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.
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.
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.
The rule is written and enforced exactly as intended, you don't need to put all the emphasis on "interpretation".
Then, as said, change it, because in this instance it makes no sense.
Nach wrote:
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.
If this game used some kind of simple puzzles instead of math problems, would it be eligible for Vault?
If the answer is yes, then what exactly is it about math problems that makes it non-eligible? I think the principle of "no educational games" is being enforced too strictly here.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
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.
If this game used some kind of simple puzzles instead of math problems, would it be eligible for Vault?
If the answer is yes, then what exactly is it about math problems that makes it non-eligible? I think the principle of "no educational games" is being enforced too strictly here.
I'm not answering questions about this game.
Regarding our rules as I said in practically every post on this topic, it is about primary and secondary, which you seem to skip over in every single one of your replies.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
If this game used some kind of simple puzzles instead of math problems, would it be eligible for Vault?
If the answer is yes, then what exactly is it about math problems that makes it non-eligible? I think the principle of "no educational games" is being enforced too strictly here.
Please stop repeating questions while ignoring my answers.
Mothrayas wrote:
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.
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.
I'm really not seeing the need for this definition of a 'serious' game.
Let's take an even simpler example. Why is [2891] DS You Have to Burn the Rope DS by NitroGenesis in 00:25.87 a serious game (where incidently you cannot fail) and not a cleverly disguised reading comprhension test?
The answer now would seem to be 'because it's not designed like one,' but maybe it's just a really clever disguise? :O
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Alyosha wrote:
Let's take an even simpler example. Why is [2891] DS You Have to Burn the Rope DS by NitroGenesis in 00:25.87 a serious game (where incidently you cannot fail) and not a cleverly disguised reading comprhension test?
The answer now would seem to be 'because it's not designed like one,' but maybe it's just a really clever disguise? :O
You can argue in favor of anything if you make your arguments nonsensical enough and assume anything is not what it is and is actually a clever disguise of anything else. That does not move any real point forward though.
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.
I don't really care about this issue all that much, but I find myself in agreement with many of the users here: the rules have been assigned and enforced arbitrarily and at least need clarification.
Furthermore, I've just realized that my very own publication was accepted, despite being an educational title-- I'd say more of an educational title than this one.
Edit: Derp. Radiant brought this up on the previous page. I'm catching up with the thread, but I don't mind repeating the point anyway.
@Mothrayas: Except the only 'real points' here are precisely about appearence. What differentiates 'you have to burn the rope' from level 2 of 'math blaster'? Both are platforming mixed with educational elements, one reading and another addition. If anything the math blaster stage is more of a 'serious' game since at least you can fail.
EDIT: oops, bobo the king posted in between, edittted for clarity.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
@Bobo the King: This was already addressed a few posts after the one you linked.
Alyosha wrote:
@Mothrayas: Except the only 'real points' here are precisely about appearence. What differentiates 'you have to burn the rope' from level 2 of 'math blaster'? Both are platforming mixed with educational elements, one reading and another addition. If anything the math blaster stage is more of a 'serious' game since at least you can fail.
EDIT: oops, bobo the king posted in between, edittted for clarity.
I will add this one to the list of questions that I have already answered (directly to you, no less) but of which the answer was ignored. See paragraph 1 of my answer.
Mothrayas wrote:
Alyosha wrote:
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.
That's not an answer.
I'm asking what you see as those specific elements that exist in stage 2 of 'math blaster' that don't exist in 'you have to burn the rope' that transform it into a 'serious' game.
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Why are written rules treated more seriously than precedent? I understand that rules are (supposed to be) unambiguous while precedent is "squishy", but I think we have here a clear case where this trend is upset. As Nach puts it, the ban on educational games was written to exclude "Sesame Street games". This game is better than that level. (Incidentally, even in the Popeye game cited by Mothrayas, I see what looks like nontrivial luck manipulation.) As for precedent, we have plenty of examples of games that are technically not educational but are otherwise bereft of entertainment value, displaying less interesting gameplay than what we see here. The rule says you should reject, precedent says you should accept.
I get that having written rules and adhering to them is vital to the success of a site like this, but we know that the admins are fallible and can write a well-intentioned rule that, by its letter, accomplishes the wrong thing.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Alyosha wrote:
That's not an answer.
I'm asking what you see as those specific elements that exist in stage 2 of 'math blaster' that don't exist in 'you have to burn the rope' that transform it into a 'serious' game.
No part of YHTBTR includes school assignments. Reading on its own is not a school assignment. It only contains text in relation to gameplay, which is also not a school assignment. Therefore, it is not an educational game.
Math Blaster contains arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments, as a primary gameplay element. Therefore, it is an educational game.
I honestly cannot make it any more obvious than this.
