This is a run of Math Blaster with the main goal being speed. Math Blaster has 3 sections: Trash, Caves, and Ship. In the menus you can choose between 3 and 5 lives. I add 1 life because I will be taking a lot of damage in trash.

Trash

In trash it is better to hit a wrong answer first as it only takes an additional 19 frames to fire the second shot, but hitting a correct answer first adds 40 frames because your bonus points increase and they have to be tallied in the bonus stages. For this reason, I hit an incorrect answer first all 30 times. This is the reason for the additional life. In the bonus stage, I avoid all bonus points except at the end, where shooting the last asteroids can end the stage sooner.

Caves

The main feature of caves is the up-clip glitch which was discovered recently. Normally, you are not able to progress upwards unless the number on your character is between the minimum and maximum listed on the cave level. However, with this frame perfect and pixel perfect glitch you can avoid getting detected by the laser that usually shoots you down.

Ship

In ship I manipulate the RNG to only give me problems where the correct answer is in the 2 leftmost tubes by waiting a specific amount of frames. The RNG is entirely based on the frame number and there is no other known way to manipulate it. The second tube is only slower by 1 frame, so both are acceptable as it would take at least 1 frame to RNG manipulate again until the correct answer was in the first tube. The only other glitch used here is known as the "Owch clip" where there is a 1 frame window to get "owched" by a piece of trash flying by and still make it into the tube.

ThunderAxe31: Judging.
ThunderAxe31: Hello and welcome to TASVideos!
This run is not acceptable for Alternative tier because the entertainment value is very low. Thus, Vault tier requirements will be applied.
The run is nicely optimized and beats all known records. However, the game played does not meet the Vault requirements, since it's an educational game. Specifically: this game mostly consists in doing math fast, and in fact most of the efforts showcased in this run are actually just manipulating and predicting the answers in order to solve the problems fast.
For this reason, I'm rejecting this submission. Better luck next time!
ThunderAxe31: In view of the arguments provided by feos in the forum thread of this submission, I start over the judging process.

ThunderAxe31: The argument brought by feos consisted in a different interpretation of the Vault rule for educational games. While I considered that rule to forbid any run made with educational games, he did instead consider it as actually forbidding games that don't feature TAS-worthy material. Since his argument was supposedly supported by the goal of TASVideos of developing superhuman gameplay, I decided to consider the possibility that my initial judgement was wrong.
I had a conversation with other staff members, including Nach, Mothrayas, and feos. I explained the reason for my judgement and I presented my evidence pointing out that Math Blaster can't be completed casually without solving math. In the end, everyone acknowledged that my method added a clear cut to the rule, whose text was updated accordingly. We needed to draw a clear borderline for evaluating if a given title is primarily an educational game or not. My idea was to use the concept of "casual play" as a yardstick for estimating how much determinant is the requirement to perform educational activities in order to play through the game.
On the other hand, we also agreed that relying on TAS merits for a given run could never give a definitive extimation, since that substantially consists of speculating about the TAS potential available for a given game. We can't really know in advance if such potential is actually present, and that would result in relying on chances, which we can't do for Vault rules. In fact, TAS potential can be there, but until one tries hard enough, we won't know about it. This doesn't allow for any reliable rule.
It must also be noted that while it's true that the goal of TASVideos is to develop and showcase superhuman gameplay, this is mainly done for the purpose of entertainment, which clearly doesn't apply for the Vault tier. And on the other hand, this movie has been proven by the audience to lack any TAS merits that make it entertaining to watch.
The purpose of the Vault tier is keep track of videogame records, and thus shouldn't be applied for pieces of software that can't be considered as actual games. For this reason, some kinds of titles are excluded from Vault tier, like educational games. Even if the updated rule that defines an educational game is quite lax, it's still very clear and definite, and it must be so in order to avoid impossible-to-solve cases; raising an exception here would generate a bad precedent.
This is indeed an unfortunate case because the run itself features good TASing material, as explained by feos in this post, and I also was aware of this from the start; but even then the run was not entertaining enough to be accepted for Alternative. The best I can do is to note that a "maximum score" run could potentially be entertaining enough to be accepted. Lastly, I want to thank qflame for having submitted this run, because it did give the opportunity to test and refine the rule.
Reassuming: the rule didn't change, my judgment didn't change. Rejecting again for bad game choice in conjunction with low entertainment.

