I wonder why almost everyone keeps simplifying things down to some measurable matter. Sure it makes judges' life easier but it restricts TASing too much. That's why I'm against meeting ultimate decisions/definitions of basic terms (what's TAS, its goal, and how to judge).
In fact, I miss old times with long submission quees and disputable movies, when it was possible to perform something suboptimal (e.g. play with funny glitches that make you lose several frames) and not to be afraid that someone suddenly walks in and improves your run by simply eliminating all those "flaws". Today you have to forget everything and aim on Frame Counter, or you'll lose to someone less principled.
Now there's much less room for art in TASes than it was before. I'm not content with where this is going.
This is begging a question: how to define alternative routes, and what routes to take so that the speedrun wouldn't lose its value? What if there are alternative routes inside one room, maybe inside each room (often seen in puzzle games like Mighty Bomb Jack)? What constitutes sloppy play in this context?
Alternative routes which make sense. Castlevania 3 with its three possible routes is a perfect example. All three movies are completely valid speedruns.
I don't really understand. To you, a run is undisputably faster if it uses less frames. What's the point of a longer run then? Why even bother publishing it?
A run *with a certain goal* is undisputably faster than another run *with that same goal* if the former uses less frames. Two runs of the same game with *different* goals cannot be compared.
Also, how many goals does a speedrun have, and how many can it have before it becomes a superplay by the above definition?
Odd question. A game can have as many goals as makes sense. There are many goals in many games which are very sensible and logical. That's the reason why there are many games with several published runs: They are all valid, legit tool-assisted speedruns of that game, each one with a different goal.
Of course I see where you are going with this. You want to nitpick on "where do you draw the line between a goal that makes sense and one which doesn't?" It doesn't really matter where the "line" is: It's quite clear that some goals do obviously make sense and some others don't. For example "don't use the warp glitch to skip 90% of the game" is a goal which makes sense. For the border cases, let the voters and judges decide.
Example. Dragonfangs's first Metroid Fusion 0% TAS done for m2k2 community aimed for traversing each room in most impressive ways and taking no damage. Is this a speedrun? What would you say if such a run was submitted here?
If it didn't aim for the fastest time to achieve those goals, it can hardly be called a speedrun. However, if it wastes time for no good reason (not even for entertainment purposes) then I wouldn't call it flawless either.
Warp wrote:
Besides, why would a "superplay" automatically choose the other route? Would the shorter route not be a "superplay"?
Because there's nothing interesting in the shorter route. You can't get to showcase your skill in the linear, easier route — be it tool-assisted or otherwise. Otherwise it would be a bad superplay.
Now you are introducing some new definition to the concept of "superplay": A run is not a "superplay" if it's "boring". That's a rather fuzzy definition, I would say.
I can't understand what is it that makes the fastest route not a "superplay" if it has been performed flawlessly.
If you extend it to "complete the game in shortest time possible with additional restrictions put on it", I'm afraid you'll have to elaborate on the restrictions and which of them are or aren't acceptable.
I'll have to elaborate or else I'm wrong? That doesn't make any sense.
And I already elaborated by mentioning QdQ. What else do you want?
In fact, I miss old times with long submission quees and disputable movies, when it was possible to perform something suboptimal (e.g. play with funny glitches that make you lose several frames) and not to be afraid that someone suddenly walks in and improves your run by simply eliminating all those "flaws".
Exactly when was that? I have been closely following this site from day 1, and runs have been obsoleted by faster runs all the time. I don't remember there ever been a general policy that "it's safe to submit suboptimal runs, nobody can obsolete them". In fact, the policy has always been quite strict on the opposite side: If someone obsoletes your run with a significantly faster one, bad luck. I do have personal experience.
(Yes, yes, insert here the few exceptions to the rule. I know them. No need to repeat them again. I'm talking about the general default policy.)
Today you have to forget everything and aim on Frame Counter, or you'll lose to someone less principled.
