RNG manipulation: most in them is depend time or how input buttons. Most time I need back to last scroll text, do something for change RNG
Change pet's like/dislike data: when create a new pet, it use RNG to create pet's data. I have make pet like Nuts Oil for my strategy.
Get more loyalty: when pass a week, it have random can get/lost 1 or 2 loyalty points. It need control for get little help in battles at early and mid game
Pet' raise up stats control: pet raise up what stats is depend RNG. My strategy is main target to Int stats, sub is Skill stats
Get/avoid events: before they happend/will come, just need change time it come
Reduce meet hard competitors: change time join tournaments can change some competitors. I make reduce monsters have high Life and Defense stats. But this's not work after get S cup
Give up unneed battles: for save time, I have give up/avoid to unneed battles.
Setup battle: before join any battle, change time for change first AI think in battle, this's help control AI actions after ready
Change AI think in battles: it's depend my actions/moving. Sometimes I can't avoid bad results, I need move out of range AI's attacks
Critical attacks: it's depedend time make attack. But this's still depend other things (example sussces call pet attack, hit rate, damage attack,etc)
Avoid AI can revival: some monsters can revival after got zero HP, for avoid this need change time attack to it
Notes
This time is my first time try do multi-disk in a TAS. For setup before start, must setup Monster Rancher 2 at disk 1, Official U.S. PlayStation Magazine Demo Disc 14 at disk 2
I'm not good with this games. This game have many ways can do. I'm alway worry my strategies, headache when planning, not sure it's best or not. I have remake 5th times for find best strategies, even try use Gut glitch of Fairy Hare in Monster Farm 2 (J version)
I have pick Pixie monster because it have high attack damage, fast Gut recovery and avaible at beginning. Subtype Pixie/Dragon will help have hight Int at start and can learn Fire Breath skill
With Errantry, just need go there for learn skill, not important for get success or failure
Avoid get new house for save time. If remember not wrong, it just help get more events. That's why with TAS, it's unneed
I think this run look like tutorial more than, didn't have any bug/glitch to do
With game Japan version can help make battles faster because it have a Gut glich but it can't skip trainning scenes, at tottaly it's slower English version.
Not target to get Great in trainning for save time. It can help more little points but maybe will lost alot frames to find it. In my run, just need it few times for get praise to pet
Praise pet for avoid make pet have Worst nature, avoid must learn evil skill, more chance to learn need skill (this's my logic, not sure it's correct or not)
Thanks
KurasuSoratobu in gamefaqs for need info
あすとろ第二代目 in nicovideo for compare run
someone shared skills data info, helped me should pick what skill to do
feos: This judgment either sets a precedent or introduces new policies. Judging...
feos: Delaying until the extra image that syncs with this movie is made.
feos: It's been a long journey, and a lot of things happened to make this submission acceptable. And it is acceptable in principle. But to be actually accepted, we need an extra image to be created by hand so that it's not anything copyrighted. That would allow us to reproduce such an image freely anytime, as many times as needed, now and in the future, for the sake of replaying this movie. Even on console such an image would spawn the same monster as this movie uses.
The only problem now is that no one has spare time and dedication to actually generate such an image. It's unfortunate, because in the end I have to reject this movie for breaking the rules we all agreed on. If at some future day such an image is finally produced, I can unreject this submission, and finally properly judge how it's played.
Alright, I think this one's gonna need some explanation.
In a vacuum, the original decision makes sense: If we strictly treat the second disk as a means of verification, then yes, we can't exactly legally provide it in the same way we can provide a verification input file. We can synthesize the same result in a legal manner, of course, but it leaves one particularly large elephant in the room, and that's simply "isn't any game image a means of verification?" Well, to answer that question, yes! Yes, that is exactly correct. No run can be verified without the right ROM or ISO, so... Why should that apply here? Sure, this is a unique case where "Disc 2" can be Literally Any Disc, but at the end of the day it's still just disc 2 of 2. I think for the sanity of the Judges, though, it's best to limit this freedom to just other game images. As, uh, """"fun"""" as it would be to track down an ISO of Wheatus's self-titled debut album, featuring hit single "Teenage Dirtbag", I don't think that's really reasonable or sustainable for us.
...Yes, for those of you who are wondering, that album does generate the Pixie/Dragon monster used in this run.
