I have 0 idea what to make of a movie that console verifies on a practice ROM, yet doesn't on the original (unless I interpret it wrong.) Is it possible to extract the inputs from the macro to work on a non practice ROM? I'm very curious.
I'd be quite surprised if this TAS worked on the original game ROM. Even if the game was more reliable, like Super Mario 64 is in regards to input handling, the practice ROM clearly modifies the behavior of the game in several ways. As outlined in ch4 and ch5 of the practice ROM's manual. Maybe the modifications don't affect the game/system behavior enough to matter? That certainly doesn't seem to be true to me, but I guess it's possible.
The ability to successfully replay the TAS's inputs using the practice ROM, only proves that the TAS verifies on the practice ROM (i.e. a modified version of OoT). The practice ROM is effectively no different than a ROM hack, in my opinion. The gameplay may be very similar, but it definitely appears that they are still two different "versions" of the game.
Moreover, because of the modifications to the game, I personally feel that this run is specifically a TAS of the OoT Practice ROM. Not a TAS of the original OoT. I'm not saying the run is invalid or anything like that, rather just that the distinction should be clearly stated where applicable.
When a submitter or author cancels a submission, it means that they do not wish for the submitted work to be judged.
The whole premise was based on the fact that its not the case, its more of a way to save time and efforts on both ends.
Its not something I would sometime do and sometime not, all my cancels are based on that premise.
Now im not saying that to have a discusion about the rules themselves, just that "they do not wish to be judged" doesnt match whats really going on, in some cases.
Inactive authors are just inactive, so theres no way either they would just magically uncancel their stuff because you deemed thats how it has to be done.
Cancellations can happen for other reasons on a case-by-case basis. For example, an author might ask for a delay, and then disappear. A judge will likely cancel the run on behalf of the author. One way or another, cancellations effectively mean that we cannot proceed with judging until the author(s) choose to uncancel (or make a new submission).
I cannot comment on what may or may not have been said to you in the past regarding the movies in question, as I wasn't active during that time. But regardless what the motivations were, it was still cancelled.
Every run I did cancel (and not just me I think) was because I was told it was gonna be rejected, so to save time or efforts on both ends.
If uncancel is not a thing done by the site, most of the cancels for that reason will not be uncancel, either ppl are not active anymore or god knows what other reasons.
Authors are allowed to uncancel previously canceled submissions if they wish (and if they were the submitter). The site's movie rules have had significant changes in recent years, greatly expanding what kinds of movies are accepted for publication. If after reviewing the rules, and/or discussing with a judge whether old submissions might now be acceptable, you now feel like uncancelling a submission or submitting new work, you may certainly do so.
arukAdo wrote:
I dont exactly see the problem since the credits are respected even while uncanceling.
When a submitter or author cancels a submission, it means that they do not wish for the submitted work to be judged. It wouldn't be right for us to process (and potentially publish) work without consent of the author(s). If the author later wishes to proceed with the judgement process, then as noted above, they can freely do so.
That all said, this thread is specifically for suggesting and documenting rejected submissions that might now be acceptable due to a rule change. Not to discuss the rules themselves or any other site policies.
DJ_Incendration, your characterization of Logan's behavior that led to his ban is concerning. Given your actions here, and (under a changed name) your posts on Discord, your own behavior is becoming disruptive and problematic. Your entire commentary of the events is fraught with misunderstandings and misrepresents what really happened. It sounds more like a long-winded defense of individuals that were clearly in the wrong.
DJ_Incendration wrote:
2. One of the staff jumps in, saying one of the people was being rude. They were only talking about the languages, explaining that the complicated concept is indeed complicated. The gave an oobservation about either one person or a group of people, and while they may or may not have made a generalization, if an explanation is that complicated, they shouldn't have to explain it.
You're leaving out a lot of details here. The staff member addresses several issues beyond simply being rude (and even that's not what was said). The now-banned user did in fact make sweeping generalizations which several community members repeatedly objected to. Much of the preceding discussion was dedicated to community members trying to get the user to provide evidence or a logical explanation for their claims (which they refused to do).
DJ_Incendration wrote:
3. Logan expresses his dislike for the other person, then states that sometimes, the wrong people are punished here. This is true.
Again, you're leaving out important details. Logan's first message was actually a demand for another person, who had done nothing wrong, to be banned. He did this without supplying any reasoning or evidence. Similarly, you are asserting that "the wrong people are punished here" despite offering no evidence of that.