Well, that's exactly the whole idea of a tool-assisted speedrun: They aim for perfection. The goal is to see what would happen to a speedrun if the flawed human element was removed from the equation. Frame perfection is one of the main goals to aim for. It has always been like this. (Ok, before frame advance became widely used achieving frame perfection was more difficult, but it was still a goal to aim for, from day 1.)
Now there's much less room for art in TASes than it was before. I'm not content with where this is going.
"Where this is going." It never ceases to amuse me how some people seem to think that the goals have somehow changed and that they were different in the past.
What has changed is not the goals but the quality of the tools: Today we have frame advance, ram watchers and even robots, which didn't exist in the first years. This raises the quality requirements of the runs. It means that it's easier to remove flaws from the runs.
That's a perfectly unambiguous condition… not. Who is it up to to define sense then?
Warp wrote:
A run *with a certain goal* is undisputably faster than another run *with that same goal* if the former uses less frames. Two runs of the same game with *different* goals cannot be compared.
That sounds good, except such a comparison takes place all the time, because different players have different goals in mind, and they don't want to change them only because the original author made their movie earlier. There is no way to avoid comparisons. I have already proposed a solution to such problems, and apparently, many movies in the past were published on similar grounds.
Warp wrote:
For the border cases, let the voters and judges decide.
The problem with that is that a fair number of voters (and to some extent, judges as well) follow a certain mindset similar to what I've been talking about earlier: obsession with numbers and goalset conflicts, talks about whether it is right or wrong for the site's standards, etc. — instead of appraising quality and entertainment value of the run within its own goal set (which is what the workbench forum was created for, or so I thought).
Warp wrote:
If it didn't aim for the fastest time to achieve those goals, it can hardly be called a speedrun. However, if it wastes time for no good reason (not even for entertainment purposes) then I wouldn't call it flawless either.
Well it did aim for fastest time within that goal set. The question is, however, if such a set is acceptable by itself.
Another question is whether anyone should concern themselves with goal sets at all. On one extreme, we'll be led to unified and strict rules for all games, which is bad. On another, to abundance of variations in goal sets for games that allow many of them, so that it's hard to decide which existing movie to compare a new submission to, and all problems related to that, which is also bad. Where/how to find balance?
Warp wrote:
Now you are introducing some new definition to the concept of "superplay": A run is not a "superplay" if it's "boring". That's a rather fuzzy definition, I would say.
Nope, I don't. If you look at the definition above, you'll see that I said its main goal is to showcase skill-related stuff. If it purposefully chooses an easier route, it's a bad superplay — nothing less, nothing more. I didn't introduce boring-entertaining dichotomy, it's all within the original definition. If it takes no skill (or at least considerably less skill) to run through an easier route, the superplay loses its value. Even for an extreme case like Front Line, I can assume a possibility of a superplay — as long as it doesn't complete the game by doing what a speedrun would do.
Warp wrote:
I'll have to elaborate or else I'm wrong? That doesn't make any sense.
Basically, with the amount of of ambiguity posed by some of your statements, I'm free to interpret your words to my heart's content and use them against you any time until/unless you state what exactly did you mean.
QdQ runs don't encompass every possible category, yet provide more categories than would probably get accepted here. From what I gather now, you're saying that for a speedrun, any restriction in any amount goes as long as it's logically justified. By "logically justified", I assume that it can be freely disputed using logical arguments which create neverending debates locked in a loop by inherent errors in the theory of logic itself, and humans' inherent subjectivity. How do you plan on dealing with that? Obviously, it's not very hard for you because you're not a judge, but what if you were?
And you still haven't stated your definition of a speedrun, anyway. I'm curious as to how exactly it corresponds with the site's proposed goals and the current metaconditions for publishing.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
I think that's the core problem here. As long as there isn't even an attempt at mutual understanding the discussion is pointless.
It's not my problem if you refuse to explain yourself better. Note that I'm not supposed to read your mind.
I can only deduce that there are two possibilities:
1) You know what I'm saying but you are deliberately nitpicking, just for the sake of argument.
2) You are stupid and you honestly don't understand what I'm saying.
I'm assuming option number 1. Thus it's useless to continue.
