The one problem with this idea is that a nice one or two word link doesnt always clarify the goal of the run (when I see Super Metroid "minmal," I dont see a clear difference between that and "any%"). There might be some cases where a sentence is needed to explain the goal of the run, but I dont think the occaisonal sentence would cause any noticeable clutter, since in most cases one or two words will do.
I guess this can be easily solved by including a proper description of the goals in the publication writeup. Not much of a problem as I see it. Finally we have got a feasible solution on our hands to put the concept demo debate to rest... for good I hope
when I see Super Metroid "minmal," I dont see a clear difference between that and "any%"
For cases like this, I prefer "low%" to "minimalist", especially since a term like "minimalist run" can only be unambiguously applied to game which doesn't have the distinction between any% and low% route (like SMW).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Right now I am working on a TAS that completes all of SMW without collecting any powerups (the entire game is done as small Mario). What would you call that?
A Concept Demo, of course!
Seriously, that'd be still too ambiguous to call that type of run minimalistic. On an unrelated note, such a run bears a bit more entertainment (to my personal taste) than a full-powered one, because of the lack of the damn cape.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If we start thinking about run categories, we can create a rather large list. However, it would not be feasible to create a category for each one of them. However, having just two main categories, "TAS" and "concept demo", makes it sometimes difficult to say for a certain video which category it should be put into.
For fun, I devised this list of categories:
- Completes the game as fast as possible by any means, without restrictions.
- Completes the game as fast as possible, but using some small restriction on using a specific glitch (such as "no warps").
- Completes the game as fast as possible, but using a major restriction not related to abusing glitches (such as using an alternative route, collects 100% items, doesn't kill any enemy or such).
- Completes the game in a way that the completion speed is only a small secondary and very "relaxed" objective (ie. not very strongly enforced), but instead aims for another major goal (the dual megamanX/X2 run is a perfect example of this).
- Showing superhuman "playing" capabilities is the main point in the video, completing the game only a secondary objective (autoscrolling games usually fall into this category).
- Complete as fast as possible, using any means, but starting from a previous situation of the game, ie. not from scratch (this is for games where it is possible to start a new game which is enhanced somehow, or uses some alternative features, because of previous playing).
- Completion of the game (fast or at all) is not an objective at all in the video, but the video is just to demonstrate something cool.
A Concept Demo, of course!
Seriously, that'd be still too ambiguous to call that type of run minimalistic. On an unrelated note, such a run bears a bit more entertainment (to my personal taste) than a full-powered one, because of the lack of the damn cape.
I wouldn't really consider my "no powerups" SMW run a concept demo. Super Metroid "100% items" isnt a concept demo, so I dont think a SMW "0% items" should be. The movie is being made to complete the game as fast as possible just like any other run, and there arent any "dirty" restrictions on it such as newgame+ or a different ROM being used. Under Tub's idea, this run would just be one of the links below the main SMW movie(s), such as "Reverse Boss Order" in the Super Metroid example listed.
It can't be counted as "0% items", simply because they're not items. For Super Metroid, it's the same as missile/power bomb/energy refills. And yeah, I think both that run and the RBO are concept demos by their nature: we're proving that it is possible to complete the game without taking any powerups (your run), or doing it in the reverse boss order without suits (Saturn's). Both of those clearly are concepts not demonstrated before.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
If Tub's idea is implemented some day (I realize it would be a good amount of work), I believe the site would benefit greatly from it. Then we would be back to the original site vision of "any entertaining run goes", instead of worrying about existing movies of the same game, or other similar situations. It could increase the amount of worthwhile content and morale of those thinking outside the (tool-assisted) speedrunning box.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
I think this was Bisqwit's original intention of the concept/demos section.
I was going to make a post about how some people might feel bad that their hard work ended up just being a "concept demo", but I suppose the focus could just be shifted to people feeling bad that their hard work ended up just being a "not-on-the-main-movie-page"...demo.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
Why can't concept demo be a good thing? "Wow you thought outside the box and did something that doesn't fit the mold (inside the box). As a reward, you get your run into the elite concept/demo section.
I think this was Bisqwit's original intention of the concept/demos section.
I was going to make a post about how some people might feel bad that their hard work ended up just being a "concept demo"
As a potential concept demo author, that's exactly how I feel. With Tub's idea, I would have no objection to being a link under the main SMW movies: its just the whole separate page for concept demos where new viewers wont easily find them that I dont like. So for me its not that concept demo is a bad thing, its just it wont be grouped with other SMW movies and thus probably wont be seen by SMW fans who arent used to the site.