I don't really see the other issue (optimality of the approach) as an issue at all, given that the game itself is pretty RNG-heavy and has tons of room for potential improvement regardless of what monster is generated or what strategy is used. If anyone wants to put in the work to try other game images, other monsters, other approaches in general, I don't see why we should stop them or limit them.
Personally,
I'm well aware of how fickle Monster Rancher can be in its battles, and this TAS makes an absolute mockery of them. While I do feel the menuing could be a bit better in places (I'm aware some of it's RNG manipulation, but there's a lot of autofiring so I imagine there's some frames being lost at times), it's not nearly enough to reject over, and the real meat of the run (the battles) far more than make up for it. Just... If you're not familiar with the series, trust me when I say the battles are astoundingly fast.
Just in time to be 4 days late for the 5th anniversary of this submission, accepting!
Saved game is not related either. Saved game won't help us get rid of the additional image requirement if we want new monsters.
The question is, why do you think we should judge 2 similar scenarios differently:
1) using SRAM to unlock new content not available from scratch, and
2) using additional image to unlock new content not available from scratch?
How does the latter magically make it any%? Especially given how strict some people are about any% in general, the purpose of Vault is to never have to explain anyone that "well, this particular not-quite-any% is still considered any% by some people, therefore we consider it absolutely objectively clear cut, and therefore vaultable". Do excuses like this really sound sensible to anyone?
Firstly, I don't know how much of the following is appropriate to this particular submission vs. my opinions as general concepts.
I understand that my personal opinions aren't always going to be the most ideal/practical for the site's policies. For what my opinion is worth though:
Saved game or not, I don't feel the use of the arbitrary image/SRAM/memory card data should automatically negate a run from being vaultable.
For the same reason, I don't think these two scenarios shouldn't be judged differently.
If the game is started from scratch and new content is then obtained through the course of normal gameplay as intended by the publishers using any of the above methods, it is still a valid any% run in my opinion. I realize this may not mesh with everyone else's perspectives. The key to me is that the game is started from scratch.
If the game is designed to read data from a source other than the original game disc/image, the console hardware, or the controller; how the data got on that additional source shouldn't matter. The game doesn't care how the data was developed, only that the data is present where it's being sought by the game.
As long as getting the data where it needs to be for the game to read it is done via a reproducible method, I think the game started from scratch should still be vaultable. Even if this means the additional source (SRAM, memory card, or disc image) was custom made in a hex editor.
TL:DR I don't feel that a game's publisher intended use of data from an outside source not created by the game itself should automatically make the game ineligible for vault.
ALL THAT SAID, if the site wants to negate vault eligibility for the use of any additional data not shipped with/contained in/created by the game itself, then I support that decision.
The question is, do you count the scenario where things you haven't obtained during normal gameplay, magically appear from the outside, as an any% category?
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.
The question is, do you count the scenario where things you haven't obtained during normal gameplay, magically appear from the outside, as an any% category?
If it's intended to magically appear from the outside, yes.
Do you think a lot of people would agree with you on this?
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.
I have a more concrete point.
If magically obtaining a monster from an external source is any% for this game, then what are we supposed to do with all the gameplay where you have to raise/train/improve/breed your monster? What is it even there for? Is it not any% anymore? Is it primary any% versus secondary any%?
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.
But are external CDs required to be able to beat the game?
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.
Required, No. But they are intended/expected to be used as a resource to beat the game.
It's kind of like Generation 1 pokemon games. Through normal gameplay (not using glitches) it's impossible to catch all the pokemon without trading with another player via a link cable attached to another gameboy (an outside source of data). Doing so isn't necessary to beat the game, but it can be used as a resource to yield different/stronger pokemon that may allow for beating the game faster than playing through without trading. (yes I realize the presence of glitches makes this moot for pokemon games specifically, but the concept of the outside resource is sound.)
DrD2k9, in this post I brought up why I consider obtaining monsters with this feature to result in a non-Vaultable movie; I'd like to hear opinions and thoughts about it.
Since it's in the previous thread page, allow me to copy-paste:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
The usage of arbitrary images introduces the same problem of secret passwords, codes, and input sequences: these rely on a knowledge external to the game and its official manual, and thus giving an unfair advantage to the player. So a movie that makes use of an arbitrary image should be allowed only if it introduces gameplay that results enough different from the Vaultable branches, as well as meeting the entertainment requirements of Moons tier.
