I have the opposite opinion, actually. "No null sprite glitch, no stun glitch" tells me there's two explicit glitches not used and what to search for if I want more of them. "Less glitched" tells me basically nothing, as any movie that's slightly slower than the fastest movie is technically "less glitched".
Joined: 3/21/2011
Posts: 127
Location: Virginia (United States)
Radiant wrote:
I have the opposite opinion, actually. "No null sprite glitch, no stun glitch" tells me there's two explicit glitches not used and what to search for if I want more of them. "Less glitched" tells me basically nothing, as any movie that's slightly slower than the fastest movie is technically "less glitched".
Why not just stick the unused glitches in the game objectives? The 96-exit does that for the Chuck glitch, as the run would be significantly faster with it. Or do you propose that we rename that to "96-exit, no Chuck glitch", as well?
It makes no sense to make these weird branch names. Yes, they're technically no longer the fastest, but you don't need to state every reason why in the branch. The branch's purpose is to simply state what kind of route is being taken, not every specific of the run being done. That only leads to confusion as to what the title even means.
YouTube Channel - Twitter
Current projects: Sutte Hakkun, Hyper VI, RTDL, own hacking projects
I don't like the incredibly anal "no [X] glitch, no [Y] bug, no [Z] sequence break" branch names, but I don't really like "less glitched" either, because there is always debate about what counts as a glitch and what doesn't.
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=14789 is a good example of a "low glitch" movie that was rejected because of the vague definition of "low glitch". Incidentally that branch name was changed several times over the course of the discussion.
Maybe consulting SMW TASers would have been a better idea
We did. We tried asking Masterjun about it in this topic that he created to discuss the SMW and YI branch names. He didn't help.
bahamete wrote:
"11-exit", "No credits glitch", "beats Bowser", "does not execute arbitrary code" etc.
Which of these sounds best to you? Branch names aren't permanent; they can always be changed. If you have a suggestion that solves the situation we've been trying to solve for weeks now, then please post it here so I can fix the SMW and YI branch names for you.
Which of these sounds best to you? Branch names aren't permanent; they can always be changed. If you have a suggestion that solves the situation we've been trying to solve for weeks now, then please post it here so I can fix the SMW and YI branch names for you.
I've asked a couple of SMW TASers and we agree 11-exit seems most appropriate. That is, if you insist on having the credits glitch run as the any%. I haven't seen this discussion until earlier otherwise I would have weighed in sooner. I don't know what is best for YI, I know very little about that game.
Edit: Oh, and the Japanese SMW TASers call it "smw11" too, as far as I know.
That sounds just fine to me. Thanks for getting everyone's opinion so quickly. I've slightly modified it to "11 exits" so it fits in with the other runs with similar titles (like SMW "96 exits").
Okay, so how about Carl Sagan's Yoshi's Island run? How should we name that one's branch to cover all known large skips? Would "no glitched warps" work?
That sounds just fine to me. Thanks for getting everyone's opinion so quickly. I've slightly modified it to "11 exits" so it fits in with the other runs with similar titles (like SMW "96 exits").
Okay, so how about Carl Sagan's Yoshi's Island run? How should we name that one's branch to cover all known large skips? Would "no glitched warps" work?
I agree with Masterjun that categories like "no X, Y and Z-glitches" are stupid. While I see the goal of being exact and avoiding ambiguity in obsoletion chains, the effect of being overprecise is actually the opposite.
Say that you have a "glitched" movie that skips most of the game by using glitch X, and a "less glitched" movie that doesn't use game-breaking glitches to skip everything. In the name of clarity, you rename the latter "no X-glitch". But then somebody discovers that you can also skip the whole game by using a new glitch Y. Since Y isn't glitch X, this run would qualify for the "no X-glitch" category, and you would end up with two categories that both skip the whole game. To avoid that, you have to change the category every time a new game-breaking glitch is discovered. What can obsolete what is hence completely unclear from the category name, as the category name no longer describes what the category is about, which is "not skipping most of the game by using game-breaking glitches". The names "less glitched" or "no game-breaking glitches", on the other hand, are both robust and descriptive. They describe the general group of glitches that you want to avoid, rather than giving a necessarily incomplete list of individual glitches.
To be honest, though, I liked the previous state of affairs where game-breaking glitches were assumed to be absent by default, and you only used them in the "glitched" category. That is because all the other categories, such as 100%, low%, pacifist, whatever, also don't use game-breaking glitches, and hence would need to be "100% no X-Y-Z-glitch", "low% no X-Y-Z-glitch", "pacifist no X-Y-Z-glitch", etc. under the current system.