Bobo the King wrote:
Can I ask a more fundamental question? Why are written rules treated more seriously than precedent? I understand that rules are (supposed to be) unambiguous while precedent is "squishy", but I think we have here a clear case where this trend is upset. As Nach puts it, the ban on educational games was written to exclude "Sesame Street games". This game is better than that level. (Incidentally, even in the Popeye game cited by Mothrayas, I see what looks like nontrivial luck manipulation.) As for precedent, we have plenty of examples of games that are technically not educational but are otherwise bereft of entertainment value, displaying less interesting gameplay than what we see here. The rule says you should reject, precedent says you should accept.
I get that having written rules and adhering to them is vital to the success of a site like this, but we know that the admins are fallible and can write a well-intentioned rule that, by its letter, accomplishes the wrong thing.
Precedent is flawed in quite a few ways, because judges do make mistakes and have made mistakes in the past.
If precedent overrode movie rules, single stage movies would be accepted, passwords to skip to the end of the game would be accepted, movies that do not clear the game would be accepted, and so on. There are many reasons why that would be a bad idea, and therefore adhering to written rules over blindly following precedent makes a lot more sense.
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.
Precedent is flawed in quite a few ways, because judges do make mistakes and have made mistakes in the past.
If precedent overrode movie rules, single stage movies would be accepted, passwords to skip to the end of the game would be accepted, movies that do not clear the game would be accepted, and so on. There are many reasons why that would be a bad idea, and therefore adhering to written rules over blindly following precedent makes a lot more sense.
I agree that blindly following precedent would be a bad idea, but I think you may be missing the irony that you're "blindly" following a written rule that wasn't written all that carefully in the first place while the precedent is broad, not just applying to a single stage movie or a used password. While you and I agree that judges make mistakes, I think a strong argument could be made here that the mistake in the context of this run was in the written rule, not the precedent.
I'm not saying rules should be ditched in favor of precedent, just that precedent is all too easily discarded in favor of a rule when it appears that a judge does not wish to thoroughly defend their decision. It's a matter of how you weight the two.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Bobo the King wrote:
following a written rule that wasn't written all that carefully in the first place
The rule may have been ambiguous in its first edition. It no longer is. Don't argue the past.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Bobo the King wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Precedent is flawed in quite a few ways, because judges do make mistakes and have made mistakes in the past.
If precedent overrode movie rules, single stage movies would be accepted, passwords to skip to the end of the game would be accepted, movies that do not clear the game would be accepted, and so on. There are many reasons why that would be a bad idea, and therefore adhering to written rules over blindly following precedent makes a lot more sense.
I agree that blindly following precedent would be a bad idea, but I think you may be missing the irony that you're "blindly" following a written rule that wasn't written all that carefully in the first place while the precedent is broad, not just applying to a single stage movie or a used password. While you and I agree that judges make mistakes, I think a strong argument could be made here that the mistake in the context of this run was in the written rule, not the precedent.
I'm not saying rules should be ditched in favor of precedent, just that precedent is all too easily discarded in favor of a rule when it appears that a judge does not wish to thoroughly defend their decision. It's a matter of how you weight the two.
The rule is plenty clear currently, and clarifies what degrees of educational elements may be accepted and what may not. The rule was also correctly applied in this case, I don't see the judge having made a mistake here.
I don't see previous precedents (ie Carmen Sandiego, in the circumstances it was published in) holding enough weight to sway my decision on this case or on how the rule must be enforced.
You can disagree with what the rule is, but it was followed correctly, as written and as in intent, with plenty of deliberation by the judge (as well as other judges) for the judgment of this movie.
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: 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 see previous precedents (ie Carmen Sandiego, in the circumstances it was published in) holding enough weight to sway my decision on this case or on how the rule must be enforced.
I'd point out that not all Carmen Sandiego games are the same.
Some of them teach you stuff about places in the world over the course of the game, but the game is primarily a detective game, the details could be fictional and the game would be identical and still fun for those that like reviewing clues and following them.
Then there's others which are strictly educational games, that may have some fun aspects, but primarily test your knowledge about the world. You cannot beat them without remembering things you learned in school (or lookup on Wikipedia), and the game does not provide clues or detective work like the other kind.
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.
For the purposes of this tier, a game which is a board game, educational game or game show game is not defined as a serious game. Fighting games such as Street Fighter are however, eligible.
Examples of unacceptable board games for this tier are Chess and Monopoly.
Examples of unacceptable education games for this tier are Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs.
A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible.
This is the full text of the rule being applied. There is one game cited as an example of an unacceptable educational title and it has little in common with this game. There are zero examples of acceptable educational titles, even though they are alluded to.
That's the extent to which I wish to argue this. I'm sure that someone will come along shortly to take up my banner. I'm going to bed.
For the purposes of this tier, a game which is a board game, educational game or game show game is not defined as a serious game. Fighting games such as Street Fighter are however, eligible.
Examples of unacceptable board games for this tier are Chess and Monopoly.
Examples of unacceptable education games for this tier are Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs.
A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible.
This is the full text of the rule being applied. There is one game cited as an example of an unacceptable educational title and it has little in common with this game.
Actually, there are two.