Below I show the relative text in the Movie Rules page (bold mine):
We allow playing unlockable content using in-game passwords
Using in-game codes[1] or passwords at the start of a game is allowed if it makes the game harder or if it makes cosmetic changes to the game, as long as parts of the game are not skipped.
Using in-game codes or passwords at the start of a game to unlock a special game mode, character, level sets, or otherwise play the game in some unusual way is allowed. However movies of this nature are not considered to be one of the primary branches for the game.
Please tell me if you agree with my interpretation.
Then it's not any%. My point all along is that you can't disagree that those external CDs are still not parts of the actual software we're playing. Launching the game does not magically spawn CDs in your room. It's theoretically possible to program generating an extra image, if CD recording is a thing when the game is being released, but it is still fundamentally separate from the game we're playing.
If you play Super Metroid, you make decisions on which items you want to pick, and they fundamentally belong to the game. You are able to access them after simply launching it and playing through a bit. They are valid for any%.
Damn, even SRAM usage itself is allowed, as long as you generate SRAM by playing through the game you've launched from scratch. You start the game with clear SRAM, you write to it at some point - you can load it. And it's still any%.
But when you use SRAM that was obtained outside of your main movie, for example, it comes from a movie that you've stopped an hour ago, then it's not any%.
You need to understand the principle here: starting a new movie from SRAM is intended and encouraged. But it's not vaultable, because this SRAM is external to your movie. The thing with external CDs is identical: they can not be a part of your movie, therefore they aren't vaultable.
DrD2k9 wrote:
It's kind of like Generation 1 pokemon games. Through normal gameplay (not using glitches) it's impossible to catch all the pokemon without trading with another player via a link cable attached to another gameboy (an outside source of data). Doing so isn't necessary to beat the game, but it can be used as a resource to yield different/stronger pokemon that may allow for beating the game faster than playing through without trading. (yes I realize the presence of glitches makes this moot for pokemon games specifically, but the concept of the outside resource is sound.)
You said it yourself. Catching them all is not any% for pokemon games, it's full completion.
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.
We allow playing unlockable content using in-game passwords
Using in-game codes[1] or passwords at the start of a game is allowed if it makes the game harder or if it makes cosmetic changes to the game, as long as parts of the game are not skipped.
Using in-game codes or passwords at the start of a game to unlock a special game mode, character, level sets, or otherwise play the game in some unusual way is allowed. However movies of this nature are not considered to be one of the primary branches for the game.
This is indeed the key to this whole conversation. See the explanation of what tasvideos means by in-game codes:
When we speak about codes that are part of a game that we allow for use in certain scenarios, we are talking about passwords that can be entered in a menu, pressing some buttons on the title screen, passing execution parameters or setting environment variables for DOS games, or anything of a similar nature. This excludes things like Game Genie codes or emulator cheating tools.
It is very clear that for Monstar Rancher 2, a feature that allows you to unlock hidden monsters is exactly of this nature as well, so it falls under all the limitations as these codes do.
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.
DrD2k9, in this post I brought up why I consider obtaining monsters with this feature to result in a non-Vaultable movie; I'd like to hear opinions and thoughts about it.
Since it's in the previous thread page, allow me to copy-paste:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
The usage of arbitrary images introduces the same problem of secret passwords, codes, and input sequences: these rely on a knowledge external to the game and its official manual, and thus giving an unfair advantage to the player. So a movie that makes use of an arbitrary image should be allowed only if it introduces gameplay that results enough different from the Vaultable branches, as well as meeting the entertainment requirements of Moons tier.
Below I show the relative text in the Movie Rules page (bold mine):
We allow playing unlockable content using in-game passwords
Using in-game codes[1] or passwords at the start of a game is allowed if it makes the game harder or if it makes cosmetic changes to the game, as long as parts of the game are not skipped.
Using in-game codes or passwords at the start of a game to unlock a special game mode, character, level sets, or otherwise play the game in some unusual way is allowed. However movies of this nature are not considered to be one of the primary branches for the game.
Please tell me if you agree with my interpretation.
