Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6435
Location: The land down under.
Pointing something out in terms of Votes.
We have 3 votes to "Something else (post in thread)".
But we have only one person who "(post in thread)"
Unless I'm poorly misreading then we have 0 people who have infact posted their thoughts when selecting that one.
Also to the one who voted "You suck" smart way to waste a vote.
Edit: Got told that that Scepheo is one of the others.
Sorry Scepheo for not acknowledging your point or missing it completely.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Warp wrote:
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
Yes, and what's the benefit of using exactly unnamed branch for that purpose?
There isn't necessarily any. But this branch is 'any%', and some time during the site's history people decided we didn't label runs 'any%' anymore. It is, however, still the "anything goes" as-fast-as-you-can category, so even the glitched jump-to-the-credits movies are simply 'any%'. I'm okay with bringing back that label, but labeling some of the anything-goes-fastest movie 'any%' and others 'glitched' is just inconsistent and unclear.
I see, you're exactly saying "it used to work" and I already answered that elaborately in the previous post.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Yes, and what's the benefit of using exactly unnamed branch for that purpose?
There isn't necessarily any.
OK, why solve the problems this thread was spawned by, let's just ignore them. We don't need benefits to know what's better, what brings more good and what is future-proof. We can just apply stuff and be happy.
Spikestuff wrote:
Pointing something out in terms of Votes.
We have 3 votes to "Something else (post in thread)".
But we have only one person who "(post in thread)"
Unless I'm poorly misreading then we have 0 people who have infact posted their thoughts when selecting that one.
Also to the one who voted "You suck" smart way to waste a vote.
Edit: Got told that that Scepheo is one of the others.
Sorry Scepheo for not acknowledging your point or missing it completely.
I told you guys the thread is cursed. I spam on each page that I suggest the system that's better than the first 2 options in the poll and no one sees it.
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.
Funally!
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch "game end glitch".
The 13:30 VVVVVV run should be unlabeled and the 0:47 run should note that it uses the text storage glitch "game end glitch".
That's good. The term "end game glitch", as in a glitch that ends the game immediately, is actually an objectively defined term we can use (unlike the term "glitched" which already has five different meanings suggested in this thread).
[quote="feos"
adelikat wrote:
So I hear you answering the question as "We know it is a contradiction and dont' care, it is the lesser of two evils".
feos wrote:
"None of the first 2 options in the poll is perfect. Each leaves a huge room for contradictions and arguments. So here's something different from both."
adelikat wrote:
So you don't agree that it is a contradiction?
[/quote]
What I think Adelikat means is that "any%" has a specific definition (i.e. "the fastest run") and we should not use that term if we mean something else (e.g. "an entertaining run that shows off a lot of the game but isn't the fastest"). There's nothing wrong with entertaining runs that show off a lot of the game, but just don't call them "any%". Use a different term.
feos wrote:
One may answer: "Well, it was traditionally there and all was ok". There are counter-arguments to that.
Glitched branch was also traditionally there, but people think it's not ok (and I proved it's not ok anymore as it was, so it needs some tweak, but not removal).
It's not so much about what is traditional, but about what is objective. Although I should repeat that the "gltiched" branch was never in common usage, as there were only 16 or so movies with that name out of 2400+ on the site.
That said...
Let's take another look at the core of the disagreement, and consider warps and cheat codes.
Warps are a normal part of gameplay. If a game contains warps, then a TAS is expected to use them (assuming they save time). A run with time-saving warps can go in the vault if it's fast enough, regardless of how entertaining it is. Conversely, a "warpless" run is a special case that has to be labeled as such. The warpless run needs to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
Cheat codes are not a normal part of gameplay. If a game contains cheat codes, then a TAS is expected to avoid them even if they save time. A run in the vault can not use cheat codes, regardless of how fast it is. Conversely, a run "using a cheat code" is a special case that has to be labeled as such. The cheat code run needs to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
That should be pretty straightforward to any regulars on the site. Now we get to the actual issue, which is about End Game Glitches (i.e. any glitch that can be used to instantly end the game, such as the recent VVVVVV run, or the 1:39 SMW run).
