Joined: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
But it is a totally different category. The in-game run does not use any game breaking glitches at all. It also does not artificially lower the in-game timer. How can this particular submission be compared to it? If you wanna just remove the in-game run, that is a different discussion. This submission however should not be the reason for it's removal.
But it is a totally different category. The in-game run does not use any game breaking glitches at all. It also does not artificially lower the in-game timer. How can this particular submission be compared to it? If you wanna just remove the in-game run, that is a different discussion. This submission however should not be the reason for it's removal.
http://tasvideos.org/3316S.html
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Joined: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
Well you are correct that it does not specify no-glitch in the title. Though I think the reason for this is that the any% category predated the glitched run. Since it came first, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to retroactively modify it's description, but rather to make a note in the title of the newer glitched run. In fact 99% of the runs on the site do not need to explicitly state "no-glitch" in their title, because it is understood that most runs are just normal runs and do not use massive glitch abuse.
Well you are correct that it does not specify no-glitch in the title. Though I think the reason for this is that the any% category predated the glitched run. Since it came first, it wouldn't necessarily make sense to retroactively modify it's description, but rather to make a note in the title of the newer glitched run. In fact 99% of the runs on the site do not need to explicitly state "no-glitch" in their title, because it is understood that most runs are just normal runs and do not use massive glitch abuse.
We could link the previous publication in the description stating that it's a no glitch IGT run, and it would be just the same.
We can't simply think of hypothetical reasons as to why it was only named any%. Sure it was before the glitched runs, but it's labeled any% for a reason. Super Metroid is such an outlier in terms of what kind of runs there are, we have clear and distinct branch titles that describe in a few words what kind of run it is.
We could either rename this particular branch to "ingame, no x-ray", or obsolete that particular run with the x-ray run previous to this current submission.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
The IGT for this submission is only 6 minutes (00:06). If there was a retroactive obsoletion to take place, it would be the current x-ray run obsoleting the IGT run.
Exactly. When all the people were voting for publishing the ingame run, the X-Ray run was present and well-known. No one seemed to think that all the unique content the ingame run represents already is represented in the X-Ray run. Though it has a lower ingame timer. Did you try to think, why? Why all the crowd doesn't seriously think about X-Ray obsoleting ingame? Because game-breaking glitch spoils the legitimacy of any% run for half of our audience. That many people disagree with mixing the concepts of any% run and glitched run together. Ingame run looks like "traditional" any% completion, and satisfies the expectations in that regard. X-Ray and ACE runs don't look like it, and don't satisfy that expectation.
This is why some other run should be discussed to obsolete ingame run, say, the branchless one. Because they can have the most content overlap between each other. But again, when ingame was published separately, the branchless run was also there. And the community decided to have both.
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
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: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
#3316: Saturn's SNES Super Metroid "any%, ingame" in 39:15.30
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Branches don't need to list everything they avoid compared to existing possibilities. It's based on statistics: if some trick type is rarely used, it's use is labeled in the branch, and when it's not used, it's the default, common condition that doesn't need a label. See http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#Branches
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.
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
http://tasvideos.org/3316S.html[/url]
The branch name is "any%, ingame" in the submission, and "ingame time" in the publication.
Nowhere in the branch name does it explicitly state that it's a non-game breaking branch. Perhaps if it was named "in game, no x-ray" like the previous submissions that it obsoleted, there would be more plausibility with it.
Branches don't need to list everything they avoid compared to existing possibilities. It's based on statistics: if some trick type is rarely used, it's use is labeled in the branch, and when it's not used, it's the default, common condition that doesn't need a label. See http://tasvideos.org/JudgeGuidelines.html#Branches
Then why did the IGT run obsolete the ingame, no x-ray run and not keep the branch name? Surely it should have kept the no x-ray part of the name.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4089
Location: The Netherlands
Scepheo wrote:
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
I don't think 4 people is a very good sample size.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
You must be kidding me. Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes. Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one. Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
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.
Can you explain why do you completely ignore the main reason it was published - community support (which is why we publish new branches)?
As far as I understand this thread:
People against obsoletion:
- feos
People pro obsoletion:
- Nach
- Fog
(- me)
As it stands, the community is for obsoletion. If anybody's ignoring community support, it's you.
You must be kidding me. Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes. Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one. Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
How can we judge the community's support when they're not actively talking about this particular issue? All the discussion regarding in-game time obsoletion for this submission was split into here because it was seen as "off-topic", although I feel otherwise about that.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
Then why did the IGT run obsolete the ingame, no x-ray run and not keep the branch name? Surely it should have kept the no x-ray part of the name.
Did you at least read how branches work now? Also, I don't get what you're saying. Which run obosoleted which? What was wrong with their labels?
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.
Added [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "ingame time" by Saturn in 39:15.3 (2011-10-30)
- obsoletes [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, ingame time" by Cpadolf in 41:02.4 (2008-03-02)
Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes.
At the time, this run did not exist.
feos wrote:
Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one.
