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 CHALLENGE YOU TO MAKE A GOOD MOVIE OUT OF EVERY PORT OF THE MOST POPULAR MOVIES WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Seriously.
I suggest starting with Mega Man - The Wily Wars
Who cares about something different? IF even the most boring movies could be published, I could make a movie with lots of autoscrolling and do absolutely NOTHING in it. Which means I could totally rip off the stunts used in the other movies, as it'll be published anyway, no matter what.
;)
I agree 100% that bad game choice shouldn't be a reason for rejection. The idea of an archive of the current best run of as many games as possible appeals greatly. Stars etc guide those seeking entertainment just fine.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
I agree 100% that bad game choice shouldn't be a reason for rejection. The idea of an archive of the current best run of as many games as possible appeals greatly. Stars etc guide those seeking entertainment just fine.
Ok, seriously No. I fail to see how stuff like 5+ different versions of SMB here published along with a million hacks of nearly the same game would "help" the site in anyway.
Edit: Hey, lets publish games like Desert-bus, or Game & Watch, where it never really ends, so instead of ending it, we give it arbitrary goals to decide when it should end. Also, lets publish movies of every single autoscrolling space-shooter, since someone MUST have played them somewhere.
Edit 2: I could write a game called "DarkKobold jlun2 winz thiz TAS" and try and get it published.
Ok, seriously No. I fail to see how stuff like 5+ different versions of SMB here published along with a million hacks of nearly the same game would "help" the site in anyway.
Why would ports of the same game be distinguished? As long as they're not significantly different, a port of a game should still have to be better than a run of the original to be published.
There obviously needs to be a line, as things like desert bus obviously have no need to be published, but i really don't see how publishing something like, for example, the recent xmen run hurts anyone. It's not entertaining at all, but it's short, and was well made.
Ok, seriously No. I fail to see how stuff like 5+ different versions of SMB here published along with a million hacks of nearly the same game would "help" the site in anyway.
Edit: Hey, lets publish games like Desert-bus, or Game & Watch, where it never really ends, so instead of ending it, we give it arbitrary goals to decide when it should end. Also, lets publish movies of every single autoscrolling space-shooter, since someone MUST have played them somewhere.
Edit 2: I could write a game called "DarkKobold jlun2 winz thiz TAS" and try and get it published.
No. That is not what anyone here is trying to say. We are saying get rid of the "Bad game choice due to uninteresting gameplay" rule. You are arguing against getting rid of any "Bad game choice" rule. There are other rules about submitting ports of the same game that would prevent the SMB situation.
There is also a rule about the fact that for hacks the game and the movie must be worthwhile for publishing so the tons of hacks situation also wouldn't happen.
There are also a rule about "games without goals" so that the games that never end would also be rejected.
There are also rules about the autoscroller fixed gameplay games.
I feel you are completely not understanding the goal of this discussion. We are saying the "Bad game choice due to uninteresting gameplay" rule is incorrect. Not that there are other legitimate reasons to reject movies. I said in the first post that I agreed with the rule choice on all of the other "Bad game choice" rules page. You apparently chose to ignore that portion of the argument.
EDIT: This is almost exactly the definition of the phrase Straw Man argument.
EDIT: This is almost exactly the definition of the phrase Straw Man argument.
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to thesefellowmembers who think a TAS of every single game including ports/hacks/homebrews was a great idea. =P
Sorry if you took offense at my comment(s).
Joined: 6/25/2007
Posts: 732
Location: Vancouver, British Columbia, Canada
goofydylan8 and amaurea, I thoroughly enjoyed your posts and completely agree with everything you've both said. To be honest, I skimmed this thread except for those few posts, so I'm sorry if I didn't mention others who agree. Anyway, count me in for accepting all games as "publishable". We have a rating system. Let's start using it effectively.
goofydylan8 and amaurea, I thoroughly enjoyed your posts and completely agree with everything you've both said. To be honest, I skimmed this thread except for those few posts, so I'm sorry if I didn't mention others who agree. Anyway, count me in for accepting all games as "publishable". We have a rating system. Let's start using it effectively.
I thought goofydylan8 just wrote a while ago that he doesn't want every game to be published, only the ones deemed to be bad. See:
goofydylan8 wrote:
Not that there are other legitimate reasons to reject movies. I said in the first post that I agreed with the rule choice on all of the other "Bad game choice" rules page. You apparently chose to ignore that portion of the argument.
