than beating it on an easier setting. If a run is on lower difficulty, then the onus should be on the author to convince the audience that this is fitting, just as for runs with non-standard goals.
(2) It is trivially true for most games that a run on low difficulty setting will be faster (and easier to make) than a run on higher difficulty. Therefore, doing a run on a lower difficulty "because it's faster" or "because it's easier to make" is circular reasoning, and should not by itself be sufficient justification for doing so.
(3) I agree that having lengthy repetitive sections is not entertaining. E.g. there are RPGs where fighting a boss takes a minute to grind through its thousands of hit points, and on higher difficulty this would take up to five minutes of similar combat orders and critical hits. This is a good reason to choose a lower difficulty. If there is no generally accepted reason to play a game on easy mode, then a higher-difficulty run of that game should obsolete a lower-difficulty run even when the latter is faster.
(4) The game that sparked the current discussion is a platform game with a total run time of 3.5 minutes, where the boss fights take about one second each, and maybe two seconds on hard difficulty. A "hard" run would be longer but it would clearly not be repetitive. I don't see how any of the reasons for lower difficulty apply here, nor was this addressed in its thread.
(5) Proposed earlier in this thread was that people who discuss or vote based on difficulty should be summarily discounted; I think this is a bad idea and it should not be implemented. There is no sense in asking people's opinion if one is going to ignore those opinions that one doesn't like.
And finally, this discussion is basically about difficulty vs. entertainment value. A good solution may be to accept only highest-difficulty runs in the Vault (which is explicitly not about entertainment); and to accept lower-difficulty runs in Moons / Stars if the audience finds them sufficiently entertaining. This is similar to how the Vault only accepts standard goals (100%/any%) and how other goals can be added to Moons / Stars if they are entertaining enough.
