Basically, I'm writing this for two separate reasons.
First, I want to try resolving the question of hack approval: if some of them get approved as exceptions, there must be some reasons for that. And they surely can be stated in a more or less defined official form at the appropriate FAQ section.
Second, I want to bring some attention towards the recent Super Metroid hack runs event. As some of you may know, "Super Metroid: Redesign" hack (SMR for short) has been released recently, and there was some (rather passive, I'd say) discussion on whether it is good enough for approving it as a possible exception in addition to Metroid Legacy, another SM hack already approved here.
Having two hacks of the same game approved here at once seems highly improbable in the current state of rules concerning hacked games, especially considering the fact that the exceptions are not justified in written form. Furthermore, they aren't justified
in any form. Those hacks are just approved without any obvious (that is, for a person who is not familiar with the hack or the circumstances of its appearing here, let alone the original game) reasons. For me, and most other people, approving both of aforementioned hacks would be a win-win (or at least "win/not lose") situation.
Leaving out SMR would mean the community will lose a very potentially entertaining and also very high quality run, as Saturn is already up to it once he finishes his RBO project.
Swapping it with Legacy is not so good either, at least for ethical reasons, not to mention that the community will (yet again!) lose another very high quality run — catnap222's new and improved Legacy TAS may
already be underway, and its creation will surely take much less time than creating a well-optimized TAS of SMR, which is about twice as long compared to the 100% Legacy run.
Here, I want to discuss the possibility of such hack approval criteria that would let the community itself choose which hacks to be considered worthy, which will be advantageous for the next reasons:
• less overall bias towards/against the specific game;
• for each hack out there, there already are some experienced players whose opinions the rest may rely on;
• sometimes it's easier to communicate with the general mass of the community than with its specific members, especially the administration (also less strain for them);
• some more freedom of choice, after all.
The system will be very similar to the submission judging one: first someone will inform the community of the hack (if it wasn't discussed on the forums ever before), then, if some of the TASers declares their will to TAS the hack, and the hack itself is considered worthy by the aforementioned criteria, and there seem to be any interest towards it, the permission is granted.
So, here is
the example of a demo of a pre-test of a temporary alpha-version proposed judging criteria for all the future hacks to be approved here:
I. The original game must be well-known.
That would ensure that the general mass will spot the difference between the original and the hack. For TASers, that would also ensure that the speed tricks possible in the original may also be exploited in the hack TAS.
A. The hack itself must be considerably well-known.
That is, it must get known (and possibly appreciated) both here and within a community dedicated to the original game (that is, the fans).
B. The hack must be interesting enough for a TAS.
The TAS of the hack must show something not seen before in the TAS of the original game (for example, doing some good looking move that is infeasible in the TAS of the original game timewise, but made mandatory in the hack), must not have any overtly dull ingame moments or cutscenes lasting for a long time and preferrably no parts the speed of which can't be controlled by the input (ie. autoscrolling; scripted scenes). Given the highly subjective factor of this criterion, it's always better to make a test run showing the walkthrough for others to decide.
II. The hack must be mature.
There mustn't be any [serious] troubles applying, playing or running the hack.
A. The hack must be stable.
Only the final, thoroughly tested versions are approved to be TASed, possibly with the special approval from the hack creator/lead tester. Hacks with malicious bugs not present in the original game or features not working with our emulators are not allowed without any exceptions.
B. The hack must be conceptual.
It must revolve around some different scenario or a totally new idea. The level design should also be new and fresh. Changes to the game engine (new/changed player character abilities, physical model adjustments, object interaction model adjustments) are highly desirable, as long as they are consistent and don't introduce bugs. To sum it up, the more different the hack is without losing its quality, the better.
C. The hack must be complete.
The hack must be consistent from the beginning to the end, without any out-of-place scenarios and design features. All the new/changed abilities and adjustments must be put on a good use and be noticeable throughout the conventional play.
III. The chosen hack must be the best one for a given game.
To avoid squandering talents on trifles, only the best hacks should be approved. If there are no hacks for the given game that are worthy enough to be approved on TASvideos (judging by the aforementioned criteria), then neither of them can be chosen.
A. A special exception can be granted if a hack deemed best at the moment of approving becomes superceded later by a new one, outperforming the previous by a significant margin.
This is an extremely rare (especially for the games about 15 to 20 years old), yet possible case, in which the new hack should get thoroughly tested and judged by the same criteria against both the approved hack and the original game*. If it shows itself competitive, yet different in its concept and realization, an exception should be granted.
*) — That also implies that a TAS of the new hack should look different enough from both the original game and the previous hack, as mentioned in I-B.
B. The same applies to any future hack of that given game.
That way, each new hack should withstand a competition against both the original game and the other approved hacks of it, making such a competition dramatically harder, up to the point of being impossible, each time. It's worth mentioning that the game itself should be versatile enough to allow for creating more than 1-2 outstanding hacks, which is an extremely rare quality.
IV. There must already be someone willing to TAS the chosen hack.
There is no sense in permitting the hack to be TASed and submitted here on TASvideos.org without someone to actually do the run.
It's also worth mentioning that this set of rules will not change the current number of approved hacks dramatically even a little bit (sadly, good hacks are damn rare), but will allow more freedom and distinctness in discussing, judging and TASing them, especially when it comes to new ones that could emerge in the future. That way, we would also get rid of that "voting no/meh cause it's a hack, I like the original game more" attitude more easily. Right now, I'm not seeing any possible drawbacks with this suggestion, and if there are some, they should be discussed.
(Note that discussing SMR itself and its worthiness should preferrably take place already after we settle this issue alone.)
