(Link to video)
This is a run of Math Blaster with the main goal being speed. Math Blaster has 3 sections: Trash, Caves, and Ship. In the menus you can choose between 3 and 5 lives. I add 1 life because I will be taking a lot of damage in trash.

Trash

In trash it is better to hit a wrong answer first as it only takes an additional 19 frames to fire the second shot, but hitting a correct answer first adds 40 frames because your bonus points increase and they have to be tallied in the bonus stages. For this reason, I hit an incorrect answer first all 30 times. This is the reason for the additional life. In the bonus stage, I avoid all bonus points except at the end, where shooting the last asteroids can end the stage sooner.

Caves

The main feature of caves is the up-clip glitch which was discovered recently. Normally, you are not able to progress upwards unless the number on your character is between the minimum and maximum listed on the cave level. However, with this frame perfect and pixel perfect glitch you can avoid getting detected by the laser that usually shoots you down.

Ship

In ship I manipulate the RNG to only give me problems where the correct answer is in the 2 leftmost tubes by waiting a specific amount of frames. The RNG is entirely based on the frame number and there is no other known way to manipulate it. The second tube is only slower by 1 frame, so both are acceptable as it would take at least 1 frame to RNG manipulate again until the correct answer was in the first tube. The only other glitch used here is known as the "Owch clip" where there is a 1 frame window to get "owched" by a piece of trash flying by and still make it into the tube.

ThunderAxe31: Judging.
ThunderAxe31: Hello and welcome to TASVideos!
This run is not acceptable for Alternative tier because the entertainment value is very low. Thus, Vault tier requirements will be applied.
The run is nicely optimized and beats all known records. However, the game played does not meet the Vault requirements, since it's an educational game. Specifically: this game mostly consists in doing math fast, and in fact most of the efforts showcased in this run are actually just manipulating and predicting the answers in order to solve the problems fast.
For this reason, I'm rejecting this submission. Better luck next time!
ThunderAxe31: In view of the arguments provided by feos in the forum thread of this submission, I start over the judging process.

ThunderAxe31: The argument brought by feos consisted in a different interpretation of the Vault rule for educational games. While I considered that rule to forbid any run made with educational games, he did instead consider it as actually forbidding games that don't feature TAS-worthy material. Since his argument was supposedly supported by the goal of TASVideos of developing superhuman gameplay, I decided to consider the possibility that my initial judgement was wrong.
I had a conversation with other staff members, including Nach, Mothrayas, and feos. I explained the reason for my judgement and I presented my evidence pointing out that Math Blaster can't be completed casually without solving math. In the end, everyone acknowledged that my method added a clear cut to the rule, whose text was updated accordingly. We needed to draw a clear borderline for evaluating if a given title is primarily an educational game or not. My idea was to use the concept of "casual play" as a yardstick for estimating how much determinant is the requirement to perform educational activities in order to play through the game.
On the other hand, we also agreed that relying on TAS merits for a given run could never give a definitive extimation, since that substantially consists of speculating about the TAS potential available for a given game. We can't really know in advance if such potential is actually present, and that would result in relying on chances, which we can't do for Vault rules. In fact, TAS potential can be there, but until one tries hard enough, we won't know about it. This doesn't allow for any reliable rule.
It must also be noted that while it's true that the goal of TASVideos is to develop and showcase superhuman gameplay, this is mainly done for the purpose of entertainment, which clearly doesn't apply for the Vault tier. And on the other hand, this movie has been proven by the audience to lack any TAS merits that make it entertaining to watch.
The purpose of the Vault tier is keep track of videogame records, and thus shouldn't be applied for pieces of software that can't be considered as actual games. For this reason, some kinds of titles are excluded from Vault tier, like educational games. Even if the updated rule that defines an educational game is quite lax, it's still very clear and definite, and it must be so in order to avoid impossible-to-solve cases; raising an exception here would generate a bad precedent.
