The Intellivision 10, 2nd Edition Video Game System was one in a series of cheap plug and play systems featuring compilations of what I like to call "demastered" Intellivision games, and was actually licensed by Intellivision themselves. I don't know why they decided to go this route instead of just re-releasing some of the originals like they did later with the Intellivision Flashback. Too expensive at the time? Anyway, the systems consists of some stripped-down NES hardware, otherwise known as "Famiclone" or "NES-on-a-chip", all contained within the controller. It is not known who programmed the games on this plug and play system, although many speculate Nice Code Software had some involvement.
It's kind of weird seeing a game like Long Drive Golf on such a compilation since it doesn't really resemble much of anything the Intellivision came out with. My best guess would be that it's based on the Driving Range minigame from the Intellivision game Chip Shot: Super Pro Golf. In the original, you were driving solo towards a target in the distance. In this version, you're competing against the computer to see who can hit farther.
There were actually two versions of Long Drive Golf: the one that came out on the 2nd Edition (played here) which pits you against the computer, and the one that came out on the Intellivision X2 which lets you play against a live player.
Aims for maximum score (# of wins only)
Secondary goals: maximize total player yards and minimize total computer yards
Genre: Sport
So what is the "maximum score" in this game?
Well, it'll probably vary depending on who you ask, but the generally agreed-upon definition would be to win all 11 rounds. You could also hit the longest drive possible (which is 416 yards) since the game has a special tracker for that. However, the game only explicitly calls the number of wins "SCORE" on the driving screen, so we will aim for 11 wins.
Now you might ask why not just hit 416 yards on all 11 rounds and cement yourself as the undeniable and all-powerful GOLF GOD? Well that's not very interesting. See, there's only one way to hit for 416 yards and that is to max out your swing intensity and hit the ball dead-on. It also has the longest animation time before the ball stops on the range. You then wouldn't be left with much to optimize time-wise. It gets interesting once your goal is simply to beat the computer each round. Now you're concerned with how much time your ball takes to stop on the range—a shorter distance usually means a faster stopping time. You are then left with the far more interesting goal in my opinion of just barely beating the computer each round.
Computer Behavior
The intensity of the computer's drive is easily manipulated: once the player inputs their intensity, the computer will input theirs at the very next increment. The computer's angle however, has a set value for each round. I will refer to this as "computer angle error" and quantify it as the number of increments from perfect the angle is. The computer angle errors for each of the 11 rounds are 3, 1, 1, 0, 3, 3, 3, 2, 0, 2, 2, respectively. As it turns out, the computer angle error is the main driver for time gain/loss in this TAS. Since the computer's intensity is deterministic, all we gotta do is find the optimal player intensity and angle which progresses to the next round the fastest for each of the possible computer angle errors. Here are the results:
Computer Angle Error
Frames Until Next Round
3
705
1
713
2
729
0
731
A question you might have is why not hit the balls with an extremely low intensity so they stop faster? See, if you don't input an intensity in the "red zone" on the meter, the club will not speed up on the downswing. So while the ball will stop faster on the range, things end up being slower in all because your downswing just isn't fast enough to be optimal.
Total Yardage
For the aforementioned secondary goal, the player scored 3612 total yards, while the computer scored 3379.
nymx: Well, this turned out to be quite a surprise for judging. Thanks to all involved, as we have finally put some perspective to this situation. So...everything looks good, in regards to what was presented.
Considering that this game displays the wins for each round...we will be accepting this as "maximum score". In regards to any future submission, the argument of yardage being that measurement, will be judged under "Full Completion". This makes sense, as it demonstrates everything the game has to offer.
Accepting to Standard.
nymx: I forgot one detail. This will be accepted, but we need to get that 3 frames corrected. I'll post in the thread.
nymx: Replacing with provided movie file to remove the 3 frames mentioned. Continuing on with acceptance.
Consider this a review, as it's already been claimed for judgement:
This run strikes me as an odd amalgamation of goals; primarily due to the chosen definition of "maximum score."
The goal is listed as "maximum score," because every round vs the CPU player is won (with the final tally 11-0) and because the player wins the longest drive metric. The submission notes clearly state that the drives themselves aren't maxed out for each round. This was done to make the run more "interesting" by just barely beating the CPU golfer for each round, until the last (where the maximum distance of 416 yards was then attained).
