Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Ok, I think it is time to rethink what we have for movie classes.
Just recently I removed "Aims for fastest time" since about 95% of the movies have this class. It is assumed that a movie has this unless stated otherwise.
I also added a "Playaround" class that can be used to specify movies where there is no time consideration.
Other things I was considering:
teddy_surives: ????A category that will only be used for one game, let's delete this
Ignores delays caused by bonus effects: Isn't this a relic? It could be removed.
One player controls two characters, three characters, etc: Change to just 2 Players, 3 Player, 4 players, etc.
2 Players: This is a relic that was intended to mean 2 authors, that's irrelevant and can be deleted.
What do you guys think of this? And do you have any suggestions for new classes, deleting classes, or renaming them?
Also, what about some new genres? I remember a few times over the years where a game didn't fit into a genre adequately. I've forgotten which games specifically.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
I say we watch Casablanca, I want to learn about Bogart!
maybe for easy reference we have an older newer section. This might help to know which runs need to be updated. apparently there are still runs on the site form 2005 that can be torn apart even more. I say do it by year, and when all the videos of that year are gone, delete that category.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
I agree with removing "Aims for fastest time."
However, "Ignores delays caused by bonus effects" should stay, if only to indicate the movie in question does not exclusively aim for fastest time (ie fewest input frames). IIRC, some of the Sonic games (the 8-bit ones?) are particularly egregious examples of this.
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
RT-55J is right. "Ignores delays caused by bonus effects" is basically an indicator of the game aiming for being awesome even when doing so is "punished" by a lengthy reward sequence. I think all of the Sonic games that don't let you skip the score tally are guilty of this; another example would be the matching minigame in Punky Skunk (where TASing allows the player to ratchet up over 100 extra lives, which are then awarded one by one).
Do we have a listing of all of the classes currently in use somewhere?
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
mmbossman: good call.
I'd change "Items: 100%" and "collects no items" to be more general, since for example Zero's techniques in the Megaman Zero games aren't really "items", but would still count for a "100% collection" run. Perhaps we should call them "Collects everything" and "minimalist"?
"No death" should be assumed unless "Uses death as a shortcut" is applied. Looking at the movies that have the "No death" tag, it's really not clear why they have it. Similarly, "No save data corruption", "Does not abuse programming errors in the game", "No predefined saves", and "Uses no passwords" should generally be assumed unless stated otherwise.
"Single level only" really should be gone, but only because the runs that have it shouldn't be published...but that gets into the whole un-publishing debate. Meh.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I agree "Abuses programming errors" should be removed, since all TASes are allowed to do that by default.
However, there should be a category for movies that use major glitches such as memory corruption, warping, and zipping. Notice that most heavily glitched movies also have "full" runs, but the full runs aren't completely clean, either: they use many other, smaller glitches, they simply choose to ignore the game-breaking glitches, even if they would be useful all over the game... because using them once means that they could have used it at the beginning of the game for a quick win.
Huge example, the "full" Zelda II run. It even says in the description "This movie avoids pressing Left and Right at the same time which causes an acceleration bug that can massively glitch the game." ... even when many other glitches are used, and zipping around the map would save time everywhere else.
So maybe categories such as "Heavily Glitched" and "Restricts Glitches" ?
"No death" should be assumed unless "Uses death as a shortcut" is applied. Looking at the movies that have the "No death" tag, it's really not clear why they have it. Similarly, "No save data corruption", "Does not abuse programming errors in the game", "No predefined saves", and "Uses no passwords" should generally be assumed unless stated otherwise.
So just don't display the "defaut labels" while keeping them there, so we don't need checkboxes.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
I agree with adelikat's "n players" suggestions.
Labels I think are relevant, because they go away from the obvious "as fast as possible", or because they do things other than the basic TAS rules (often being inperceptible).
- Starts from a previous sram
- Starts from a savestate
- Uses a password
- Uses a cheat code
- n players (as in how many characters are controlled)
- Warpless
- 100% completion
- Doesn't use [this glitch/feature] (game especific)
- Takes no damage
- Aims for fastest in-game time
- Trades time for entertainment
I wholeheartedly agree that "Teddy survives" should stay as an easter egg. It's too silly to get rid of. :D
"Playaround" and "demonstration" should be combined as they're largely interchangeable.
"Ignores delays caused by bonus effects" is a fancy moniker for aiming for in-game time, so they should be combined as well.
"Genre: simulation" is ambiguous and should be replaced by "Sport" or "Strategy" where applicable.