FREE MATH BLASTER.
Memory: Changes in the movie rules resulted in revisiting the run. Obviously, the audience reception and the optimization has not changed. However, due to said changes, the main factor now is triviality. This run looks far from trivial, with lots of RNG manipulation and plenty of obvious optimization points. Therefore under the rules now, this movie is finally acceptable.
Freeing Math Blaster to Vault.
EZGames69 PUBLISH MATH BLASTER


1 2
5 6 7 8
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2210)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1086
Location: US
Nach wrote:
Therefore we have strict rules to discard software which isn't real games or too trivial to be taken seriously, or so messed up that some call it a game, but no serious TASer would.
What does it take to be considered a 'serious TASer'? Do they have to agree with you?
Alyosha wrote:
I think this rule should be changed to allow this run to be published.
Alyosha seems to think this game/software is TAS worthy....is Alyosha not a serious TASer? He does code the emulator we use to do many of the TASes on this site. Just because some of the more senior members of the site may not consider games such as this to be serious, other serious TASers may. I fear this discussion has offended individuals on both sides of the debate. I do hope none of the offense was intentional. EDIT: It has been brought to my attention that this post can be viewed as an aggressive attack on Nach. That was not my intent. I was merely trying to point out that his comment was making too big of an assumption regarding who qualifies as a serious TASer. The fact that some serious TASers (at least in my opinion) do consider this particular game TAS worthy, suggests to me that it may indeed be non-trivial enough to be accepted as a serious game; at least using Nach's logic that the vault rule is to reject games that serious TASers wouldn't consider valid. I personally am less sure where I stand on this debate than I was before I originally posted in this topic (my position was mostly neutral at the time). Mainly because I'm now more confused as to how a game is deemed serious or not. I'm quite sure that confusion is not limited to myself.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
DrD2k9 wrote:
Nach wrote:
Therefore we have strict rules to discard software which isn't real games or too trivial to be taken seriously, or so messed up that some call it a game, but no serious TASer would.
What does it take to be considered a 'serious TASer'?
A serious TASer is one who only creates TASs for software which is a real game, non-trivial, which is not messed up (unless the TAS is meant as a joke or some kind of technical accomplishment).
DrD2k9 wrote:
Alyosha seems to think this game/software is TAS worthy....is Alyosha not a serious TASer?
Those who are and aren't serious TASers know who they are. Regarding this game/software, there are those who correctly know what it is, and those who are on the fence. It would be useful if those who correctly know it would articulate it for those on the fence. But aside from feos, no one here so far seems to be able to articulate anything.
DrD2k9 wrote:
Just because some of the more senior members of the site may not consider games such as this to be serious, other serious TASers may. I fear this discussion has offended individuals on both sides of the debate. I do hope none of the offense was intentional.
Let me draw you a picture:
|----------------------------------------|
| Those who know the truth               |
| and can articulate it                  |
|----------------------------------------|
| Those who know the truth               |
| but cannot articulate it               |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|
| Those on the fence                     |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|                                        |
|----------------------------------------|

\----------------------------------------/ These are the serious TASers, containing nearly all the site players and viewers.

