Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
DJ_Incendration wrote:
I'm glad he returned for a bit, and sad about his latest ban. Even I'm not the most positive at times, I argue about things, but in his last submission's discussion thread, I didn't notice anything bad.
As Samsara mentioned in the judgement notes, Logan’s ban resulted from his actions on discord, not from activity in a submission’s discussion thread.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
In verifying sync on this run, I noted that there are some places where Mario swims while there's still air above him (for example, in the second portion of 1-4). Since obtaining and maintaining P-Speed is done through much of the run anyway, I'm curious if it would be faster to do these sections with a flying suit (i.e. racoon) and fly past the water instead of swimming?
While I can see how they are used watching the run, I don't know how critical it is to have both the fire flower and hammer bros. suits throughout the run instead of swapping one of those for a flying suit at times.
Just an observation of something that at a glance made me curious if there was a potential way to get through some areas faster. Though without doing any in-depth testing on my own, I can't be sure that it would save time over the course of the entire run.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
web2000 wrote:
Hi DrD2k9,
Letter world should be accessible via this method on original hardware as the game adds a star to your save file when loading the ending music in 8-4 and as long as you have 8 stars on the title screen you are able to access Worlds A-D.
Ok
I did also double check with other staff and we agree that it’s a valid use. If a game stores progress across the reset, it’s probably a valid feature to use.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
Good work. Yes vote.
My only concern is the use of soft-reset after 9-4, because previously it's done by dying in 9-1 with "You are a super player" screen. Is it allowed in this TAS? Personally I'm OK with it.
If the letter stages are validly/equivalently reachable via either method (death or reset), the soft reset should be okay. I will double check with other judges to be sure, but i agree with you.
I’d be surprised if we don’t have other games on the site that use soft resets instead of losing lives to get back to a title screen.
I personally used soft resets in Gameboy Donkey Kong to save time on world transitions.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Mikewillplays wrote:
If a judge isn't being able to sync a movie, despite it being already sync verified, is that a good reason to unclaim the judging?
It could also simply be that a particular judge isn't willing to actively judge a run based off someone else's sync verification. Meaning they don't want to judge a run that they can't personally sync.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
sl23 wrote:
- Commodore 64 (CRT and T64 files) - some work, some don't, but all work with Vice. I would prefer to use BizHawk. This is probably a compatibilty thing though so accept that in time this will likely be resolved.
It could also be region compatibility settings. BizHawk can emulate both PAL and NTSC systems. In the C64 menu from the menu bar, there should be a settings option. Try the opposite region and see if the games that aren’t working before work in the opposite region settings.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
TAS is art. Art is somewhat subjective. Our publications should have good taste and value quality, or why having publications at all?
TASVideos isn't omnipotent. It's impossible to make everyone happy. Submissions being rejected doesn't mean they have no value.
It's like if you open an art gallery, naturally you'd want arts with standards, and the best art work with limited space.
If people don't like the word elitism, so what? I'd still visit the best art gallery with the best work, instead of a random gallery that just let every trash in and lay them all on the ground.
TASing can be art, but it is not limited to that. There is a valuable aspect of technical achievement also.
There is value in recognizing the best that can be done in a game using TAS tools even if no one particularly likes that game. There is value in record archival for history’s sake. A lack of artistic value does not negate all value of a TAS.
There is plenty of art that i would appreciate that would never be considered “good enough” for an art gallery; similarly, a lot of stuff that does end up in art galleries, I would consider absolute rubbish. Just because something is in an art gallery doesn’t mean it’s actually good to the majority of viewers. Frankly, the majority of highly valued art has its value more tied to the artist than the art itself. So why should we just cater to a particular “elite” group and effectively say “screw you” to everyone else?
The main issue is that we’re NOT trying to be solely an art gallery anymore. As i already mentioned, that hasn’t been the goal of the site since vault was added years ago.
If you don’t like the stuff you’d consider as trash here, then just ignore it. It being here doesn’t lessen the inherent value of your own accomplishments, nor should it lessen the perceived value of your work by viewers.
It’s not the word “elitism” that people don’t like, it’s the attitude of elitism. And the problem with it, again as I’ve already mentioned, is that it’s more likely to turn people away than it is to be welcoming to them. So for the majority of us who want the site and hobby to grow, taking an elitist approach is counterproductive.
Speaking for myself (not as staff), I’d much rather lose the few “elites” who think they and their work are better than others, than potentially lose a majority of members because we stupidly chose to return to our former elitist ways.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
HappyLee wrote:
Memory wrote:
My goal for tasvideos is for people to be able to find the TASes they want to find. It doesn't matter how niche the game is, I want people to be able to find it. I'd prefer to find solutions that don't take us back to when people were rightfully calling tasvideos elitist.