The rest of your commentary continues with comments that blindly defend people who have, in fact, been highly disruptive to the community. Logan in particular has a long history of outbursts like this, and had even admitted that what he did in the past was wrong. It's not logical to argue that he was wrongly punished or that he's innocent.
Oddly, this isn't the first time you've came to defense of banned users. You previously criticized the decision to ban HappyLee which, after a lengthy debate, you were then given a warning for. You also previously argued a person shouldn't have been banned despite literally circumventing another ban for repeatedly stealing work from others.
Just a year after that, again you tried to argue a different user shouldn't have been banned for a very obvious case of plagiarism, attempting to minimize the issue by claiming they "only did it once" and they "just forgot to include the other authors". This is despite the fact the submitter didn't actually contribute anything, and literally copy/pasted the movie created by other people.
For this continuing pattern of behavior, in which you repeatedly and purposefully argue against the group decisions of staff and defend users who have brought harm to this community, you are now banned for 3 months. Given that you've expressed this behavior in Discord too, the ban will include Discord as well.
I'm looking over the submissions that were rejected for trolling reasons, and I noticed that thesethreesubmissions were previously rejected because they were submitted using alt accounts (there may be a couple more that I missed). This submission falls under the "unauthorized" category...
Perhaps the rejection reason, either for this submission or the other three mentioned earlier, could be updated for the sake of consistency. Just my opinion though.
I cannot confidently speak to any of the examples you've given as they are from quite a long time ago. First two being from 15 years ago, and the last from 8 years ago.
DJ_Incendration wrote:
Unauthorized? He gave permission to resubmit it, so I'd say it's authorized.
The author may have authorized it, but that doesn't mean we are allowed to proceed with the judging process.
The "unauthorized" reason will typically mean either:
The submitter didn't have authorization to submit the work (e.g. plagerism or authors didn't want it submitted)
One or more authors were banned. Meaning they can no longer participate/communicate in the judging process and as such we cannot move forward
In the latter case, if the author(s) are unbanned sometime in the future, then those submissions may be re-evaluated.
Whereas "troll" will typically indicate that the submission itself is problematic in some form, such as willfully ignoring submission rules. The 3rd movie you mentioned seems to be an example of this, given the indication that the user was previously restricted from making submissions.
Possibly. I believe this run doesn't depend on uninitialized values on Save RAM, but the RNG of this game is very sensitive to CPU cycles, so accurate emulation will be hard.
I've just done some attempts, unsuccessfully. Performing sub-frame replays is a bit, uhh clumsy, on my hardware right now. This'll require some more in-depth investigation to see what precisely is wrong. Easily could be something on my end, not necessarily the TAS or the emulation itself.
I can't read Japanese, but I can tell that whatever is going wrong, happens at least as early as inputting the player's name (it takes a whole lot longer than it should, and the wrong name is typed.)
I only kept a small selection as there is just way too many. So I assumed those ROM's were the most reliable. If it helps, could I attach one for you to examine and see why it doesn't work? I know talking of ROMs is often forbidden, sorry if I shouldn't say anything, just delete my comments if necessary.
No, definitely do not attach/redistribute that kind of content. Even describing where/how you do such things is not acceptable here.
The current framework of TASVideos is fundamentally unsustainable.
I've been on TASVideos 16 years. Things on TASVideos went mostly well over these years. Why you find it unsustainable now?
The initial post, and many of the replies from other staff members explain this already. I recommend you read the thread to learn more about the topic.
HappyLee wrote:
If you find it unsustainable, find solutions and improvements to make it sustainable
That's precisely what ikuyo and others in this thread have been trying to do. Perhaps you missed this from the initial post?
ikuyo wrote:
Now, if you ask me "What should TASVideos look like if it were to abandon its submission pipeline and rules" the answer is... I don't know. I have some ideas, for sure. I think archival of movie files and knowledge bases for both the general TASing process and specific games would definitely be part of that, and these elements already exist in the currently standing TASVideos site. But I can't say for certain, and even if I did, I don't think figuring such a thing out should be my work alone. More than ever, we need people, and people are there. We ought to listen to you, to what you think the best way to achieve the site's goals is, and how we can work towards that goal.
HappyLee wrote:
or make way to more talented people
HappyLee wrote:
To me, anyone who says "TASVideos must die" without joking, is unfit to be the staff of this wonderful (or at least used to be wonderful) site.