1) You know what I'm saying but you are deliberately nitpicking, just for the sake of argument.
2) You are stupid and you honestly don't understand what I'm saying.
Consider option #3: You make multiple ambiguous and/or opinionated statements and pose problems with no definitive solution, use them in your arguments that you yourself start so often, and hope me to understand what's on your mind and how to deal with that, then grasp for a straw to avoid the questions I directly asked you.
Have a nice day.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
In fact, I miss old times with long submission quees and disputable movies, when it was possible to perform something suboptimal (e.g. play with funny glitches that make you lose several frames) and not to be afraid that someone suddenly walks in and improves your run by simply eliminating all those "flaws"
Umm... When was that ever a good thing.
AnS wrote:
Today you have to forget everything and aim on Frame Counter, or you'll lose to someone less principled.
Now there's much less room for art in TASes than it was before. I'm not content with where this is going.
Again contradicory to common belief there is actually a lot more value placed on entertainment than ever before and everything else you may be trying to imply, look back at the movies in general in the past and I can safely assure they tend not to choose entertaining options where applicable. Most people will be forgiving if a little time is sacrificed provided its not obvious and excessive, AIR comes to mind the most. With Frame Advance there is much more room for art in TASes compared to the old slow down. Generally I happy with the way site has progressed, but there is still a long way to go.
I wonder why almost everyone keeps simplifying things down to some measurable matter. Sure it makes judges' life easier but it restricts TASing too much. That's why I'm against meeting ultimate decisions/definitions of basic terms (what's TAS, its goal, and how to judge).
In fact, I miss old times with long submission quees and disputable movies, when it was possible to perform something suboptimal (e.g. play with funny glitches that make you lose several frames) and not to be afraid that someone suddenly walks in and improves your run by simply eliminating all those "flaws". Today you have to forget everything and aim on Frame Counter, or you'll lose to someone less principled.
Now there's much less room for art in TASes than it was before. I'm not content with where this is going.
I wasn't a fan of the long submission queue -- over 4 months for some movies -- and I personally think two-four weeks is good. But now it's more like two days to accept a run (SMB2).
... but everything else is basically exactly how I see things.
AKA's reply makes me chuckle. "How could anyone possibly enjoy something else?"
hey, at least this isn't 50%!
AKA's reply makes me chuckle. "How could anyone possibly enjoy something else?"
I just can't understand what is it that you want.
This site is about tool-assisted speedruns. Has always been, from day 1. Completing games as fast as possible. Entertainment yes, preferably, even if sacrificing a few frames increases considerably entertainment, but the main goal is to still complete the game as fast as possible (even if some restrictions are put in the goals for entertainment purposes). Basically any single frame wasted for no good purpose is seen as sloppy play and frowned upon. That's exactly what the goal is: To achieve the goal of the run with perfection, flawlessly, without wasting anything.
It's not only the number of frames which is optimized. For example, if taking damage does not affect the length of the run in any way, but there's absolutely no reason to take damage (not even for entertainment purposes), then taking damage is seen as a flaw: There's no advantage, and taking damage can be seen as sloppy play. Thus a takes-no-damage run is preferable to a "do whatever you want" run, if in both cases the number of frames would be the same. The reason is usually quite simple: It's more "difficult" to play the entire game through taking absolutely no damage than to sloppily take it when the runner is lazy and can't be bothered to avoid it.
Or let's take luck manipulation, for instance. In many cases luck manipulation is not done exclusively to shorten the run, but also because it's cool, especially to someone who has played the game and knows how it works. For example, getting a heart for each single kill in Castlevania2 can be seen as quite a feat by someone who has played the game and knows how rarely the hearts appear. Or walking long distances in a RPG without getting any random encounters.
But seemingly this is not what you want. What is it that you want?
I suggested that what you want are machinima videos. Videos made from games, which could be eg. sketch comedy, a music video, or whatever. But this is not what you want either?
Then what is it that you want?
