Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
We might (?) want to have a "one game per platfrom rule", meaning that (e.g.) any Chess run on Windows can obsolete any other Chess run on Windows, even if it's a different chess by a different publisher. I'm not saying this is necessary, but it alleviates the "thousands of variants" issue.
I used to tie this to how much the in-game rules resemble the real-world game we're simulating. If there's a chess game that has some non-chess rules, we wouldn't want to make it obsoletable by pure chess runs. But even then we need to ask ourselves a fundamental question: what exactly is catastrophic about accepting all variants, unless it's just a revision of the same 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.
We might (?) want to have a "one game per platfrom rule", meaning that (e.g.) any Chess run on Windows can obsolete any other Chess run on Windows, even if it's a different chess by a different publisher. I'm not saying this is necessary, but it alleviates the "thousands of variants" issue.
This reminds me of the one case where the second game in the Puyo Puyo series was made to obsolete the first one because they have near identical game play, a decision that was undone earlier this year.
One thing I found funny is that despite the arguments over this topic, the site seems to not mind about having all these variations or clones of a certain Soviet puzzle game Tetris over years. :P
- How do we define an ending?
Similarly to how we define it in other games: if the game has an ending, voila; and if it doesn't, we end on completion of last unique gameplay (or hardest loop, or highest score, or kill screen).
Are there even any board games that don't have an ending?
On the topic of chess variants, there are a good number with non-standard rules. This guy has a list. IDK of any video games that implement those (not that I've searched extensively), but it might be interesting to see some type of ACE setup that converts standard chess to one of the others.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
[11:34:56] <TASVideoAgent> Page MovieRules edited by feos (we finally agreed to unban board games from standard!) https://tasvideos.org/MovieRules
[11:35:15] <TASVideoAgent> Page MovieRules/History edited by feos (we finally agreed to unban board games from standard!) https://tasvideos.org/MovieRules/History
DrD2k9 wrote:
The one caveat i would add regarding potentially accepting board games, is that competitive board games should require at least one computer/ai opponent to be acceptable in Standard.
TASes of competitive board games that only use "human" players should need to meet community consensus for acceptance to Moons/Alternatives. Otherwise Playground could be considered as a possible landing spot before outright rejection.
It's the same situation as with fighting games, where it doesn't make sense to control both players and call the result game completion. But I don't know if it requires an explicit rule, or how to word it. It doesn't look like something that used to confuse people over the years...
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.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2821
Location: Northern California
feos wrote:
It's the same situation as with fighting games, where it doesn't make sense to control both players and call the result game completion. But I don't know if it requires an explicit rule, or how to word it. It doesn't look like something that used to confuse people over the years...
I don't think we need an explicit rule for it. Versus modes tend to always be separate, single match affairs, not generally suitable for publication outside of playarounds, so I think it's already fairly obvious to submitters that they shouldn't be TASing competitive multiplayer from both sides for speed on any game that allows it.
Also, now that we have board games acceptable, we gotta start taking steps to banish triviality rules outright so we can start allowing other kinds of games.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I asked other judges and we all agreed that it doesn't make sense anymore to limit player count branches by the speed/entertainment dichotomy. For games that allow to control more than one character at once, I think it's obvious to everyone that it's standard to feature those goals separately. We used to only allow one that's faster, then we used to allow another if it's entertaining, but we moved away from those approaches to featuring what people are interested in TASing. Good for everyone since speed is not sacrificed and entertainment is not sacrificed: they still exist in separate branches.
So we decided to allow 3 branches based on player count in Standard:
Fewest players
Most players
Some other amount if it's faster
This basically repeats the deal with low%/100%/any% (barring the minor detail that low% is not a Standard goal yet (it will be at some point)).
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.
Cheat codes and passwords are only allowed to access harder difficulties and/or bonus content, including cosmetic improvements.
Arcade continues are considered cheats.
Recently, games have included what in called in Celeste an "Assist Mode". It is extra options that change some game parameters (invulnerability, game speed, etc.) aimed at making the game accessible to more people. I think this should be considered a cheat. Optimal runs with assist mode would often result in more trivial gameplay. As opposed to debug mode, assist mode is immediately accessible from menu, and is sometimes not even distinguishable from other options (see Disc Room in-game options and here), so I don't know if it's already covered.
Cheat codes and passwords are only allowed to access harder difficulties and/or bonus content, including cosmetic improvements.
Arcade continues are considered cheats.
Recently, games have included what in called in Celeste an "Assist Mode". It is extra options that change some game parameters (invulnerability, game speed, etc.) aimed at making the game accessible to more people. I think this should be considered a cheat. Optimal runs with assist mode would often result in more trivial gameplay. As opposed to debug mode, assist mode is immediately accessible from menu, and is sometimes not even distinguishable from other options (see Disc Room in-game options and here), so I don't know if it's already covered.
