Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Analog controls are planned in the future.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
DrD2k9 wrote:
(rhetorically) So if a TAS already exists as published and humans manage to match it, that's ok; but if the best a TASer can do is to only match the absolute best human out there, it's not ok just because in the grand spectrum of time a human has already achieved that performance once? (end rhetorical question)
It doesn't make sense to hold a 1st generation run to higher standard than improvement runs simply because there happens to be 1 or a small handful of humans who have managed to attain the best possible performance at some point in time prior to the game being first TASed. If the majority of humans can match that performance, then it's a different story: the game is trivial and the restriction is valid.
Assuming that a game isn't trivial for most humans to play, the best possible TAS of that game based on known information is still the best possible result and deserves to be documented on the site as such.
Sure, if a TAS and the best human run are equivalent, someone could absolutely go watch the best human run instead of the TAS. But the fact that someone can see an equivalent performance elsewhere doesn't restrict TAS acceptance otherwise. If there's a TAS video of a game on YouTube or NicoVideo that achieves the best possible performance but that TAS was never submitted to our site, we'd accept a submission from a different author even if it only matched that other run for time. So why does it matter if the other run being compared to was human instead of someone else's TAS? If a submission in question matches the best known existing time (regardless of whether a human or TAS made the run), it should be acceptable. We'd never reject a submission solely because another TAS (which isn't published on the site ) is just as good as the submission in question.
People don't only watch our videos to see only what human's CAN'T do...some (probably quite a few casual watchers) watch to see what's the best that CAN be done. They don't care if a human can match it or not, they are simply trying to see what's the best possible (which, in-theory, is a key part of what TASing is all about).
The above quote specifically points out the dichotomy. In one case, you're arguing that updates to an already published TAS are allowed to be only as good as the best humans, but new TASes aren't allowed to be only as good than the absolute best humans.
We need to stop considering Vault runs from an "experience" standpoint. Vault is supposed to be a place that doesn't consider entertainment value. Thus, whether or not someone can obtain the same experience watching a run equivalent to a vault publication elsewhere is a moot point. The vault is effectively an archive for the fastest completions (or maximum score runs), it's not about the experience.
Distinction between trivial games and trivial movies is crucial and resolves your questions. If the game in its nature is trivial to TAS, any TAS of it is rejected, because it won't be a meaningful tool-assisted speedrun record. But if the game is complicated and affords serious TAS competition, its movies are accepted, even if human record matches a TAS, as long as there's nothing more to improve with the current knowledge.
#6614: The8bitbeast's SMS Zool: Ninja of the "Nth" Dimension "game end glitch" in 00:21.61
So for non-trivial games, the movie rule that demands beating or at least matching human records simply allows a seemingly-trivial movie to be accepted, to establish the current state of art and to encourage further developments, where a TAS may outperform humans again, or get beaten by them and compete with them again. This is possible because the game is complex enough.
This is the reason we don't particularly care how many humans can match the TAS record. The current Zool record can be matched by infinity of humans, and it won't mean the game has magically become trivial in its nature, all the future movies of it must be rejected, and original acceptance was a mistake. That assumption would be unfair and discouraging to people pushing this game to the limit.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Your whole argument starts from complete misreading.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html -> Rules for games -> The game must be acceptable -> Vault -> Must be clearly definable as a game, which has achievable goals
That is a requirement for games to be acceptable for Vault.
http://tasvideos.org/MovieRules.html -> Rules for movies -> The movie must be good -> A speed-oriented movie must beat all existing records
That rule is for movies and their optimality. Yet in your wording you treat them both as rules for movies, resulting in moot arguments.
DrD2k9 wrote:
The current rules for a vault run say
The game-play needs to standout from non-assisted play, and must not be seen as trivial. Note that a game is considered trivial until proven otherwise. If getting perfect times everywhere is not challenging, such a game is considered trivial. If later a technique is found that makes TASing it challenging, that game becomes acceptable
The current rules for beating existing records say
If your tool-assisted movie is slower than the non-tool-assisted world record for the same game, aiming for the same goals, your movie will be rejected.