|---|
|   |
|---|

\---/ These are the non serious TASers who do not even attempt to articulate it and just want to be difficult.
Since they either only care about numbers or dislike how we assign numbers, they truly dislike our publication system and they are outside any debate and can be ignored.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1352)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
feos wrote:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
If a game has the mandatory requirement to do a lot of Math, we consider it a non-serious game, regardless of what it could seem for someone that never played it.
That's not what the rule says. For clarity of my argument I'll quote it.
For the purposes of this tier, a game which is a board game, educational game or game show game is not defined as a serious game. Examples of unacceptable education games for this tier are Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs. A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible.
The amount of math involved is irrelevant, and there's no definition of "a lot". There's a definition of "primarily educational game" that we can obtain via provided example. Then when rendering a judgment of a game that's probably educational to some degree, we compare it to Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s to get the basic idea. So let's do this.
Sorry, I expressed that post with a misunderstable choice of words. Like I said in my subsequent post, I judged this game title as non-applicable for Vault because the educational content comes before the gaming one, not because of the quantity.
feos wrote:
This game has educational elements to it, but its actual gameplay, that remains when you discard math, allows for an optimizable TAS that can even be improved further if some harder glitch is found in the second level. The rule requires that this game only has "some secondary educational elements scattered within it", and it perfectly fits, especially if you compare it to the example game that clearly doesn't.
Except that you cannot "discard math" in this game without causing it to became unplayable, at least for a real-time play. The Vault rule that did bring this submission to rejection, is judging the game itself, and not anything about the submitted TAS. As I already said in this post, I'm perfectly aware this TAS features non-trivial gameplay. I'm the one who judged this run, and I did all my considerations before giving the rejection verdict. For the sake of the conversation, I think at this point I should make it clear what I think about this submission and about my judgement: I like this run, and I'm the first one that got sad in seeing it rejected. But neverthless, I think I've followed the current rules correctly. I think I don't have the right to raise an exception and accept this run, unless the specific Vault rule gets changed or adjusted. I didn't requested for a rule change because I think it's quite an overkill to request for a change just for the sake of a single, low entertaining run, especially since a run with a much more entertaining goal would likely to get accepted with the current Moon tier rules. Also, if we decide to change the rules in order to accept this run, then we would automatically also be forced to accept a lot of runs done on very bad educational games like SNES Mario's Time Machine, just because 1% of the gameplay is non-trivial. For these reasons, I would prefer to have the rules unchanged, having this submission to be kept rejected, and patiently wait for someone to make a "maximum score" run. By the way, I'm going to be ok with any decision.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
For the sake of the conversation, I think at this point I should make it clear what I think about this submission and about my judgement: I like this run, and I'm the first one that got sad in seeing it rejected.
A key point dissenters often fail to realize is that we judges actually like some of the runs we reject, but do so for valid reasons. They instead like to spread disinformation and invent absurd reasons for why we rejected something beyond the reasons we specified (or do know it, but then they just like sewing the seeds of chaos). We pity these miserable individuals who humiliate themselves in public without realizing it. BTW, it's good to be transparent. I often mention in judgments that I liked a run, even if I had to reject it.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
But nevertheless, I think I've followed the current rules correctly. I think I don't have the right to raise an exception and accept this run, unless the specific Vault rule gets changed or adjusted.
You could also continue to follow the rules correctly if you change your mind due to new evidence or new arguments presented.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
I didn't request for a rule change because I think it's quite an overkill to request for a change just for the sake of a single, low entertaining run, especially since a run with a much more entertaining goal would likely to get accepted with the current Moon tier rules.
Requesting rule changes just because you like a run is a bad way to judge. Judges shouldn't be attempting to constantly create/alter rules for their own personal preferences, but instead enforce the ones we created with the input of the masses. It's also ridiculous to require a rule change when the rule is incredibly lax as is. As is, based on comments in this thread the rule was further clarified to show how lax it is. Nothing more is required.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Except that you cannot "discard math" in this game without causing it to became unplayable, at least for a real-time play. The Vault rule that did bring this submission to rejection, is judging the game itself, and not anything about the submitted TAS.
Being unplayable in real time if the math is hidden out is not how the rule defines a rejectable education game either. Do you have any more reasons why you think math is the primary gameplay element here? Especially comparing it to the rejectable examples provided by the rules. So far, being impossible to beat for a regular human hasn't been a reason to reject a TAS.
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.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1352)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
feos wrote:
Being unplayable in real time if the math is hidden out is not how the rule defines a rejectable education game either.