They were never asked. Well, they are asked, in this thread. Where the majority is pro obsoletion. I'm not saying that means the obsoletion should happen, I'm just saying you might want to reconsider basing your community-opinion on the unrelated votes of a 3 year old run. Make a poll or something.
feos wrote:
Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fog wrote:
How can we judge the community's support when they're not actively talking about this particular issue? All the discussion regarding in-game time obsoletion for this submission was split into here because it was seen as "off-topic", although I feel otherwise about that.
You have tens of people posting about how they expect things to be done. If tens of people voted for publishing the in-game run, it was what the community and the judge decided. It's not like, we can revert that decision as many times as we want if some 3 people agree about something. To obsolete something, you need those tens of people saying "yes, I agree it should obsolete that". This is what happened with #2240: inichi's SNES Chrono Trigger "glitched any%" in 21:23.98http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=8001
Read and see how community support looks like.
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.
Added [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "ingame time" by Saturn in 39:15.3 (2011-10-30)
- obsoletes [Tier: Moons]SNES Super Metroid (JPN/USA) "no X-Ray glitch, ingame time" by Cpadolf in 41:02.4 (2008-03-02)
I see. This is only confusing because some people were retroactively changing the labels of the runs in such obsoletion chains. Those runs didn't have these labels back then.
When the current in-game run was published, all the previous runs of that branch were also just "ingame".
Then, we had a branch poll, where half the crown disagreed with having "no X glitch" branches opposite to "any%". The decision was made, it looks how it's written in the judges guideline. But I applied the current labeling system only to the current runs, I didn't touch the recently-retroactively-changed obsoleted labels.
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.
ACE/Total control are entertaining in their own rights but I don't really think they should obsolete categories that don't include memory/savefile glitches to begin with. What they're used for is a different story, but the things I find entertaining about ACE/Total control runs are generally what's done up to that point and to trigger the necessary glitch(es).
That's not to say I didn't enjoy the payload of some videos here (like the Pokemon Yellow Pi Day one, or the SMW one displayed at AGDQ 2014), but some other ones (Super Metroid/Pokemon Gold/Silver) so far I've thought the method of execution was more interesting than the result.
If an ACE method was found for A Link to the Past, or something, and it beat the current time by 30s (a Zelda game in under two minutes? lol), I don't think it should obsolete the current runthrough, for instance.
Anything can happen after you can execute your own code/gain total control. Ending the game is honestly pretty mundane when you think of the possibilities. (especially when we have things like SMW where there IS a lot of things you can do!)
Joined: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
Wow this is really getting sad now. If you people are too blind to see the difference between the xray run and a legit nonglitched run, I worry about the future of our world. I also love how my name and the other names of the people on the submission thread were not mentioned in the anti-obsolete category.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3570)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I'm under the impression that the subject is about obsoleting the IGT run, by something. Not specifically the submission from which this thread was split.
Wow this is really getting sad now. If you people are too blind to see the difference between the xray run and a legit nonglitched run, I worry about the future of our world.
Nobody's blind. We see the difference. We also think that the old IGT run sucks*, and as the new one technically beats it, this is a good time to get rid of it.
* is not entertaining enough to be kept in the moon tier
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Community is all the people who voted for publishing the current ingame time run. Go count the votes.
At the time, this run did not exist.
Yeah. X-Ray glitch run exists since 2008. No X-Ray glitch run (traditional any%) exists since 2004. In-game run existed since 2008, then it was obsoleted by [1368] SNES Super Metroid by Taco & Kriole in 38:41.52, back when we supported the branch limit. Then, in 2011, the new in-game run was submitted. Even before we added tier system. Look how people post and vote there, and read the judge's decision.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Community is all the people who didn't even think the latest submission should obsolete the in-game run. Community is all the people who didn't even think of the X-Ray run obsoleting the in-game one.
They were never asked. Well, they are asked, in this thread. Where the majority is pro obsoletion. I'm not saying that means the obsoletion should happen, I'm just saying you might want to reconsider basing your community-opinion on the unrelated votes of a 3 year old run. Make a poll or something.
They were never asked if the X-Ray run should be obsoleted. They were never asked if the ACE run should be obsoleted. Yet all of them, for some reason, posted that they want them both obsoleted. Why? Because they are aware which runs exist and what obsoletions make sense. If among all who voted for some obsoletion there were, say, 10 people who voted for ingame being obsoleted (without even being asked), it would mean community partially supports that option. As of now, people only mention it due to seeing the obsoletion obsession notion being actively spammed.
Scepheo wrote:
feos wrote:
Also, didn't you completely miscount those who want the in-game run to be not obsoleted?
Not on purpose, who did I miss?
I'll collect exact counts in a few days.
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: 11/14/2005
Posts: 1058
Location: United States
To pro obsolete people:
Fair enough. Though you should get some facts straight first.
People actually do enjoy Saturn's in game run. It has a very high rating.
Saturn's run is actually much superior to the real time any% run on a technical level. He actually saves frames in every single room of the run. The only and I mean only reason he did not crush the real time run was because he went for the plasma beam at the very end of the run and lost a lot of real-time. Because of this I cannot endorse removing the technically superior run, and I cannot endorse removing the technically faster real-time run. They should both remain until a single run beats them both.