This site is about tool-assisted speedruns. Has always been, from day 1. Completing games as fast as possible. Entertainment yes, preferably, even if sacrificing a few frames increases considerably entertainment, but the main goal is to still complete the game as fast as possible (even if some restrictions are put in the goals for entertainment purposes).
The purpose of that page was to debunk all the badmouthing which was abundant in the first years of the site. People were crying that the movies were fake, ie. that people were trying to pass emulator-runs for real ones.
The page is basically saying "no, we are not trying to compete with the speedrunning community, we are not trying to show any skill, we are doing these only for entertainment purposes, not to compete with anyone, not to discredit any legit speedruns, not to break any speedrunning records".
That page was not written to say "we are not aiming for speed". If you interpret it like that, you are simply wrong. I was there when the page was written and I even made suggestions to it. I know what Bisqwit was thinking when he wrote the first drafts of that page.
That page was not written to say "we are not aiming for speed". If you interpret it like that, you are simply wrong. (words)
Thus it's only natural that all of these movies are timeattacks.
Speed is still not the primary goal. Entertainment is.
Then, uh... why this line?
This basically discredits your entire post. It is there, black and white, clear as crystal etc etc etc etc etc blah blah blah that they do not aim primarily for speed, but entertainment, although it does however say that they are timeattacks simply because going slow and being inefficient (doing nothing with time as opposed to progressing or doing something interesting) is boring, which is not entertaining.
I'm a black and white kind of person, and your middle ground approach just seems as dumb as Truncated's halfpublishing of Super Metroid IngameTimerVersion.
This basically discredits your entire post. It is there, black and white, clear as crystal etc etc etc etc etc blah blah blah that they do not aim primarily for speed, but entertainment
You are taking one single sentence out of its context (both the rest of the page and the time when it was written, which was the time with the heaviest badmouthing against tool-assisted runs). At least you partially admit the fact:
although it does however say that they are timeattacks simply because going slow and being inefficient (doing nothing with time as opposed to progressing or doing something interesting) is boring, which is not entertaining.
The goal of TASes is entertainment, of course. It's a self-evident truth. If it wasn't entertaining making and watching them, nobody would make them in the first place. TASes are entertaining for the same reason as regular speedruns are. Why do you think regular speedruns are so popular?
I have said this like 50 times already in the past, but "aims for entertainment" and "aims for speed" are not mutually exclusive goals. They are goals at rather different abstraction levels: The entertainment goal is at a much higher conceptual level. It's the reason *why* these videos are made. They are made *because* it's entertaining. That's the whole goal. Now, *how* they are made entertaining is a different issue. This is an implementation detail, it's a more concrete concept. In the vast majority of cases the *how* is speed: Entertainment is achieved using speed. The videos are not made *because* they are fast, they are made *because* they are entertaining. It's a different conceptual category.
This is in no way different from the regular speedrunning community. It's the exact same thing there.
Sure, there are publications where the main goal is not speed. This is usually the case with games where there's little to be gained (in entertainment or basically anything else) with speed. When speed is not the "how" to achieve entertainment, then other goals can be used. A constant-speed side-scroller is the most prominent example of this because you *can't* speed it up. In that case entertainment can be achieved by other means (things which are impossible for a human to do).
I'm a black and white kind of person, and your middle ground approach just seems as dumb as Truncated's halfpublishing of Super Metroid IngameTimerVersion.
You have still not answered the question of what is it exactly that you want.
I think that most agree that the runs should be flawless (hence some people's fixation on the term "superplay"). It would be quite difficult to argument why a run which wastes frames for no good purpose would be "flawless". If you are going to achieve a goal, at least try to achieve it as perfectly as possible. Wasting time for no good reason is not perfection.
Apparently you don't want this. Then what is it that you want?
In fact, I miss old times with long submission quees and disputable movies, when it was possible to perform something suboptimal (e.g. play with funny glitches that make you lose several frames) and not to be afraid that someone suddenly walks in and improves your run by simply eliminating all those "flaws".
Exactly when was that? I have been closely following this site from day 1, and runs have been obsoleted by faster runs all the time.