So to summarize, I think the old system made sense, was predictable and easy to maintain, while the new one is overprecise, inconsistent and obfuscates the real meaning of the categories. The individual glitches to avoid belong in the goal list of the run, not the category name.
Please bear in mind that movies titled "No X, Y, and Z glitches" are very much the exception, not the rule. Almost every movie name is something straightforward and simple, like how Super Mario Bros has a "no warps" and a "no running" run. Indeed, to my knowledge we have zero movies whose title mentions three or more separate glitches, and such submissions would most likely be rejected on grounds of having an arbitrary goal choice.
Also note that there's no such thing as "the old system" or "the current system". There were never more than a couple dozen movies using the term "glitched", and those were caused by a misunderstanding over what the term "any%" means. After all, we can't objectively define which glitches are "game breaking" and which ones aren't.
Radiant: My point was that a naming scheme that mentions one glitch will be forced to mention more glitches if more such glitches are discovered. And what do you mean by "misunderstanding over what the term any% means"? It used to mean "as fast as possible, as long as it doesn't use passwords, game-breaking glitches, cheat codes, existing save-data or starts from a savestate unless explicitly mentioning it in the category name", and now it means "as fast as possible, as long as it doesn't use passwords, cheat codes, existing save-data or starts from a savestate unless explicitly mentioning it in the category name". Both were possible definitions, and a while back this definition was changed. That doesn't mean that the old definition was a misunderstanding, and I think it was quite sensible.
What is the current definition of "100%", and is that one due to a misunderstanding too?
Well, the thing is that the second definition you give for any% is objective, whereas the first is not. This also happens to be the traditional definition of any% (which predates the existence of this site); the notion that there might be a "glitched" run which could be "faster than any%" is only a recent one, and one we've been getting rid of precisely because of how arbitrary it is.
The definition of 100% depends on the game, and if for a game there is no consensual and objective definition of 100%, then we do not accept 100% runs for that game.
Well, the thing is that the second definition you give for any% is objective, whereas the first is not.
I agree that the second definition is more objective than the first. Not even the second is completely objective, though, as there could be games where what constitutes cheat codes is ambiguous (for examples hidden codes for activating the highest difficulty). Thankfully we have a judging system that allows us to handle these ambiguities.
I think the real issue here is how one can know whether a TAS one is making will qualify for a given category, and I also want this to be as objective and predictable as possible, just like you. I just think that "no gamebreaking glitches" is more predictable (and hence objective) than "no X-ray glitch". In practice, that is. Just consider this thought experiment. Somebody collects all the beams in Super Metroid and performs the space-time glitch to start the escape sequence, finishing the game in less time than the current "no X-ray glitch" category without beating the last boss. Objectively, this should then obsolete the current "no X-ray glitch" TAS by Kriole. After all, it doesn't use the X-ray glitch.
That isn't what you happen in practice, though. If somebody submitted that, it would be judged that the spacetime glitch is even more gamebreaking than the X-ray glitch, and the category would be updated to "no X-ray glitch or spacetime glitch" (the run would then probably be rejected for being slower than the X-ray glitch one). So the objective-sounding "no X-ray glitch" category name turns out to actually be misleading. As soon as any other game-breaking glitches are discovered, these too will be ad-hoc added to the category name. And which glitches qualify for being added this way is exactly as subjective as the "no game-breaking glitches category" was in the first place. What makes the latter better, though, is that it isn't misleading. "no X-ray glitch" would give a TASer false hope that a spacetime glitch movie would qualify, while "no game-breaking glitches" clearly states what the real objective of the category is.
Regarding the "100%" category, the reason why I brought that up is because I wondered why it was called, for example "Super Metroid 100%" rather than "Super Metroid 100%, no X-ray glitch". Why is "no X-ray glitch" implicit in "100%", but not in "any%"? And of course, the same applies to RBO, etc.. To be consistent, one choose between these two naming schemes:
any%, glitched
any%
100%
pacifist
...
and
any%
any%, no foo-glitch
100%, no foo-glitch
pacifist, no foo-glitch
..., no foo-glitch
The "no game-breaking glitches" criterion is implicit in almost all our categories, which is why it makes sense to make it explicit when it is not present, rather than the other way around.
Regarding the "100%" category, the reason why I brought that up is because I wondered why it was called, for example "Super Metroid 100%" rather than "Super Metroid 100%, no X-ray glitch". Why is "no X-ray glitch" implicit in "100%", but not in "any%"?
The point of the movie name is not to enumerate all glitches that that movie happens to not contain. Rather, the point of the movie is to list the restrictions the run was made under (in the case of any%, that would be "no restrictions").