=P
Looks like I'm not the only one who " apparently chose to ignore that portion of the argument".
I wasn't responding to you. I was responding to these fellow members who think a TAS of every single game including ports/hacks/homebrews was a great idea. =P
If the choice is between:
1. Dropping all bad game choice rules, or
2. Leaving all rules intact
then I would say I have to agree with you jlun2 that the rules should all stay.
On the other hand if the choice is between:
1. Dropping the "uninteresting gameplay" portion of the bad game choice rules but leaving the other rules in tact, or
2. Leaving all rules intact
then I would disagree and say that the rule change is necessary.
When I read through the posts you linked to I read it as their sharing my opinion that the "uninteresting gameplay" bad game choice rule should be dropped and it was just shortened to the bad game choice rule. I do not believe I am incorrect in that assumption, but if I am I apologize.
In the posts you linked to I didn't see anyone argue that separate ports of the same game, games with non-endings, autoscrollers or hacks deserve to be posted. Maybe I am being skewed by my own opinions on the matter but I just assumed they were agreeing with the uninteresting game rule but I could be wrong.
I CHALLENGE YOU TO MAKE A GOOD MOVIE OUT OF EVERY PORT OF THE MOST POPULAR MOVIES WITH SOMETHING DIFFERENT. Seriously.
I suggest starting with Mega Man - The Wily Wars
Who cares about something different? IF even the most boring movies could be published, I could make a movie with lots of autoscrolling and do absolutely NOTHING in it. Which means I could totally rip off the stunts used in the other movies, as it'll be published anyway, no matter what.
;)
But... that's not what defines the "bad game choice" argument. That's another completely different matter
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
goofydylan8, those post, while didn't mentioned the games I said, mentioned the term "every game" or something similar. Which, to me, meant everything including
"separate ports of the same game, games with non-endings, autoscrollers or hacks".
amaurea wrote:
Our goal should be to have as good as possible a TAS for every game, as even the most boring games will have somebody who played it at one time and wonder how fast it can be done, and the games may turn out to only look boring for people who aren't familiar with them.
alden wrote:
Here's an idea: add a tier between starred and non-starred. It would include pretty much every movie where most people say "whoa, that's crazy". Tuck everything else away, not so buried as gruefood delight but not as prominent as the awesomer movies.We could call everything else something like "Archives".
Personman wrote:
I agree 100% that bad game choice shouldn't be a reason for rejection. The idea of an archive of the current best run of as many games as possible appeals greatly. Stars etc guide those seeking entertainment just fine.
I think goofydylan8's proposal is the one we should actually be discussing, as it is the only one with a real chance of being implemented.
That said, I do think it would be fine to host movies of every port of every game, including autoscrollers (which can be obsoleted based on entertainment). I don't know about hacks; certainly there needs to be a notability threshold for hacks to prevent the abuse jlun2 describes.
I don't think very many other people agree with me about this, though, so I strongly support the 'remove the 'uninteresting gameplay' restriction' movement, and only academically wish that the 'bad game choice' restriction could be abolished entirely.
Also, FWIW, I'm kind of annoyed at DarkKobold proclaiming as fact that the x-men run wasn't entertaining when a number of us posted in the submission thread saying that we really liked it. To be very clear: runs like that add a lot more value to this site for me than almost any run >2 hours. If I were the sole judge, and I judged only on what I personally liked watching, we wouldn't have any >2 hour runs. Luckily, I'm not, and if I were, I wouldn't be that selfish.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
To be very clear: runs like that add a lot more value to this site for me than almost any run >2 hours. If I were the sole judge, and I judged only on what I personally liked watching, we wouldn't have any >2 hour runs. Luckily, I'm not, and if I were, I wouldn't be that selfish.
If you were to reject any run longer than 2 hours, that would rule out most GameCube/Wii games (Super Mario Sunshine 100%, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Smash Bros. Brawl "The Subspace Emissary", etc.), not to mention the two games I'm working on.
2+ hour runs can be very entertaining too, and I personally find them fun to watch because they are hours of optimized, tool-assisted action!