Given the recent change from "not faster than" to "slower than" for speed rules; these two criteria are now somewhat in conflict.
One criterion (in the rules on triviality) essentially says a run must stand out from human play to be acceptable, while the other criterion (in the rules on speed) essentially says a run simply can't be slower than human play to be acceptable.
DrD2k9 wrote:
In my opinion, a game's triviality should be based on the ability of humans to present a perfect (or near perfect) performance, not how challenging it is to make a TAS of that perfect performance...especially when acceptability for Vault is in question.
If the majority of humans can easily beat a game unassisted with perfect or near perfect performance, a game can be argued to be inherently trivial (Desert Bus).
Duck Hunt is a good example of the triviality dilemma.
TASing a perfect time performance in 1-Duck mode is extremely easy to do as it's simply a matter of watching a timer and duck location in RAM then firing on the first possible frame. However, it'd be nigh impossible for a human to accomplish this same feat.
While it doesn't make a very interesting TAS to watch, it would still meet all other criteria for acceptance into Vault as the fastest completion of a game.On a side note, it's also obviously superhuman.Side note #2: I don't believe that a max score run would be trivial as the score per duck can vary (even in 1-Duck mode IIRC) and would require some RNG manipulation to accomplish.
Yet, this mode of the game is currently prohibited from vault based on triviality of how difficult it is to make the TAS.
As vault is meant to be the location of fastest known/possible TASes of games (when entertainment isn't considered), what argument is there to restricting games simply because the act of making the TAS is extremely easy?
Even when a game is extremely easy to TAS perfectly; if it isn't also that easy casually, it's not inherently a trivial game.
TL:DR
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
Should we modify the Vault rules in the following ways?
1) Eliminate the concept that game-play must visually stand out from human play For Moons, this requirement could be maintained.
2) Clearly define how triviality is determined
The point of our site is to publish impressive movies from a perspective of entertainment (moons/stars), speed only (vault), or both.
Therefore, I simply don't see any value or purpose in banning a game from publication(especially when a TAS shows obvious perfection or superhuman play) simply because the creation of the TAS was itself an easy (or easily repeatable) process.
This tier contains speed-based movies that don't have much entertainment value, but still represent meaningful tool-assisted speedrun records. Game choice is tightly limited. Vault rules filter out games that don't hold much weight when tool-assistance is applied in accordance with the TASing guidelines on optimization. Vault needs clear cuts, so whenever something can not be clearly distinguished, such a movie gets rejected.
If something is trivial to TAS, it won't be a meaningful record, and TASing it would make no sense, because tool-assisted speedrunning is meant to be a competition. Competition involves variety of skills and room to develop them in order to beat the previous record. If the previous record is extremely hard to beat, because research and execution behind it looks exhaustive (SMB), that's one thing. If the previous record involved zero TASing skills and was unbeatable only because the game is trivial once you grab your tools, that's another. We want to encourage competition based on how skilled the TASer is, because that way people push themselves to the limit while pushing the games to the limit. The quality keeps increasing, the records remain meaningful, the site is happy.
How challenging it is to actually make the TAS of a game shouldn't be the determining factor on whether or not a particular game is deemed trivial; triviality should instead be based on how simple the game is to play casually.
All I see in your post is statements, and no real reasons supporting them.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
It's planned, but I'm not sure about the best way to implement it.
Regarding games with no good dump, they turned some of those warnings into errors, but Karnov seems to be working fine.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
phoenix1291 wrote:
Killer Instinct, Street Fighter III: Third Strik, San Francisco Rush etc.
Here is a list (I don't know if they are all listed)
Should be working already, just put the chd folder near your rom.
Fortranm wrote:
Donkey Kong II: Jumpman Returns (hack, V1.2)
When I load a save state taken at the initial loading sequence during a later phase, the game glitches out.
The program seems generally prone to crashing while TASing this game.
Nothing to be done about improper savestates aside from reporting each instance to the MAME team.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Give me an example game that uses it (arcades only, preferably something simple).
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
What is 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.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
No plans to change it. The reason it's done that way is because MAME roms require special treatment hawk isn't ready for in its regular loader.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
phoenix1291 wrote:
What are the steps to launch a MAME game with Bizhawk?