Why can't concept demo be a good thing? "Wow you thought outside the box and did something that doesn't fit the mold (inside the box). As a reward, you get your run into the elite concept/demo section.
I really have no idea why it seems to have a negative connotation in my mind. Perhaps because the acceptance of the first SDW movie was met with a lot of criticism?
Hmm, actually, it has a negative connotation to me because of the way people treat the category. It seems that runs that are borderline accept/reject get the "publish as a concept demo!" suggestion, as if we're saying "Nice try, Billy. Everyone gets a trophy!"
As usual, I have lots of bitching to do, with no constructive ideas of how to improve. But when I saw Tub's screenshot, it was like all those complaints of mine just fizzled.
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Joined: 4/13/2006
Posts: 150
Location: Caratinga - MG - Brazil
Just to ask... i'm doing my Donkey Kong 3 movie using a secret not-so-secret code (because anyone who play DKC3 know this code) to open the "hard mode" and the full percentage (105% instead of 103%). Just because of this 3-second-code my run could be a concept demo instead of an DKC3 100% run?
I'll finish it anyway, is just to ask and avoid another war about concept game in my future sumission.
Nibelung: Codes like that aren't enough to keep it out of the main section. Hard mode is usually preferred even if it takes an in-game code to activate it, and several normal published runs already use codes (suitless Samus, turbo mode, hard mode...)
JXQ wrote:
Hmm, actually, it has a negative connotation to me because of the way people treat the category. It seems that runs that are borderline accept/reject get the "publish as a concept demo!" suggestion, as if we're saying "Nice try, Billy. Everyone gets a trophy!"
If it's borderline accept/reject simply because it's a poor to mediocre run, not many people would suggest it be a concept demo.
Really, that section seems to be where movies belong that don't follow the normal goals of movies on this site, but are entertaining enough to be published anyway. That decision is made on a case-by-case basis by the publishers, so I don't see why it would need to be defined more clearly than that. (The only possible benefit I could think of would be to reduce the amount of arguing over whether a given movie should be a concept demo, but maybe that argument is a form of useful input in deciding where the movie should go.)
If Tub's idea is implemented some day (I realize it would be a good amount of work), I believe the site would benefit greatly from it. Then we would be back to the original site vision of "any entertaining run goes", instead of worrying about existing movies of the same game, or other similar situations. It could increase the amount of worthwhile content and morale of those thinking outside the (tool-assisted) speedrunning box.
Usually a run has a specific goal ("completing the game as fast as possible" being by far the most usual one). If a new video achieves the exact same goal but better, I see no reason to keep the old one. The new one is better and thus the old one is obsolete.
A run can have a *different* goal than another run, even though they both are done with the same game. I see no problem in these runs coexisting in the site, as they currently do. In fact, I don't actually really understand what is the problem being discussed here.
In fact, I don't actually really understand what is the problem being discussed here.
Obviously so, since the rest of your post was really irrelevant in regards to the discussion. :)
The problems we were discussing here were:
1) the ambiguity of "concept demos" as a category (especially when it comes to voting: "I vote yes, but this should be published as a concept demo", etc.);
2) the necessity of publishing some of the runs in a separate category;
and, to lesser extent,
3) the arbitrary restriction on the number of the movies made for each game to prevent the movie list clutter — a problem that was successfully solved (at least ideologically) by Tub.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Usually a run has a specific goal ("completing the game as fast as possible" being by far the most usual one). If a new video achieves the exact same goal but better, I see no reason to keep the old one. The new one is better and thus the old one is obsolete.
so, you'd eradicate the nice and entertaining AlttP-run in favour of the glitched 2-minute-wtf that's only interesting once, just because it's faster?
Joined: 5/2/2006
Posts: 1020
Location: Boulder, CO
That is exactly why we leave this sort of decision in the hands of the site moderators.
They "obsolete" old runs where there are ones faster, they leave up things like lttp unglitched because it is a fun one to watch.
They know what they are doing, they have done a nice job so far. Using the "other" category as they have been is approapriate.
That is exactly why we leave this sort of decision in the hands of the site moderators.
They "obsolete" old runs where there are ones faster, they leave up things like lttp unglitched because it is a fun one to watch.
