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 4 5 6 7 8
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
"this is an educational game, and educational games are not accepted"
While that's the gist of the rule, that's not the actual rule.
Warp wrote:
As said, I'm suggesting to change that rule
The rule is not changing, even though "that" rule doesn't exist.
Warp wrote:
because it needlessly disqualifies perfectly good games like this one.
The actual rule doesn't necessarily disqualify this game, even though there is strong indication that it does.
Warp wrote:
The rule doesn't need to be outright removed, just fine-tuned to not be so broad.
The actual rule isn't so broad.
Warp wrote:
My suggestion is to change the rule so that games like this one aren't needlessly rejected.
Rules should not be changed to favor gamessoftware that don't deserve it. Of course it also helps to understand the rules.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
This hasn't been so in the past, and I would hate it to become the norm. When that one mini-golf game (I think it was) was rejected because it was a "sports game", and Vault rules were against it, I contested that rule, it was discussed, and it was changed so that some sports games are now acceptable. I expressed back then how appreciative I am that here the people in charge listen to user feedback and make rules changes when it's reasonable, rather than obstinately consider them written-in-stone, absolute, and never-changing. If it's found out that some particular rule has a negative side-effect, which wasn't apparent when that rule was written, it's good to fix it. Rules can be flawed, and may need fine-tuning when problematic situations reveal these flaws. It makes no sense to strictly adhere to a rule like it were holy gospel that's perfect and unchangeable. Now, if there were good arguments why the rule is fine as it is, and/or why this game is not an example of why the rule requires fixing, then that would be fine. However, mostly the answers have been "this was rejected because the rules say it has to be rejected". The majority of the arguments have been about whether this is an "educational game" or not, not whether it's a good rule to have as it is now (and enforced so strictly). I'm not saying to remove the rule. I'm just suggesting to loosen it a bit, just like with the sports games rule.
Emulator Coder
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:
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
When that one mini-golf game (I think it was) was rejected because it was a "sports game", and Vault rules were against it, I contested that rule, it was discussed, and it was changed so that some sports games are now acceptable. I expressed back then how appreciative I am that here the people in charge listen to user feedback and make rules changes when it's reasonable, rather than obstinately consider them written-in-stone, absolute, and never-changing.
Indeed that's correct, hence why what I wrote contained the word "almost".
Warp wrote:
The majority of the arguments have been about whether this is an "educational game" or not, not whether it's a good rule to have as it is now (and enforced so strictly).
Since the rule is not a blanket ban on educational games, and everything is arguing about educational gamers, your arguments are falling on deaf ears. No one is going to listen to arguments, especially those asking to change rules when those arguing are expressing total reading comprehension failure.
Warp wrote:
I'm not saying to remove the rule. I'm just suggesting to loosen it a bit, just like with the sports games rule.
The rule already is loose. Those arguing are not taking advantage of its looseness and instead trying to alter it or make meaningless analogies.
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: 10/28/2013
Posts: 130
Location: United States
How much of this has to do with site branding, i.e. simply not wanting the site to be associated with games like Math Blaster? All this discussion seems absurdly legalistic if the real reason is "people like Carmen Sandiego, so it'll get views and clicks, but people view Math Blaster (and Sesame Street games, etc.) as a joke and we don't want to be associated with that, unless the run can find some way of making fun of the game".
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Mothrayas wrote:
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.
In your answer to that original question about the game containing puzzles instead of math problems, you referred to your previous post, in which you write:
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. And yes, if a game does exhibit that type of game design foremost, that makes it an educational game not fit for the Vault.
You are arguing that this is a primarily educational game, and such games are not fit for Vault. Exactly what I claimed you answered. Did I miss something?
Noxxa
They/Them
Moderator, Expert player (4125)
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
Warp wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
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.
In your answer to that original question about the game containing puzzles instead of math problems, you referred to your previous post, in which you write:
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. And yes, if a game does exhibit that type of game design foremost, that makes it an educational game not fit for the Vault.
You are arguing that this is a primarily educational game, and such games are not fit for Vault. Exactly what I claimed you answered. Did I miss something?
Let's start again from the beginning. Bolded emphasis mine. You posted:
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.
