I was watching a Doom (the new one) speedrun on YouTube, and some of the comments complained that the runner went out of bounds (causing clear graphical glitches in unmodeled areas of the levels), saying that it wasn't a "real" speedrun at all.
This is, of course, a really extreme (and perhaps naive) attitude, although we shouldn't be just laughing at it. A significant portion of people who watch speedruns casually would like to see "glitchless" runs quite a lot. I think this raises the question of who we are making these runs for. Who is the target audience?
This question becomes a lot more relevant if and when we start getting tool-assisted "speedruns" that don't actually play the game at all. The game starts, we might get a glimpse of the main menu, if even that, and the end screen pops up. That's it. (This possibility was, of course, demonstrated quite beautifully at SGDQ 2016.)
For all intents and purposes that was no "speedrun" at all. There was even less of a "superplay" (because nothing was being played.) The game proper didn't even start, much less was played.
The technique may be interesting for the hard-core aficionados who follow closely the techniques being used. But for the casual viewer? Some might become interested in reading about the technique... but it's just that: A wall of text containing lots of technical stuff, most of which will go above the head of the average viewer, and which might not be even all that interesting.
So is that the future of TASing, from the point of view of the casual viewer? Just a wall of text containing technical stuff? Is that really a "speedrun", or even a "superplay"? Or is it simply a "technical guide to hack the console through the gamepad port, using game X and a specialized device"? The latter is interesting for certain, but hardly a "speedrun". And it's mostly interesting for the technical aficionados who like to read about these things.
Certainly a TAS that just jumps to the end screen has no entertainment per se (not in the classical sense). I know that in Vault runs entertainment is a complete non-issue, but come on, could there be even a minimum standard? Something to actually look at on the screen? I mean other than the ending of the game.
So, I ask once again: Who is the target audience of tool-assisted speedruns? How do you define "speedrun"?
I'm not saying that such TASes shouldn't be accepted, but maybe we need to define some categories in order to retain something to actually look at. Categories that do not have such strong entertainment requirements. Else we may end up in a situation where we don't actually have any speedrun of some games at all (not from the perspective of the casual viewer), just a collection of endings, and some technical wall of text explaining stuff.
This question becomes a lot more relevant if and when we start getting tool-assisted "speedruns" that don't actually play the game at all. The game starts, we might get a glimpse of the main menu, if even that, and the end screen pops up. That's it. (This possibility was, of course, demonstrated quite beautifully at SGDQ 2016.)
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
We for sure need to think about this if what was demonstrated at SGDQ 2016 will happen to multiple games.
With how much we’ve broken games, though, it’s getting hard to have meaningful categories.
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Whatever happened with SMB3 isn't going to happen for many games at all, assuming it even works with other games. As far as I'm aware, though, when talking about it on IRC we came to a sort of unofficial conclusion that SMB3 would likely be the only published run of the sort that we have. Not that we would only publish SMB3 and nothing else, more that no one would want to work on any further runs because the novelty has already worn off with one single run.
Trust me, I'd really rather not see a flood of "EVERY GAME IN 00:02" hitting the site and replacing all of the actually fairly unique GEG runs we already have published, and I think the consensus is the same with almost everyone else as well.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
If SMB3 in 2 seconds style TASes get to be a problem, we can make them their own category, similar to how ACE and non-ACE are split, though the definition may get a bit tricky:
1) They're defined by having subframe input - but so is every TAS that subframe resets to corrupt savefiles, as well as a ton of DOS speedruns (and possibly speedruns on other platforms with keyboards - MSX, C64, Windows, Linux, etc).
2) They're defined by hitting inputs faster than a human can - but so is every run that has 20Hz or faster mashing or that executes a 4 player payload extremely fast.
3) Maybe you could define them by the effect they have on memory (making a frame last longer than a frame so the console gets confused)? If this effect doesn't happen in normal gameplay outside of esoteric glitches, we can generalize, categorize TASes and form a new category this way.
Regardless, I don't think this TAS is a threat to the site or speedrunning in general, especially since everyone should be in agreement that this new kind of TAS is not, in general, more interesting than previously existing TASes.
Whatever happened with SMB3 isn't going to happen for many games at all, assuming it even works with other games. [...] Not that we would only publish SMB3 and nothing else, more that no one would want to work on any further runs because the novelty has already worn off with one single run.
This.
I can safely say that I am able to do a boring ACE run of at least 10 other SNES games for sure.
