See, NES is overrepresented, and we want diversity. So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and Maga Man even harder to fix that.
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.
See, NES is overrepresented, and we want diversity. So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and Maga Man even harder to fix that.
And so far I don't see a lot (or indeed, any) people in this thread agreeing with him.
...that suggests that he probably should not be the new "star man".
See, NES is overrepresented, and we want diversity. So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and Maga Man even harder to fix that.
And so far I don't see a lot (or indeed, any) people in this thread agreeing with him.
...that suggests that he probably should not be the new "star man".
I would agree with this.
EDIT: I also feel that too much attention is given to the ratings of movies. Now in the past they may have been a good measure of movie popularity, etc. but now movies frequently get little to no ratings on them whatsoever.
EDIT2:
Arc wrote:
13. NES Zelda II: The Adventure of Link (USA) "warpless" by Arc, FatRatKnight, Inzult & Rising Tempest in 45:26.04 (2016) (8.5) - There are 3 Zelda II TASes, all 8.4+ rated (top 100), yet none starred. FRK's solution to get 2 fairies in the Valley of Death is a shining example of achieving the impossible.
Arc wrote:
16. NES The Battle of Olympus (USA) by Arc & nesrocks in 09:55.37 (2017) (8.3) - Impossible hyperspeed maneuvering and luck manipulation.
I think nominating your own movies is a bad idea tbh as well.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
A mediocre run should not get a star for the sake of diversity at the expense of a more deserving run, which was one of the primary purposes of my post. Ideally there would be kino TASes on all systems and in a variety of genres. But if that's not how the world actually works, you shouldn't pretend that it does. There should be diversity to the extent that it's actually deserved, but otherwise the emphasis should be on the highest quality. Affirmative action TASes only dilute the prestige of the star tier, and that's why I say to stop trying to fill arbitrary quotas and instead focus on respecting the greatest works and their creators.
feos wrote:
So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and MAGA Man even harder to fix that.
You are developing a pattern of intentionally misrepresenting my position because it is easier to attack than what I actually write.
Radiant wrote:
...that suggests that he probably should not be the new "star man".
I'm not surprised that you are worried about losing your current comfy relationship with the starman. You represent the flaw in the star system. TASes get a star based on forum shilling rather than someone who is dedicated to examining the pros and cons of every TAS and doing so without bias on behalf of what the whole community prefers. A few forum shills don't represent the whole community.
Memory wrote:
I think nominating your own movies is a bad idea tbh as well.
I didn't officially nominate anything. I objectively noted a list of some highly rated non-star TASes that the community as a whole appears to prefer over some of the worst stars. Is there really no one who finds it absurd that Coca Cola Kid has a star for the sake of diversity while the 3rd-highest rated TAS on the site does not?
I think nominating your own movies is a bad idea tbh as well.
I didn't officially nominate anything. I objectively noted a list of some highly rated non-star TASes that the community as a whole appears to prefer over some of the worst stars. Is there really no one who finds it absurd that Coca Cola Kid has a star for the sake of diversity while the 3rd-highest rated TAS on the site does not?
Ignoring my point about ratings altogether I see.
Coca Cola Kid is actually a very entertaining TAS from what I remember whereas 70 star feels like it is where it is because it's another Mario 64 TAS rather than one of the best Mario 64 TASes. Ratings are inherently flawed in and of themselves so there needs to be more to it than just that.
EDIT: Movie diversity is listed as a key concern in the starman guidelines too.
EDIT2: To clarify I definitely think some games should be changed within the star list but relying overly on one system of measurement (ratings) is not good.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
A mediocre run should not get a star for the sake of diversity at the expense of a more deserving run, which was one of the primary purposes of my post.
We're not destarring SM64 or OoT runs because we need space for Warcraft or Coca Cola Kid. We're destarring them if those games are already represented well. We only star the same franchise on the same platform if the branches are substantially different and showcase unrelated aspects of TASing. Like these:
[1649] NES Mega Man 2 by aglasscage, finalfighter, pirohiko & Shinryuu in 23:48.51[1686] NES Mega Man by Shinryuu & finalfighter in 12:23.34[3595] NES Rockman 4 Minus Infinity "all items" by Baddap1 in 34:43.72
I was trying to turn stars into an actual tier, only highlighting the very best runs regardless of diversity. Because cherry picking runs into stars makes it not a tier. So when NewcomerRec list became a thing, I thought it would be the only one needing cherry picking, and stars would become more of a tier. That idea was taken down by admins years ago. So I had to obey diversity and quotas.