Bobo the King wrote:
There are zero examples of acceptable educational titles, even though they are alluded to.
If you want one, there was a Bible game mentioned earlier.
Bobo the King wrote:
That's the extent to which I wish to argue this. I'm sure that someone will come along shortly to take up my banner. I'm going to bed.
If your argument is you don't like the rule, you're wasting your time. The senior staff very much likes the rule and will be keeping it.
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.
No part of YHTBTR includes school assignments. Reading on its own is not a school assignment. It only contains text in relation to gameplay, which is also not a school assignment. Therefore, it is not an educational game.
Math Blaster contains arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments, as a primary gameplay element. Therefore, it is an educational game.
I honestly cannot make it any more obvious than this.
Arithmetic isn't just an assignment, heck I know people who haven't gone to school a day in their lives who do arithmetic of that exact form every day.
But it seems all this is un-necessary...
Nach wrote:
If your argument is you don't like the rule, you're wasting your time. The senior staff very much likes the rule and will be keeping it.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Alyosha wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
No part of YHTBTR includes school assignments. Reading on its own is not a school assignment. It only contains text in relation to gameplay, which is also not a school assignment. Therefore, it is not an educational game.
Math Blaster contains arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments, as a primary gameplay element. Therefore, it is an educational game.
I honestly cannot make it any more obvious than this.
Arithmetic isn't just an assignment, heck I know people who haven't gone to school a day in their lives who do arithmetic of that exact form every day.
I'm calling out your usage of Technique 5. Thank you for turning "arithmetic (school) assignments" into "arithmetic", thereby proving to me you have no argument bar twisting my words. It's a good thing the rest of the post implies you are finished in this topic anyway, because I'm seeing this as a sign that I need not further try to debate with you on this issue.
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.
It's actually the other way around, you turned 'arithmetic' into 'arithmetic (school) assignment', there is nothing inherently 'school assignment' about the 'arithmetic' in Math Blatster, or even the form of it. The same arithmetic can be used as a school assignment, but it's also just an everyday life skill.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Nope, started out as "arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments". At no point was any reference to what Math Blaster does referred to as arithmetic for non-educational purposes, until you simplified my statement to "arithmetic". Nice try, though.
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: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Alyosha wrote:
Nach wrote:
If your argument is you don't like the rule, you're wasting your time. The senior staff very much likes the rule and will be keeping it.
I wish you just said this 2 pages ago.
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
People asked me into this thread for clarification for a rule, you got it.
If you want to see a different outcome, argue within the framework of the rule, don't try to get rid of the rule. I told you the criteria in the very first post of mine of this thread and reiterated it in different forms several times.
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.
Please stop repeating questions while ignoring my answers.
Not being satisfied with an answer is not the same thing as ignoring it. If the answer is "this is an educational game, and educational games are not accepted", that's an "answer", but it's not one I'm happy with. As said, I'm suggesting to change that rule because it needlessly disqualifies perfectly good games like this one. (The rule doesn't need to be outright removed, just fine-tuned to not be so broad.)
I feel like we are talking past each other. It seems that you are answering the question "why was this rejected?" (answer: "because it's an educational game, and educational games are not accepted under the Vault rules"). But i'm not asking that. My suggestion is to change the rule so that games like this one aren't needlessly rejected.
Nope, started out as "arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments". At no point was any reference to what Math Blaster does referred to as arithmetic for non-educational purposes, until you simplified my statement to "arithmetic". Nice try, though.
Yeah I know, starting it off 'arithmetic assignments' is what I'm saying was wrong. It's not inherently assignments, it's just everyday arithmetic.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4083
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Please stop repeating questions while ignoring my answers.
Not being satisfied with an answer is not the same thing as ignoring it. If the answer is "this is an educational game, and educational games are not accepted", that's an "answer", but it's not one I'm happy with. As said, I'm suggesting to change that rule because it needlessly disqualifies perfectly good games like this one. (The rule doesn't need to be outright removed, just fine-tuned to not be so broad.)
That is not what I answered, because that is not an answer to the question you actually asked. What you asked was "if this game used puzzles rather than math, would it be accepted?", and that is the question I answered. You then repeated the same question with zero acknowledgement of the answer.
I'm fine if you find my answers dissatisfactory and want to comment on that; I'm not fine with you outright ignoring my answers while repeating identical questions.
Alyosha wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Nope, started out as "arithmetic assignments, in the same vein of those done as school assignments". At no point was any reference to what Math Blaster does referred to as arithmetic for non-educational purposes, until you simplified my statement to "arithmetic". Nice try, though.
Yeah I know, starting it off 'arithmetic assignments' is what I'm saying was wrong. It's not inherently assignments, it's just everyday arithmetic.
What the game does are textbook arithmetic assignments, of the same sort as those in school books, and the game has designed them for the same sort of use as school books (not just general everyday use of arithmetic). These are blatant facts, and any argument against this definition is pure nonsense.
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.