I answered:
Mothrayas wrote:
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.
A few posts later:
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.
Can you see how your question here was already answered in the prior post? Yes, I did say a lot of other things, but that's beside the point - the point is you were asking a question that I already answered directly to you. Now, let's let this particular sub-discussion rest, there is nothing to gain here in either direction of any argument.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
I think that if I'm not happy with an answer (which, as you point out, seems to have been "questions about hypothetical situations make no sense"), I think I'm allowed to ask another person the same question to know what he thinks about it, aren't I? After all this discussion, it has actually become a bit unclear to me what exactly is the reason for rejecting this game, given that Nach above says it's not purely because this game contains educational elements to it:
Nach wrote:
The actual rule doesn't necessarily disqualify this game, even though there is strong indication that it does.
This just confuses me. Is this game disqualified because of the current Vault rules or not? You seem to be saying in your posts that this game could ostensibly be accepted, even according to the current rules, but it nevertheless isn't. So why exactly isn't it accepted? With all the discussion going on, I have missed the concrete reason for this. (The only thing I can see is, essentially, "it's an educational game, educational games are not eligible for Vault." If this is not the reason, the what is?)
EZGames69
He/They
Publisher, Reviewer, Expert player (4462)
Joined: 5/29/2017
Posts: 2762
It IS because of vault rules. Give it up. This has gone on for too long.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't 12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!" Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish [Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
Skilled player (1416)
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
Oh come on, we're only on the fourth page here!
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
Emulator Coder
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:
The actual rule doesn't necessarily disqualify this game, even though there is strong indication that it does.
This just confuses me. Is this game disqualified because of the current Vault rules or not?
I have no first hand idea on the matter. I haven't played the game nor seen the TAS. I'm only in this thread to clarify what the rules are.
Warp wrote:
You seem to be saying in your posts that this game could ostensibly be accepted, even according to the current rules, but it nevertheless isn't. So why exactly isn't it accepted?
A game with educational elements can be accepted if the educational elements are not the primary focus of the game. A judge has deemed that they are, and it looks like the senior judge concurs.
Warp wrote:
With all the discussion going on, I have missed the concrete reason for this. (The only thing I can see is, essentially, "it's an educational game, educational games are not eligible for Vault." If this is not the reason, the what is?)
The judge has ruled the game is non-serious due to being primarily about education and not gameplay. If there is a strong convincing argument for the educational elements being secondary, then the judges can reconsider.
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.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2214)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Ferret Warlord wrote:
Oh come on, we're only on the fourth page here!
^Yea, sorry about that. A good chunk of that was my fault and I truly don't stand on either side of the argument. The following is to attempt to answer my own earlier question--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? (italics new) As a generalization (not a concrete law), the site perceives video games as software intended for purposes of recreational entertainment. Edutainment is, however, primarily intended to teach or exercise knowledge of a particular subject. While a recreational video game may also provide an opportunity to learn, the learning is not the intent of the game. For the purposes of this site, edutainment is therefore NOT a video game in the recreational sense because its intent is education, not recreation. The key delineation in my opinion is 'recreation vs. education' as the intent of the software's creators.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
EZGames69 wrote:
Give it up. This has gone on for too long.
It hasn't even really started yet.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
A game with educational elements can be accepted if the educational elements are not the primary focus of the game. A judge has deemed that they are, and it looks like the senior judge concurs.
Ok, that's clear. My proposal was, however, to change that rule so as to make it possible to accept games like this one in Vault. You stated earlier, rather adamantly, that the rule will not be changed, period, even though you haven't even seen the game or the run (thus, I think, you don't have the full perspective of why I consider this particular game to be perfectly fine for Vault. To me this particular game is a good example of why that rule seems to be too restrictive.) I don't really understand why you are being so strict here.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Ok, that's clear. My proposal was, however, to change that rule so as to make it possible to accept games like this one in Vault.
The rule as it stands exists to disallow non-serious games. To change the rule would mean to allow non-serious games. By saying you want to accept this game anyway, are you implying you agree this game is non-serious?
Warp wrote:
You stated earlier, rather adamantly, that the rule will not be changed, period, even though you haven't even seen the game or the run
Because we have no intention of accepting non-serious games.