These comments are entirely uncalled for. Ikuyo is a dedicated staff member, judge, and TASer, who contemplated and wrote a detailed and thoughtful post about how to make TASVideos better. Yet you feel she is untalented and unfit to continue solely because she used an eye-catching title for a topic entirely meant to encourage community and site growth.
Consider this a warning. Do not mistreat or disrespect people in this community, especially those who have, and actively are, contributing to its growth.
In the future, please do not cancel and resubmit just to change the movie file. You can instead upload to Userfiles, and then ask a judge to update the submission for you.
Thanks for starting a thread for this. Just a note for future replies: if the problematic content only occurs in certain section(s) of the movie, please include timestamps in your suggestion. Otherwise if it happens throughout, don't worry about noting the times.
I put in the wrong .ltm file. I have to either wait till tomorrow to fix the submission or use the userfiles and wait for the judges to replace it. But, I'll just wait till tomorrow.
No, please do not make new submissions just to change the movie file. Upload to userfiles and request the change in this thread.
This is very good, but now the game list links do not link directly to the game wiki pages like the amazing Super Mario Bros. wiki page: https://tasvideos.org/GameResources/NES/SuperMarioBros. I guess there is so much information on the site that I get confused and don't know where to click, LOL. I think the game list links could link to wiki pages where both the game resources and publications are combined, to minimize the size of the labyrinth of information.
alexheights1 wrote:
you can use ctr-f
What you're describing sounds precisely like what we already have. When you use the search box on the game list page (synonymous with using CTRL+F), you only really have one link to choose: the name of the game you're searching for. This leads you to the game page, and in the top-most section there's the link "Game Resources: GameResources/NES/SuperMarioBros". Also combined on that page, is the publications, and of course other content related to that particular game.
alexheights1 wrote:
I understand that listing all games on the same page can be unnecessarily heavy, but vgmaps.com does it like that, literally all games listed on one page: https://www.vgmaps.com/Atlas/index.htm
Educated guess is that vgmaps is a static site. In that the page you're referring to is generated one time and provided to all visitors as a simple html page. Whereas TASVideos is dynamic, in the sense that when you perform a search the website is (in the background) searching a database and returning matching results. When new content is added, the entire site does not have to be redeployed.
(Edit: even if vgmaps isn't static, massive web pages is overall bad site design)
please make wiki pages editable by anyone
no one wants to make an account to edit a page if this is their first interaction with the site
Even if we moved to a MediaWiki-styled site, making pages editable by anyone is a recipe for abuse and spam. Plenty of wikis require an account for edits for that precise reason. Besides, making a TASVideos account is extremely easy. If that is the reason someone doesn't want to edit a page, then I'd be very concerned about the quality of their potential contributions.
xy2_ wrote:
i dont like that only admins can make game pages, what if i have a new game but didnt finish a tas yet/no tas tools? the game page literally cannot exist at the time it could be the most useful, in the exploration phase of a game
Have you tried asking for such a page? In all likelihood, the page would be created and permission given for you to contribute. Ideally what you'd be adding is content that you know to be true or that would be beneficial for others.
xy2_ wrote:
https://miraheze.org/ lets anyone create a wiki for a thing, lets do the same for the game page, and lets let anyone who wantcreate game page, wiki pages, subpages pages and let them do stuff
I have created two wikis using that service. One of which is the n64brew wiki used by the homebrew and emulation communities for documenting the ins and outs of the N64. As nice as the host is, they aren't nearly as reliable as TASVideos.org, and there have been quite a few sketchy moments in recent years where it wasn't clear if the host would even continue existing. You're also extremely limited in what extensions you can add (you must request new extensions via Phorge, and they usually need to be popular enough to warrant making available across the entire farm). Making your own backups of the site is also difficult, and you simply cannot backup or transfer user accounts what-so-ever.
Edit:
xy2_ wrote:
the rules have become so obtuse (to no ones fault to be fair, they have kind of evolved that way over the years and we also have the site legacy)
but more importantly BLOCK TASES FROM HAVING A PLACE ON THE SITE WHEN THEY ARE REJECTED BECAUSE REJECTIONS ARE EFFECTIVELY UNSEARCHABLE (playground is a good step in this direction btw but lets take it further see dwangoac proposal)
Rejected submissions are just as searchable as any other submission, including playground. While the search function in general may still need some improvements, such changes take time for the few people that actually contribute to the site's code. You can also filter submissions by rejected or playground. Alternatively, when viewing a game page, you can click on the Submissions link, and further refine the list from there.