File -> Open Advanced
phoenix1291 wrote:
Which file should be loaded in the zip?
The arcade rom, same as regular MAME.
phoenix1291 wrote:
It only works with the MAMEhawk version posted at the beginning of the topic
Yes.
phoenix1291 wrote:
Is MAMEhawk in the "Choose a Platform" list?
No.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Pulled latest MAME.
Added hex editor functionality.
Sound problems will be there for now.
Redownload/retest against 0.220 (MAME and romset).
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Memory wrote:
There is an important clause in the section you just quoted.
"unless game-play is significantly different".
From my understanding the intent of the rule was to prevent having multiple movies of games where the only differences are roster and graphics.
Watching this very briefly, I noticed a couple differences from the ability to set the minimum score lower and how the ball gets handed off. In this one, one of the players just has it whereas in the other they have to do a jump grab thing for the ball. These to me read as significant differences.
I can't agree with your interpretation of "significant differences". Take this rule as an example:
Use the correct version wrote:
If there are significant in-game differences between different versions of a game, movies which take advantage of such differences can be published side by side. This can include things like different weapons or routes available to the player, different levels being present, or different bosses fought. If a particular version introduces a mechanic which can alter how the game is played, such as where players re-spawn when they die, and this mechanic can significantly alter how the game is played, movies which utilize these changes can be published side by side.
The way this is worded, significant differences in gameplay are what makes the 2 movies look like 2 different branches. It is exactly why we published [4059] GC NFL Street "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 1:14:20.35 and [4127] GC NFL Street 2 "NFL Challenge" by Lobsterzelda in 25:52.90 side-by-side. This thread highlights how different those 2 games are.
Do the 2 One on One movies look like 2 different branches? To me, they don't. The games rules have slight difference, but the main strategy is identical: you remain on the same spot and just immediately throw the ball. In one of the games you have to also jump. In neither movie you have to prefer some other strategy in at least half the levels. Having to do the same twice doesn't change the main strat. Having to catch the ball doesn't change the main strat. In one game, one character makes you throw the ball while falling down. In another, one character makes you take the ball away from him. In neither you have to move anywhere.
If we take into account the main aspect we're supposed to compare the 2 runs by, I don't see essential difference in TAS technicality showcased in those 2 runs.
I'll ponder the triviality aspect separately.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
BruceShankle wrote:
OoT MQ was released on GC in the form of a n64 rom, and because of this it can be ran in an n64 emulator. I see that there has been an exception made for MTA's unfinished MQ TAS, so I was wondering if I could also do the same. The alternative is Dolphin, but working with Bizhawk is much easier for me. I have not started on my MQ TAS yet because I am still planning the route for it. Thanks for a response.
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.
Sports games in the Vault are restricted to one game per series per platform, unless game-play is significantly different. For example, PGA Tour Golf III on the Sega Genesis may obsolete PGA Tour Golf II on the Sega Genesis. Which game obsoletes which is decided by which game makes a more technically impressive run, as decided by a judge.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Either way, console verification is a valid reason, as well as the other on I mentioned.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
Since this movie was re-adjusted for the purpose of console verification (AKA making it run in GBC in GBA mode and adjusting some of the inputs due to different lag), is it possible to add both the file for the original GB and the console verification file in the publication? Or should the verification file replace the GB one in this submission? (Verification syncs in 2.4)
Since the console-verified movie is also shorter, I'd prefer full replacement. Having 2 movies per publication is not yet an officially supported feature, but a database hack.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Fixed.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
Are all the rerecords in this submission manual?
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
I see what you mean. It's pretty easy for someone to get carried away with thinking of the positive outcomes of such ideas, but never taking time to think of the cons because they are not happy thoughts.
That's actually a misconception. If the idea combines honest joy and flawless usefulness, what can be better? And if it's so good that after all the perfection and implementation it also works out in reality, that's actual happiness! Until then, any idea can be improved. By a lot. It's what we have time for, just like in TASing.
It's taking excitement to a new level. "Man I'm so excited by what this idea will become if I work on it super hard before implementing it publicly!"