Some people (e.g. Warp, if I understand him correctly) think End Game Glitches are like warps, i.e. TASes are expected to use them where they exist. A TAS that uses an End Game Glitch is the default branch and go in the vault. A TAS that foregoes an End Game Glitch is a special case that has to be labeled, and has to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
Other people (e.g. Feos, if I understand him correctly) think End Game Glitches are like cheat codes, i.e. TASes are expected to avoid them. A TAS that foregoes an End Game Glitch is the default branch and can go in the vault. A TAS that does use an End Game Glitch is a special case that has to be labeled, and has to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
There we go.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
What I think Adelikat means is that "any%" has a specific definition (i.e. "the fastest run") and we should not use that term if we mean something else (e.g. "an entertaining run that shows off a lot of the game but isn't the fastest"). There's nothing wrong with entertaining runs that show off a lot of the game, but just don't call them "any%". Use a different term.
I don't remember where I suggest using any% name at all. I suggested dropping the label for games that don't allow variety (NES: Batman, Darkwing Duck, Donkey Kong, stuff like that). Just because there's nothing you can put in that label for them, no matter how hard you try. Only self-imposed conditions for such games would need labels, like "pacifist" or "no jumps", but that wouldn't mean we need to put "no pacifist" or "jumps" to the other branch.
That especially makes since when we have 4 branches that avoid 1 thing and 1 branch that uses it. If we put "avoids the thing" to all 4, we're being silly, if we put it to some, we're inconsistent. And not basing the label on the in-built options we are also unclear to the viewer and not future-proof.
As for, where we use the label any% then, I have no idea. Just because it doesn't tell anyone anything other than "it's the fastest branch". Man, it doesn't fulfill its own purpose as a branch name: it neither tells by what conditions the goal was achieved, nor does it show how does that branch differ from others. If so, it shouldn't exist in that form at all! Use things for what they suit for... I can draw a movie flag for "fastest branch" in a few minutes, and all will be happy: all who want to know the fastest one would instantly know it, all who want to know the conditions would see it in the labels.
EDIT:
Radiant wrote:
Some people (e.g. Warp, if I understand him correctly) think End Game Glitches are like warps, i.e. TASes are expected to use them where they exist. A TAS that uses an End Game Glitch is the default branch and go in the vault. A TAS that foregoes an End Game Glitch is a special case that has to be labeled, and has to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
Other people (e.g. Feos, if I understand him correctly) think End Game Glitches are like cheat codes, i.e. TASes are expected to avoid them. A TAS that foregoes an End Game Glitch is the default branch and can go in the vault. A TAS that does use an End Game Glitch is a special case that has to be labeled, and has to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
Here you again re trying to solve the issue picking only 2 possibilities. If we only had 2 branches maximum, it would work, and worked. With Moons it's no longer which option one likes the most, it's about statistics and taxonomy. I'll quote the above:
If we put "avoids the thing" to all 4, we're being silly, if we put it to some, we're inconsistent. And not basing the label on the in-built options we are also unclear to the viewer and not future-proof.
EDIT:
Also, you keep referring the the priority system where world records are main and default goals and all other are side goals and must justify their existence by being entertaining. It's correct, but right up to the moment when the run DOES get published. After it's published, it no longer has any relation or dependence on the fastest, vaultable branch, it lives it own life. Which is, to fulfill the Superplay goal.
It means, we will have way more superplays than speedruns here for games that allow it. Superplays from the very past were actually our main site goals, since speedruns that were boring weren't accepted at all. But even superplays were limited in their amounts. Now, with Vault that allows boring speedruns, we also give freedom to superplays.
We would apply your priority system while judging them, but then we would get into an endless trouble of how to categorize those superplays better. You should understand, that once they are published, they can not be ruled by the Vault system. They need their own. They deserve it after all :)
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.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3570)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
feos wrote:
I don't remember where I suggest using any% name at all.
Then you aren't who I was directing the question to at all. (You seem to be trying to dominate the situation here)
I'm asking the now 19 people who are voting for the glitched/any option.
Here you again re trying to solve the issue picking only 2 possibilities. If we only had 2 branches maximum, it would work,
Nope, this works fine with multiple branches. If we take SMW as an example, we get the following:
If we assume End Game Glitches are like warps, then SMW's five runs are called "executes arbitrary code", "", "96 exits", "11 exits", and "small only"; and we write in the description text that the first two use an End Game Glitch and the latter three don't. We could still change "" to "fastest" or "world speed record" if you like.