This is indeed an unfortunate case because the run itself features good TASing material, as explained by feos in this post, and I also was aware of this from the start; but even then the run was not entertaining enough to be accepted for Alternative. The best I can do is to note that a "maximum score" run could potentially be entertaining enough to be accepted. Lastly, I want to thank qflame for having submitted this run, because it did give the opportunity to test and refine the rule.
Reassuming: the rule didn't change, my judgment didn't change. Rejecting again for bad game choice in conjunction with low entertainment.

FREE MATH BLASTER.
Memory: Changes in the movie rules resulted in revisiting the run. Obviously, the audience reception and the optimization has not changed. However, due to said changes, the main factor now is triviality. This run looks far from trivial, with lots of RNG manipulation and plenty of obvious optimization points. Therefore under the rules now, this movie is finally acceptable.
Freeing Math Blaster to Vault.
EZGames69 PUBLISH MATH BLASTER

1 2 3
7 8
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
you'll see yourself how much predominant is the requirement to do math calculations, even with the lowest difficulty set. The calculations require concentration, especially if you're not used to do math (it may differ a lot from person to person), while the skills required to shoot the moving objects or fly around are very basic (assuming you're a common casual player).
I don't think it makes any sense to disqualify a game because of that. "You have to do math in order to progress in this game" sounds to me like a completely nonsensical reason. In many games you need to solve puzzles (such as rearranging pieces to fulfill certain rules) in order to advance. This is allowed. Why is having to do some arithmetic to advance the game an exception to this? It makes no sense to me.
Nach wrote:
If a calculator program exists for a platform (and yes there are such things), would it be valid to TAS?
A calculator program doesn't have progression, game mechanics, nor an ending. This game clearly does. (Heck, as someone pointed out, this game has more game mechanics than some other games for which there are published runs.) The only reason why this was rejected was because of one single word in the Vault rules, "educational", which is completely undefined in said rules, and up to the subjective opinion of the judge. (Personally I would have interpreted the rules mentioning "educational games" as being a typical example of a "non-game", because such educational games seldom have progression and an ending in the same way as typical games do. I wouldn't have interpreted it as a hard rule that if a game has any "educational" aspects to it, it's banned period.)
Judge, Skilled player (1279)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
DrD2k9 wrote:
What law says 'actual' video games have to be for entertainment purposes only?
Trying to answer to this question may bring us to a philosophical discussion. I'll try to express my point of view objectively. Teaching is fundamentally something that is imposed by authority, as opposed of entertainment which is required by the player. Educational games are just an attempt to make you swallow a bitter medicine easier. Of course, some people may genuinely like it, but it's highly subjective. In the end education defeats entertainment, which explains why such games can't make many sales, and also why no developer tries to create complex games for this genre. Yeah, there are Brain Training games for DS, but these are more like a gym device than a game. That wouldn't be the first example of non-gaming application for game consoles: just think about King James Bible for Game Boy. There is another important reason. Math is an abstract subject, and history is a cultural subject, which makes both the main educational subjects highly incompatible with any gaming ambient. You see, videogame entertainment is achieved by putting the player into an alternate reality, where you do tasks and have experiences different from reality, even if the game in question is a simulator of sort (race game, 1st person shooter, etc.). This is also why board and quiz games are often considered as inferior to common genres like platforming or RPG games. It simply is impossible to create an extensive gaming experience out of an abstract or cultural ambience, especially if you're required to learn something very specific while playing. These are the reasons why I perceive educational games as "non-serious games".
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I highly doubt that "educational" games were originally included in the rules because of any of those reasons, but because they typically aren't actual games with progression and an unambiguous ending, and instead they just consist of exercises that you can do in any order, as many times as you want, and there isn't really an end goal. I doubt the purpose of adding it to the list was to forbid all games with "educational" elements to them to be banned. Consider a pure jigsaw puzzle game, for instance. Typically you just have a set of puzzles, which you can solve in any order, or repeatedly, and there isn't any sort of progression, or ending to the game. However, that doesn't mean that any game that contains some sort of jigsaw puzzle as part of its progression should be automatically banned. I see little difference.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Judge, Skilled player (1279)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1645
Location: Italy
Warp wrote:
In many games you need to solve puzzles (such as rearranging pieces to fulfill certain rules) in order to advance. This is allowed. Why is having to do some arithmetic to advance the game an exception to this? It makes no sense to me.