Putting a different CD into the PSX is not relying on knowledge external to the game, just data external to the game.
A player who inputs a code must know the specific code before inputting it to yield it's result (and it can be generally assumed that the player knows what that result will be before using the code).
A player sticking a different CD into the PSX doesn't have to have a specific CD nor does the player need to know the result of the CD used to continue with the game.
Further, the use of the CD is intended as part of normal play, not play enhanced/altered by a secret code/input sequence. I generally look at codes/passwords/etc. as things that either intentionally make the game easier/harder. The CD swap with the MR games is not a guaranteed result of easier or harder (it could in fact yield a neutral result).
The fact that someone at some point in history figured out how the game uses the other CD's data (which then allows us to pre-define that CD) doesn't change the fact that the game is still using the information as if it's a normal unenhanced playthrough.
The CD swap is a 'luck' situation. Getting the best possible monster from the swap is like getting lucky in picking the right disc when playing on actual hardware. We just manipulate the luck to yield the best outcome.
Putting a different CD into the PSX is not relying on knowledge external to the game, just data external to the game.
Data is information, knowledge is acknowledged information, any knowledge is data. If you insert an image external to the game, you get the knowledge that you haven't got from the actual game. This knowledge is already contained in a potential form in this external image. You game did not have it either. It will learn this external knowledge if you insert such an image. So yes, putting a different CD is relying on external knowledge.
DrD2k9 wrote:
A player who inputs a code must know the specific code before inputting it to yield it's result (and it can be generally assumed that the player knows what that result will be before using the code).
A player sticking a different CD into the PSX doesn't have to have a specific CD nor does the player need to know the result of the CD used to continue with the game.
They still have to have a CD to insert. They may not have one.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Further, the use of the CD is intended as part of normal play, not play enhanced/altered by a secret code/input sequence.
First, the very "normal" is moot for this game. We're having this argument exactly because it's moot. Second, you spawn secret monsters using this method, you unlock secret content, and this is covered by the rules as unvaultable.
DrD2k9 wrote:
I generally look at codes/passwords/etc. as things that either intentionally make the game easier/harder. The CD swap with the MR games is not a guaranteed result of easier or harder (it could in fact yield a neutral result).
Obviously obtaining a more advanced monster makes it easier, compared to sating from scratch.
The fact that someone at some point in history figured out how the game uses the other CD's data (which then allows us to pre-define that CD) doesn't change the fact that the game is still using the information as if it's a normal unenhanced playthrough.
The CD swap is a 'luck' situation. Getting the best possible monster from the swap is like getting lucky in picking the right disc when playing on actual hardware. We just manipulate the luck to yield the best outcome.[/quote]
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.
You said it yourself. Catching them all is not any% for pokemon games, it's full completion.
But trading can still be done to get better/different monsters that would otherwise be unobtainable in a run not using the link. If the goal is to beat the game fastest and it can be done by trading for a specific pokemon, that's the best method regardless of how many pokemon are caught otherwise.
I know some games have features can make results trading to other devices, but not possible do at this time because emulators don't support (but who know in future). Example FF8, YugiOh can trading items to PocketStation, example list is here https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/PocketStation
I think just need target to the point this feature (get results from other things) really is a cheat or not
I have some issues with feos' major points, but I don't have a perfect solution to provide either.
One of the biggest points of contention is the presence of a secondary image. Precedent declines opportunity to use non-game images for program integrity purposes, as feos has stated. This is fair, but comes from the angle of not disrupting execution flow in an otherwise contiguous program spread across multiple media.
The case here is different in that the primary media bus is instead used as a peripheral to collect other data. In that context, I don't view it any different from controller input. The core program reaches for external input, and a typical user has a means to provide that input using standard system hardware. Core game program code is not interrupted. The functional difference between the input data provided from the image and the data provided from a controller is the fact that movie files are not currently built to support disc bus data input (and for typical cases, should never need to). This is different yet from SRAM because it and other long-term memory mechanisms build state directly through gameplay, although their natural state is blank.
As far as the disc images go, we know that the core information needed for this game (and likely just about any game to use a similar system, due to memory restrictions) is the TOC. The TOC can be stripped out from any disc image, be it commercial or homegrown, and used to re-create an equivalent input set for the game. This means that even when sourcing from arbitrary full images, you can reduce the data needed for the submission to just the disc layout information. This doesn't invite any legal problems (since no copyrighted or objectionable content is present) and provides a consistent way to generate an equivalent supporting input set for a movie. It shouldn't introduce physical factors that can't be properly emulated/simulated.