If we assume End Game Glitches are like cheat codes, then SMW's five runs are called "executes arbitrary code", "end game glitch", "96 exits", "", and "small only"; and we write in the description text that the first two use an End Game Glitch and the latter three don't. We could still change "" to "fastest" or "world speed record" if you like.
In both cases it's clear that the recently rejected SMW run belongs to this branch and not to that one, since it uses an End Game Glitch.
As for, where we use the label any% then, I have no idea. Just because it doesn't tell anyone anything other than "it's the fastest branch". Man, it doesn't fulfill its own purpose as a branch name: it neither tells by what conditions the goal was achieved, nor does it show how does that branch differ from others.
But it does show/tell those things. It tells you that the only conditions that apply to the movie are the site rules (no cheats), and it tells you that it differs from the others by not having any restrictions. Any% says "this is the fastest you can complete the game without restrictions".
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Okay, I see that it works well as examples. If I were in the camp of "glitched & any%", I would pick the second options (which is quite intuitive). But you see, people have already decided, and their opinions on your examples can be easily assumed. You still give only 2 options after all.
But my idea is that, since SMW allows freaking tons of in-game options of how to beat the game, it will become:
"executes arbitrary code", "end game glitch", "96 exits", "11 exits", and "small only".
No blank branch since this game allows variety. No any% branch, since it doesn't track your completion %. As for the fastest one indication, I love the movie flag solution. So branches would do their job to categorize, and flags would do their to highlight.
And yes, specific conditions that are known only to speedrunners (TAS and RTA) must be put into descriptions, not labels.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
As for, where we use the label any% then, I have no idea. Just because it doesn't tell anyone anything other than "it's the fastest branch". Man, it doesn't fulfill its own purpose as a branch name: it neither tells by what conditions the goal was achieved, nor does it show how does that branch differ from others.
But it does show/tell those things. It tells you that the only conditions that apply to the movie are the site rules (no cheats), and it tells you that it differs from the others by not having any restrictions. Any% says "this is the fastest you can complete the game without restrictions".
Don't I say "in-game options" enough? There are hundreds of them, each game can have any amount of them. These options are:
- amount of simultaneously used players
- different characters
- different endings
- warps
- exit amounts
and there are more.
The person who knows the game instantly knows what to expect from the movie if it's properly labeled. If some of them aren't, it becomes a black box. Don't you see how all kinds of different in-game options are substituted with only 1 (it's fastest) and that one is misleading? Or maybe you're able to pick all our unnamed branches on the side and without reading the description tell which built-in options were used to complete the game as fast as possible? You still didn't provide good use from knowing which branch is the fastest, and why it can never ever be done by using a movie flag.
EDIT:
Yeah, I forgot. Restrictions! See my previous post on why that, as a Vault approach, fails to handle the Moons. Because Moons don't deal with restrictions. They deal with viewer's joy. And viewer needs good taxonomy to get more joy and not have it spoiled with annoyance.
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.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6435
Location: The land down under.
Radiant wrote:
Cheat codes are not a normal part of gameplay. If a game contains cheat codes, then a TAS is expected to avoid them even if they save time. A run in the vault can not use cheat codes, regardless of how fast it is. Conversely, a run "using a cheat code" is a special case that has to be labeled as such. The cheat code run needs to prove that it's unique enough for a separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
Yes, and to be accepted, that run had to prove it was unique enough for its separate branch, and entertaining enough for moon tier.
That's what I'm talking about. Is using an End Game Glitch an accepted normal way of TASing (because it's faster), or is it something that needs to be justified as a different and sufficiently entertaining branch (because it diverges from normal gameplay). This question is why we're having the discussion in the first place.
This appears to be a list of runs that use a password to access either a higher difficulty level or a different level set; I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that.
This appears to be a list of runs that use a password to access either a higher difficulty level or a different level set; I'm not sure what you're trying to say with that.
Sorry for poor clarification on this part.
It was just to notify that there is others that use passwords but I forgot to be specific in which ways.