They know what they are doing, they have done a nice job so far. Using the "other" category as they have been is approapriate.
People you mean by "site moderators" are judges and publishers, and there is exactly one of them who has the last word for some critical decisions, that's Bisqwit.
Perhaps, if you'd been more in the context of various events, it'd be easier for you to understand my and others' point. I've been through that kind of discussions at least three or four times in the last six months or so. The principles of obsoletion can be quite dim at times, and people argue about that. Sometimes, people have a demand for a certain type/amount of movies, and come to understanding that it's either impossible, or require a lot of hassle. Sometimes, having one run of a certain game already published means that another one similar to the former would not be accepted, and people argue about that as well. Then, there's a whole great deal with the hacks.
A lot of things remain unclear even now, but there are some ways to make everything better. I really think Bisqwit needs a good assistant at his site management, because I don't want to (and don't think I have a right to) blame him for general reluctance to accept certain changes or improve some aspects of the site that somewhat hinder its progress. Because I can assure you that if I had a per-game movie listing system, I'd gladly help maintaining its content.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
(The only possible benefit I could think of would be to reduce the amount of arguing over whether a given movie should be a concept demo, but maybe that argument is a form of useful input in deciding where the movie should go.)
I really don't understand where this arguing suddenly became from, and why. It has never been a problem before... Is it some kind of mass reaction? (I.e. everyone is shouting, maybe I should too?)
moozooh wrote:
I really think Bisqwit needs a good assistant at his site management, because I don't want to (and don't think I have a right to) blame him for general reluctance to accept certain changes or improve some aspects of the site that somewhat hinder its progress. Because I can assure you that if I had a per-game movie listing system, I'd gladly help maintaining its content.
As far as movie publishing is concerned, granting stars (or editing the recommendation status in general) is currently the only web-accessible feature in the site, that only I have access to. All other features have been made to at least one other user.
All other only-for-me features require server access, including:
- Removing old torrent files from tracker
- Updating the site source code (layout and functionality)
- Repairing the database and database maintenance in general.
There have so far been approximately two users, who have had a copy of the site's source code. Also Warp has had partial write access to the source code for developing modules.
I have considered opening up the source code of the site entirely (in fact, I recently even set up an SVN server for easing that goal), but I haven't done it, most importantly because there has been nobody who is so interested in the source code that they would ask. I won't open it publicly, because of security concerns. There are pathnames and stuff in it that I'd rather not disclose (need-to-know).
Usually a run has a specific goal ("completing the game as fast as possible" being by far the most usual one). If a new video achieves the exact same goal but better, I see no reason to keep the old one. The new one is better and thus the old one is obsolete.
? This wasn't what I meant my Tub's idea, I was referring to his screenshot of grouping the same game into a more compressed section that can be accessed on its own page, while still showing the more "standard" movies on the main page.
Bisqwit wrote:
I really don't understand where this arguing suddenly became from, and why. It has never been a problem before... Is it some kind of mass reaction?
The reason that I spoke up about it is (1) because the incidence of "publish this as a concept demo" was increasing recently, with everyone inventing their own definition for a concept demo, and (2) because you have procrastinated in the past when these types of things arise. Normally I wouldn't give a shit and let everyone argue it out, but like you said, this is something you alone hold the power to. Yes, editors can (or used to be able to? not sure) check the "impure movie" checkbox, but you'll supercede any judgment that is made that you don't agree with (example: Phil's latest SMB submission, after adelikat accepted).
So I thought I would shed light on the issue to the entire community (which is why I didn't PM) because the arguing over the definition of a concept demo is pointless when it's either (a) up to you in the end, or (b) up to the community, but really up to you (via superceding decisions).
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3599)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4739
Location: Tennessee
but you'll supercede any judgment that is made that you don't agree with (example: Phil's latest SMB submission, after adelikat accepted).
I don't see this as a supceeding. I intentionally left out any mention of where the movie might be published and simply accepted. I left that up to Bisqwit (presumably the publisher in this case) to make that judgement call. Personally I was apathetic to which category it fell in.
Adelikat,
Stop making good points, it makes it difficult to complain, thanks. </fabian>
Perhaps it wasn't superceded in that case, but the general point I alluded to is still valid. I still see the general situation as "you guys figure it out amongst yourselves, and then once you've figured it out, I'll step in and tell you how you should have figured it out."
<Swordless> Go hug a tree, you vegetarian (I bet you really are one)