Would poking a random value (instead of the emulator default) into all RAM at frame zero (after the emulator initializes RAM but before the game code does any changes) help determine this?
Not necessarily no. I've already thought of this idea. Theoretically yes it could work, but I'm not certain RAM (or WRAM in particular) is the only place games use to generate randomness. Also, I'm not sure if the test is even possible. I did some brief experiments awhile back with a game I thought required WRAM initialization for console verification (based on someone else having verified it), but modifying the RAM state as suggested didn't seem to have any effect. Don't recall which game it was though.
More research and testing is needed.
Was curious if moving to BizHawk would be enough to console verify this game, but alas, it isn't. Even more convinced now that this game likely requires initializing memory in order to verify, which I don't have the equipment to do.
While I managed to get the movie syncing in emulator, the ROM hash (SHA1) from the movie file doesn't match anything I have. It synced for me using:
"Code Name - Viper (USA).nes"
without header: 220939191A48FB2CF3A73C8FD713A60AD2EE34DF
with header: 4C86AE577454B6DE9A3FE48ACBB7F095C8B82D3B
with a different header: 3F7428865EA2E95632E32E8C3638207FED12BB52
Yes but he gives credit with none of the persons consent. All of the people I mentioned never told him that he could do this. He just did it for the sake of doing it.
ShiningProdigy9000 wrote:
We have a thief on the loose stealing TASes and reuploading them without others consent.
As annoying as this person's behavior might be, some of these videos are not technically "stolen". Some are reuploads of alternative downloadables provided by TASVideos. Others aren't associated with TASVideos at all. Some actually provide accurate attributions. Some almost do, but then wrongly include himself as an additional author.
CasualPokePlayer rightly explains: in cases where they provide correct attribution, they are allowed to upload the video. In cases where they don't, or where a different license is being infringed upon, then the original author(s) must be the one(s) to issue claims against the video.
If you can tie these youtube accounts to an account on this site, or our Discord server, then we may be able to take action against them on those platforms. No account named "AthosDominic" exists on either platform.
The submission text is just as much for the benefit of the audience as it is the judge. It's also the best place to list sync instructions. Ideally you want to make it as easy as possible for judges to judge the submission, and easy for the general audience to understand what is happening in your TAS. Forcing every user to setup the correct TAS environment (game, emulator, etc) just to learn about the submission is frustrating.
This isn't a problem because I provided an encode, if I didn't I would understand there being a problem.
Do you expect viewers to pause the encode potentially hundreds of times and reconstruct the comments, letter by letter in some cases, just to learn more details about the movie? As what text is there, appears and disappears far too quickly to readily make sense of it, in my experience.
Basically, I had this idea that was like "what if all the necessary movie information was in the movie itself?" which is why I write stuff like the md5 hash and the tricks in the run
The submission text is just as much for the benefit of the audience as it is the judge. It's also the best place to list sync instructions. Ideally you want to make it as easy as possible for judges to judge the submission, and easy for the general audience to understand what is happening in your TAS. Forcing every user to setup the correct TAS environment (game, emulator, etc) just to learn about the submission is frustrating.
Edit: Having all of the information in the movie itself, is nice too! But the submission text is still useful nonetheless.
I have a ROM that matches the expected hash, and the movie synced successfully. According to the filename, it is the Japan Rev A version.
Note the SHA1 as given in the movie file, E2814B00276B30058070C2149FD837C0FFE046CC, matches the entire file including the header.
Without the ROM header, the hash is: 7A06EF6867F116CB9217D66813CC6E94E3DA4A33.
Stop spamming the forum. You've already been told the purpose of TASVideosGrue twoseparate times. Going forward, take time to consider what you are about to post before going through with it. Ensure what you write actually contributes to the topic of the forum thread. Further spam-like behavior is not acceptable.
You can't. Submissions are made as part of the publication process. If a submission is accepted, the TAS becomes published on the site. If you intend to upload TAS movies that you wish to share or save for whatever reason, but don't intend to submit, please upload using the Userfiles page instead.
miolakesanto wrote:
Anyone helps me? witch game is so short to make a tas?
This thread isn't the place to ask that. Perhaps check out the Discord server. Though keep in mind that short games may be just as difficult to create an optimized TAS for than a longer game. Depends more on its mechanics and whether any glitches exist (which you may have to discover on your own.)
Also, please refrain from posting so frequently in the same thread, back to back.