You're right. But on the other hand, the Vault page doesn't explain why Sesame Street: Elmo's 123s and ABCs falls under the list of unacceptable titles. So I had only two ways left to evaluate if Math Blaster is Vaultable: 1) Going by exclusion. Right after the Sesame Street example, the Vault page states that: "A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible." So I asked myself: "is this a serious game with secondary educational elements scattered within, or is this an educational game with secondary serious elements scattered within?" I concluded it was the latter. 2) Looking at precedents. The rejection of #5719: EZGames69's SNES Mario's Time Machine in 22:46.12 looks as an appropriate example: the game mostly consists in menuing your way in order to give the correct answers to history-related questions; however the game also features a short minigame as intermission between these tests. Math Blaster indeed features much more non-trivial gameplay, but how do we measure the "amount of non-triviality" of a game?
feos wrote:
Do you have any more reasons why you think math is the primary gameplay element here? Especially comparing it to the rejectable examples provided by the rules.
No. The only reason why I judged this run as non-applicable for Vault, is because solving math problems is the primary requirement for playing through the game.
feos wrote:
So far, being impossible to beat for a regular human hasn't been a reason to reject a TAS.
I never stated anything of the sort.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Right after the Sesame Street example, the Vault page states that: "A serious game which happens to have some secondary educational elements scattered within it are eligible." So I asked myself: "is this a serious game with secondary educational elements scattered within, or is this an educational game with secondary serious elements scattered within?" I concluded it was the latter.
Let's see
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
feos wrote:
Do you have any more reasons why you think math is the primary gameplay element here? Especially comparing it to the rejectable examples provided by the rules.
No. The only reason why I judged this run as non-applicable for Vault, is because solving math problems is a primary requirement for playing through the game.
This is important. You are aware that regardless of what a real human has to do to beat it, this run
    1) explicitly plays against the math rules because abiding them is just slower, 2) completely ignores math rules and breaks through the level physically, 3) manipulates math to give more optimal questions.
This is where I would draw the line between primary math + secondary gameplay and primary gameplay + secondary math: If abiding the math rules is faster, we're not interested in a TAS that simply speeds up what a regular human would do. If abiding math is slower, we're interested in how the TASer resolves this using optimization techniques. But note that it's not how I compare this game to Elmo, which serves as a triviality reference. It is how I measure the amount of education we want to see TASed.
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
feos wrote:
So far, being impossible to beat for a regular human hasn't been a reason to reject a TAS.
I never stated anything of the sort.
You did:
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
goldenband wrote:
One could blur out all the math elements in Math Blaster and still have coherent gameplay.
Excellent. I have just made a patch that blurs out all math elements in Math Blaster: https://www.dropbox.com/s/xit5qqmg57dl9wk/math-blaster---no-math-version.ips?dl=1 Apply it on the original ROM file by using Lunar IPS, then try playing the game. If you manage to beat the game at least once out of 1 billion attempts, then I'll agree that it "still have coherent gameplay" and rethink of my judgement.
But again, this argument relies on playing this game the intended way. Because you literally can not play it in real time the intended way without seeing the math questions. But this TAS is not even aiming to play it the intended way. Remember this keynote:
WelcomeToTASVideos/Why? wrote:
We make these movies because they are entertaining to watch, and because we are curious how far a game can be pushed. The process of creating them is also a form of problem-solving and challenge to our intellect and ingenuity. If a child receives a box containing an expensive toy as a birthday present, it's possible that he'll enjoy the box more than the toy. This is creativity. We're doing the same for these games. Instead of walking on the paths created for us, we create our own paths, our own legs and so on. And we're not listening to people who say "you can't do that!". Just like children.
See, I'm looking not just at rules, I'm looking at their spirit too. I try to answer the questions "Why that rule is there?", "What it wants to prevent?", "What it wants to encourage?" And I see that this run fulfills all the requirements of a serious TAS: it applies creativity and counter-intuitive thinking with the TAS tools. If it only used them to beat the game the intended way, just faster, I wouldn't be defending it, and would be right not defending it.
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.
Editor, Reviewer, Skilled player (1352)
Joined: 9/12/2016
Posts: 1646
Location: Italy
Pardon me if I won't use quotes now, otherwise the post would get into a total mess. As I already said twice, I'm aware that the submitted run is a good TAS in all aspects, and the rejection is purely based on a judgement toward the game, so the fact that the run is actually breaking the educational aspects of the game doesn't change the fact that it can't be applied for Vault. There is no mention in the Vault rules about the quality of the run being able to bend the applicability of the game title for Vault tier. I judged this game as non-applicable for Vault because I considered that the rule is talking about how predominant is the educational aspect, and not about how much trivial gameplay is present, according to what I could understand from the only text line that mentions about "secondariness", and by looking at precedents of rejection of other submissions. Indeed, I could have misunderstanded the actual goal of the rules, and made a bad judgement that goes aganist the spirit of TASVideos, but that would be because of the rule text having misled me. If that's the case, then my judgement would be wrong and in the need of being reverted. While I like the idea of seeing this submission being accepted, I have to note that it would entirely depend from the intervention of an administrator in pointing out how the rule should actually be applied, and possibly an improvement to the text of the Vault page.