On the topic of taking input from other peripherals as being "extra" content for the purposes defining primary branches, I don't know think it's sustainable to prohibit unusual/peripheral input sources from contributing. It's fine as a policy choice to say that vaultable movies should only be composed of controller input information, but over time I think there will be more cases that push against that restriction and will be unfairly inhibited. Several have been mentioned in the thread already, across a variety of platforms. Monster Rancher 2 is kind enough to allow for playing even without using the disc generation feature, but there are likely other games that cannot be completed without exercising their special input functionality. Rules clarity is certainly important, but I think there should be an agreeable way to make allowance for these unusual input types without granting new capability to existing branches of typical games.
There are other arguments that can be made as to whether using data from these other input methods constitutes accessing hidden content versus expected standard use, but it's much harder to be objective on that topic, so I'll pass on it for now.
As far as "most optimal disc" is concerned, it's not possible to assert that a given input set is broadly optimal. After all, if it's viewed as input, it's no different from questioning movement optimization or otherwise. A TASer can support that their chosen disc was the most optimal available for their selected strategy through a variety of reverse engineering and testing efforts, and I feel it is reasonable to expect a player to be able to back up their choice. Trying to set up a precedent where only one or a small, curated subset of supplemental input sets is not a reasonable solution.
Finally, I just want to say that if the criteria listed at the end of feos' longpost are taken up as official policy, then it is unlikely any disc-based Monster Rancher game will ever be acceptable on the site. The game, while interesting to optimize, does not allow enough expressive freedom or content diversity to meet Moon entertainment requirements. If that's the way that it has to be, then so be it, but it effectively kills off an otherwise reasonable game choice from competitive consideration.
I think the rule I mentioned after that post resolved quite a few of your concerns. Look at it this way:
There is a feature to unlock a new monster not present from the start. The game does not tell you what you need to use exactly for some known outcome. It encourages you to experiment. Yet without unlocking anything, you can still complete the game.
The site rules do not care what this feature is technically, as long as it functionally does the above. It might have been a password generator that would pseudo-randomly spawn you new monsters, with the game asking to test words of the English language against it. It might have been a button combination used as a randomness seed. It might have bean leftover RAM that remains from previously used game, and isn't initialized by the game in question. The options are endless, the functionality is the same: external data not known from normal gameplay is used to unlock new monsters.
If instead it was something required to even complete the game, we'd have to make an exception yet again, even if unlocking is the only way to complete it. But thankfully, this isn't the case, and I honestly don't know if it will ever be.
As for optimality, as long as the image suits one's goals, it doesn't have to be unimprovable in that regard. It should only be hard to improve, which means due effort should be invested into optimizing it. But human nature means there will always be room for further improvements.
Omnigamer wrote:
Finally, I just want to say that if the criteria listed at the end of feos' longpost are taken up as official policy, then it is unlikely any disc-based Monster Rancher game will ever be acceptable on the site. The game, while interesting to optimize, does not allow enough expressive freedom or content diversity to meet Moon entertainment requirements. If that's the way that it has to be, then so be it, but it effectively kills off an otherwise reasonable game choice from competitive consideration.
Do you mean obtaining monsters from external discs is required to complete the game after all? If not, avoiding external images is vaultable.
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.
I disagree that the rule applies here because it specifically denotes playing the game in an unusual way. Using discs or otherwise is in fact the usual way of playing the game. Not using discs and otherwise would, for purposes of casual play and developer intent, be unusual. This gets into the grayer area that I mentioned though, and a lot of it is tied to experience. I played this game a fair bit when I was growing up, and all I can say is that playing the game without the ability to use discs feels wrong. It may as well not be the same game at that point, since it so drastically limits your options. From a TASing/speedrunning perspective, it also takes away a huge chunk of the routing challenge. Those are not objective things that can be part of any set of rules, but in this case do matter a lot for the competitiveness of the game down the road.