So the Metroid 100% run has the restriction of needing to obtain every single piece of equipment, energy tank, and missile upgrade, because that's what maxes out the in-game percentage counter. As far as we know, using the x-ray glitch does not make this run any faster, and therefore "no x-ray glitch" is not an actual restriction on the 100% run.
Now it is possible that, at some point, someone will make a faster 100% run which uses the x-ray glitch. At that point, the most likely outcome is that this will obsolete the existing 100% run because it's faster. Only if the jury members decide that for this game (which already has seven branches) an additional branch is warranted, that this is meaningfully different as well as entertaining enough for moon tier, only then will it be necessary to use "100%, no x-ray glitch" as a branch title.
As always, the burden is on the creator of a new branch to demonstrate that an extra branch is entertaining enough for moon tier and meaningfully distinct from existing branches; otherwise, it will be rejected. Case in point, this recent "low glitch" run was rejected because it used an arbitrary combination of allowing some glitches but not allowing others. We don't want a run for every possible permutation of glitches.
amaurea wrote:
The "no game-breaking glitches" criterion is implicit in almost all our categories, which is why it makes sense to make it explicit when it is not present, rather than the other way around.
No, it really isn't. The goal of TAS'ing is to complete a game as fast as possible, and if you use game-breaking glitches to do so, more power to you. The proper term for a run that is slower but more entertaining (because it foregoes using glitches to skip significant parts of the game) isn't any%; the proper term for that is "Moon Tier".
I'm just wondering how do you exactly define a "game-breaking glitch" for every game without ambiguity? If a glitch (or a series of glitches) allows stages to be completed faster, but still (mostly) in the order as intended (exampleslikethese) then does that count as "gamebreaking"?
Also if a glitch allows a major skip in only parts of the game, does that count?
I like how people were "We have 'glitched' and 'any%'? Yeah that's fine!".
Then we decided to change the fastest run to "any%", which is fine.
And now people are "What, 'any%' and 'less glitched'? IMPOSSIBLE!".
Warning: Might glitch to creditsI will finish this ACE soon as possible
(or will I?)
Regarding the "100%" category, the reason why I brought that up is because I wondered why it was called, for example "Super Metroid 100%" rather than "Super Metroid 100%, no X-ray glitch". Why is "no X-ray glitch" implicit in "100%", but not in "any%"?
The point of the movie name is not to enumerate all glitches that that movie happens to not contain. Rather, the point of the movie is to list the restrictions the run was made under (in the case of any%, that would be "no restrictions").
I agree. The only things that should be listed are things that matter for qualifying for the category.
Radiant wrote:
So the Metroid 100% run has the restriction of needing to obtain every single piece of equipment, energy tank, and missile upgrade, because that's what maxes out the in-game percentage counter. As far as we know, using the x-ray glitch does not make this run any faster, and therefore "no x-ray glitch" is not an actual restriction on the 100% run.
Here I think you are wrong. If I haven't misunderstood, there are several known improvements that can be had using the X-ray glitch. For example skipping the baby metroid cutscene (not the same as escaping from the baby metroid). The spacetime beam would also trivially speed up a 100% run, since that run already collects all the beams needed to activate the glitch (one can also use the spacetime glitch to collect >100% items, as well as lots of other fun stuff. If super metroid is going to get an EAC TAS, then my bet would be on that glitch). It is also possible to use a variant of the murder beam to pass through gray doors, which might also lead to speedups. Hopefully an expert can dismiss or confirm this, but I thought these were avoided in the 100% category because it would make it "glitched".
Radiant wrote:
Now it is possible that, at some point, someone will make a faster 100% run which uses the x-ray glitch. At that point, the most likely outcome is that this will obsolete the existing 100% run because it's faster. Only if the jury members decide that for this game (which already has seven branches) an additional branch is warranted, that this is meaningfully different as well as entertaining enough for moon tier, only then will it be necessary to use "100%, no x-ray glitch" as a branch title.
Fair enough, I'm OK with that.
By the way, you did not respond the the case of a spacetime-beam using TAS being submitted to the "no X-ray glitch" category. Just to be clear - this is an actual, not hypothetical glitch that can be performed after collecting all the beams. The fastest way would probably be to defeat phantoon (for gravity suit, to make maridia faster) and draygoon (to open the plasma beam door), and then proceed to make the planet blow up by shooting the beam in the correct room. (It would be a pretty entertaining TAS, actually.) This would have previously fallen under the "glitched" category. Should that obsolete the current no X-ray glitch TAS? (Actually, I wouldn't mind if it did, though the ideal would be to have separate categories for each of them in my opinion).
Radiant wrote:
We don't want a run for every possible permutation of glitches.