Warp wrote:
(thus, I think, you don't have the full perspective of why I consider this particular game to be perfectly fine for Vault.
Why not just tell us why you consider it fine? If your reason is you dislike our rule, it's not changing. If your reason is that it's a serious game, then all you need to do is work within the framework of the existing rule which I reiterated a number of times already.
Warp wrote:
I don't really understand why you are being so strict here.
Being a video game is a key tenant of TASVideos. We are not looking to host the whole array of software that can exist. The rule as it stands is to allow publication of real video games, not other kinds of software.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
The rule as it stands exists to disallow non-serious games. To change the rule would mean to allow non-serious games.
Just watch the run, please? You'll see what I'm talking about when I say this is an actual video game and I don't see any reason why it should not be eligible. There's level progression, there's a space shooter stage, there's a platformer stage, there's an energy bar, and you can take damage from enemies, there's a score, there's an ending. This looks more like a "serious game" (whatever that means) than some of the published TASes.
By saying you want to accept this game anyway, are you implying you agree this game is non-serious?
What I'm saying is that if this is rejected solely because a rule says so, then perhaps that rule could benefit from some changes.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Just watch the run, please? You'll see what I'm talking about when I say this is an actual video game and I don't see any reason why it should not be eligible.
If you think it's an actual video game, make a case that the educational elements are secondary. If your argument is good, the judges will reverse their decision.
Warp wrote:
By saying you want to accept this game anyway, are you implying you agree this game is non-serious?
What I'm saying is that if this is rejected solely because a rule says so, then perhaps that rule could benefit from some changes.
Changing the rule means accepting non-video games. That's not going to happen. We have no goal to throw away rules just to make everything become acceptable.
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.
Pokota
He/Him
Joined: 2/5/2014
Posts: 779
The SNES port is missing the "Number Recycler" phase. The game difficulties vary between Normal and Practice. The math difficulty varies between 1 and 12, with 1 being simple addition and 12 (appearing to be) short division, but otherwise doesn't affect the solution speed in a TAS situation.
Adventures in Lua When did I get a vest?
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
We have no goal to throw away rules just to make everything become acceptable.
I'm not asking for everything to become acceptable.
Player (80)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
To re-emphasize, like DrD2k9, I don't feel very strongly about this issue. This site will not live or die based on whether a Math Blaster TAS is accepted. Having said that...
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
You should pretty much almost always accept that the rules will not be changing.
This hasn't been so in the past, and I would hate it to become the norm. When that one mini-golf game (I think it was) was rejected because it was a "sports game", and Vault rules were against it, I contested that rule, it was discussed, and it was changed so that some sports games are now acceptable. I expressed back then how appreciative I am that here the people in charge listen to user feedback and make rules changes when it's reasonable, rather than obstinately consider them written-in-stone, absolute, and never-changing. If it's found out that some particular rule has a negative side-effect, which wasn't apparent when that rule was written, it's good to fix it. Rules can be flawed, and may need fine-tuning when problematic situations reveal these flaws. It makes no sense to strictly adhere to a rule like it were holy gospel that's perfect and unchangeable. Now, if there were good arguments why the rule is fine as it is, and/or why this game is not an example of why the rule requires fixing, then that would be fine. However, mostly the answers have been "this was rejected because the rules say it has to be rejected". The majority of the arguments have been about whether this is an "educational game" or not, not whether it's a good rule to have as it is now (and enforced so strictly). I'm not saying to remove the rule. I'm just suggesting to loosen it a bit, just like with the sports games rule.
I strongly agree with all of this. And, to be quite honest, I think it counts for a bit extra that it's Warp I find myself agreeing with. No offense intended, Warp.
goldenband wrote:
How much of this has to do with site branding, i.e. simply not wanting the site to be associated with games like Math Blaster? All this discussion seems absurdly legalistic if the real reason is "people like Carmen Sandiego, so it'll get views and clicks, but people view Math Blaster (and Sesame Street games, etc.) as a joke and we don't want to be associated with that, unless the run can find some way of making fun of the game".