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
I found a comic on Reddit today that shows common signs of undiagnosed ADHD, and how that can lead to some forms of depression.
I have personally related to each one of these experiences, and I believe it has caused issues with my life as a whole. That’s not to say this is the only way some may experience depression, but it does personally speak to me as someone who does suffer from high functioning autism and ADHD.
I've been rather impulsive for most of my life, and it shows in some of my past forum posts, but I do believe it can be controlled to some degree. The first rule that I never realized was "Never follow your passion. But always take it with you." In 2018, when preparing to become a senior judge, I took it as seriously as I could, and managed to improve my impulsiveness by a lot. Now I can formalize the approach I took.
Every new and exciting idea or just a thought that magically sparks you honestly feels awesome, enjoyable, pleasant, and following it promises to be honestly awesome too. Often, upon actually trying, it isn't. It kept happening with me on the internet and IRL for years. So I added an extra criterion. In addition to it being awesome, I now ask myself, will it also be flawlessly useful? It's like demanding everything you consider doing to mix both business and pleasure. How do you know it mixes them both? It takes learning a skill to reject anything that only promises joy. The "awesome" idea may even be harmful, but it still always relies on some kind of enjoyment. Reject any emotion that's related to the idea, ignore the idea itself, and ask your heart "is everyone seriously going to love this idea and find it useful?" If the answer is "not sure", work on it to hear "now it's actually perfect, reasonable, reusable, reliable, and also quite cool". Never take shortcuts.
This approach is gradual, you develop it like a muscle, and it takes a certain level of despair, years of failures and consequences, to decide to learn it at any cost.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
I fixed it yesterday.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
What if I submitted only the lower quality game? Would you have accepted it without issues and then obsoleted after that I submitted a movie made with this higher quality game?
I'd definitely raise my question as well, in the discussion.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I don't see why quality should be considered in relation of existing games. I agree when it's done for ROM hacks, because we can obsoleted different ROM hacks to each other, but it's not the same for actually different games, especially in Vault. We can't obsolete with a different game just because the game used in the previous publication is lower quality.
It's about similarities in gameplay too, not just one being lower quality. Yet I recognize that the levels are different, just like they are different between the original AB game, the Genesis variant, and this NES port.
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.
Experienced Forum User, Published Author, Site Admin, Skilled player
(1238)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11287
Location: RU
EZGames69 wrote:
Technickle, this has happened too many times where you submit movies that are still suboptimal and easily improbable by spike. Is there a reason for this? Are you spending enough time making your movies? Are you struggling with anything in terms of the tools you use? Despite the hostility being exhibited in this thread, there are people around here that can help you learn how the tools work or some tips in optimization. However, If you keep this up, you are going to lose your submission privileges eventually. I would rather you try to learn something from all of this, but I’m not seeing it here. If you need help, just ask for it.
The only mistake a TASer can do is not fixing mistakes that were already made. If it's been fixed, it's not a mistake, but experience! Just actually take your time and study the thing.
It looks like none of the movies you've submitted so far is up to the site's standards of optimality. Previously I let it slide due to unpredictable routing in TG2, but play itself has been sloppy for years. I planned to check optimality of TG3000 and look at your optimization skills once again, but this submission shows that you're not learning at all.
Technickle, this is an official warning. If you submit one more movie that gets easily improved by the audience or the judge, your submission privileges will be revoked. You've been given enough tips and advises over the years, and they're not helping. So this is your last chance to improve upon yourself.
If you want to get your WIPs reviewed, post them in threads for games you're TASing and ask for feedback. If people acknowledge that they can't beat your times, only then consider it worth submitting. It's basically how most of the TASers take this hobby: they submit only when there's no feasible improvements to think of.
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.
I agree that console verification is a good reason to allow GBC-in-GBA mode for GB games, since console verification is an activity directly related with TASing, as it works as a proof of legitimacy for movies made with TASing tools.
About one year ago I suggested to allow the GBC mode for GB games only for Moons and Stars, but it was deemed unnecessary. Personally, I'm fine either way about it, as long there is general agreement.
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.
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.