Arc wrote:
I say to stop trying to fill arbitrary quotas and instead focus on respecting the greatest works and their creators.
Arc wrote:
Now that there are 100 starred movies, I think that 100 should be a hard cap.
Nice. So 10% is arbitrary even if it's approved by admins, and 100 stars even if we have 9000000000 moons is not arbitrary?
feos wrote:
Are you saying diversity is a bad requirement?
Arc wrote:
feos wrote:
So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and MAGA Man even harder to fix that.
You are developing a pattern of intentionally misrepresenting my position because it is easier to attack than what I actually write.
I'm still unsure if you think our diversity requirement is a good or a bad thing.
Arc wrote:
It's amusing that you brought up Jetpack, because you clearly never checked the actual thread of that movie. It contains lots of cool discussion, which nearly caused me to ragequit the site. Start from this post. adelikat suggested to talk to FractalFusion to resolve it, he was the senior judge back then. So we delayed starring that run, and then, knowing the actual demand and seeing some free space, I added it.
As for "comfy relationship" between Radiant and myself, are you sure you want me to link you ALL posts when it was the opposite of true? Because there's overwhelming majority of such posts over the course of several years.
Arc wrote:
You represent the flaw in the star system. TASes get a star based on forum shilling rather than someone who is dedicated to examining the pros and cons of every TAS and doing so without bias on behalf of what the whole community prefers. A few forum shills don't represent the whole community.
First of all, your requirement is outright impossible. No one is able to fully understand all the good parts of all games of all genres. Next, there's another requirement in reality. A starman is not just expected to understand the good parts of the games on the basis of knowing what's going on in them gameplay-wise. He is also expected to understand what laymen are going to enjoy, regardless of not knowing the game.
Now, what does a starman do when he doesn't understand anything in the game? He has to listen to people who do. This is how Chrono Trigger got starred. Not because we were out of RPGs. Not because we wanted to fill the space. But because we listen to feedback.
Arc wrote:
Is there really no one who finds it absurd that Coca Cola Kid has a star for the sake of diversity while the 3rd-highest rated TAS on the site does not?
It's not for the sake of diversity. It's because we listen to the audience and check runs against starman guidelines, while also trying to make decisions that make people happier despite of them representing opposing camps.
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.
Perhaps the ideal option would be to eliminate having one specific individual with the responsibility of being the Star tier curator; and instead, have some sort of consensus decision.
Regarding runs currently in the Star tier: What about a system involving a regularly scheduled (i.e. once every year, once every other year, once every five years, etc) vote on whether current star TASes should maintain their star rating or lose it. This voting could be either open to all members or limited to members holding a certain level of status on the site (judges, expert players, etc).
That way it wouldn't be any one person's responsibility to make a final judgement call on whether a current TAS is worthy of maintaining Star status. This would also drastically minimize the possibility of a single individual's personal bias from being the primary reason a given Star run loses its current star.
Regarding new runs: A similar consensus opinion among appropriately positioned members that required a voted yes/no decision instead of just forum discussion on a given run to decide whether that new run is Star worthy.
This would still allow for any member to nominate a run for Star tier.
To rephrase all this in a simpler manner: Transition from a single curator of the Star tier to some degree of group decision/voting that is more deterministic than just forum discussion.
It may take longer for a run's induction into (or expulsion out of) what is essentially our 'Hall of Fame,' but it would be a directed system that would hopefully reduce stress on feos as well as spreading out the responsibility.
I think Bionic Commando can lose its star, it's pretty average.
arandomgametaser wrote:
You could probably remove Shattered Dimensions all items if you want. It's not that impressive overall.
I really like both of these TASes :(
But seriously though I don't buy that these aren't totally examples of being your own worst critic.
I actually showed somebody I know the latter and they bought the game as a result soooooo
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
It may take longer for a run's induction into (or expulsion out of) what is essentially our 'Hall of Fame,' but it would be a directed system that would hopefully reduce stress on feos as well as spreading out the responsibility.
