it wouldn't prove the 99.9% because a few forum users on SDA and TG aren't representative of the entire population. This is the problem with "everyone knows" statements. If you want an accurate population parameter, you'd have to make that topic on places like this forum as well where people do know the difference, not just places where you believe people will be confused by the term. In that case, the statistic will drop lower than 99.9%.
You're ignoring my point. I didn't say anything about 99.9% of people being confused by the term. The 99.9% thing is just about whether timeattack and time attack mean the same thing. I visit this forum fairly often and even I had no idea until recently that Arc considered a timeattack and a time attack two different things. I always thought he considered them both to mean a save state run. In fact, as I said before Arc's site even used to refer to them as "time attacks." Then when he changed his site design, he just happened to switch it to timeattack. How was I supposed to know the reasoning behind it? I don't remember any topics about removing the space to make it different from time attack. I don't know if the rest of you realized that, but there's certainly a very small chance people from other forums would know.
You're giving an example where purposely made Morimoto go around making a series of fallacious statements and included the word timeattack in there. I don't see how this helps your point. You should remember that Arc's site came after Morimoto's run, so his term is not as old those used by Doom communities and others.
Why does it make a difference if Arc's site existed yet? Most people haven't read it, so timeattack is a misleading term whether or not there's a site that says what it means. My point is that if you want to go talk about a save state run somewhere, you shouldn't be using the word timeattack. I've seen people post about save state runs on forums where people haven't read Arc's site, and because they were tricked by Arc into thinking timeattack is a standard term that everyone knows just like everyone knows what a speed run is, they think that's all they need to say for people to know what it is. However, instead people think the person is talking about a time attack, and when they find out the truth, they get mad, and they should be.
It's also a matter of context; there are many words that have different meanings depending on the context; for instance, the statement "time flies" can mean two different things.
Show me one example of 2 words where removing the space changes the definition into exactly what people don't want the first term to be confused with.
When gay is used as a noun, it can only mean one thing. If it is used as an adjective, it can vary depending on the context. This is similar to the distinction between time attack and timeattack. To say morimoto's smb3 run is a timeattack does not mean that he played it in time attack mode.
People do use the non-save state definition of time attack as a noun.
altogether and all together.
it cannot be used in the same contexts, which was my point. "You should try making a timeattack of this game" and "You should try playing this game in time attack" refer to two different meanings of the word and are not interchangeable.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
oh lol prust must mean something else somewhere too then huh?
Michael fried, i think savestate-run sounds like "i cant complete the game without savestates, help me". It doesnt say the good thing about using the savestates, it just sounds like we need savestate to finish the game.
Joined: 4/21/2004
Posts: 3517
Location: Stockholm, Sweden
I have to disagree with you on that point FODA. From seeing Michaels and Arc's point of view, the term savestate-run or a tool-assisted-speedrun is more or the less convenient to "label" a run because of the simple fact what Michael pointed out: that it gives more info what sort of run it is rather than if you'd labeled it "timeattack". So I hardly think it implies that we need save-states and etc to complete or do a awesome game. The main point with tool-assisted-speedrun is achieving perfection. I agree with Michael's argument.
When will you realize that that term was not invented by us? It was invented by the speedrun community before this site even existed.
You can think of it as being as ridiculous as you like, but you still can't change the fact that it's a standard term.
Someone can think that the term "popup menu" is ridiculous. However, does that mean he should invent a completely different term because of that and start using it (specially if the new term has a different meaning and will confuse people)?
You say that since these videos are not speedruns a different term should be used. Even if that is so, why use an existing term with a meaning different from what these videos are?
Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "timeattack"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because that's the term you heard first and you have always used it and now you refuse to change?
I know: Since the popularity of the meaning for a term doesn't matter at all, let's call these videos "legit unassisted speedruns". So what if the vast majority of people will get confused by that term? Appealing to popularity is a fallacy after all. The fact that the vast majority of people think from that term that the videos have been made in a certain way doesn't make it true, so we shouldn't worry.
I think that you are not getting the point. Deliberately using a term that will mislead most people is not a good thing.
Joined: 10/27/2004
Posts: 1978
Location: Making an escape
Considering this is a matter of communication, I propose we let the matter settle itself. Eventually a term will pop up or a currently used one will slowly gain popularity and it will become standard on its own. Language is not formed by debates, formal or otherwise.
No need for all this bickering.
A hundred years from now, they will gaze upon my work and marvel at my skills but never know my name. And that will be good enough for me.