To me, the total sum of drive lengths is a better metric on which to claim "maximum score" than simply winning all the rounds; even though the total sum isn't displayed, all the constituent parts of that sum are. So, even though it may be less "interesting," I feel a maximum drive on all rounds would be necessary to claim "maximum score". My primary reasoning is that such a run would contain, within itself, the criteria that this submission uses to claim "maximum score" (winning all rounds and having the single longest drive), while still having a higher total for sum of drive lengths. Assuming 416 is the maximum length which can be attainable on all 11 rounds, then the maximum sum should be 4,576 total yards not the 3.664 yards presented in this submission.
For this reason, I don't think this run qualifies for a "maximum score" branch.
Unfortunately, I'm not sure this run would qualify as an any% run either. Without having tested myself, I'm curious if actually losing (up to) 5 of the 11 rounds would yield a faster overall run than winning all 11 rounds as presented. This would result in a completion of a full game playthrough that was 6-5 in favor of the player, which could be considered satisfactory to have won the game. Therefore, if losing any amount of rounds up to 5 would result in a faster complete run, that would best this submission from an any% perspective.
Even if the first 10 rounds of this submission are actually the fastest way to complete those 10 rounds (of which I'm dubious); the fact that the maximum distance is obtained on the very last round means that round likely takes longer than necessary and still wouldn't qualify for any% from the perspective of purely optimal play to win the game.
I hate to say it, because this does seem to be a well planned out and executed run; but I don't feel this run is acceptable (as presented) for Standard Class publication in either any% or maximum score branches.
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
I asked DrD2k9 for his take on this submission, and he has made some good points. In fact...he just confirmed some of my concerns.
Yes, I don't see that maximum score has been achieved here. I also feel that it should be totaled against the drive yardage. As for any%, it doesn't apply here as well. I haven't tested to see if winning the first 6 rounds will suffice, if no more inputs are made. Can it finish the game without applying any inputs after round 6? (I will do so later , after work to find out).
Just note...we are not trying to find a rejection here. Can this submission be reworked to salvage your movie?
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
Joined: 7/18/2016
Posts: 106
Location: United States
nymx wrote:
Can this submission be reworked to salvage your movie?
Yes, very easily. I can remove all discussions from the notes regarding maximizing drive yardage and define score solely based on # of wins. The movie would just require a minor tweak at the end to not max out the 416-yard longest drive, and would only be 3 frames slower shorter. I agree with most of DrD2k9's points, especially that I admittedly went for a weird amalgamation of scoring metrics. However, I would argue # of wins is a better metric for basing "maximum score" on than total yardage. This is because the game very clearly and unambiguously labels your # of wins as "SCORE" on the driving screen. And that was my main intent with this "maximum score" submission. I think if a future submission wanted to max out total yardage the branch should be called "maximum yardage" instead.
Can this submission be reworked to salvage your movie?
Yes, very easily. I can remove all discussions from the notes regarding maximizing drive yardage and define score solely based on # of wins. The movie would just require a minor tweak at the end to not max out the 416-yard longest drive, and would only be 3 frames slower. I agree with most of DrD2k9's points, especially that I admittedly went for a weird amalgamation of scoring metrics. However, I would argue # of wins is a better metric for basing "maximum score" on than total yardage. This is because the game very clearly and unambiguously labels your # of wins as "SCORE" on the driving screen. And that was my main intent with this "maximum score" submission. I think if a future submission wanted to max out total yardage the branch should be called "maximum yardage" instead.
Simply removing discussion regarding drive yardage from the submission notes doesn't change my perspective on what the definition of "maximum score" should be for this game. Even had the original submission notes said nothing about individual or total drive distances, I'd still feel that it would be a better metric than simply rounds won. Mainly because, maxing out the drive distances leaves nothing else to maximize for the game; where only winning all rounds (with less than maximum distances) does leave something else that can be maxed out. The game also "very clearly and unambiguously" displays each round's drive distance on the Score Board screen, so I don't feel that only the round score being shown on the driving screen is a very strong argument as to why distance shouldn't be considered.
So I still don't feel like this qualifies for max score.
Discussion on what should/shouldn't be considered maximum score aside, and switching to consideration of the run from an any% perspective:
If not maxing out the distance on the last round is 3 frames slower than this submission, then don't change it and make a longer overall run. We obviously wouldn't want a longer any% run.