For your specific question, the game can be completed from scratch without needing any external images. There is a Market you can go to that will have a selection of 3 pure monsters, 2 of fixed type and one that changes with the season. Their stats are also fixed. Pure refers to their breed and sub-breed being the same. You can use one of such monsters to complete the game. However, for the reasons stated in the prior paragraph, this is not nearly as interesting of a problem to solve, nor does it reflect how a typical player would experience the game. It may not make a difference in trying to keep rules consistent, but in my opinion makes any disc-less submissions far less interesting/entertaining to perform or watch.
...but in my opinion makes any disc-less submissions far less interesting/entertaining to perform or watch.
As much as I like your concept of the extra CD being simply another form of input similar to controller input...this particular statement unfortunately does nothing to support allowing the extra CDs for vault runs, because the vault doesn't care about entertainment.
Sure it doesn't, but that doesn't stop me from feeling that way :)
I know it doesn't have any impact on a ruling, but it is discouraging to me as a player if I am forced to play a neutered version of the game due to differing interpretations of the rules.
Joined: 3/31/2010
Posts: 1466
Location: Not playing Puyo Tetris
To me, the external (non-game) Disc(s) are a function and extension of the game itself. The game promotes the idea of swapping in another Disc to get another monster of some kind. That's what made this game stand out from say, Pokémon or Digimon. You used an external (non-game) Disc to the game's Disc to get something in game.
Not allowing external Discs feels like an arbitrarly restriction on any Speedrun/TAS of this series.
Part of the fun of the game, is to see what you can generate using discs. Seeing what interesting and new monsters you can end up with.
So long as the disc image with the required data is attached, I see no issues with it being required for a Run.
When TAS does Quake 1, SDA will declare war.
The Prince doth arrive he doth please.
Not allowing arbitrary Discs feels like an arbitrary restriction
Fixed this for you. I think the internal contradiction is obvious here.
Omnigamer wrote:
I disagree that the rule applies here because it specifically denotes playing the game in an unusual way. Using discs or otherwise is in fact the usual way of playing the game. Not using discs and otherwise would, for purposes of casual play and developer intent, be unusual.
It may be usual for this game, but this whole concept is still unusual compared to all the other games, and I think you will agree with me here.
Omnigamer wrote:
This gets into the grayer area that I mentioned though, and a lot of it is tied to experience. I played this game a fair bit when I was growing up, and all I can say is that playing the game without the ability to use discs feels wrong.
We care about feelings, and we want our audience to experience the best feelings. This is what we have Moons and Stars for. But in Vault, feelings are subjective, so we can't rely on them.
Omnigamer wrote:
It may as well not be the same game at that point, since it so drastically limits your options. From a TASing/speedrunning perspective, it also takes away a huge chunk of the routing challenge. Those are not objective things that can be part of any set of rules, but in this case do matter a lot for the competitiveness of the game down the road.
I call this TASability. I argued that some educational games may have TASability, therefore they should be accepted to Vault. But yet again, TASability is a potential matter, it can only be proven to be there once someone invents ways to showcase it. And for cases when TAS qualities of a game are showcased, we have Moons and Stars! Here's the decision that explains this concept in more details.
Omnigamer wrote:
However, for the reasons stated in the prior paragraph, this is not nearly as interesting of a problem to solve, nor does it reflect how a typical player would experience the game. It may not make a difference in trying to keep rules consistent, but in my opinion makes any disc-less submissions far less interesting/entertaining to perform or watch.
Exactly! You want it to become vaultable because it'd be entertaining and interesting to make and to watch. But it's not proven to be entertaining yet. The whole problem is the same as with Math Blaster. People want it to be vaultable because they care so much, yet no one cared enough to actually enjoy the movie in question!
Movies like this one can't be vaulted not because we have some unfortunate rule that we just have to obey, but because the whole nature of the Vault tier is to accept boring movies if their gameplay can be clearly, objectively speedrun. When a game entirely depends on arbitrary external data, having it in Vault defeats the purpose of the tier.
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.
For the purpose of that rule, I think the usual/unusual specification can only be scoped to the game in question. If it's scoped to gaming as a whole, "unusual" is too broad to effectively classify. MR2 may use an unusual method of gathering input compared to other games on the platform, but that would also extend to any game that requires unique controller/peripheral data handling. If the difference is that other games happen to support the data natively over the controller bus, that's a limitation of the tools, not a fault of the game. It doesn't seem like an enforceable distinction when scoped outside of the gameplay of the game alone.