But it's hard to do and it's boring for the audience so I don't do it because it feels like a waste of time. And I'm sure that anyone who fully understands how it happens and is able to make a short run himself, is also clever enough to understand that it's really boring.
I'm unsure as to whether this contributed to the question of this thread and I apologize if it didn't, but I felt like I had to say something about the current situation.
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)
So, I ask once again: Who is the target audience of tool-assisted speedruns? How do you define "speedrun"?
In general I don't think there is a target audience, after all we do this as an enjoyable hobby, we aren't selling anything. I don't see the need to use formal business terms or come up with a definition to what we do. Even in the context of GDQ's, it's more important that preparers and presenters are themselves interested and fascinated by what they are doing, more then trying to cater to some 'target audience.' That earnest interest shows through in the presentation.
Samsara wrote:
Trust me, I'd really rather not see a flood of "EVERY GAME IN 00:02" hitting the site and replacing all of the actually fairly unique GEG runs we already have published, and I think the consensus is the same with almost everyone else as well.
I guess I'm in the minority here, but I would definitely be interested in any and all such runs. (But I think the total number would be rather small anyway in this case.)
In general I don't think there is a target audience, after all we do this as an enjoyable hobby, we aren't selling anything. I don't see the need to use formal business terms or come up with a definition to what we do. Even in the context of GDQ's, it's more important that preparers and presenters are themselves interested and fascinated by what they are doing, more then trying to cater to some 'target audience.' That earnest interest shows through in the presentation.
I think it would be a good idea to retain a degree of entertainment for the average casual viewer in order to keep this hobby alive for the foreseeable future. If it becomes boring to the average viewer, then there will be less people interested in TASing, and thus less newcomers, and as the old ones end their hobby eventually, it might end in obscurity.
Of course this doesn't mean that we should just publish anything and everything. Some minimum technical standards are needed too. It needs to be properly balanced, and not go too far into the extremes.
Trust me, I'd really rather not see a flood of "EVERY GAME IN 00:02" hitting the site
What about "one movie file beats multiple games"?
Other than that, I would be interested in knowing what games the glitch works with, and what games don't.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11479
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
That brings me an idea. What if we don't obsolete the standard game end glitch movies by such ones, and put the latter in the Demo tier? Because they exactly are no longer even speedruns, but demonstrations of technical prowess brought to absurd degree without any entertainment value at all.
http://tasvideos.org/Feos/ConceptDemo.html
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.
That brings me an idea. What if we don't obsolete the standard game end glitch movies by such ones, and put the latter in the Demo tier? Because they exactly are no longer even speedruns, but demonstrations of technical prowess brought to absurd degree without any entertainment value at all.
http://tasvideos.org/Feos/ConceptDemo.html
But I'm debating technically they are still speedruns.
The moment where power is turned on and the game loads, you are in the game's boundaries and need to finish it (by triggering credits) as quickly as possible. Everything goes. Savegame corruption, ACE and now this controller glitch. As long as it is possible with just controller input, it's allowed. Strictly speaking, I think a mass of 2 second TASes really should obsolete whatever came before them. Of course that wouldn't be such a good thing to happen, so here is my idea:
I think if it were up to me, I would like to see it handled with separate categories again. Right now, savegame corruption runs are labeled SRAM glitch, ACE runs are labeled game end glitch so now you could go and label this new category DPCM/input glitch.
Or some name like that.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11479
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Categorizing is fine, but we can't have multiple versions of any% runs as long as each of them technically satisfies the standard criteria. They must obsolete one another. And we seem to be at the point, when even the current meaning of the glitched category is "too slow", while still comprehensible and arguably entertaining. I don't want to see a hundred of runs that do feel like speedruns (even ACE can be done RTA so it still has traditional speedrun merits) be beaten by those 2-second movies just because the latter are technically faster. A 3 frame movie that makes the game actually complete itself due to luck is a different story though (too bad that one was the result of emulation inaccuracy).
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.
But I'm debating technically they are still speedruns.
We thus come back to my original question: How do you define "speedrun".
On the surface it might have a trivial definition, but with all the new techniques that allow reaching the (sometimes a bit arbitrarily defined) "end" of the game without actually playing the game, the definition might become a bit fuzzier.
Traditionally speedrunning is playing the game through as fast as possible. With some of these tricks not much of that is left anymore.
The moment where power is turned on and the game loads, you are in the game's boundaries and need to finish it (by triggering credits) as quickly as possible. Everything goes. Savegame corruption, ACE and now this controller glitch. As long as it is possible with just controller input, it's allowed.