Mmm interresting, but as you describe it and if this is only not accessible with a password or a cheat (this can be discussed later if so) but just setting a visible option made by devs, I see no point not allowing it but allowing it as another game mode in a different branch. The fact that the gameplay will often be more trivial is not a problem as the non-trivial requirement has been smacked out completely.
Seeing your pictures tho, I don't think we already discussed about multiple options that can change drasticaly how the game is played. I'm sure this will come at one point and your thoughts will come up in the discussion.
I'd think those options would fall under the difficulty-choice rule, no? I don't know how that one is phrased, and now I can't even find it at all in the movie rules, but I think the general idea was that normal difficulty is always acceptable, harder difficulty if it is more interesting, and easier difficulty not really at all, but I'm not sure on the last part and that's the relevant bit here.
I did some digging and I found the page that I believe used to advise on difficulty choice (it seems to have been culled in the rewrite): https://tasvideos.org/Guidelines/Legacy#SelectYourDifficultyWell
Worth noting that these old guidelines do say that easy is acceptable and even recommended in certain instances, and do not ban it. I definitely don't think Assist Mode runs should be disallowed, but it does differ from traditional easy modes in a few ways. I'm inclined to agree with the idea of it being treated as a separate branch.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
It sounds like Assist Mode is just a difficulty setting in those games where it's available in the menu. Unless it has unique content (levels, items, enemies), it will compete with the regular mode if aiming for the same Standard goals. The only guideline on selecting difficulty is that it should make sense. Otherwise it's up to the author.
And we can't consider something available in the game menu a cheat, because we don't rely on whether something is considered a cheat or not. In-game codes are allowed as a separate Standard goal, if they add gameplay. And they are allowed in Alternative if they result in an entertaining movie. Cheat or not.
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 movie must be complete
Your submission must beat the game, or reach the most suitable endpoint the game allows. Single-level or otherwise incomplete movies are not allowed. Examples of suitable endpoints are:
A definitive ending, such as a credits sequence.
A kill screen, assuming it is impossible to complete even when TASed.
If there's no clear ending, end after all unique content (enemies, level layouts, game mechanics, etc.) is exhausted.
Alternately, after completing all unique content, you may end when the in-game difficulty (enemy speed, AI, etc.) stops increasing.
Alternately, in games with a score counter, you may end when you reach the maximum score the game allows.
I've been wondering if a rejection should still happen if a movie only completes one loop. Will that help us get a more complete movie anytime soon, if ever? What about accepting one loop and then as usual obsoleting it with a more complete version if somebody makes it later?
Example: #5994: klmz's NES Circus Charlie in 03:21.35
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
feos wrote:
I've been wondering if a rejection should still happen if a movie only completes one loop. Will that help us get a more complete movie anytime soon, if ever? What about accepting one loop and then as usual obsoleting it with a more complete version if somebody makes it later?
Example: #5994: klmz's NES Circus Charlie in 03:21.35
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.
Joined: 2/26/2020
Posts: 44
Location: Super Bell Hill
moozooh wrote:
Speaking of, do we mandate 1CC? The Movie Rules page is worded rather ambiguously.
I'd vote for single-coin-only because coins are pay-to-win both technically and in spirit.
That is a rule question that I have not just for this contest. It is not like a TAS would require continues in order to complete a game. The rule however prevents the possibility of taking intentional deaths to save time, holding TASes of this category out of standard goal. Does 2 player arcade even also counts as more than 1 credit? If they are separate branches, I can also see the possibility of adding in players at a specific moment to save completion time.
Right now, only in-game codes that add content (generally) are allowed. I don't think arcade continues ever add content because they just "continue" where you left off so that rule statement just automatically implies arcade continues are disallowed. As arcade continues and in-game codes are different concepts in video games, arcade continues should not be restricted under the rules of in-game codes.
I would like to compare the arcade coin continue with amiibo for the 3DS, Wii U and Switch systems in TASing. Even though they are considered pay-to-win materials and unfair in real time speedruns, as not everyone has them, they are also just a form of input. It is the nature of the unmodified game's code to respond to these types of input, and is fair game for a TAS.
There is a published TAS that uses a continue: [5467] Arcade SegaSonic the Hedgehog by Tuffcracker & rodonic01 in 10:30.33
Sometimes continues trivialize an arcade game by giving you invulnerability or refilling limited resources (think about Metal Slug or Dodonpachi). But in this case, it's pure speed tech - we're slowed down by an obstacle, and dying navigates it faster. If the whole run were dying over and over to go faster it'd be less novel.