There is a huge difference between solving a puzzle and being required to do math calculations. The latter requires much more concentration and much more learning.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
In my opinion, the key difference between a tool and a game (educational or not) is that games have a purpose for progressing through the game; tools don't.
Let's take another example then. Say you have a math test program. The whole program gives you 20 random math problems. You do all 20 one after the other, and it tells you which are correct, which are wrong, what the correct answer was for the ones you got wrong, and displays your final score. Is this a game? It has purpose, it has progression, however we will not accept this as a game. If you want to argue the above is a game, that's fine, but TASVideos will not accept such a thing as a game, as the staff does not see it that way.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Why is 'learn something' a less valid goal than 'save the princess', 'kill everyone else', or 'click on Waldo's picture' as a game goal?
As I said previously:
Nach wrote:
What it boils down to though is the focus of the application in question a game or a tool? If we can define it as a game and the educational aspect is secondary, then we can accept it as a TAS. If the education is primary, and the game aspect is secondary, we do not accept it.
If the game is primary, it's okay if you learned something along the way. It's okay if during a game there is some place where it made you use a calculator, answer a history problem, or something along those lines. It's not okay if the application is some educational tool which tries to hide the fact it's a tool by adding some cute looking characters or minor game mechanics to utilize the math/spelling/history/whatever educational tool.
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.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Warp wrote:
In many games you need to solve puzzles (such as rearranging pieces to fulfill certain rules) in order to advance. This is allowed. Why is having to do some arithmetic to advance the game an exception to this? It makes no sense to me.
There is a huge difference between solving a puzzle and being required to do math calculations. The latter requires much more concentration and much more learning.
The problem isn't so much with the amount of concentration or effort required, but that you work directly on a school subject, and it's designed to have you learn said school subject. At that point, you're not doing a recreational activity (as puzzle solving, and games in general are), but you're doing effectively dressed up homework. It's not really a game at that point, it's a tool.
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.
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1888)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1349
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
Didn't read the posts.
Specifically: this game mostly consists in doing math fast, and in fact most of the efforts showcased in this run are actually just manipulating and predicting the answers in order to solve the problems fast.
1. What about Brain Age? A TAS that does very similar what you wrote is rejected for a totally different reason (= it wasn't a problem for that TAS what you reasoned here): http://tasvideos.org/5757S.html 2. What about wheel of fortune? http://tasvideos.org/4160S.html That "game mostly consists in remembering words fast, and in fact most of the efforts showcased in this run are actually just manipulating and predicting the answers in order to solve the questions fast. I'm pretty sure there are other TASes that would be reject worthy using the same rejection. edit: forgot to write it, I'm against this rejection because it makes no sense. edit2: Posts regarding this TAS that applies to my 2 examples: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=462860#462860 http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=462890#462890 Post regarding (showing an example of flawness) for the previously mentioned posts: http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=462901#462901 http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?p=462907#462907 And also the question I have without an answer "If you want to argue the above is a game, that's fine, but TASVideos will not accept such a thing as a game, as the staff does not see it that way. " Because... ?
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Didn't read the posts. <snip> edit: forgot to write it, I'm against this rejection because it makes no sense.
Of course it makes no sense if you decide to ignore the reasoning and ask questions that already are answered many times within said posts.
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.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
There is a huge difference between solving a puzzle and being required to do math calculations. The latter requires much more concentration and much more learning.
And this should disqualify the game from Vault for what reason, exactly?
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Warp wrote:
(Personally I would have interpreted the rules mentioning "educational games" as being a typical example of a "non-game", because such educational games seldom have progression and an ending in the same way as typical games do. I wouldn't have interpreted it as a hard rule that if a game has any "educational" aspects to it, it's banned period.)