That said, if the goal was switched to any% from max score; I'd still be curious if losing anywhere up to 5 rounds was even faster
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
Ok...I tested out my idea. The game doesn't need input to continue from one round to another. This changes things a bit. For one, it creates an any% category that can have the first 6 rounds, barely beating the opponent out...while the last 5 rounds coast all the way to the end.
In regards to the maximum score choice, I'm still seeing that "Maximum Score" really needs to be pushing for as many "Drive Yards" as possible, which still covers the 11 wins you are shooting for. If you still don't agree, we can certainly discuss this among our staff.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
Joined: 7/18/2016
Posts: 106
Location: United States
DrD2k9 wrote:
If not maxing out the distance on the last round is 3 frames slower than this submission, then don't change it and make a longer overall run. We obviously wouldn't want a longer any% run.
Sorry, I meant to say that the movie would only be 3 frames shorter, not slower, if the 416-yard longest drive goal was taken away. My apologize for any confusion brought on by that.
DrD2k9 wrote:
The game also "very clearly and unambiguously" displays each round's drive distance on the Score Board screen, so I don't feel that only the round score being shown on the driving screen is a very strong argument as to why distance shouldn't be considered.
Yeah, I will admit, the score board does "very clearly and unambiguously" display each round's drive distance on the score board screen, in addition to win count. But that doesn't necessarily mean drive distance ought to be considered in the scoring metric. For instance, baseball score boards track all kinds of metrics besides runs which include hits, errors, balls, strikes, and outs, and I think we can all agree none of those latter parameters should contribute to a final score tally in any sense. So I don't feel that drive distance merely being displayed on the scoreboard is a very strong argument that it should be considered.
DrD2k9 wrote:
... I'd still feel that [drive distances] would be a better metric than simply rounds won. Mainly because, maxing out the drive distances leaves nothing else to maximize for the game; where only winning all rounds (with less than maximum distances) does leave something else that can be maxed out.
I guess let's first ask the movie rules what the "maximum score" goal actually is:
Score Attack: Aiming for maximum score while otherwise completing the game as fast as possible.
Well that's literally all it says. It gives no mention that you must include any sort of ... secondary measurements of in-game performance in with your maximum score, which is really what the yardage is. It's just a tool the game uses to assign the points. Lumping yardage into the score equation simply because it is "something else that can be maxed out" is beyond the scope of what the movie rules say "maximum score" actually is. Take NES Tetris "maximum score" for instance. We can all agree it sure did max out the score but let's not forget there's also a whole bunch of other metrics on screen as well. Should the authors have maxed out the line counter as well? The level counter? There is certainly "something else that can be maxed out" in many, many maximum score submissions on this site. And my argument is just because there's something else you could max out doesn't mean you must.
Let's also not forget about Olympic-style games like NES Track & Field "max score, playaround", where many events give you three attempts, saving only the best score/time. It appears to be common practice in Olympic-style TASes to max out on the first attempt, and simply foul out or get a low score in attempts 2 and 3 to save time. Why is that unanimously seen as acceptable TAS practice? I mean clearly, the score on attempts 2 and 3 could have been maxed out as well and be perceived as an overall higher performance on the scoreboard. But I know what everyone's counter-argument is. At the end of the day, attempts 2 and 3 don't matter because your final score at the end of the event is equal to your best. And that's what I'm saying here about Long Drive Golf. Whether I win the round scoring 416 yards or 342 yards, it doesn't matter because the final score awarded at the end of the round will be 1 regardless.
Lastly, page 17 of the the plug and play unit's instructions manual explains Long Drive Golf. Of particular relevance to how the game defines "score" is point 6:
The computer keeps track of each player's score and the distance of each drive on a separate scoreboard screen. Following each round, the player that hit the ball the furthest will be awarded 1 point. At the end of 11 rounds, the player with the highest score wins.
The first sentence goes out of its way to imply the "distance" is a separate thing from the player's score (i.e., the win count).
Regarding the last sentence, if the player with the highest score wins, that must mean total yardage is not considered score ... that's cause you could play a game where you get a higher total yardage than your opponent but still lose.
And I know somebody out there might say "instruction manuals shouldn't count as evidence of anything whatsoever because they're a separate entity from the game", or whatever. But instructions manuals have been used to support judgements in the past. This submission in particular would have been accepted had the instructions manual told the player how to perform the cheat which the TAS used.
nymx wrote:
If you still don't agree, we can certainly discuss this among our staff.
Please do so, I believe I've presented all the arguments I have to the table.