It's not stressful, it's just taking me long to get around. And setting up a machineneural network system that'd generate solutions everyone will be happy with, is exactly the kind of stress that no one wants here. If everyone can control it, then no one can, despite of how good and reasonable they might be.
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.
A mediocre run should not get a star for the sake of diversity at the expense of a more deserving run, which was one of the primary purposes of my post. Ideally there would be kino TASes on all systems and in a variety of genres. But if that's not how the world actually works, you shouldn't pretend that it does. There should be diversity to the extent that it's actually deserved, but otherwise the emphasis should be on the highest quality. Affirmative action TASes only dilute the prestige of the star tier, and that's why I say to stop trying to fill arbitrary quotas and instead focus on respecting the greatest works and their creators.
feos wrote:
So far Arc suggests to overrepresent Mario, Zelda, Castlevania and MAGA Man even harder to fix that.
You are developing a pattern of intentionally misrepresenting my position because it is easier to attack than what I actually write.
Radiant wrote:
...that suggests that he probably should not be the new "star man".
I'm not surprised that you are worried about losing your current comfy relationship with the starman. You represent the flaw in the star system. TASes get a star based on forum shilling rather than someone who is dedicated to examining the pros and cons of every TAS and doing so without bias on behalf of what the whole community prefers. A few forum shills don't represent the whole community.
Memory wrote:
I think nominating your own movies is a bad idea tbh as well.
I didn't officially nominate anything. I objectively noted a list of some highly rated non-star TASes that the community as a whole appears to prefer over some of the worst stars. Is there really no one who finds it absurd that Coca Cola Kid has a star for the sake of diversity while the 3rd-highest rated TAS on the site does not?
I know you're just trying to offend me, but this post is so hilariously clueless that it made me laugh out loud :D
I also feel that too much attention is given to the ratings of movies. Now in the past they may have been a good measure of movie popularity, etc. but now movies frequently get little to no ratings on them whatsoever.
Ratings shouldn't be the only factor but they're a reliable indicator of which TASes to examine. YouTube view and like data is also available. (13.5 million views for a "not starworthy" SM64 TAS... ludicrous.)
feos wrote:
-We only star the same franchise on the same platform if the branches are substantially different ... I'm still unsure if you think our diversity requirement is a good or a bad thing.
-So 10% is arbitrary even if it's approved by admins, and 100 stars even if we have 9000000000 moons is not arbitrary?
-As for "comfy relationship" between Radiant and myself, are you sure you want me to link you ALL posts when it was the opposite of true? ... Your requirement is outright impossible. No one is able to fully understand all the good parts of all games of all genres. ... we listen to feedback.
My views on diversity may be confusing because I have a right-wing concept of diversity—diversity of skills or strengths. A good example is Masterjun's SMW ACE, which requires a completely different skillset than the two starred SMW TASes. The left-wing concept of diversity is based on identity, like when Coca Cola Kid or Jetpack got a star solely because they are on 'underrepresented' systems (admit it). Or OoT doesn't get a star because it is part of the Zelda franchise—as if all Zelda TASes were the same just because they share the name Zelda. The site tries to do both but clearly prioritizes the left-wing idea.
The starman page says to star 5% for each platform, unless the system is full of garbage games. Why 5%? Where does this number come from? The first part wants to assume, for whatever reason, that exactly the top 5% of each system is starworthy, but then it shifts to acknowledging the arbitrariness of this number since many systems will have <5%. Every system is different. You know Atari has zero starworthy games. The NES could have more than 5% that are worthwhile. Even so, the NES is actually underrepresented according to this 5% rule right now (NES should have 25 instead of 21 stars.) My earlier criticism was not against overrepresenting NES games but instead saying that some mediocre NES TASes got stars partly because the NES is a great system rather than because the TAS itself is great. A top 100 is a specific cap and thus by definition an antonym of 'arbitrary' and gives a star more allure. More and more TASes competing for a limited number of stars is a good thing. Star value would increase over time. Only the most awesome would get one, rather than some awesome and some not-so-great-but-at-least-we-have-diversity.
The starman should be leading the discussion, even when requests come in. He should outline the full case for or against a star rather than just agreeing 'yeah that's good I'll star it.' The forum members serve as a check on the reasoning. Isn't knowing games well what makes someone a suitable starman? It's someone who has rated a very high number of TASes and understands the full spectrum of TAS quality, has a lot of experience, and pays attention to what's going on.