What's wrong being elitist or being called elitist? Since we have the publication system, it's natural to value quality over quantity.
Just setup a new section where people are free to submit anything, apart of the current publication system.
Elitism is inherently unwelcoming.
Elitism also relies on subjectivity, which requires feedback, of which we’re receiving less and less on submissions as time passes.
If we went back to a system of requiring a certain level of feedback/notariety for a run to be published, then TAS authors who have interest in games out of the mainstream are starting at an inherent disadvantage to those authors who stick to TASing only popular franchises. Further, if we wanted to become elitist again, I’d argue that we’d need to remove a crap-ton of runs from the site’s publications and YouTube channel; and i can only see that driving members away, not inviting more.
Why should we prioritize the popular over the niche when both have equivalent value of accomplishment? We’re not a site based on popularity or entertainment anymore and haven’t been since the vault was introduced (which goes way back before i joined around 2015). Publishing only popular runs/franchises to the YouTube channel while accepting everything else in some unpublished area of the site, denigrates the hard work authors put into unpopular games. This is why we’ve actively tried broadening what’s acceptable; in order to invite more interest in the general hobby of TASing and to encourage engagement in the community.
EDIT:I was writing this when CPP posted his response.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Dimon12321 wrote:
After reading the discussion here and Samsara's official post, I think we may conclude that TASVideos is turning more lenient. So, I'd like to bring in one more topic on this regard. I'll call it "Mercy for inevitable imperfection". This was the trigger for me to write this, but let's be fair, the idea has been floating around for a long time already.
I’m posting my reply from that thread here as a way to give my perspective on your “Mercy” concept.
DrD2k9 wrote:
eien86 wrote:
Would a less than ideal RNG roll be acceptable for sub?
As far as I’m concerned, an otherwise visibly optimal run should be acceptable. No run should be rejected only because it’s suspected that better RNG might be possible.
If there is indeed a better RNG than what you submit, it would likely take a new movie to prove; otherwise the potential improvement is just theoretical and not something we’d reject for. In a case where a better RNG was possible, known, and known how to make happen, we’d obviously want the more optimal option.
Just make sure to mention in your submission notes as to what extent you tested RNG variations. That will both help a judge and other users who may want to try and better the run.
Bottom line; if the run looks optimal to a casual viewer, it’s up to a different author (or yourself) to prove your submission sub-optimal by submitting their own improved version. This is not the judge’s responsibility.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
eien86 wrote:
Would a less than ideal RNG roll be acceptable for sub?
As far as I’m concerned, an otherwise visibly optimal run should be acceptable. No run should be rejected only because it’s suspected that better RNG might be possible.
If there is indeed a better RNG than what you submit, it would likely take a new movie to prove; otherwise the potential improvement is just theoretical and not something we’d reject for. In a case where a better RNG was possible, known, and known how to make happen, we’d obviously want the more optimal option.
Just make sure to mention in your submission notes as to what extent you tested RNG variations. That will both help a judge and other users who may want to try and better the run.
Bottom line; if the run looks optimal to a casual viewer, it’s up to a different author (or yourself) to prove your submission sub-optimal by submitting their own improved version. This is not the judge’s responsibility.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
MUGG wrote:
I have a question about uninitialized SRAM. Not sure where else to ask.
If there is a better place, please guide me to it.
When booting up Mario & Luigi Superstar Saga (GBA) for the first time, everything in SRAM is 0xFF.
When using the game's delete option and even the "factory reset" that wipes everything, the game will set everything to 0x00.
I'd like to ask if the 0xFF values are legit or is it just "uninitialized data" and the emulator sets it as 0xFF because it's the cleanest way to go about it?
Or does the original SRAM battery in GBA games like that also ship out with everything as 0xFF at first?
Is it safe to create a TAS that utilizes the 0xFF values or will it be considered invalid?
As i understand things, when a game doesn’t initialize RAM itself, the values of the uninitialized (or more technically, even the pre-initialized) RAM can be any value due to the electronics within the console itself. Sometimes values may persist between power cycles, other times they won’t.
Since the pre/uninitialized values of RAM could vary even between two theoretically “identical” systems, there’s no way to code an emulator to perfectly mimic a real system in this aspect. Thus emulator developers have to somehow seed the RAM with some sort of value(s) before the game code does any initialization itself. 0xFF is just what happens to be the value that the devs use to pre-seed the RAM for the emulator you’re using.