I agree with this. If we'd interpret "educational" as a hard ban, then we get into all kinds of slippery slope arguments on how to exactly define "educational" (as already seen in this thread). It makes more sense to look at why this is listed in the vault rules. That's apparently because most educational games either don't have an end goal, or are so lacking in gameplay that a TAS is indistinguishable from a human speedrun. But not all of them. For instance, [2171] NES Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? by Bobo the King in 2:01:54.05 and [3212] NES Bible Buffet by Invariel, Spikestuff in 03:33.28 are published and those are clearly educational, too. So it strikes me as going against site precedent to reject this game, which contains actual gameplay, just because it has the word "education" on the box.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2057)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
The problem isn't so much with the amount of concentration or effort required, but that you work directly on a school subject, and it's designed to have you learn said school subject. At that point, you're not doing a recreational activity (as puzzle solving, and games in general are), but you're doing effectively dressed up homework. It's not really a game at that point, it's a tool.
Via analogy, lets use this logic for a different recreational activity: Watching a TV show like "Star Trek" would be considered a recreational activity as it's not intended to teach anything. But watching a TV show like "NOVA" would NOT be a recreational activity because the primary purpose of the documentary was to teach you about scientific aspects of the world in which we live (school subject). Therefore using the above logic "Star Trek" is an entertainment medium, but "NOVA" is just a dressed up education tool and should not be considered a real show. Sounds absurd that way doesn't it?
Nach wrote:
If the game is primary, it's okay if you learned something along the way. It's okay if during a game there is some place where it made you use a calculator, answer a history problem, or something along those lines. It's not okay if the application is some educational tool which tries to hide the fact it's a tool by adding some cute looking characters or minor game mechanics to utilize the math/spelling/history/whatever educational tool.
The only thing about this particular submission that fails to differentiate it as a game instead of a tool then, is the extra step of solving a math problem before you can shoot a particular piece of trash off the screen or enter a given hole in the enemy ship. Here are two examples of similar goals from games that are already accepted on the site with a key difference being the added step of math is missing. 1) Shoot stuff on screen from a cockpit - Top Gun 2) Hit a particular hole while dodging enemies, then do it again multiple times - The key level of Donkey Kong Jr. Thank you ALL for your perspectives! I never expected the debate to get this intense. One final question from me, then I'll politely bow out of the current debate. Though I may join a future one from either side of the argument. I recognize that the site primarily wants entertaining videos and educational titles aren't usually very entertaining. But the whole point of the Vault being created to begin with was as a repository of well-made but poorly-entertaining speed-based TAS runs. So, where's the harm in hosting/publishing well-made but poorly-entertaining speed-based TAS runs of educational titles?
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Radiant wrote:
But not all of them. For instance, [2171] NES Where in Time is Carmen Sandiego? by Bobo the King in 2:01:54.05 and [3212] NES Bible Buffet by Invariel, Spikestuff in 03:33.28 are published and those are clearly educational, too. So it strikes me as going against site precedent to reject this game, which contains actual gameplay, just because it has the word "education" on the box.
Can you explain how either game features education as a primary game element and purpose? Especially in Bible Buffet I'm not seeing anything remotely like that, it's a virtual board game with some puzzle game segments. Any educational element, if even present, appears to be secondary in that game. Either way, movies from late 2012 when the Vault was literally just introduced make poor precedents, and many runs were accepted that with later Vault rule clarifications would have been rejected. That's not to say anything about the legitimacy of the movie in question, just that it cannot really be used as a precedent.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The problem isn't so much with the amount of concentration or effort required, but that you work directly on a school subject, and it's designed to have you learn said school subject. At that point, you're not doing a recreational activity (as puzzle solving, and games in general are), but you're doing effectively dressed up homework. It's not really a game at that point, it's a tool.
Via analogy, lets use this logic for a different recreational activity: Watching a TV show like "Star Trek" would be considered a recreational activity as it's not intended to teach anything. But watching a TV show like "NOVA" would NOT be a recreational activity because the primary purpose of the documentary was to teach you about scientific aspects of the world in which we live (school subject). Therefore using the above logic "Star Trek" is an entertainment medium, but "NOVA" is just a dressed up education tool and should not be considered a real show. Sounds absurd that way doesn't it?