[MOD NOTE: Off topic discussion about rude wording after this post have been split out. -Mothrayas]
[MOD NOTE: Additional rude wording removed. If you cannot make your argument without using rude and offensive wording, then you've lost. -Nach]
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Arc wrote:
Is there really no one who finds it absurd that Coca Cola Kid has a star for the sake of diversity while the 3rd-highest rated TAS on the site does not?
I do. I strongly disagree with the 2 star limit per game. If there are more than 2 awesome SM64 TASes, give this game more than 2 stars. If there are no awesome Atari TAS, don't give this platform any stars. Diversity is good, but obsessing too much about it results in givings stars to average TASes and negating stars to top tier worthy TASes.
I do. I strongly disagree with the 2 star limit per game. If there are more than 2 awesome SM64 TASes, give this game more than 2 stars. If there are no awesome Atari TAS, don't give this platform any stars. Diversity is good, but obsessing too much about it results in givings stars to average TASes and negating stars to top tier worthy TASes.
In part I'm agreed, but in the other hand the star tier will be invaded for a lot of Sonic/Mario/Zelda/Metroid/Megaman/Castlevania and some other popular games, and is a good idea taking in mind reproductions and likes in YT encodes, after all, there are normal people out there who look at those TASes and are fascinated (or think is cheating(lol)).
I do. I strongly disagree with the 2 star limit per game. If there are more than 2 awesome SM64 TASes, give this game more than 2 stars. If there are no awesome Atari TAS, don't give this platform any stars. Diversity is good, but obsessing too much about it results in givings stars to average TASes and negating stars to top tier worthy TASes.
Does it, though?
Can you give us examples of stars being given to average runs purely for the reason of diversity?
Personally I prefer for star tier to contain runs that many people haven't heard of, as long as they're excellent. I find this far more entertaining than starring, say, all Metroid runs; if I want to find all Metroid runs then there's a search function for that.
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
[MOD NOTE: Off topic discussion about rude wording before this post have been split out. -Mothrayas]
Refusing to discuss with someone because of the use of a word is a more childish attitude than the use of the word in first place. Arc brought some good points you completely ignored, which lead to half a dozen posts about 'name calling' in the Special Stars thread. May we try to make some discussion on the first 2 paragraphs of Arc's post?
Arc wrote:
My views on diversity may be confusing because I have a right-wing concept of diversity—diversity of skills or strengths. A good example is Masterjun's SMW ACE, which requires a completely different skillset than the two starred SMW TASes. The left-wing concept of diversity is based on identity, like when Coca Cola Kid or Jetpack got a star solely because they are on 'underrepresented' systems (admit it). Or OoT doesn't get a star because it is part of the Zelda franchise—as if all Zelda TASes were the same just because they share the name Zelda. The site tries to do both but clearly prioritizes the left-wing idea.
The starman page says to star 5% for each platform, unless the system is full of garbage games. Why 5%? Where does this number come from? The first part wants to assume, for whatever reason, that exactly the top 5% of each system is starworthy, but then it shifts to acknowledging the arbitrariness of this number since many systems will have <5%. Every system is different. You know Atari has zero starworthy games. The NES could have more than 5% that are worthwhile. Even so, the NES is actually underrepresented according to this 5% rule right now (NES should have 25 instead of 21 stars.) My earlier criticism was not against overrepresenting NES games but instead saying that some mediocre NES TASes got stars partly because the NES is a great system rather than because the TAS itself is great. A top 100 is a specific cap and thus by definition an antonym of 'arbitrary' and gives a star more allure. More and more TASes competing for a limited number of stars is a good thing. Star value would increase over time. Only the most awesome would get one, rather than some awesome and some not-so-great-but-at-least-we-have-diversity.
Problem is that this assumes that there are a large number of TASes that were solely starred for "diversity" purposes and that quality was either not a concern or less of one. I don't believe this to be the case. In fact a bunch of the TASes that were brought up that "should be stars" I found rather boring like Dawn of Sorrow all souls.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
1. After being presented factual reasons behind starring Jetpack, he ignores them and keeps pedaling the idea he made up.
