Language: lualocal List = {} List[0] = "BEN" List[1] = "DEAN" List[2] = "JOHN" List[3] = "SAM" a = memory.read_u8(КАКОЙ АДРЕС-ТО???) gui.text(10, 15, List[a])
Will people make 20-30 TASes of the same game though; for how many games is that really a danger?
"Different enough" is indeed tricky to define, but maybe a poll question in the vein of "should this movie be published" can help with some intersubjectivity.
I don't think I'd prepare for every eventuality in advance, since I think 'too many branches' is not a problem that will pop up a lot.
Actually, since we've gotten a pretty overwhelmingly positive reaction to this proposal, maybe we should all start working on hashing out the rules in finer detail. We can either come up with a definite list of categories we want to be objective, or try to come up with a clean definition for "non-objective" categories, whichever one would be more clear and concise in the long run.
Sound may not work, likely due to an error in how PCem emulates the ES1371 / Sound Blaster PCI 128 card.
I did notice one minor thing however. You seem to go to the backpack at the level fadeouts. Sometimes this seems to be for picking an item while the fadeout goes on, but other times it seems to be a case of lag reduction. I've noticed that for the lag reduction (and assuming you aren't picking an item) the Pause menu can be substituted, which could have less lag. However, the gain is very minor and likely outright negated due later lag being thrown off. Not really worthy of rejection, but perhaps something to keep an eye on in case you want to squeeze just a little more timesave in.
For a PC game, can a settings file be provided for an option that is permanently set on first startup, not modifiable from within the game, and not tied to save data? Iconoclasts has a flag in its data directory called settings, which contains a flag to know if this is the first time you've opened the game. This is used to allow players to skip an intro cutscene before the title screen that is unskippable otherwise, guaranteeing that the player will see it during their first time booting the game. Once the player has selected New Game, and enters a game, this flag is permanently set. Since iconoclasts uses manual saving otherwise, you don't need to save your new game at all (you can essentially close the game right away and generate no save data while still keeping the first_time flag).
Some systems, such as DOS, expose separate parts of the operating system and/or the game to the user. You are not allowed to manipulate these files except as is normally necessary to play the game, such as "installing" it. [...] That means no renaming/copying/deleting/replacing/editing files that affect gameplay. However, editing environment settings or utilizing standard third-party tools in order to get a game to load is allowed as long as the game runs as it's supposed to.
Giving yourself a headstart is not allowed. The game must start from a common starting point, which is the very beginning.
1) Would having credits play out like this be a valid speed/entertainment tradeoff? Or would it be best to skip all cutscenes to save the 45 seconds? (I’m not concerned about Moons/Vault tiering, since I’m working off of the assumption that the end TAS will be entertaining enough to warrant a speed/entertainment tradeoff like this, but I’d be fine if that assumption is wrong.)
2) What would count as the final input for TAS timing for a Fresh File TAS? The moment we kill the King? or do we default to entering the fountain as the final input as we would for an RTA run? Can we count the movement after the credits as “post-completion input”? The relevant portion of the rules suggests that “Extra input does not change the resulting ending”, which is true, but it also suggests that “Extra input is trivial to execute for anyone replaying the movie”. Is holding B to leave the credits, holding right, pressing A once, and pressing R1 to enter the fountain sufficiently trivial?
How do we look at games more objectively, then? This is something that's going to take some community discussion to really iron out, but we've started coming up with a potential new system that should greatly expand Vault in a satisfying way, allowing for more runs to be accepted without opening the doors wide enough to accept absolutely everything: Instead of strictly only allowing fastest and full completions in Vault, we would allow any objective goal for a game. By objective goal, we mean "something that is defined or limited by the game itself". Here are some big examples, but definitely not EVERY example:And here's a list of smaller things that are more dependent on the game, but still objective:
- Pure fastest completion (GEG, ACE, etc)
- Warps (or fastest "intended" completion)
- Warpless/All levels (warps are an intended shortcut so not using them counts as an objective goal)
- 100% (assuming it can be defined objectively)
- Score attack (an objective goal with room for improvement in the same vein as fastest completion)
- Gameplay modes (including things like New Game +)
- Number of players
- Character choices
- In-game defined goals (i.e, achievements, things that reward the player with content)
- Tool-assisted speedrunning covers many scientific topics as well as an ever increasing materials that can not be fit inside the tasvideos Wiki.
I think the platform for this game should be Windows. While this version of ScummVM runs under Linux, it's just a replacement for the SCUMM engine and should be treated like any emulator: if the game runs authentically with the original Windows game data files, then it should be considered acceptable and should be classified as a game under the original platform. This game also never had an official Linux release, so that might be confusing to viewers looking for this game.
- I like having a system where anyone can upload anything in any category for any game similar to speedrun.com. I'd obviously prefer a few changes compared to how speedrun.com handles things
I think the plan is to use new names.
I just had a thought. Maybe the "external goals" tier should be judged not necessarily on entertainment so much as whether it provides an interesting experience distinct from the standard branches. I think anything that associates it with the "entertaining tier" goes against the goal of this proposed change.
What exactly does the term Demonstration mean in this context anyway? To me the term demo kind of imparts a meaning of something shown as a proof of concept that may not necessarily be the full featured product. Would a demo have to be a full complete playthrough? Would it even have to be optimized?
I think this majorly improves some pain points around pretentiousness of the tiers and over-focus on entertainment/audience feedback in the initial response to new submissions for established speedrun categories. It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication. I could run through all the examples for Pokemon but one that wouldn't fit in the current description is unintended warps vs ace, eg Legend of Zelda "defeat Ganon" vs "SRM" game end glitch. The way the big examples are described right now leaves out that big chunk of glitched but no ACE type movies which I imagine are intended to still be an allowable category, but I would really like some way also to appreciate movies when there are vastly different glitches from a technical perspective that all satisfy the same branch rules like ACE or no ACE/unintended warps.
- Turn Moons into a flag. Assign it to all external goals/player imposed restrictions/concepts that don't explicitly and officially exist in the game. Require them to meet acceptability reasons based on entertainment. As long as a side goal branch meets them, accept. Obsolete a different branch if needed.
- If we're not sure whether we want it or not, reject.
- If it contradicts some guidelines but we agree that we need it to be an exception because it's so impressive, accept. Probably that's when the Demo flag should come in.
It still fails to elegantly handle games with lots of different game end glitch/ACE entry points, where game researchers tend to enjoy optimizing and looking for all these different attack vectors to exploit a game but none of them qualify for publication.
I do feel there's another discussion to be had about expanding the site in some other way to give more attention to these kinds of TASes without publication, some sort of ascended Userfiles system maybe
Doesn't making Moons a category for "the good movies" only continue the problem of Vault being perceived as a bad classification, which is part of what the proposed changes are trying to deal with?
Would movies in the Gruefood Delight be re-evaluated if and when the changes are implemented?