I hope this will be my last post in this topic, so I will summarize my thoughts. To me, Tool-assisted speedrun is a vague term that sounds almost like an apology. The main advantage it has over timeattack is that it may avoid ambiguity. Yet, as I have tried to demonstrate, timeattack can be a sufficient word if used in the proper context.
I will say this in addition: it seems to me that fear can play a part in all this; fear of getting flamed for unintentionally "fooling" somebody into thinking these runs are "real." It's almost as if the term tool-assisted speedrun is sometimes being used as a flame shield. It's time to stand up and give these runs a proper name, one that captures their essense as art and not as a mechanical process. It's time take pride and stop hiding behind long hyphenated nonsense words.
That's a very good argument. Unfortunately, it also applies to time attacks. After all, the term time attack is a standard, too. If it wasn't a standard, why would so many people be using it?
Perhapes you remember the slashdot.org article about the "'Perfect' Zelda NES Speed Record Beaten"? It's probably the most publicity time attacks ever got. Anyway, take a look at the article. Hit Ctrl+F, and search for "assi" (which should be a substring of the correct spelling and common misspellings). You won't get any hits, whereas you will with "time attack"? Why do you think this is? If the standard is tool-assisted speedrun, then why does everyone there refer to it as "time attack"?
In short, it may not be a standard you like, but that doesn't mean it's not a standard.
Right back at you.
No, no. Let me ask you: Why are you so obsessed precisely with the term "tool assisted speedrun"? Why precisely that and not something else? Is it simply because you're preferences trump everyone else's?
All in all, this debate is rather similar to the whole "American Indian" vs. "Native American" debate. One term may be more appropriate than the other, but that doesn't mean that you should pretend as if only one term existed nor does it mean wikipedia articles should only reflect one point of view.
Timeattack is not time attack as well as fire fox is not firefox and I agree with Arc. Warp, why do you start such stupid topic? You love hatred in this world or what?
After all, the term time attack is a standard, too. If it wasn't a standard, why would so many people be using it?
No, "time attack" is already a standard term for something else, and it's still being used to refer to the other definition much more than it is to refer to save state runs. Maybe you'd have a good point if people in that article were calling it a "timeattack." Btw, thanks for supporting my argument by providing some evidence that people think of timeattacks and time attacks as the same thing. After all the stuff Arc said about them being different, you mix them up and call a save state run a time attack. It's clear that people who agree with Arc think of both timeattacks and time attacks as being save state runs, so the argument that they won't be confused with the real definition of time attack doesn't work. Also I should point out that no matter how hard you try to spread the opinion that timeattack and time attack mean different things, this will never become standard knowledge.
As for your question about why tool assisted is a standard term, I agree it may not be as standard as speedrun, but it's certainly more standard than timeattack is. The term tool assisted is older than timeattack, and everyone agrees on what it means (in reference to speedruns). It's never used to describe a run made with a hammer or something, and no one has tried to argue that people use tool assisted to describe realtime continuous runs.
Whether or not time attack is more frequently used to describe something else doesn't change the fact that a majority of people refering to "tool-assisted speedruns" do so using the term "time attack". The slashdot.org link I provided demonstrated this.
Really? So let me get this straight - you think that "because people frequently use term x to describe y, z is a valid term" is a good argument? Wow. If this is the kind of quality reasoning I can expect from you, then I'm going to do my best to avoid reading any of your other posts.
I'm not really interested in reading your other posts to find out what your argument is, but you've drawn the conclusions I intended you to draw from the evidence.
You said it, yourself - that "people think of timeattacks and time attacks as the same thing". So do I. As such, what does it matter if I use one term or another?
Further, near as I can tell, ommitting the space to distinguish between the alternate definition of time attack is a practice that was adopted in this thread. Given this, it seems rather hypocritical to say that I'm the one "muddying the waters" when you're the one trying to break from convention (which has, above, been established to be a convention).
First of all, I don't think any definition is any more real than any other. Second, I think that context will tell you all you need to know about what meaning of a word someone is intending to invoke.
As an example, consider the word "baby". It can refer to the following three things:
1. an infant
2. someone who is childesh
3. someone to whom your attracted
Since you apparently don't think that humans have the capacity to chose definitions based on context, I suppose you think that someone who says "hey, baby, let's me and you [insert sexual action here]" is a pedaphile?
I really hate to break it to you, but neither definition of "time attack" is standard knowledge. Neither is the term "speedrun". Don't believe me? Then explain this.