In principle I would agree that as long as it happens purely via controller input (and especially without resetting!) it's a legit "completion" of the game. Although personally I would argue that once you start executing your own code instead of the game's code, the game, and thus the speedrun, has ended, and the game hasn't been completed. But that's of course just my (quite unpopular) opinion. (No need to start that discussion again. Just wanted to present a differing point of view.)
Traditionally speedrunning is playing the game through as fast as possible. With some of these tricks not much of that is left anymore.
In speedrunning there are multiple goals.
In general, the any% goal is about completing the game as fast as possible.
Then there may be additional goals, such as glitchless, 100%, and so on. The more broken the game becomes, the more sophisticated goals speedrunners devise to still get to play as much of the game as possible.
For example, for Mirror's Edge, there is currently a glitchless category for those who want to see the boat being played. For Portal, there are OoB and inbounds categories separatelly, with and without glitches, and also some stranger categories like “24 cubes”, where you meticulously herd the cubes from all test chambers to the cake room after the end of the game, while beating GLaDOS like you’d normally do. For OoT, there are any%, 100%, all dungeons, glitchless, no-wrong-warp, no-major-skips categories, and so on. These categories and the rules thereof are devised with the speedrunning community's mutual agreement. TASVideos has a "sightseeing" version of Umihara Kawase, because the any% speedrun shows such a small part of the game. And we also meekly try to maintain a "playaround" category that is fast but trades speed for entertainment, showcasing examples of play that would be clearly impossible for a human player, yet somehow entertaining to watch while at the same time counterproductive for a fastest game completion.
Idk. Honestly, I'm just waiting for a game where the fastest way to beat the game (or achieve some end state others agree on) is to throw your salary at the developers as fast as possible. These "records" already occur for a game I play online, so its just a matter of time before it becomes mainstream. In context, the "end state" on that link is having all levels at 99, and without throwing money it takes like at least half a year. Real money makes the records go to sub 3 days. You don't buy the levels directly, just access to the fastest ways of gameplay to reach the end state.
Edit:
I can safely say that I am able to do a boring ACE run of at least 10 other SNES games for sure.
But it's hard to do and it's boring for the audience so I don't do it because it feels like a waste of time. And I'm sure that anyone who fully understands how it happens and is able to make a short run himself, is also clever enough to understand that it's really boring.
I'm unsure as to whether this contributed to the question of this thread and I apologize if it didn't, but I felt like I had to say something about the current situation.
It may sound boring if you've seen it tons of times, but for a community for whatever particular game it'd be treated like a different branch altogether likely.
It doesn't sound nice, but why should the speedrun community care about how speedruns and TASes are perceived outside of it? All that matters is that the runs are legit by following the most basic rules, like no external modifications and not being allowed to start the timing at an arbitary point in the game. The idea that we have to justify our hobby is just another proof that GDQ is hurting the community.
You can beat games in 2 seconds now? So what, just come up with a restriction to make it longer and have fun again. Yes, everything that isn't any% or a straightforward 100% is arbitrary, but again, it doesn't matter. Let the 12 year old Youtube-kids whine with their "its onlay a speedd run without glitchez, thiz takess no skil!" -comments, it won't make a difference. Whoever is interested in speedrunning or TASing will join the community anyway, just like it always worked.
Current project: Gex 3 any%
Paused: Gex 64 any%
There are no N64 emulators. Just SM64 emulators with hacky support for all the other games.
Come to think of it, this thread in a way made me curious exactly how different a run of some game would be like given different glitch/trick restrictions in terms of time and gameplay. I know for some games (metroid for example) would be nigh impossible to have any agreed standard, so maybe a sticky thread where people post movie files that showcases different routes?
I know for example, there was a ACE zelda Link to the Past glitch that will never fit in any main category since it's slower than the any%, not really that entertaining, and seemingly TAS only (so no RTS). A thread dedicated to runs that beat the game but don't exactly "fit" with current classifications may work. Might actually start such a thread once I make something if no one does I guess.
Yes, everything that isn't any% or a straightforward 100% is arbitrary
any% is arbitrary too. we tend to define its goal with vague "know it when you see it" get-to-the-credits semantics, but then when the credits look weird, or behave differently, or are visited in the middle of the run, all that goes out the window and we start talking about which memory addresses were jumped to or whatever. But to my knowledge there has never been a complete specification of which execution histories are valid completions and which aren't, and doing such a thing would be extremely difficult - especially because if, say, there was a secret ending no one had found yet, any definition based on the known endings would almost certainly exclude it, because game designers do not express their intentions with respect to execution histories, they express them with respect to graphical displays.