There is also confusion as to what is implied by stuff like "Action" and what is the difference between "RPG" and "Adventure" (say, in regards to Zelda games). Here's my opinion on the matter. I'll try to make the distinction as brief and simple as possible.
"Action" is a very ambiguous term, so I think it should be used for games where the player is targeted by most/all enemies, and/or for games where the player uses their weapons a lot. Splinter Cell, Contra, Bomberman, and Metroid, are an action. Sonic the Hedgehog and Donkey Kong Country aren't, because very little in in their respective worlds actually gives a shit about the player, rather than doing its routine task.
"Adventure" should be used for games where the player can revisit earlier locations with no hard time limit, unless it is an RPG (which implies that much already).
"Platform" is applicable to every game that concentrates primarily on using platforms for player's interaction with the game world, whether they aren't realistic or not. Mario 64 is a platformer. OoT isn't, because the "platforms" there are rare and borderline realistic.
"RPG" should be used for games where you can directly modulate the player charater(s)' development, and/or where the game has several storyline/continuity branches (i.e., massively nonlinear). FF6 is an RPG, because you can make a lot of choices that affect your future gameplay. Castlevania 2 isn't, because you're always doing the same things, at most in different order.
"Shooter" is for games with heavy emphasis on shooting, i.e. run'n'guns, shmups, FPSes and rail shooters, or games that have stages dedicated for that purpose.
"Storybook" is for non-action adventure games with menu-driven interface.
There are games that aren't covered by that, like Arkanoid, which is currently listed as "Action" in one case, and "Puzzle" in the other. I'd go with puzzle, although one could argue that it's in fact a shooter. :)
Derakon wrote:
"Collects everything" and "minimalist"?
"Minimalist" is too ambiguous as it can mean either lowest item collection or lowest time to different people. "Collects everything" is just inappropriate as it can mean literally everything that can be collected, whether it is counted by the game (or even makes sense) or not.
Derakon wrote:
"No death" should be assumed unless "Uses death as a shortcut" is applied. Looking at the movies that have the "No death" tag, it's really not clear why they have it. Similarly, "No save data corruption", "Does not abuse programming errors in the game", "No predefined saves", and "Uses no passwords" should generally be assumed unless stated otherwise.
I'm assuming this is done for sorting purposes (likewise with "abuses programming errors"); i.e., if I particularly dislike using death as a shortcut — there are numerous people like that — I should theoretically be able to make a query based on that criterion for games where using death is proven to be faster. As of right now it seems to be misused in a number of publications, which is likely the reason for your confusion.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Good stuff moozooh. Yes, regardless of which ones stay or change, there is also the fact that many of these are misused. Once we have the categories cleaned up, we need to do a massive project of combing through all the movies and cleaning up their usage. In addition, we need a page that documents the correct use of each category.
Dare I, once again, suggest a stricter interpretation of the "manipulates luck" category? I haven't followed how it's recently, but in the past that category has carelessly been granted to any run simply because the author wanted it, or because the publisher was in the mood.
But technically speaking all runs manipulate luck (at least in games which have a RNG or where the game reacts in different ways depending on the player's action) because the TAS repeats exactly certain events, even if they are supposed to be random or otherwise unpredictable in normal play. Thus "manipulates luck" should not mean that.
Instead, "manipulates luck" should mean heavy luck manipulation which gives significant advantage over an unassisted run where luck cannot be manipulated in the same way. For example, if there's, let's say, a 1% chance that an enemy will drop a certain item, and the TAS makes 20 consecutive enemies to drop that exact item, and benefits considerably from this in terms of speed, that is luck manipulation. An unassisted run would have to kill approximately 2000 enemies before it got those 20 items, so the difference is clear and drastic.
Another good example is getting a critical hit on every turn, even though normally it has a really small chance of happening. Likewise parrying enemy hits on every turn, even though it's very unlikely to happen in normal play.
This would make the category more sensible and significant. If you wanted to watch great examples of extreme luck manipulation, you could search for those movies having that category applied to them. Currently you won't get anywhere by doing that.
I think this is in the same vein as making the "abuses programming errors" much stricter than it currently is: Only heavy bug abuse should earn this category.
I think you have a good point with luck manipulation, but if we're going to make "abuses programming errors" into "abuses programming errors heavily", then we'll actually need that "does not abuse programming errors" tag, since there's plenty of viewers who specifically want glitch-free runs, and making the "default" setting for a run be "abuses some programming errors" will make it hard for those viewers to find glitch-free movies.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
IF I were to keep it, it would be come my life's work to find another game that could fit this category! Any games with a hero named teddy?