Yes, they were obsoleted by runs that were faster because of new glitches, tricks and new tools. But these new runs still contained some speed/entertainment tradeoffs (and look, these are not "exceptions", it's common practice which remains EVEN today) But as we're approaching games' theoretical limit, there's much less outcome from polishing and new tricks - so it is natural for someone to refuse speed/entertainment tradeoffs, because even 1-2 frames now cost too much, thus no tradeoff can be considered useful (even the coolest one). So don't tell me that nothing has changed since day 1. Tools or people, but the trend exists.
Warp wrote:
I don't remember there ever been a general policy that "it's safe to submit suboptimal runs, nobody can obsolete them". In fact, the policy has always been quite strict on the opposite side: If someone obsoletes your run with a significantly faster one, bad luck. I do have personal experience.
I do .not. have personal experience, but I see things happen. 16 frames are quite significant today.
Blindly aiming for speed will always lead away from entertainment, even if you don't feel it. Here's an example.
In many games even small unnecessary action invisibly accumulates possible lag, which will (*or will not) appear as 1 lost frame somewhere at the middle of game. Does it mean we should refrain from any action that isn't absolutely necessary? Because in fact any dance is additionaly loading processor to some extent.
So if there existed bot that could know what's entertainment and how to create it, this bot still wouldn't show anything, because of higher speed priority. Don't tell me you want TASvideos to be collection of such perfect bot-runs. Welll, if you ask me, I'd like these movies to be rather slightly imperfect than unentertaining.
Warp wrote:
Well, that's exactly the whole idea of a tool-assisted speedrun: They aim for perfection. The goal is to see what would happen to a speedrun if flawed human element was removed from the equation.
OK, I'll speak in your terms and definitions. What this flawed element consist of? In early years it was intended to remove imperfect reflexes, then - to disregard limited memory, now it's necessary to squeeze creativity.
This is going. Somewhere.
Warp wrote:
What has changed is not the goals but the quality of the tools: Today we have frame advance, ram watchers and even robots, which didn't exist in the first years. This raises the quality requirements of the runs. It means that it's easier to remove flaws from the runs.
Please, do not sound so awfully reasonable.
Xkeeper wrote:
I wasn't a fan of the long submission queue -- over 4 months for some movies -- and I personally think two-four weeks is good.
It's just that short quees indicate that movies became less unique and more aimed on frame counter. The less subjective matter (entertainment) a movie contains, the easier is to judge it.
I wasn't a fan of the long submission queue -- over 4 months for some movies -- and I personally think two-four weeks is good.
It's just that short quees indicate that movies became less unique and more aimed on frame counter. The less subjective matter (entertainment) a movie contains, the easier is to judge it.
That, or hyperactive judges who think that even letting the workbench go over 10 submissions is horrible and needs to be stopped lest we ever return to "look this run's been rotting in here for a year" mode.
You know who you are.
tasvideos is good because people don't only care about speed, they care about entertainment too. on SDA they only care about speed. radix said that entertainment is only a sideeffect of speed.
tasvideos is good because people don't only care about speed, they care about entertainment too. on SDA they only care about speed. radix said that entertainment is only a sideeffect of speed.
Well that i one reason I love watching videos from here. Everyone cares about the entertainment factor, wile over at SDA if it happens it happens.
I wasn't a fan of the long submission queue -- over 4 months for some movies -- and I personally think two-four weeks is good.
It's just that short quees indicate that movies became less unique and more aimed on frame counter. The less subjective matter (entertainment) a movie contains, the easier is to judge it.
That, or hyperactive judges who think that even letting the workbench go over 10 submissions is horrible and needs to be stopped lest we ever return to "look this run's been rotting in here for a year" mode.
You know who you are.
People complain about everything! People complain when there are too many undecided submissions! People complain when there are too few! Too much complaining!
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
People complain about everything! People complain when there are too many undecided submissions! People complain when there are too few! Too much complaining!
Bag is complaining about complaining! The world is going to collapse on itself! Aaaah!
(bleeeh)
[Edit by Bisqwit: eschew quote pyramids.]