Quote:
real definition of time attack
They are homonyms. One definition isn't more real than the other.
What do you mean? I thought even you agreed that time attack only has one definition. The save state definition is only for timeattack, remember? See, even you confuse the terms and you were the one who came up with the idea of making things confusing.
Really? So let me get this straight - you think that "because people frequently use term x to describe y, z is a valid term" is a good argument? Wow. If this is the kind of quality reasoning I can expect from you, then I'm going to do my best to avoid reading any of your other posts.
I thought everyone already agreed that time attack was a bad term. The only chance Arc has is if he can convince people that timeattack is a standard term, which the slashdot article clearly does not show. Also I should point out that it doesn't even show that time attack is a standard term. It was just used in 2 of the many responses, probably both by members of this site.
You said it, yourself - that "people think of timeattacks and time attacks as the same thing". So do I. As such, what does it matter if I use one term or another?
Did you even read this topic? The most important part of the argument against the term time attack is that it's already used for non-save state runs. Arc's argument was that timeattack was different because he removed the space and therefore won't be confused with time attack. Then I responded by saying that people think of both terms as the same thing, so calling it a timeattack will just make people think you're talking about a time attack, which makes the term timeattack confusing and a bad term.
Since you apparently don't think that humans have the capacity to chose definitions based on context, I suppose you think that someone who says "hey, baby, let's me and you [insert sexual action here]" is a pedaphile?
The only way to make the term timeattack not confusing because of the context would be to explain that it was made with save states. Just saying "I saw a Super Mario World timeattack" does not tell you it was made with save states. If you want to start using the term something like "save state timeattack" then I have no problem with that.
I really hate to break it to you, but neither definition of "time attack" is standard knowledge. Neither is the term "speedrun". Don't believe me? Then explain this.
They are in the video game community (not just a couple, but in video game forums all over the internet), just like how overworld and subscreen are standard terms in Zelda games even though they're not in the dictionary, or how lightsaber and podracing are standard Star Wars terms. However, if you pick some random video game forums and start talking about timeattacks, the vast majority of people won't know they're made with save states.
Truly Spectacular AVIs
;)
J/K
Categories:
1. Altered Gameplay Video - a run of a game that involves one or more of the following alterations:
- Save States
- Slow Downs
- Foreign Devices (turbo controller, game genie, action replay)
- Cheat Codes
2. Standard Gameplay Video - a run of a game that must meet these criteria:
- Played on original system or licensed emulator with no modifications to give any advantage/disadvantage
- Must only incorporate abilities and options available in-game (i.e. saving)
- Must be a version of the game licensed or approved by the creator
Now, there are various Altered Gameplay Videos:
1. Fastest Completion
2. Highest Score
3. Aesthetic Demonstration
4. Technical Demonstration
And there are various Standard Gameplay Videos:
1. Fastest Completion
2. Highest Score
3. Aesthetic Demonstration
4. Technical Demonstration
Both types of videos also come in:
1. Single Segment
2. Segmented
And within these two categories are two more variables:
1. Uninterrupted (you start a game, and play through to the end without dying or leaving the gameplay file)
2. Interrupted (I.E. Up+A warping in LoZ - you leave the game file or gameplay and return to an area you normally wouldn't if you played through normaly, or using deaths to speed warp to a spot).
You can keep breaking it down if you want...
I will grant that as far as evidence goes, the slashdot.org article isn't very great. Unfortunately, finding solid evidence on this subject is kinda hard. Although that said, to defend the evidence, no one refered to anything as a "tool-assis..." speedrun. So, in that slashdot.org article, the term "time attack" is more prevalent, regardless of whether or not the people who said it post here.
Hmmmm. I actually only quickly skimmed through it... I guess I did so a little to quickly...
Simple: Because it is the standard term which has been used by the speedrun community for a long time (longer than this site has existed), because it's much more descriptive and speedrunners know what it means.
The term "timeattack" came later and was a misuse. AFAIK Morimoto used it for the first time and it was misleading. The term TAS already existed at that time and it is what he should have used, but either he didn't know that (probable) or he intentionally used a more vague term in a half-hearted attempt at fooling people but cover his own ass. (I personally am certainly not sure at all that Morimoto was not trying to truely fool people with his SMB3 video.)
So, let me ask back at you: What is your problem with the term TAS and why do you want to use "timeattack" instead? Is it some kind of pride thing ("why would we need to explain ourselves? if stupid people think these are genuine unassisted speedruns it's their problems, not ours")?