Since this was about Mother 2, you reminded me of how the "official" name of the last playable character in Mother 1 is Teddy. Now you've got me wondering if you can beat the game with Teddy in your party.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
I think you have a good point with luck manipulation, but if we're going to make "abuses programming errors" into "abuses programming errors heavily", then we'll actually need that "does not abuse programming errors" tag, since there's plenty of viewers who specifically want glitch-free runs, and making the "default" setting for a run be "abuses some programming errors" will make it hard for those viewers to find glitch-free movies.
You yourself suggested that "does not abuse programming errors" is a useless category because it can be assumed by default, and only bug abuse should be denoted explicitly with a category.
I happen to agree with that. The majority of runs don't abuse any bugs (or any bugs which make any significant difference), usually because there are no bugs to be exploited (not for speed, at least). Heavy bug abuse to achieve speed is more the exception than the norm.
There could be two bug abuse categories: Mild and extreme. Mild bug abuse is something like the SMB flagpole trick. Extreme is like much of the Rygar and Megaman runs.
Okay, so to be clear: you're suggesting having "Abuses some programming errors" and "Heavily abuses programming errors" (or words to that effect) as categories? Seems reasonable.
In general, we should just be making certain that the default, and thus implicit unless stated otherwise, category is the one that most runs "use". If most runs don't abuse glitches, then we should have categories for abusing glitches. If most runs don't use passwords, then we should have categories for using passwords. And so on.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
adelikat wrote:
Flygon wrote:
Keep Teddy survives, it's amusing enough to warrant its survival.
IF I were to keep it, it would be come my life's work to find another game that could fit this category!
It's simple. We make a short game taking place in the early 1900s about the president being kidnapped by ninjas. We of course have two endings. One where you rush in and defeat the last boss, and he kills the president. Another, where you take your time, get the president out, then finish off the last boss. We have the game support TASing and TAS it, and the category stays.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 11/27/2004
Posts: 688
Location: WA State, USA
Nach wrote:
It's simple. We make a short game taking place in the early 1900s about the president being kidnapped by ninjas. We of course have two endings. One where you rush in and defeat the last boss, and he kills the president. Another, where you take your time, get the president out, then finish off the last boss. We have the game support TASing and TAS it, and the category stays.
Sounds like the perfect candidate for the first TAS on that fancy-schmancy TAS VM thingy.
The only problem with this plan is said game's nonexistence. Somebody could fix this. I bet it'd take five minutes, tops.
Oh, and as long as we're joking, how about adding the category "Colors a Dinosaur"?
Nach wrote:
I also used to wake up every morning, open my curtains, and see the twin towers. And then one day, wasn't able to anymore, I'll never forget that.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3571)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
Warp wrote:
Dare I, once again, suggest a stricter interpretation of the "manipulates luck" category & "abuses programming errors"
I don't disagree with this. However, the current way has the advantage of not being subjective. Making manipulates luck only count for heavy luck manipulation means more things that we can argue about until the end of time. In theory though, yes perhaps they should be used for more meaningful situations.
I think that the categories have not been used well in general for awhile. The main goal needs to be for ease of the users to view movies that meet their preferences.
Also, I think we should change minimalist & full completion or whatever they are to simply 100% and low% as they are listed in the movie categories.
Btw,
So what genre is arkanoid?
Puzzle or puzzle/shooter seems to be the closest. It has heavy emphasis on logic for solving ricochet trajectories, but the general gameplay is close to that of classic shooters such as Space Invaders and Galaga.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
However, the current way has the advantage of not being subjective.
I think that the category is already subjective because, as said, basically all TASes "manipulate luck" in one way or another. Up until now, whether or not a run gets the category has been completely up to the publisher, often prompted by a suggestion by the author (and different authors may have different personal definitions of "manipulates luck").
The real problem, as mentioned, is that by being too liberal in granting the category, it has become basically nondescriptive and useless. It doesn't really tell anything about the run, not anything interesting at least. It would be much more useful if "manipulates luck" would be a much narrower category where the luck manipulation is extremely obvious. That way if one wants to watch such runs, one can search for runs with that category tag.
Making manipulates luck only count for heavy luck manipulation means more things that we can argue about until the end of time.
That's what judges are for, aren't they? To make decisions even if some visitors disagree with those decisions. :)
Just a guideline which all judges (or anybody who has the right to apply categories) can agree on.
I wouldn't say that's the problem here. The major problem here is going through all the existing publications and removing the category from the ones which don't really deserve it. That's a big undertaking.
(Btw, couldn't arkanoid be its own independent genre?)