2. The star tier operates the way it does because staff designed rules for it that were making sense 1) for staff members and 2) for the audience.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=12998
3. 5% number, as well as some other contents of that page, are not used in reality, they were put there to get things rolling, to help getting the general idea. When I started revising the old star list, both adelikat and Nach participated, sharing thoughts, ideas and cautions. So it started off as a collective effort. As it went along, people started giving suggestions as well. Each suggestion was checked against the main requirements. You should not expect all stars to meet all requirements, because it is unrealistic. I'm saying that based on all the years spent working on this tier. But it never means no checks happen. And it never means there are stars with only one requirement met. But there are stars that people can get insane about, both camps: those who want them to be starred and those who don't. Factual star rules (and my personal mindset) always account for such possibilities. Everyone will never be equally happy. But like I said, my job is to ensure that the worst corners are cut.
4. Logical failures are not helping. Calling 10% of moons an arbitrary number and stating that the only possible non-abritrary number is 100 is absurd. Refusing to notice that is ignorance. Ignorance is worse than honest mistakes, because one actually knows the truth, he just dislikes it. There can be no discussion whenever someone decides to ignore logic.
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.
Regarding what makes a run worthy of a star to begin with...
An excellent TAS is an excellent TAS regardless of what game is run or what system/franchise it's from. Popularity of the game/franchise should have zero impact whether a run is deemed worthy of a star.
Will NES games (and games from popular franchises) be over-represented in the Star Tier if the 2-star-per-game limit is removed? Yes, possibly. But only because those games are more frequently TASed and many of those resulting TASes are truly excellent in quality.
It has also been suggested that Atari systems may never have 5% starred runs because of none of the games are star-worthy.
I strongly disagree with this attitude. Firstly, no GAME should be deemed star worthy simply based on what game it is. The star tier isn't for excellent GAMES, it's for excellent TASes.
Further the excellence of any given TAS should ONLY be compared to other TASes of the same system, not to runs from other systems.
It would likely be hard to find many people agreeing that a given Atari run is more impressive than some of the NES or SNES runs that are currently starred. But that doesn't automatically make the Atari run in question any less excellent for an Atari run.
Simply put, qualifying excellence should be based on the system the TAS is made for, not as a general comparison across all systems.
More thoughts: While visual entertainment should absolutely be considered to add to the excellence of a run, I don't believe lack of visual entertainment should automatically disqualify a TAS from being considered an example of excellent TASing.
It's completely possible for a highly sophisticated and technically excellent TAS to result in a run that isn't very entertaining to watch from a visual perspective, but instead derives its excellence and any resulting entertainment value from the technical side of the TAS.
Let's be honest, a TAS beating SMB3 in under 3 seconds derives its entertainment value from the technical attributes, not from simply watching it go directly from the intro screen to the end-game.
I guess the key question on this thought is; whether we (as a site) want the Star Tier to be a list of TASing excellence (Hall of Fame), or simply a list of the most highly visually impressive runs(Hall of Entertainment). While there may be some overlap with various games qualifying for both situations, there's a major difference between these two perspectives in my opinion.
EDIT: For clarifiction and to prove that I at least read up on the current system: The current Star Tier guidelines emphasize entertainment over technicality, but also emphasize that technicality is important.
I would like to suggest this movie for stars: [3531] GBA Kao the Kangaroo by TASeditor in 14:12.30
the run is very fast pace and features some insane movements. being able to clip into platforms and wacking them to move forward is a pretty unique strat I've seen. not only that, but there's a few parts where the Char goes completely off screen and shows up on the opposite end due to the camera not following him correctly. to add, the damage boosts that slightly push the Char forward makes for some interesting routing choices that seal the deal for me.
while the bosses being long and slow, I think it's but a small smudge to the overall polished Movie here.
[14:15] <feos> WinDOES what DOSn't
12:33:44 PM <Mothrayas> "I got an oof with my game!"
Mothrayas Today at 12:22: <Colin> thank you for supporting noble causes such as my feet
MemoryTAS Today at 11:55 AM: you wouldn't know beauty if it slapped you in the face with a giant fish
[Today at 4:51 PM] Mothrayas: although if you like your own tweets that's the online equivalent of sniffing your own farts and probably tells a lot about you as a person
MemoryTAS Today at 7:01 PM: But I exert big staff energy honestly lol
Samsara Today at 1:20 PM: wouldn't ACE in a real life TAS just stand for Actually Cease Existing
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Look like a good candidate. Just can you guys please rate it a bit harder?
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.