If you were to reject any run longer than 2 hours, that would rule out most GameCube/Wii games (Super Mario Sunshine 100%, Zelda: Twilight Princess, Super Smash Bros. Brawl "The Subspace Emissary", etc.), not to mention the two games I'm working on.
2+ hour runs can be very entertaining too, and I personally find them fun to watch because they are hours of optimized, tool-assisted action!
That would in fact be PersonMan's point -- he finds long movies to be terribly dull, but he's not the only arbiter of taste here, so plenty of movies he doesn't like, but other people do, still get published.
Basically the question is, how many people have to be entertained by a given movie in order for it to be published? Assuming our standards of technical quality are met, currently the answer seems to be somewhere north of 50% of the viewers, but arguably the threshold could be a lot lower. Do we want to publish movies that some percentage of people find entertaining? Or do we want to publish movies that some number of people find entertaining? The two approaches are different.
For example, a boring-to-most-people movie that has a small but rabid fanbase (concrete example: most non-playaround fighting game TASes). If we use the former rule, then because X% of viewers were not entertained, the movie is not published. If we use the latter rule, then we can say "Okay, there's probably at least several hundred people out there that would enjoy watching this movie. They may not all be members of the site, but they're still part of our audience, so it's worth publishing this to give them something to watch."
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I think the core problem here really does have much to do with the Gruefood Delight section. Popular runs that get rejected from primary publication for reasons like bad game choice or unusual gameplay restrictions, but get a positive result from viewers, should be given a strong consideration for GD material.
A comment mentioned earlier is that Gruefood Delight is tucked away in the site and isn't exactly user-friendly. There are a few fixes, but here are my general ideas and suggestions:
- When judging a run, the possibility of accepting it as a GD run instead of ordinary publication should be always an option for runs 'on the edge'. This includes both runs that are well-liked but can't be published due to game/restriction choice, and runs that would be published but are only a hair's breadth from being rejected.
- All Gruefood Delights should receive their own submission pages. We could use a slightly different color scheme or some sort of marker to help differentiate them from accepted runs.
- Submissions should be able to both leave and enter Gruefood Delight. GD runs that are exceptionally well-liked could be promoted to full, 'official' runs, while existing runs can be sent to Gruefood Delight (either by having unusual criteria (such as our Chrono Trigger New Game+ run), being a poor game choice (such as the Monopoly runs), or being sent there as an alternative to being obsoleted).
In addition to increasing the number of interesting runs the site can host, this would also help foster new, unique ideas for runs, similar to the Super Mario 64 CCC run we currently have in there, if they're deemed interesting enough to be a departure from ordinary gameplay.
First a movie gets submitted, and ends up accepted despite breaking rules other runs have been rejected for. And when I vote less than spectacularly on this movie, I become the victim of harassment and threats.
Yay, favoritism.
Just to clarify, what I proposed earlier is NOT that we start accepting every submission into the site as it is currently structured. That would mean wading through a bunch of crap to get to the good stuff.
What I am proposing is in fact the opposite: a way of making more of the good stuff float to the top. At the same time, it allows those who want to wade through crap to find obscure stuff only they would like to do so.
Right now we fight over what gets a star. We can keep the stars; having a very select pool of super-awesome movies is great. But, couldn't we distinguish between potentially star-worthy movies and those that barely meet acceptability? I'm thinking of movies like my own Dizzy the Adventurer run. It's an obscure game in most markets, most of the gameplay is not that impressive unless you're familiar with how frickin' horrible the game is, and the many sequence breaks are not obvious. It's not that entertaining to most people. To anyone who has played the game, it's pretty impressive. But it's clearly not comparable to incredible movies like Mega Man or Legend of Zelda or Super Mario Bros. It's not fair, but these games are familiar to most, and more importantly we have learned to abuse the crap out of them.
To summarize: we should have a core of star movies, a larger pool of really awesome movies that is smaller than our population of currently published movies, and a section of movies that do not have broad appeal. We should not publish anything and everything, but accepting more while simultaneously being more selective with what we feature benefits everyone. And I don't think we need to completely overhaul the site coding to do so.
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Bad Game Choice is a matter of opinion, Granted most people can tell what is a bad game. While some people think a game is awful, others might love it. This is why this is a complicated issue. E.V.O. Search for Eden, in my opinion was a terrible boring game, No offense to the author. This is solely my opinion. However, the game met the standard of the site and got 45 yes votes.