In short, I think it needs to be decided on a case-by-case basis, and we should give leeway to the submitter's logic. Similar to how we allow both 'fastest last input' and 'fastest game end state' and 'fastest game end state even if you pick up the controller and try to avoid it' as valid end points for a TAS and the submitter gets to decide.
That is a rule question that I have not just for this contest. It is not like a TAS would require continues in order to complete a game. The rule however prevents the possibility of taking intentional deaths to save time, holding TASes of this category out of standard goal. Does 2 player arcade even also counts as more than 1 credit? If they are separate branches, I can also see the possibility of adding in players at a specific moment to save completion time.
Right now, only in-game codes that add content (generally) are allowed. I don't think arcade continues ever add content because they just "continue" where you left off so that rule statement just automatically implies arcade continues are disallowed. As arcade continues and in-game codes are different concepts in video games, arcade continues should not be restricted under the rules of in-game codes.
I would like to compare the arcade coin continue with amiibo for the 3DS, Wii U and Switch systems in TASing. Even though they are considered pay-to-win materials and unfair in real time speedruns, as not everyone has them, they are also just a form of input. It is the nature of the unmodified game's code to respond to these types of input, and is fair game for a TAS.
The problem with coins and continues is that they're essentially turning a limited resource given or earned within the game's own logic into a potentially unlimited resource provided outside the game's logic. Within the context of arcade games, it is the player who provides the resource in order to make up for their lack of skill, knowledge, or resource management. As long as you keep feeding the game coins, you cannot lose—with all the implications it has for the TAS goals.
Note that, just because starting the game or adding a player to a multiplayer game utilizes the same mechanism, it doesn't mean they should be treated the same. Continuing implies paying up to circumvent an otherwise inevitable game over; adding a player does not.
I can imagine exceptions where this does enable novel and strikingly different gameplay solutions. But by default this is hardly different from a typical infinite lives cheat (also a form of input, of course).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
The rules for in-game codes changed drastically over the years, and it probably can't be handled like arcade continues anymore.
When the arcade continue ban was added, the rule about codes was basically resolved by the guideline about difficulties. If the code makes the game harder, it was allowed, otherwise not. Since arcade continues make the game much easier, they were banned.
Then we allowed certain in-game codes for Standard (ones that add gameplay), and we allowed all in-game codes in Alternative as long as the result is entertaining. If we blindly extrapolate the codes clause to arcade continues, then they'd be banned from Standard (unless they actually manage to add gameplay) but fully allowed in Alt.
Personally I don't have a strong preference.
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.
In general, do we not treat continues as undesirable regardless of system unless the continue provides for a special time saving technique such as the one used in The Legend of Zelda to sacrifice the life and resting to the start location/dungeon entrance?
In other words looking unfavorably on using continues to simply add more/infinite lives to a run in order to be able to keep dying until the end is reached instead of utilizing better/superhuman play to reach the end in a similar (though possibly slightly slower time).
Considering most arcade game continues are based on loss of lives—which in the arcade world is typically an indication of less than ideal play—most uses of arcade continues would be this situation of playing in a less than superhuman/ideal way and then utilizing the continue to keep going instead of just TASing better gameplay in the first place.
If there is a situation where an arcade continue provides for a special time-saving circumstance, that run could be an exception to a “No Continue” rule for arcade games (or any system for that matter).
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I don't think we ever cared about continues in other games, but they are indeed rare. There are also many games with infinite continues, so I'm not sure what we're fearing to lose exactly.
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Suggesting a new set of Standard goals: difficulty settings.
We've traditionally had low%/any%/100% separation, and we've also recently added the same for multiplayer goals (minimum players, maximum players, and whatever else if more optimal). And in a lot of games it's becoming more and more difficult to decide whether a different difficulty setting is unique enough to work as a separate sub-game, or maybe it's entertaining enough for Alternative, or maybe it's similar enough to obsolete, but then how exactly do we even compare, etc...
So I suggest having 2 default branches, for easiest and hardest difficulty, and if there's a difficulty mode that's more optimal (read faster) than both, it can become a third branch.
PS: Interestingly, it looks like we've never actually approved low% for Standard officially, even tho it makes perfect sense, so maybe we should do this now as well.
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.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11473
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
I can't remember any examples, and maybe it won't ever have 3 branches, but I don't want to kick the can down the road here, when the basic principle looks universal. Who knows, maybe in some game normal difficulty has a unique glitch that makes it quicker.
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.
So I suggest having 2 default branches, for easiest and hardest difficulty, and if there's a difficulty mode that's more optimal (read faster) than both, it can become a third branch.
PS: Interestingly, it looks like we've never actually approved low% for Standard officially, even tho it makes perfect sense, so maybe we should do this now as well.
I’m for adding the difficulty breakdown to Standard. I also agree with specifically adding low%.