So yea, passwords are used mainly for Hardest Difficulty.
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
Since the "official WR" is kind of the "main" run of the game, all the others being runs with alternative goals (which essentially trade speed for entertainment), it makes sense to leave the branch of this "default main" completion unnamed. It's the "default" branch, and thus doesn't need a name.
Yes, and what's the benefit of using exactly unnamed branch for that purpose? What if someone isn't looking for "fastest ever", but needs to know the gameplay conditions? For most unnamed branches gameplay conditions would differ, just as do most of our branches differ. Which means the goal set fails to be represented by that unnamed branch name. It's also inconsistent: all games have branches that show what game features they use to complete the game, and bam! suddenly some refuse to tell the viewer that information.
As I said, in my opinion it shouldn't be the role of the branch name to describe the details of the run. The "default" branch has one goal, and one goal only: Complete the game as fast as possible, using any means possible. How it achieves that is completely inconsequential (with respect to the branch name.) If this goal is achieved by using some specific techniques, those can be expressed with the tags and in the description of the run.
Also, as I said earlier, the other branches can be named whatever you like. A branch could be called "Steve's run" for all the naming convention cares. Its only role is to distinguish it from the other branches of the same game. (If the branch name also happens to be descriptive, all the better, but that's not its primary goal, IMO.)
If you want to describe the techniques used in the run in the "info line" of the run, then I think it would be better to implement what I suggested earlier: "Major" tags that could be added to said info line. If this is not possible for practical reasons (eg. lack of resources), then just give more prominence to the existing tags.
(The difference between the "major" tags and the branch name would be that the tags do not define the branch. They just describe it. A new submission that obsoletes the same branch could have a different set of "major" tags, but the name of the branch would stay the same.)
No any% branch, since it doesn't track your completion %.
... What?
feos wrote:
Don't I say "in-game options" enough? There are hundreds of them, each game can have any amount of them. These options are:
- amount of simultaneously used players
- different characters
- different endings
- warps
- exit amounts
and there are more.
Again, what? I honestly think you're just trying to discuss something that nobody else cares about. The main discussion is pretty much about the 2 options Radiant named. You're the only one talking about labels/branchs/flags ("But do you have a flag?") for all the other restrictions.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6435
Location: The land down under.
feos wrote:
(b) Bahemete's run should be unlabeled and Masterun's run should note that it uses the credits glitch "game end glitch".
The 13:30 VVVVVV run should be unlabeled and the 0:47 run should note that it uses the text storage glitch "game end glitch".
Why not just use "conventional route" for the conventional run? (This kinda also references the recent "No Unintended Exits" run of Zelda 2)
You mean like theseruns? Both use the "intended" route but skips every single battle within said route, while still technically going to those battles by forcing the opponent to just quit. :P
I'm not sure I'd use "conventional route" language for games like Advance Wars because there's no meaningful route branching and the game can be perfected through raw strategy and a fair chunk of RNG manipulation.
And really, that's the limited case where a "conventional route" tag would be helpful: if the only other (well known) movie of a game is just the exploitation of the same glitch 33 times in a row.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
As I said, in my opinion it shouldn't be the role of the branch name to describe the details of the run. The "default" branch has one goal, and one goal only: Complete the game as fast as possible, using any means possible. How it achieves that is completely inconsequential (with respect to the branch name.) If this goal is achieved by using some specific techniques, those can be expressed with the tags and in the description of the run.
You (for some reason) keep referring to the priority system that doesn't work anymore. I think I described why in several posts. As in, Moons don't have any default goals except for "to entertain". Nor do they have default condition sets. Whatever looks good meets the goal. So one can't rule Moons with the Vault approach without victims.
Scepheo wrote:
I honestly think you're just trying to discuss something that nobody else cares about. The main discussion is pretty much about the 2 options Radiant named. You're the only one talking about labels/branchs/flags ("But do you have a flag?") for all the other restrictions.
You honestly think that after looking at the poll results someone is going to apply the either option the hard way? What I am the only one to do here is to find a solution that solves the MAIN problem: people's opinions exactly halved on the matter raised by the poll. It can be solved by:
- applying both at once now (impossible since they contradict each other)
- applying neither (satisfies no one)
- applying both partially
People in this thread, since they weren't given any clear option besides those 2, feel that if they just state what they think, it's all they need to do. You see the result. I'm trying to reconcile the contradicting camps and seem to be the only one who cares of the contradiction (or sees it).
