The thing is, it's a Vault rule, and for Vault we need clear cuts. Intentionality adds subjectivity to the equation, and we have to be determining what some person had in mind while doing something (mindreading). We don't have this rule for Moons, and we encourage creativity there. But once the result is not entertaining, we look at internal nature of the software. I would argue that "proper game" is meant to say that the software should be a game, or an actual game. It's not like the word "proper" changes the internal nature of the object. If it's not a game in its nature, it's not a game. Another way to look t is: being a game is not enough to get to Vault, we have certain requirements, and we have a certain definition for a proper game in relation to Vault. Yet again, something that's not even a game in itself can't be a proper game either. Unless the movie is entertaining enough for Moons.

The fact that you can make a game out of something does not make the original thing a game. If something were to be rejected for not being a game, that is what we mean.

What is still unclear about what I've written?

For me, it's why you're writing it in the first place. I'm not sure what you're aiming for, here. The site already more or less operates in the way you're describing: Keep in mind we've published sports games in this same way, long before the rules for them were established and refined, allowing them to be published. If someone managed to find a way to create that same level of art out of the SNES Test Program, there could be a place for it on the site in the same way, but as of right now that's impossible given the incredibly tight constraints of what's being presented. I'm worried that you're arguing that anything could be published, even if it falls outside the realm of emulation or even pre-established games entirely. That sounds like a really dangerous precedent to set. There has to be some level of restriction. Even if it realistically could never become a problem due to the site's quality control standards, restriction helps keep things in check when we need to figure other things out. Hypothetical: If someone were to, say, submit a TAS that just makes a game in Game Maker, what would that be to you? It is quite literally making a game, but is it really making a game? Is the process of making a game a game in and of itself? How would that be obsoleted? Would it be writing the exact same code, but faster? What if the code is optimized in such a way that the actual base game appears unchanged? Would a brand new game be a new category? Is the entertainment value derived from the quality of the finished game, or the process of making it? That's why restriction ends up being important. We have... Honestly, probably upwards of a hundred thousand or more potentially publishable runs with our current ruleset, which is still being adapted and tweaked. I don't think we need to expand the field in the way you're implying for a very, very long time. --------------- On a different note: In terms of speedrunning the SNES Test Program, which is not a way I ever expected to start a sentence, I've been thinking that there are a number of other problems with that concept as a whole. 1. As it stands, only two of the six options have any actual "gameplay" in them: Controller Test and Accessories Test. Everything else is a glorified cutscene, meaning there's no real need to even include them in the TAS in the first place. Electronics Test at least has a pass/fail condition, so at the very least someone could argue for its inclusion as a gameplay element, but I personally wouldn't since the means of passing/failing it is entirely outside of your control. 2. The only really entertaining thing about the SNES Test Program is the novelty that people are speedrunning it. It's clearly Vault, which means any run has to be either any% or 100%. This run in particular can't be considered an any% run due to the fact that it actively goes to the "unnecessary" options, but it also can't be considered a 100% run because it doesn't actually do anything in Accessories Test (i.e, skipping content). On top of that, as far as I can tell in BizHawk, the Mouse doesn't fully work in the second port, which the program requires, leading to the first test immediately failing and the third test seemingly impossible to interact with. The SuperScope tests also require it to be plugged into the second port, which CTDs BizHawk (at least with this game and BSNES core, not sure if it works elsewhere), so there doesn't actually seem to be a way to 100% the program on BizHawk. I'd try lsnes, but that would require effort. 3. User movie #65227914692814936 This completes the two gameplay elements that are possible on BizHawk (Controller Test and Accessories Test > Mouse Test > Button Test) as fast as possible, without wasting time with the "cutscenes" that are the other tests. Would this be a valid any% run? I'd still argue no, because there isn't a valid endpoint to the test program other than Genesis Denesis What Nintendenesis your SNES works, and does not in fact Nintendon't. In the same way you wouldn't do any unnecessary gameplay in order to reach a desired result (i.e, no need to watch a cutscene to figure out where to go next if you already know where to go), there's no reason to actually do anything in the run, because the desired result is technically achieved from power-on. Hell, in terms of BizHawk, the desired result is completely consistent even if BizHawk isn't open: An emulator is going to behave the exact same way for everyone, barring changes to the code or the core, in which case it's just going to behave in the exact same, but slightly better way for everyone. ...In short, the SNES Test Program is thoroughly unpublishable in every way, as far as I'm concerned. Thank you for coming to my TEST Talk.

Hypothetical: If someone were to, say, submit a TAS that just makes a game in Game Maker, what would that be to you? It is quite literally making a game, but is it really making a game? Is the process of making a game a game in and of itself? How would that be obsoleted? Would it be writing the exact same code, but faster? What if the code is optimized in such a way that the actual base game appears unchanged? Would a brand new game be a new category? Is the entertainment value derived from the quality of the finished game, or the process of making it?

#4874: dwangoAC's TI83 Snake in 20:36.88 #6498: TiKevin83's TI83 Daleks in 02:44.07 Regarding this non-game, indeed there's no ending point, no goal to aim for. We don't have problems with games that have no ending, we just demand that all unique gameplay is completed, and the highest difficulty is completed. SNES Test Program doesn't have increasing difficulty. It has no difficulty in its "gameplay" whatsoever. For games that consist of optional levels, but still have no ending, we require that all levels are completed. But in SNES Test Program's levels, there's nothing to complete, no indication of achievement, no goal and no challenge. Subjectively thinking of this software as a game does not turn it into a game. Otherwise simply running some programs in Linux would also be a game. #6699: Masterjun's Linux Linux "Linux" in 04:22.05 Post #493813

Does Microsoft Word count as a game if you could find ACE in it?

Not sure about ACE, but there are legitimately a number of games within past versions of Microsoft Word (and certain other Microsoft Office products). Some were demonstrations to show off the macro language, whereas others were hidden Easter Eggs. I can easily imagine someone making a TAS of one of those if Windows TASing becomes more advanced (although, IIRC, many of them didn't have victory conditions).

feos and I agree on the wording of this statement: "The submitted movie does use SNES Test Program as a resource to play an uninteresting type of 'game,' but TASVideos focuses on 'published video games,' and SNES Test Program is not a published video game." My concern had been language use, not really site policy. Thanks.

om, nom, nom... crunchy!