(Well, speak for yourself. I wouldn't mind that, as long as the less entertaining ones are published less visibly. If only we had some sort of lower visibility area of the site, you might call it a "vault", in which we could house these... Also, as all the SM64 youtube playarounds show, pretty odd categories often result in very fun TASes, such as the "no foo-button" or "no control stick" etc.)
Radiant wrote:
amaurea wrote:
The "no game-breaking glitches" criterion is implicit in almost all our categories, which is why it makes sense to make it explicit when it is not present, rather than the other way around.
No, it really isn't.
Are you sure? Consider games that have a category which skips most of the game with huge glitches (A), a category which doesn't do that (the "no foo-glitch" category) (B), and some other category, like 100% (C). Doesn't C usually avoid the same glitch B avoids, even if it isn't stated in the category name?
For a concrete example, consider Super Mario World, which has a 100% (96 exit) category. This category avoids the glitches that allow arbitrary code execution. If it didn't one could highjack the game's logic to give Mario huge movement speeds, or simply teleport him straight to the exit of each level. Or just do something simple like setting the "cleared" flag for each level. Once you can execute arbitrary code, the whole concept of "level", "exit" or "mario" breaks down completely, as it can all be rewritten. Do I understand the rules correctly if this 100% TAS should be obsoleted by a faster one which does this? If so, do we want the rules to be like that? (Again, not that I wouldn't want to see that TAS, but I think it should be clearly labelled.)
Here I think you are wrong. If I haven't misunderstood, there are several known improvements that can be had using the X-ray glitch.
Well, I'm not intimately familiar with the game in question, but from the submission text I cannot infer that the movie deliberately avoided certain glitches. It may be the case that those glitches were discovered after this run was made. That simply means that a better 100% run can be made; and until it actually is made, we cannot really be certain that these newer glitches work for this run.
By the way, you did not respond the the case of a spacetime-beam using TAS being submitted to the "no X-ray glitch" category.
I cannot truly answer that question as I'm not a site judge, but speaking purely for myself I think it should obsolete the current one. I'm rather fond of runs that suddenly warp to the endgame for no visible reason.
If only we had some sort of lower visibility area of the site, you might call it a "vault", in which we could house these...
As I am told, it is deliberate that the vault only allows Any% and 100% runs, and that any other run on the site has to be sufficiently entertaining and fit all other criteria for moon tier.
Are you sure? Consider games that have a category which skips most of the game with huge glitches (A), a category which doesn't do that (the "no foo-glitch" category) (B), and some other category, like 100% (C). Doesn't C usually avoid the same glitch B avoids, even if it isn't stated in the category name?
I don't think so, but feel free to list any examples you can find.
In general, this is avoided by how "100%" is defined for that particular game. For SMW, would a 96-exit run be a run that actually passes all 96 exits, or a run that hacks the ingame counter and shows a little star next to the save slot? I'm reasonably sure most people would agree it's the former. Not because it's "100% no counter hacking", but because people see 100% as "actually passing those exits", and "technically but not really" doesn't cut it (but if you want to wall zip, antigrav glitch, warp whistle, or x coord underrun to get to those exits, more power to you).
Generally speaking, arbitrary code execution is only possible in a handful of games; and without that, I don't think it's realistic even with all known glitches and code bugs to skip most of the game and still get 100% completion, for any reasonable definition of 100%.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Every category must have a clear name telling what this category does what all the others don't, as a general goal. Yes, mentioning what glitch is absent relatively to the faster version, "no X" or "less glitched" will work, it's less glitched that any%. It's NOT less glitched than any other branch! It is exactly the same regarding the use of game-breaking glitches.
Also, % refers to the type of game completion, which has some traditional names.
Any% completes random part of the game to legitimately beat it.
Low% does beat it by the lowest+fastest possible completion.
100% - legitimately beat it with full completion.
Pacifist% - same as any%, just pacifist.
Glitched% - DOES NOT legitimately beat the game! It breaks it to make it think it was completed.
So in terms of completion definition, the new system doesn't make sense. And it's also inconsistent about exclusive goals.
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: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
There has never been such a thing as "glitched%" or "pacifist%"; those terms don't make sense to me.
It's not about whether there is % or not. You call any% runs where you don't have percentage at all, just because it's used to tell the type of game completion. Here I put % just to highlight each category tells exactly the difference against all the rest, and all of them refer to game completion. I'd like to hear your arguments against my very thoughts.
jlun2 wrote:
I think I've only remembered 1 submission like this, if you don't count the "THE END" screen in this movie:
:P
I think you missed the second half of my thought:
feos wrote:
It breaks it to make it think it was completed.
So the outcome is the same as normally, but the way of reaching it is utterly different.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I believe that it's normally considered that glitching a percentage counter doesn't get you 100%, but glitching the individual items that contribute towards percentage does.
:P