So we do our best and don't worry about it too much.
A warb degombs the brangy. Your gitch zanks and leils the warb.
any% is also arbitrary in games with multiple endings. For example:
Symphony of the Night has multiple endings, and all of them play the credits. Defeating Richter, getting to the second Castle and defeating Dracula, defeating Dracula with some extra requirements (Like high map completion). Despite all of these 'beating the game', the 2nd ending is what any% is required to beat.
Another interesting example is A Boy And His Blob [NES]. In that game you literally walk through the screens the credits are displayed on before defeating the final boss.
any% is also arbitrary in games with multiple endings. For example:
Symphony of the Night has multiple endings, and all of them play the credits. Defeating Richter, getting to the second Castle and defeating Dracula, defeating Dracula with some extra requirements (Like high map completion). Despite all of these 'beating the game', the 2nd ending is what any% is required to beat.
In the case of SOTN, I think playing the Inverted Castle as part of "any% NMG" makes the most sense because all of the endings play the same credits, and as far as I'm aware stopping at Richter doesn't make any appreciable difference to routing, so "Richter 1st Castle" runs would basically just be the same thing as the first part of a run playing the Inverted Castle too.
any% is also arbitrary in games with multiple endings. For example:
Symphony of the Night has multiple endings, and all of them play the credits. Defeating Richter, getting to the second Castle and defeating Dracula, defeating Dracula with some extra requirements (Like high map completion). Despite all of these 'beating the game', the 2nd ending is what any% is required to beat.
In the case of SOTN, I think playing the Inverted Castle as part of "any% NMG" makes the most sense because all of the endings play the same credits, and as far as I'm aware stopping at Richter doesn't make any appreciable difference to routing, so "Richter 1st Castle" runs would basically just be the same thing as the first part of a run playing the Inverted Castle too.
Right - you can justify why any% what it is, but the point is that you've had to make a value judgment about what beating the game consistutes. There was no objective metric you followed.
Other examples:
In Pokemon Gold/Silver/Crystal, any% requires you to beat Red, which is the SECOND time credits roll.
But in pokemon Fire Red/Leaf Green, any% requires you to beat the Elite Four the first time, where as Elite Four Round 2 requires you to beat the Elite Four a second, harder time. IIRC both times give credits and there's some extra plot and stuff you need to do in between.
EDIT: Another example of arbitrariness is in games where dirty SRAM gives you an advantage.
In DKR it gives you T.T. the fastest character. Technically you could do an any% where you start from a fresh cart, but no one does.
Similarly in Symphony of the Night, having a clear save file on the memory card lets you buy more items from the shop and skip cutscenes. We have TASes of both with and without this, but speedrunners always do with.
You could imagine a game where dirty SRAM makes any% so trivial that no one calls it any%. (I'm not sure if such a game exists or not.)
It doesn't sound nice, but why should the speedrun community care about how speedruns and TASes are perceived outside of it?
Because if TASing becomes obscure and inscrutably technical, if you remove the entertainment factor from it (from the point of view of the casual viewer), you may be dooming the entire hobby to obscurity and death. Less and less people will become interested and try TASing as a hobby.
Some people might say that we make TASing primarily for ourselves. While in some sense that might be true, I don't think it's the main impetus. We make TASes because they are awesome to watch. We make TASes to impress, and to enjoy. Not just ourselves, but everybody.
How many TASers came into the hobby because of seeing a TAS that they considered to be awesome and marvelous? I would be ready to bet that the vast majority, if not every single one, of them.
So what happens if you start removing that awesome appeal of TASes, from the point of view of the casual viewer, the general public?
That's why we should care.
Some people might say that we make TASing primarily for ourselves. While in some sense that might be true, I don't think it's the main impetus. We make TASes because they are awesome to watch. We make TASes to impress, and to enjoy. Not just ourselves, but everybody.
We make these movies because they are entertaining to watch
I mentioned replicability in RTA for a reason. ACE (formerly the most technical glitch that we've known) is very consistently pulled off in real time at least for 2 games. This is extremely technical and extremely entertaining (to a large extent due to being extremely technical). ACE has become a speedrun trend, we can't cut of off anymore.
DPCM/Controller glitch might become a trend only in the world of TASing (and console verification), it can not be done real time by a human. It won't become a universal speedrun technique. It is extremely technical. And it is absolutely not entertaining, because there's nothing to enjoy gameplay wise in it (at all).
And the latter sounds exactly like what the Demo tier was suggested for.
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.