TL;DR I maxed out the win count because it constitutes the score. I did not max out yardage because it is not the score. Therefore, the "maximum score" goal is met.
Joined: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
Ok. We'll meet and see how the staff feels about this. Thanks.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
Actually, I am agree with Winslinator on this one. "Let's also not forget about Olympic-style games like NES Track & Field "max score, playaround", where many events give you three attempts, saving only the best score/time." If that final scoreboard actually totaled all the yardage and gave a score then I would say every round would have to be maxed. Here it is literally just taking the max score for all the "heats".
I will have to agree with DrD2k9's opinion here. IMO, the only two acceptable categories I would entertain for this game are:
* any% - reach the win screen in the least amount of frames, heavily manipulating the CPU to reach the least yards in every shot and only beating it by one the least amount of times.
* max score - make the further possible shot, every time. The final score sheet contains 12 numbers. All of them should be maxed, not only 2 of them.
In my eyes, this submission achieves neither. As a consequence, it does not feel like superhuman play (fundational requirement for a TAS) but rather like a relatively good player recorded it RTA and achieved a max drive once.
I will have to agree with DrD2k9's opinion here. IMO, the only two acceptable categories I would entertain for this game are:
* any% - reach the win screen in the least amount of frames, heavily manipulating the CPU to reach the least yards in every shot and only beating it by one the least amount of times.
* max score - make the further possible shot, every time. The final score sheet contains 12 numbers. All of them should be maxed, not only 2 of them.
In my eyes, this submission achieves neither. As a consequence, it does not feel like superhuman play (fundational requirement for a TAS) but rather like a relatively good player recorded it RTA and achieved a max drive once.
I can't agree that this doesn't feel like superhuman play. As I mentioned in my original post:
this does seem to be a well planned out and executed run
I feel there's enough evidence to qualify as superhuman simply due to the precision shown in the TAS. I just disagree with Winslinator on what should be considered maximum score.
I'm not going to complain if the majority of respondents are on the side of Winslinator's opinion regarding "maximum score"; if that's the community consensus, that's what we need to go with.
I was asked for my perspective; I shared my perspective; I further clarified my perspective after Winslinator suggested changing the submission notes; and my perspective hasn't changed. What I definitely do NOT want is for this thing to become a big emotionally charged issue.
If anything within my posts has come across as attacking Winslinator personally, it was unintentional; and I apologize for any such confusion.
Regardless of the result of the maximum score definition. I'd love to see what Winslinator can do in an any% run from the perspective of getting a 6-5 win as quickly as possible.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
The solution is very easy.
"Any%" is either shortest possible input to make the player win eventually, or quickest possible win with whatever input is required.
"Maximum score" is maxing out whatever the game gives you as a "score".
"Full completion" in this game would simply be maximum yardage since it'd be the main optional metric to maximize to consider the game completed the fullest.
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: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
feos wrote:
The solution is very easy.
"Any%" is either shortest possible input to make the player win eventually, or quickest possible win with whatever input is required.
"Maximum score" is maxing out whatever the game gives you as a "score".
"Full completion" in this game would simply be maximum yardage since it'd be the main optional metric to maximize to consider the game completed the fullest.
I'm sold.
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
The solution is very easy.
"Any%" is either shortest possible input to make the player win eventually, or quickest possible win with whatever input is required.
"Maximum score" is maxing out whatever the game gives you as a "score".
"Full completion" in this game would simply be maximum yardage since it'd be the main optional metric to maximize to consider the game completed the fullest.
From this perspective, i was erroneously blending “maximum score” and “full competition” criteria.
Sorry, i didn’t see the separation before. I change my stance and can see this run being accepted as “max score”; a max total distance being a “full completion” run; and a shortest frames being the any %.
EDIT: FWIW, the three frames needed for the maxed final drive is fine to keep as a stylistic choice.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
3 frames can still be removed now, since max yardage would be a different branch.
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: 11/14/2014
Posts: 929
Location: South Pole, True Land Down Under
Winslinator? We need for you to address the 3 frames. Can you provide an updated movie?
I recently discovered that if you haven't reached a level of frustration with TASing any game, then you haven't done your due diligence.
----
SOYZA: Are you playing a game?
NYMX: I'm not playing a game, I'm TASing.
SOYZA: Oh...so its not a game...Its for real?
----
Anybody got a Quantum computer I can borrow for 20 minutes?
Nevermind...eien's 64 core machine will do. :)
----
BOTing will be the end of all games. --NYMX