On the other note, I'm trying to come up with some definition for a game breaking glitch. It seems to need 2 traits:
- break the gameplay, engine, code execution, overcome intended logics
- cut down the length dramatically, compared to the fastest run that avoids that glitch
Only if we require these 2 at once it is going to work. The first one draws the line between (ab)using gameplay, engine, intended logics and breaking them, to make the game something other. The second one is important: since it's about making the new branch, it would need to entertain, and to be different enough from what's already done (otherwise it simply obsoletes). Like, when the current MM1 was submitted, it was a significant improvement (and the gameplay was corrupted), but the time cut wasn't dramatically huge (the gameplay was not broken). What's dramatically huge? Well, twice shorter, and more. Actually, it would be seen when we are at judging it.
What do you think of that definition?
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'm not sure I'd use "conventional route" language for games like Advance Wars because there's no meaningful route branching and the game can be perfected through raw strategy and a fair chunk of RNG manipulation.
Yes. But for other games it's also problematic. For example, Super Mario World has a "conventional route" to get to Bowser in 11 exits. It goes YI2-YI3-YI4-Castle-DP1-DS1-DSH-Starworld-Bowser.
However, our current so-called "conventional route" run of SMW doesn't use that route. Instead, it takes a side trip through YI1, dies there, then skips all of the first castle with the "chuck eat glitch".
It's a good TAS for sure. But it's not the conventional route any more.
feos wrote:
What do you think of that definition?
It's a circular definition, and that doesn't help. Everything relies on whether the game is broken enough or whether the so-called standard route is deviated from enough because every TAS breaks and deviates to some extent. This is the exact same issue we had months ago.
You should stick with End Game Glitch; at least that is objective and clear.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
feos wrote:
What do you think of that definition?
It's a circular definition, and that doesn't help. Everything relies on whether the game is broken enough or whether the so-called standard route is deviated from enough because every TAS breaks and deviates to some extent. This is the exact same issue we had months ago.
You should stick with End Game Glitch; at least that is objective and clear.
How does definition of game breaking glitch contradicts the use of "Game End Glitch" to label a certain type of it? Not all runs that used to be called "glitched" use game end glitch. Right? Then how do you determine the label "X glitch" is needed at all? If my suggestion of how to determine it (surely it's case-by-case, but it's abstracted to only 2 common features that are easy to check) has weak points, quote them. Or maybe you think that the whole thing (opinion of half the people on the site) is a mess and there's no freaking way one could understand what's a game-breaking glitch?
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.
You should stick with End Game Glitch; at least that is objective and clear.
How does definition of game breaking glitch contradicts the use of "Game End Glitch" to label a certain type of it? Not all runs that used to be called "glitched" use game end glitch. Right?[/quote]
Right. Because the term "glitched" was never consistently applied, and people have widely different definitions of what they mean by it. You can see that in this thread, there's at least five distinct definitions here that contradict each other, and all of them are subjective. It simply leads to endless debate, which isn't helpful.
That's why we need something objective. An End Game Glitch is a glitch that lets you end the game directly. Very simple, very straightforward. This is an End Game Glitch. This is clearly not (but you could argue for hours about whether the trick at 3:10 makes it "glitched" or not). So an End Game Glitch is actually a distinction that we can base different branches on.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
Right. Because the term "glitched" was never consistently applied, and people have widely different definitions of what they mean by it. You can see that in this thread, there's at least five distinct definitions here that contradict each other, and all of them are subjective. It simply leads to endless debate, which isn't helpful.
That's why we need something objective. An End Game Glitch is a glitch that lets you end the game directly. Very simple, very straightforward. This is an End Game Glitch. This is clearly not (but you could argue for hours about whether the trick at 3:10 makes it "glitched" or not). So an End Game Glitch is actually a distinction that we can base different branches on.
Yes, and what to do with things like this:
[1978] SNES Super Metroid "X-Ray glitch" by Cpadolf in 21:25.12
You can try to show me people that don't understand the difference the X-Ray glitch introduces from the fastest run that avoids it (and arbitrary code), but it doesn't mean they are majority.