If we judge games on an opinion then no run will ever be published. The author will insist its great and therefore, in their opinion the run should be published. This is why we need guidelines, so if they run is well TASed, but it is a bad game choice, then it does not get published. This is so we can filter out the low quality runs, and keep only high quality runs.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Bad Game Choice is a matter of opinion
While some people think a game is awful, others might love it.
if they run is well TASed, but it is a bad game choice, then it does not get published.
What? That doesn't make any sense. If bad game choice is a matter of opinion and some people will love it and others not, even if some can form a slight majority either way as you said, how can you definitively say that it is a bad game choice to the extent that it deserves to not be published?
Joined: 5/13/2009
Posts: 700
Location: suffern, ny
Since, I will admit, I did not word my post to get my point across, I will retype it here instead of editing, to serve my purpose.
GoofyDylan, what is sounds like you are saying is that you think that Bad Game choice is a matter of Opinion. Its not. Simply not. There are games that are horrible as heck that are published on this site, and the same goes for the opposite. Just because you put the effort into a game, does not mean it is going to be published. We have guidelines for a reason. If a Judge thinks that a game is a bad game choice, It is not Because THEY think its a bad game choice, its because it does not for fill the requirements we expect on the site. We want to keep only the best runs. That is why there are judges.
I do not consider all runs interesting. When it came out, I found (again, no offense to the author) E.V.O: Search for Eden a boring run. To me, it seemed repetitive. It was only upon reading the authors notes did it occur to me hoe much work went into the run. But even though I found the run interesting, it had a high enough technical quality, and was well TASed. Plus, a lot of people did like the run, and so it got published.
The Guidelines are there to Help the Judges. If we just accepted everything, TASvideos would nto be as great as it is now. If i make a run that I put alot of time into, and it gets rejected, I'll be pissed, but if it was for the good of the site, you can move on. Time heals all wounds.
[19:16] <scrimpy> silly portuguese
[19:16] <scrimpy> it's like spanish, only less cool
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
That's why we have forums to post WIPs.
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 think the core problem here really does have much to do with the Gruefood Delight section. Popular runs that get rejected from primary publication for reasons like bad game choice or unusual gameplay restrictions, but get a positive result from viewers, should be given a strong consideration for GD material.
A comment mentioned earlier is that Gruefood Delight is tucked away in the site and isn't exactly user-friendly. There are a few fixes, but here are my general ideas and suggestions:
- When judging a run, the possibility of accepting it as a GD run instead of ordinary publication should be always an option for runs 'on the edge'. This includes both runs that are well-liked but can't be published due to game/restriction choice, and runs that would be published but are only a hair's breadth from being rejected.
- All Gruefood Delights should receive their own submission pages. We could use a slightly different color scheme or some sort of marker to help differentiate them from accepted runs.
- Submissions should be able to both leave and enter Gruefood Delight. GD runs that are exceptionally well-liked could be promoted to full, 'official' runs, while existing runs can be sent to Gruefood Delight (either by having unusual criteria (such as our Chrono Trigger New Game+ run), being a poor game choice (such as the Monopoly runs), or being sent there as an alternative to being obsoleted)
For me., the entire existence of the Gruefood Delight is a indication that there's something wrong in the criteria. If it's not good enough for the site, why is it popular, have a lot of runs in the category? What IS being "good enough"? For what? Is Cheetahman 2 that different from Action 52's Cheetahman?
I like the suggestion of making different tiers for TASes. That way, GD would be the last one, the final barrier. The place where the so-bad-it's-good TASes would stay. The final frontier.
Oh, and I'd totally would make an section for publishing good April Fools videos. Because I luv April Fools videos.
And I have insomnia.
My first language is not English, so please excuse myself if I write something wrong. I'll do my best do write as cleary as I can, so cope with me here =)
(ﾉಥ益ಥ）ﾉ
if it were for "boringness",we wouldn't have many rpg runs like we have today since only the actual players of those rpg can find them entertaining at all...
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto.
TAS i'm interested:
Megaman series, specially the RPGs! Where is the mmbn1 all chips TAS we deserve? Where is the Command Mission TAS?
i'm slowly moving away from TASing fighting games for speed, maybe it's time to start finding some entertainment value in TASing.