I also disagree with the continued focus on "arbitrary" when applied to discs being a factor; the data pulled from the discs is no more arbitrary than the set of controller inputs. The data gathered from any given image is small, can be generated/simulated, and leads to a finite and fully handled set of outcomes in the game. This is not a case of hijacking a peripheral IO port and injecting program-altering instructions. It is loading data from a fixed medium using intended and expected game functionality. The data that's loaded in this manner is limited and fair, but currently not included as part of a movie file. I don't see why including this information as part of a submission makes it not objective when everybody has the same ability to craft and introduce data. Concerns for legal and content safeguards were addressed in a prior post, and I think a reasonable rule can cover those aspects.
I don't know the full history of your interactions with educational games and past rulings, so I will decline to comment on that.
You bring up Moons and Stars, but in your personal estimation, how far is this current submission from meeting Moons criteria? I don't know the future, and other individuals are far more creative than I can envision, but I personally doubt a movie for this game could be significantly more entertaining than what has been shown by NK. I don't think such a movie will ever meet the bar for Moons just by virtue of how the game progresses and the limited options available to a player.
For the purpose of that rule, I think the usual/unusual specification can only be scoped to the game in question. If it's scoped to gaming as a whole, "unusual" is too broad to effectively classify. MR2 may use an unusual method of gathering input compared to other games on the platform, but that would also extend to any game that requires unique controller/peripheral data handling. If the difference is that other games happen to support the data natively over the controller bus, that's a limitation of the tools, not a fault of the game. It doesn't seem like an enforceable distinction when scoped outside of the gameplay of the game alone.
The game image is not input. Input is not the game image. Using the hardware parts that connect us with the game image, as a source of user input, is objectively not usual. Not giving the user direct control over the outcome is even less usual. This way to obtain user input is unpredictable for a regular user. And this approach is overall moot when it comes to classifications. Moot scenarios are not for Vault.
Another important point is that the rule already lists exactly our case ("unlock a special character"), and only then generalizes ("or otherwise play the game in some unusual way") for cases that are similar in nature, but different in the details. There's no point in speculating about usuality when it's already namely covered.
Omnigamer wrote:
I also disagree with the continued focus on "arbitrary" when applied to discs being a factor; the data pulled from the discs is no more arbitrary than the set of controller inputs. The data gathered from any given image is small, can be generated/simulated, and leads to a finite and fully handled set of outcomes in the game. This is not a case of hijacking a peripheral IO port and injecting program-altering instructions. It is loading data from a fixed medium using intended and expected game functionality. The data that's loaded in this manner is limited and fair, but currently not included as part of a movie file. I don't see why including this information as part of a submission makes it not objective when everybody has the same ability to craft and introduce data.
This is only true for this particular game. When setting precedents, we should foresee possible ways to shoot ourselves in the foot that may be discovered if we don't account for enough aspects. If we allow this for this game, tomorrow someone finds a game that uses arbitrary CDs in infinitely more cryptic (creative) ways, and it'd be impossible to simulate having them for real. And it's impossible to build a rule around real world possibilities you have literally no control over. "Arbitrary" means that it might as well be absolutely anything else, and we won't be able to draw an objective borderline.
Omnigamer wrote:
I don't know the full history of your interactions with educational games and past rulings, so I will decline to comment on that.
Knowing history is in no way required. I linked you directly to the judgment decision that explains what problems Vault has with unclear cases.
Omnigamer wrote:
You bring up Moons and Stars, but in your personal estimation, how far is this current submission from meeting Moons criteria? I don't know the future, and other individuals are far more creative than I can envision, but I personally doubt a movie for this game could be significantly more entertaining than what has been shown by NK. I don't think such a movie will ever meet the bar for Moons just by virtue of how the game progresses and the limited options available to a player.
Again, exactly! We can't know how entertaining this is able to be until someone tries, but we can't guarantee that it ends up being entertaining, and if it may end up being not entertaining at all, why exactly do you bring up the TAS qualities of this game? Vault is not about TAS qualities, it's about objective and simple speed records.
The very fact that we're having this argument means this case is not usual, it is not clear, and it doesn't rely on anything objective.
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.