The definition of game includes an activity that one engages in for recreation or amusement - the definition of show does not require such a meaning. Your analogy holds no grounds in reason and is a textbook example of false equivalence.
DrD2k9 wrote:
The only thing about this particular submission that fails to differentiate it as a game instead of a tool then, is the extra step of solving a math problem before you can shoot a particular piece of trash off the screen or enter a given hole in the enemy ship. Here are two examples of similar goals from games that are already accepted on the site with a key difference being the added step of math is missing. 1) Shoot stuff on screen from a cockpit - Top Gun 2) Hit a particular hole while dodging enemies, then do it again multiple times - The key level of Donkey Kong Jr.
Indeed, these games would be different if their focal game mechanic was different and if the game was designed to have education at the forefront of gameplay. This is a key difference that not only changes how the game is played, but also changes the overall design goal of the game and how it is intended to be used.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I recognize that the site primarily wants entertaining videos and educational titles aren't usually very entertaining. But the whole point of the Vault being created to begin with was as a repository of well-made but poorly-entertaining speed-based TAS runs. So, where's the harm in hosting/publishing well-made but poorly-entertaining speed-based TAS runs of educational titles?
The Vault is for tool-assisted speedrun records of video games - there is no sense in holding records of dressed-up calculators, math books, or other things we can't qualify as video game records.
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.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2057)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1011
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
Indeed, these games would be different if their focal game mechanic was different and if the game was designed to have education at the forefront of gameplay. This is a key difference that not only changes how the game is played, but also changes the overall design goal of the game and how it is intended to be used. The Vault is for tool-assisted speedrun records of video games - there is no sense in holding records of dressed-up calculators, math books, or other things we can't qualify as video game records.
Fair enough.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Expert player (3522)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2727
Location: US
Mothrayas wrote:
Can you explain how either game features education as a primary game element and purpose?
Carmen Sandiego is basically an aggrevated multiple choice test about reading comprehension, hard to get more school house education then that. Education isn't just math. Actually, many games require you to be able to read in order to understand and play. Reading and reading skills are certainly school subjects. As a current example, take [3590] SMS King's Quest: Quest for the Crown by BZero & Challenger in 03:07.46 . Played casually, this is basically little more then a big reading comprehension test. The only reason it's not classified as an educational game is because nobody called it that. If an edutainment company had published the exact same game and called it educational, would it suddenly become unpublishable?
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Alyosha wrote:
Carmen Sandiego is basically an aggrevated multiple choice test about reading comprehension, hard to get more school house education then that. Education isn't just math. Actually, many games require you to be able to read in order to understand and play. Reading and reading skills are certainly school subjects. As a current example, take [3590] SMS King's Quest: Quest for the Crown by BZero & Challenger in 03:07.46 . Played casually, this is basically little more then a big reading comprehension test. The only reason it's not classified as an educational game is because nobody called it that. If an edutainment company had published the exact same game and called it educational, would it suddenly become unpublishable?
Reading comprehension, mathematical calculation, historical knowledge, linguistic ability, problem-solving skills and so on are all various tests of the user's intelligence or knowledge. That of course does not mean that any use or test of them means it is designed or intended for education. You can design game mechanics surrounding any of these tests but do so for challenge purposes rather than education purposes. It's just how you design the game, how you present these tests to the user, what sorts of puzzles you make out of them. But the choice as to whether a game is educational or not is more than just a label on the box. It's a key facet behind game design decisions, behind visual appearance and prominence decisions, behind what the game designer wants to show to the user in order to make them absorb their educational contents as best as possible to the best of the designer's ability. There's a whole science behind this sort of design. And yes, if a game does exhibit that type of game design foremost, that makes it an educational game not fit for the Vault.
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.
Alyosha
He/Him
Editor, Expert player (3522)
Joined: 11/30/2014
Posts: 2727
Location: US
Yeah, I just don't agree that there should be a blanket ban on games with those design asthetics. I don't see a need for it and don't see it as desirable. The existing rules regarding non-games seem sufficient to me to cover non-game educational content.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Mothrayas wrote:
But the choice as to whether a game is educational or not is more than just a label on the box. It's a key facet behind game design decisions, behind visual appearance and prominence decisions, behind what the game designer wants to show to the user in order to make them absorb their educational contents as best as possible to the best of the designer's ability. There's a whole science behind this sort of design.
