Joined: 9/12/2014
Posts: 536
Location: Waterford, MI
I recall there used to be a page for bad game choices(it was more category based than name based), and it seems gone now. Although some of it was debatable, like driving tases not standing out from RTA, I think a name based list would be more clear and fair.
I can't think of anything off my top of head right now, so does anyone have any examples?
Bad choices to me are usually just games that makes no sense to speedrun.
Like most educational games I dont count as games but those have some very rare exceptions. Ive had 2 tases of Mario’s Time Machine rejected. The SNES one definitely shows why these kinds of games aren’t acceptable, and the NES one is borderline unacceptable since it has elements of platforming but ultimately still suffers from just fast answeing of questions and stuff.
[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
I recall there used to be a page for bad game choices(it was more category based than name based), and it seems gone now. Although some of it was debatable, like driving tases not standing out from RTA, I think a name based list would be more clear and fair.
NES Overlord. Even Vault rejects it. Its aim is fastest completion, but the triviality rule came into effect. I do not object, with the only question against triviality being the short piece at the very end.
Anyone here with the patience to dig through rejected submissions for their reasons of rejection?
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: 1/24/2018
Posts: 251
Location: Stafford, NY
A name-based list would only make sense if a judge has ruled on a submission that "it doesn't seem an acceptable TAS could ever be made for this game". And it misses the point of what the list would be most useful for - a guide to help potential TASers pick a game to make a submission out of. Remember the cardinal rule of what a good submission is:
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial.
Certain categories of game are just not likely to produce something that could fulfill that requirement - trying to list all games in those categories would be a lot of unnecessary work. Just giving out a category and a few examples in each category ought to be good enough for a competent submitter to figure out whether it is a good idea to pick a certain game or not.
c-square wrote:
Yes, standard runs are needed and very appreciated here too
Dylon Stejakoski wrote:
Me and the boys starting over our games of choice for the infinityieth time in a row because of just-found optimizations
^ Why I don't have any submissions despite being on the forums for years now...
Remember the cardinal rule of what a good submission is:
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial.
My question that I would still like to ask in relation to that is: Why?
To this day I cannot understand why we need such a silly rule. For what reason? If the run is otherwise within the rules and requirements of tasvideos, why should it be rejected because it doesn't "stand out from non-assisted play"?
If nothing else, seeing how close the unassisted run is to the tool-assisted run is interesting. It may either show the absolutely incredible skill of real-time speedrunners, or if nothing else, it tells something about the game itself. Making a comparison between unassisted and tool-assisted runs can be interesting information.
And who exactly decides what is and is not "standing out from non-assisted play" enough?
The current unassisted world record of Super Mario Bros is 4:55.75, while the TAS (using the same timing system) is 4:54.03. These times are within 0.6% of each other. The contents of the runs is very, very similar. Who exactly has declared that 0.6% difference in time "stands out" enough to warrant publication and does not breach that rule, and why?
It seems to me that the rule is being applied a bit arbitrarily, and things like the game's notoriety (and fame among the speedrunning community) are affecting that decision.
In my opinion we don't need that rule at all. Even if the TAS is 100% identical to the unassisted run, it still warrants publication. If for nothing else, because that's an interesting thing to know.