Yes, the problem is runs where one no longer can see the border line between "completely broken", "largely broken" and "slightly broken". But if they are in Moons, we would still need some names to tell what's different about them. It would require picking up the list of such runs where it is already ambiguous and working out the solution. Instead of telling it can't be figured out.
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.
Yes, the problem is runs where one no longer can see the border line between "completely broken", "largely broken" and "slightly broken". But if they are in Moons, we would still need some names to tell what's different about them. It would require picking up the list of such runs where it is already ambiguous and working out the solution. Instead of telling it can't be figured out.
The solution is very simple: use a more precise term.
For example: some people believe that any movie that uses sequence breaking is "glitched". Other people don't. The straightforward solution is to use the more precise term instead: if a movie is sequence breaking, label it "sequence breaking"; and the issue is resolved.
The clear outcome of this poll is that we shouldn't use the terms "glitched" or "any%" in movie names, because there is disagreement over what they mean. That's ok, we can use more precise terms where they apply. For example, "sequence breaking" or "memory corruption" or indeed "End Game Glitch".
TAS'ing is all about precision, so we shouldn't be afraid to use precise terms to label a movie, when there's disagreement over a broad and general term.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
The solution is very simple: use a more precise term.
For example: some people believe that any movie that uses sequence breaking is "glitched". Other people don't. The straightforward solution is to use the more precise term instead: if a movie is sequence breaking, label it "sequence breaking"; and the issue is resolved.
The clear outcome of this poll is that we shouldn't use the terms "glitched" or "any%" in movie names, because there is disagreement over what they mean. That's ok, we can use more precise terms where they apply. For example, "sequence breaking" or "memory corruption" or indeed "End Game Glitch".
TAS'ing is all about precision, so we shouldn't be afraid to use precise terms to label a movie, when there's disagreement over a broad and general term.
I didn't expect I would see a post ITT that I would second that much.
Do you think that we must put the question "what glitch does it use that needs to be in the branch?" to all runs that 1) clearly need it, and 2) are up to now ambiguous? I think it must be similar to what was done to obsoletion chains: a movie is put for discussion, then when there's some agreement, it's applied.
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.
As I said, in my opinion it shouldn't be the role of the branch name to describe the details of the run. The "default" branch has one goal, and one goal only: Complete the game as fast as possible, using any means possible. How it achieves that is completely inconsequential (with respect to the branch name.) If this goal is achieved by using some specific techniques, those can be expressed with the tags and in the description of the run.
You (for some reason) keep referring to the priority system that doesn't work anymore. I think I described why in several posts. As in, Moons don't have any default goals except for "to entertain". Nor do they have default condition sets. Whatever looks good meets the goal. So one can't rule Moons with the Vault approach without victims.
What I wrote has absolutely nothing to do with tiers. I don't even understand why you think it does.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Warp wrote:
What I wrote has absolutely nothing to do with tiers. I don't even understand why you think it does.
Half of the voters apply the old approach, that we have put on Judge Guidelines about branching. Fastest completion is so obviously the default and the main goal of TASes that it needs no label. Right?
That approach leads to contradiction between the 2 groups of people, because another half of them thinks this goal is not so obvious and not main. They feel main goal is to beat the game without game-breaking glitches, and want to have this branch blank.
As Radiant said, none of the options can be now applied the hard way, since either of them disappoints half of the people.
Then, either none of these 2 branches should have labels (which is hilarious but wrong), or both. So my suggestion is basing all the taxonomy not on conclusion that "fastest by all means is default and obvious" (that half the crowd disagrees with), but on "each branch must be named some special way, unless there's nothing special". I already defined what the special way means, and when there's nothing special. Because really, what is special about that run:
[1049] NES Batman by Aglar in 09:21.93
And what if there appears a "game end glitch" branch for this game? Would they become "game end glitch" and "no game end glitch"? The answer is, they might, but until there are even more branches. Then one would need to avoid what's common and label what's unique. As I always say, if 4 branches avoid X and 1 uses it, we call the one that uses it "uses X" instead of calling the rest 4 "avoids X".
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.