I seriously doubt that most (or any) makers of educational games consciously use any kind of science behind their design :)
Alyosha wrote:
Yeah, I just don't agree that there should be a blanket ban on games with those design asthetics. I don't see a need for it and don't see it as desirable. The existing rules regarding non-games seem sufficient to me to cover non-game educational content.
I concur. Aside from that, "no educational games" was not part of the original Vault rules, but added in 2015; this edit doesn't specify the reason for the change, or where discussion about it took place. I think this would be a good time to open a thread in the General forum to see if there is support for removing this restriction.
Experienced player (948)
Joined: 10/13/2014
Posts: 408
Location: nowhereatthemiddleofnoone
DrD2k9 wrote:
Why is 'learn something' a less valid goal than 'save the princess', 'kill everyone else', or 'click on Waldo's picture' as a game goal?
I think it's easy to do the difference between educational and entertainment. When you "save the princess", you learn nothing; when your objective is to kill them all, so it's clearly not educative and when you must "click on waldo's pictures" it's just a reflex's question, nothing else, in do those manipulations you don't studie math or grammar ... Nash have the best explanation, when he said "This is just dressing up a calculator or dictionary, and it's not a game". It have a great difference between play to learn and play to beat the game, because in first case, it call for some knowledges, then that in the 2nd case you haven't need of particular knowledges to play. First is an exercise tool and second is a game. This is the reason who fact it's not valid to TASing, because it's not a game, play isn't the main objetive, it's just an illusion to learn. HéHé, sorry but I hadn't seen the second page of this thread... All opinions are very interesting!
GAW sms... Totally destroyed
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Mothrayas wrote:
Can you explain how either game features education as a primary game element and purpose? Especially in Bible Buffet I'm not seeing anything remotely like that, it's a virtual board game with some puzzle game segments. Any educational element, if even present, appears to be secondary in that game.
I honestly can't understand why you are approaching this from the perspective of "does it have educational elements?", as if containing educational elements as a major mechanic automatically makes the game unpublishable, and thus it purely becomes a question of whether it has them or not (no matter how much of a "regular game" it is otherwise in terms of game mechanics, playing, level progression, and reaching an unambiguous ending). I doubt that whoever wrote that rule had that in mind. Instead, I'm certain that he was thinking of educational games as an example of a typical "non-game". I doubt the intent was to disqualify all games that may have educational elements in them, regardless of what type of games they otherwise are. I don't think the spirit of the rule is being followed here, and instead its letter is, to an unhealthy degree. It really is looking to me that if this game was otherwise identical, but had some puzzles instead of math problems, there would be no discussion and it would be accepted, but just because it has math instead of puzzles, it's somehow being rejected based solely on that, as if math in video games was banned from the site. This feels extremely strange to me, and makes no sense. I would suggest that the Vault rules could benefit from an update in this regard. A clarification could be made what exactly is meant by "educational games", and in a manner that does not ban games like this one. The intent shouldn't be to ban games just because they contain educational elements to them.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
I honestly can't understand why you are approaching this from the perspective of "does it have educational elements?", as if containing educational elements as a major mechanic automatically makes the game unpublishable, and thus it purely becomes a question of whether it has them or not (no matter how much of a "regular game" it is otherwise in terms of game mechanics, playing, level progression, and reaching an unambiguous ending).
No game is rendered strictly unpublishable due to this rule - it is a Vault-only rule.
Warp wrote:
I doubt that whoever wrote that rule had that in mind. Instead, I'm certain that he was thinking of educational games as an example of a typical "non-game". I doubt the intent was to disqualify all games that may have educational elements in them, regardless of what type of games they otherwise are. I don't think the spirit of the rule is being followed here, and instead its letter is, to an unhealthy degree.
No game is rejected for just having educational elements in them - but having educational elements as a primary mechanic and goal is what makes one an educational game, and fall under the rule of educational games.