I also think this is an excellent point. I honestly think less uproar would have been raised if Mothrayas had simply said, "Eh, I think this is a crappy game choice and I'm rejecting it because I don't think it will make the site better." Finally, I'd like to note that there is a strong undercurrent of condescension coming from our esteemed judges/admin throughout this thread. As a simple example, Mothrayas accused skeptics of twisting his words, and yet both he and Nach keep falling back on a straw man argument that people are calling for us to abandon rules entirely and accept or reject submissions arbitrarily. I've seen absolutely no one advocate for that and the latest exchange between Nach and Warp reflects this lack of understanding on the part of the staff.
Former player
Joined: 6/30/2010
Posts: 1107
Location: Zurich, Switzerland
Is it correct to assume that this TAS would have been accepted to the vault based on its gameplay, if it just happened to have a different setting? No math, no education, but the exact same gameplay.
Current project: Gex 3 any% Paused: Gex 64 any% There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Skilled player (1672)
Joined: 7/1/2013
Posts: 448
Bobo the King wrote:
Finally, I'd like to note that there is a strong undercurrent of condescension coming from our esteemed judges/admin throughout this thread.
If certain comments were a bit sharp, they were made later in the discussion at an escalating level of frustration, which is understandable.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1359)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
Bobo the King wrote:
goldenband wrote:
How much of this has to do with site branding, i.e. simply not wanting the site to be associated with games like Math Blaster? All this discussion seems absurdly legalistic if the real reason is "people like Carmen Sandiego, so it'll get views and clicks, but people view Math Blaster (and Sesame Street games, etc.) as a joke and we don't want to be associated with that, unless the run can find some way of making fun of the game".
I also think this is an excellent point. I honestly think less uproar would have been raised if Mothrayas had simply said, "Eh, I think this is a crappy game choice and I'm rejecting it because I don't think it will make the site better."
You are basically accusing the staff to be hiding the fact that it doesn't want to accept this game for pubblications, which is an assumption based on nothing: I already said in this post that a "maximum score" run would have much chances to get published, not to mention that this very submission has just been added to the Gruefood Delight page. The problem here is specifically about the purpose of Vault tier, and not about the site in general or what the staff want the people outside think or not think about it.
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"
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
Nach wrote:
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.
Thanks, this clears things up. As I understand it, this is not a blanket ban against educational games in general, but a ban against educational software that is shoddily put together and/or lacking in actual gameplay (i.e. "not serious games"). And it's an unfortunate fact of life that the vast majority of educational software is shoddily put together and/or lacking in gameplay. To draw a comparison: the site doesn't have a blanket ban against ROMhacks, but the unfortunate fact is that the vast majority of ROMhacks are dime-a-dozen pieces of junk (e.g. SMB but the sprites replaced by Sonic). The result is that runs of almost all ROMhacks are unpublishable, but occasionally a rare gem comes along which does get published (e.g. Rockman Minus Infinity) and the same happens with the occasional educational game (e.g. the aforementioned Carmen Sandiego and Bible Studies games).
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Yes Radiant, that's the general idea. The rules lay out a minimum standard for some of these types of software that usually don't make good games. If something comes along that meets the minimum requirement, it can be published.
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.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Bobo the King wrote:
And, to be quite honest, I think it counts for a bit extra that it's Warp I find myself agreeing with. No offense intended, Warp.
I wish people stopped doing this. You might not intend offense, but that doesn't mean it isn't.
Radiant wrote:
As I understand it, this is not a blanket ban against educational games in general, but a ban against educational software that is shoddily put together and/or lacking in actual gameplay (i.e. "not serious games"). And it's an unfortunate fact of life that the vast majority of educational software is shoddily put together and/or lacking in gameplay.
I would like to once again contest the idea that this is such a game. Sure, it might not be the best and most challenging game in existence, but I don't think that has ever been a requirement. As I said before, it has game mechanics that are very typical of 8-bit games, it has a health bar, you can take damage, it has a score, it has level progression, it has an ending. If you watch the encode, it looks to me like a completely normal game. So what if there are some numbers appearing here and there? I seriously do not think this is the kind of game that's referred to with the term "educational game" in the rules.
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8