It should be fine for TASing. Where it could become an issue would be with console verification. But even then, there are ways to make it potentially work using custom software to pre-seed the RAM on the console.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Thanks for the clarification. Since the credits don’t naturally roll without actually playing the final level, I think it’s the right choice to include the gameplay.
If the credits rolled when using the glitch, I’d suggest it would be the best any% approach of beating the game; but since they don’t, that’s moot.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Submission Notes wrote:
Technically, I could do End Cutscene Storage one more time to skip 4-5 and the game will consider itself completed but that doesn't feel genuine and after seeing the same thing over and over for nearly 4 minutes, it's about time you guys saw something more interesting.
Would doing the glitch to skip 4-5 result in the game playing the final cutscene & credits (or even just the credits)?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Dimon12321 wrote:
Post #531746
What's the logic behind marking submissions as verified? Is it documented anywhere?
Should I become a reviewer or an editor in order to mark submissions myself? If someone else still has to verify the run on its own, then my impact on movie verifications doesn't make much sense
A movie being marked as verified by someone other than the author means that it's reproducible by someone other than the author. This gives more validity to the TAS itself. Truly, all past site videos have been (or should have been) verified through the judging/publication process.
Specifically adding this functionality of having others (besides a judge) verify sync on a run offers a bit more flexibility to the judging staff. If a judge can't get a run to sync themselves, but others in the staff/community have been able to sync the run; then the judge is still free to make a decision on the run for acceptance/rejection based on the verified sync check, even if they haven't personally synced the run. Similarly, it allows a judge who may not have the current setup/knowledge/capability to run a TAS on a particular system/emulator (i.e. linux w/ libTAS) to still judge the run based on an encode and another's sync verification.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
FractalFusion wrote:
I don't think Mega Man X4 is the type of game that deserves "10x" speed edit on loading screens in an encode, but whatever.
For a temp encode, it's fine. As HappyLee stated, nothing is being missed/skipped from a gameplay standpoint; so viewers can watch all the gameplay of the TAS in less time. It's not something that will impact judgment either.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
So I had another thought on this run today after posting in the “Ask a Judge” forum: In general we still want Alt/Playground runs to actually beat the game (unless it’s a playaround type run).
Since my main reason for considering this run as invalid for Standard Class was that it doesn’t actually beat the game, where does that leave us on this submission as an Alt/Pkayground submission?
Oddly enough, i think this run’s goal is fine for Alt. While it doesn’t truly beat the game, it does accomplish a type of non-standard endpoint (in finding the fastest way to beat the final boss), which in my opinion is a valid choice for an Alt endpoint.
At very least, we could argue that this run is a playaround goal. Though i think a better goal/branch would be something along the lines of “fastest final boss” instead of “warp glitch.”
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Hmm. We might have to discuss this one among staff.
EDIT:
After reading/discussing with staff, here’s my perspective (which seems to me mostly agreed among the staff that engaged).
While level select is part of normal play, and this glitch allows for accessing the final boss from the otherwise standard level select within normal play; the game seems to treat this boss battle as more of a level replay than it does completing the game, because there’s no internal indication that the game considers itself beaten upon beating the final boss with this glitch.
So since the game seems to basically be considering it as a level replay and not as actually game progression, we shouldn’t consider it as beating the game for Standard Class publication. It would, however, absolutely be fine as a goal for Alternative/Playground submission, and I’d encourage submission for that goal.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
SuperSqank wrote:
Basically, this game has an exploit where you can access the final boss from the level select after you have finished the first level which normally should not be possible.
Does the game normally need the player to use the level select screen to progress from stage 1 to stage 2? Or does it happen without the stage select screen?
If accessing the stage select is an extra/code thing that is not part of normal play, then this approach may be considered invalid for Standard class publication due to our current rules against using level select codes/menus to bypass gameplay.
However, if the level select screen is part of normally gameplay, then it seems like a validly exploitable glitch for reaching the credits.
EDIT:
SuperSqank wrote:
They typically play after the end cutscene but that doesn’t play when you play the final level through the level select, legitimately or with this glitch.
This makes it sound like the level select is not part of normal gameplay. So it’s likely not valid for Standard Class publication, but it may still be ok for Alternative/Playground.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
KingKappa wrote:
I have been TASing Super Mario Bros. Deluxe for about 8 months now, and I am considering making a warpless TAS to see if it will get accepted. However, I am very new to the TASvideos site, and I am not 100% sure how the submission process works. Under game versions, the North American and European versions of the game are listed, but the Japanese version is not. Does this mean the Japanese version is not accepted for TASes, or is it because it hasn’t been used in a submitted TAS yet? Whether or not I can use the Japanese version will influence my TAS because the Japanese version has some tricks that are not possible on the NA/EU version.