Warp wrote:
It really is looking to me that if this game was otherwise identical, but had some puzzles instead of math problems, there would be no discussion and it would be accepted, but just because it has math instead of puzzles, it's somehow being rejected based solely on that, as if math in video games was banned from the site. This feels extremely strange to me, and makes no sense.
Please read my last post before this one. A game's design as an educational title is not an accident, and if this game were non-educational it would be radically different. What-ifs about hypothetical identical games that just happen to miss their most central design piece make no sense.
Warp wrote:
I would suggest that the Vault rules could benefit from an update in this regard. A clarification could be made what exactly is meant by "educational games", and in a manner that does not ban games like this one. The intent shouldn't be to ban games just because they contain educational elements to them.
How can any sort of clarification on the definition of educational games exclude this game? This is clearly an educational game and I don't see how you can call this not an educational game.
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.
Post subject: Re: #5759: qflame's SNES Math Blaster Episode 1: In Search of Spot in 07:53.15
Banned User, Former player
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Mothrayas wrote:
No game is rejected for just having educational elements in them - but having educational elements as a primary mechanic and goal is what makes one an educational game, and fall under the rule of educational games.
Then change the rule. As it is now, and as it is being interpreted now, games like this one are being rejected even though that makes absolutely no sense. A strict ban on "educational games", no matter what kind of game mechanics and level progression they might have, is nonsensical.
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
The rule is written and enforced exactly as intended, you don't need to put all the emphasis on "interpretation". And once again, the ban is not strict, it only applies to the Vault. If an educational game has interesting game mechanics, level progression, or interesting goals, it can be published to higher tiers.
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.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Mothrayas wrote:
The rule is written and enforced exactly as intended, you don't need to put all the emphasis on "interpretation".
That's not a surprise: the rule was written by you and is being enforced by you. So clearly it is doing what you intended. The question is how many people actually agree with this rule. I have so far been unable to find any discussion on this rule from before it was added (then again, such discussion may have been on IRC instead of in the forum). I don't see any problem with getting some more input on this.
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4138)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Radiant wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
The rule is written and enforced exactly as intended, you don't need to put all the emphasis on "interpretation".
That's not a surprise: the rule was written by you and is being enforced by you. So clearly it is doing what you intended.
I wrote the rule specifically mentioning educational games, but it was defined and recently updated by another person, and enforced by yet another person. Hint, they both made multiple posts in this topic. Don't pretend I am the only person involved here.
Radiant wrote:
The question is how many people actually agree with this rule. I have so far been unable to find any discussion on this rule from before it was added (then again, such discussion may have been on IRC instead of in the forum). I don't see any problem with getting some more input on this.
I don't recall the exact circumstances of writing the rule or who was involved in it besides me, but I do know it came from this submission, which in its topic was nearly universally derided and the concept that it had to be published to the Vault was considered a joke by many in the thread. That said, I don't think it was a new rule even then anyway - the Vault blanket-bans games that aren't considered serious games, and educational games are rarely considered serious games to begin with. The explicit mention of educational games would have been more of a clarification.
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.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Mothrayas wrote:
I don't recall the exact circumstances of writing the rule or who was involved in it besides me, but I do know it came from this submission, which in its topic was nearly universally derided and the concept that it had to be published to the Vault was considered a joke by many in the thread. That said, I don't think it was a new rule even then anyway - the Vault blanket-bans games that aren't considered serious games, and educational games are rarely considered serious games to begin with. The explicit mention of educational games would have been more of a clarification.
adelikat and I when discussing the vault rules for the site (on IRC) decided we did not want Sesame Street games published. IIRC, it was implied by something else we wrote on the site, but wasn't explicitly called out till you added your two words to the vault page. I further clarified it with the two lines I added the other day. We definitely do not want non-serious games published, which is typical of those geared for education as the primary control of the game. The question for judges is not whether we are going to alter or enforce this rule, but whether the game in question is not serious due to its primary focus on education or whether the game is a serious game and just has some educational elements thrown in.
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.
1 2 3
7 8