Generally, various NTSC releases would be equally considered valid/the same (discounting language based time differences) and only gameplay would be compared in regards to preferring one run over another for publication/obsoletion
If, however, there are tricks/strategies available in the Japanese version that aren’t present in other versions, and it changes the approach to how aspects of the game are played; there’s potential (but not a guarantee) that the Japanese version could be published along side the NA/EU version(s).
I’d encourage you to go ahead and submit the run. Just be sure to use the submission notes to emphasize the unique strategies that are only present in the JP release.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
CasualPokePlayer wrote:
The palettes themselves would have no effect on gameplay once the game is started. What is actually happening is "startup state post-BIOS timing was slightly different because I inputed a different BIOS" (which even then, that's not even necessarily true as many palettes converge wrt timing, and there are other things you can do to affect timing here, like hold A/B/Start/Select, hold that palette input instead of tapping it, switch palettes multiple times, or outright delay the end of the BIOS by continously changing palettes at the end)
It's something where you could end up getting less lag way later in the run because you did some extra "meaningless" jump in the beginning of the game.
could it be that the inputs used to select a different color palette are what is making the difference, not the color palette itself?
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Our submissions system has a line for “goal” which is usually baseline/any %, full completion, max score, etc.
The purpose of most goals is to beat the game with whatever condition is included in the “goal” of the TAS, so runs are judged according to the goal.
As the purpose of a “playaround” goal is entertainment, then judging the run based on the goal (as we would do with every other submission) requires judging a playaround run from a standpoint of entertainment.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
xy2_ wrote:
feos wrote:
I'll think about the rule wording later.
after the post by feos, i'd like the tas to be re judged if the rule changes happen
As the run has already been accepted and published, rejudging would only potentially serve to change the publication’s class designation from Alternative to Standard (and this assumes that a rule change would make the run eligible for standard). There wouldn’t be any other changes that would be gleaned from a full rejudge.
A change in the rules in such a way would necessitate that other runs ina similar situation that are previously submitted/published would also need redesignated from Alt to Standard, so this run would be included in such a shift.
Also other runs previously rejected may become acceptable, which again we’d get to updating as we (as staff) were able.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
McBobX wrote:
feos wrote:
It's hard to tell why or how, but over the decade of hard feedback dependency for every submission (to decide on its tier) people stopped getting so shocked by every new submission, and stopped posting as much. It's not due to Discord, because we've had an IRC chat for ages and the forum was still fine. My theory is that the hobby did finally establish itself as some cool and known thing. TASBot team's effort played a huge role IMO, also RTA runners got insanely good and kept replicating TAS strats for a decade, so there finally was some nice synergy between the 2 hobbies. But yeah, people got universally used to TAS, it stopped being as jaw-dropping mind-blowing, aside from a few exceptions every year.
That is something has to happen I guess. Like you said, there is just no one to blame here. While TASing is an awesome hobby, the fact that it is getting more and more popular and people seeing such content more frequently, they will just get used to it as a normal thing, and that could one of the reasons why we have less activity in submissions. However, entertainment still important, as seeing a game being broken time to time or moves at a high speed makes people enjoy that game in a different way. I would say that relying on entertainment alone is not too wise, but it at least should be mentioned. Also, people change, and TASing is not exclusive to OG people. New speedrunning enthusiasts might want to explore the site, like we all did more than a decade ago, and they should find awesome content still :)
We’re not advocating for removing entertainment from TASing. We’re advocating for removing entertainment as being a requirement for publication. There will still be entertainment to be found here. In fact, the proposed changes will allow more stuff to get get published that some people might find entertaining even if the majority of viewers wouldn’t. In a way it is actually expanding opportunity for people to find things that they will find entertaining.
Editor, Experienced Forum User, Judge, Published Author, Expert player
(2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Samsara wrote:
Alternative runs may not immediately receive encodes, but they will be published nonetheless, likely with temp encodes
I’d suggest that delayed encodes not be limited to Alternative publications. If a Standard publication is otherwise ready to go aside from an encode, i think it should also be published with temp encodes and an ‘official encode forthcoming’ approach.
I do agree that Standard should be a priority, but that is a subjective stance based on personal opinion that i wouldn’t throw a fit about if things went another way.