my personal page - my YouTube channel - my GitHub - my Discord: thunderaxe31 <Masterjun> if you look at the "NES" in a weird angle, it actually clearly says "GBA"
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
I think that the 2 camps competing here have clarified the shit out of their positions, and the result is that neither is what the rule explicitly wants. We have to interpret it, and we interpret it differently.
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.
Editor, Skilled player (1343)
Joined: 12/28/2013
Posts: 396
Location: Rio de Janeiro, Brasil
Every possible argument has been made already, so I won't be too long or repeat too much what Warp said. However I do want to reinforce his opinion: Although this movie doesn't fit the rules, it won't make the site any worse and it's not 'less serious' than tons of vault games out there (not just than 1 or 2 notable terrible games that've been pointed out). A game can be non-serious and non-educational, as well as serious and educational, which makes this parameter a bit nonsensical to be followed as a vault requirement. This submission illustrates the reason for which this rule should be changed. On a unrelated note, it would be nice like if some people were a bit more respectful towards Warp.
My YouTube channel: https://www.youtube.com/channel/UCVoUfT49xN9TU-gDMHv57sw Projects: SMW 96 exit. SDW any%, with Amaraticando. SMA2 SMW small only Kaizo Mario World 3
Player (80)
Joined: 8/5/2007
Posts: 865
BrunoVisnadi wrote:
On a unrelated note, it would be nice like if some people were a bit more respectful towards Warp.
:( I'll own up to it. Sorry, Warp. I was a dick and you were right to call me out for it.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Nach wrote:
Requesting rule changes just because you like a run is a bad way to judge.
On the other hand, if a particular run shows a potential defect in the rules, it's good to discuss it, and perhaps consider if the rule could benefit from some fine-tuning. I'm glad that this is being seriously discussed. (By the way, if my tone has sounded a bit aggressive in some of my posts, it wasn't my intention. Sometimes I fail to express my opinions in a manner that doesn't come out as feeling a bit pushy and aggressive-sounding. It's not my intention.)
Bobo the King wrote:
I'll own up to it. Sorry, Warp. I was a dick and you were right to call me out for it.
No problems. Forgive and forget.
Emulator Coder
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Warp wrote:
Nach wrote:
Requesting rule changes just because you like a run is a bad way to judge.
On the other hand, if a particular run shows a potential defect in the rules, it's good to discuss it, and perhaps consider if the rule could benefit from some fine-tuning.
You are 100% correct. In this case I found the rule was ambiguous and added some clarifying remarks.
Warp wrote:
By the way, if my tone has sounded a bit aggressive in some of my posts, it wasn't my intention. Sometimes I fail to express my opinions in a manner that doesn't come out as feeling a bit pushy and aggressive-sounding. It's not my intention.
I know. I've been here long enough to know you're one of our non-selfish members and aren't trying to be pushy. I enjoy reading what you have to say. I've also been around long enough to know that your avatar makes some people think you're aggressive.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Based exactly on these remarks ThunderAxe31 and I come up with contradicting opinions. One of the camps just states that the game itself (as a whole) should be evaluated. And they just check if the game can be played in real time if the math is literally blurred out. If it can not, "the game itself as a whole" has education as a primary element. Another camp states that TASable gameplay of that game is what matters: optimization challenge makes it a non-trivial, serious game. The problem is, neither comes from the rules, both are just ways to interpret it. I understand that if only 1 person among stuff cares about the second argument, and all the rest care about the first kind of interpretation, it's how democracy works, but rules that allow contradicting interpretations regardless of what arguments get posted are still not worded as clearly as they should be.
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: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
If some of the judges have a disagreement with the judgement as it has been given, why do you not discuss the judgement yourselves and reevaluate it as a group? There is precedent for getting the thought of other judges in rendering a decision. And in all reality, this site is pretty poor when it comes to a firm stance on anything controversial. So I have no faith in anything happening, and I have no clue what will or will not be accepted much anymore because I lack any faith in the site to be consistent on anything close.
Player (26)
Joined: 8/29/2011
Posts: 1206
Location: Amsterdam
ThunderAxe31 wrote:
Also, if we decide to change the rules in order to accept this run, then we would automatically also be forced to accept a lot of runs done on very bad educational games like SNES Mario's Time Machine, just because 1% of the gameplay is non-trivial.
I'm not sure why you feel that any change to (or interpretation of) the rules that would make the site accept this game also necessitates the site to accept every other educational game, such as that Time Machine. I don't think anyone is calling for that. It is entirely plausible to conclude that one educational game has sufficient non-trivial gameplay and another does not.
Banned User
Joined: 3/10/2004
Posts: 7698
Location: Finland
Habreno wrote:
And in all reality, this site is pretty poor when it comes to a firm stance on anything controversial. So I have no faith in anything happening, and I have no clue what will or will not be accepted much anymore because I lack any faith in the site to be consistent on anything close.
I think you are being quite unfair towards the site and its staff. I have been to other (very large and popular) forums where the staff is an absolutely totalitarian hive mind, and where the forum rules are effectively considered holy gospel written in stone, which cannot be questioned and especially cannot be changed, no matter what the situation, even if it results in completely ridiculous rulings that make no sense. Trying to point out a problem in the rules, or how they are being enacted by the staff, is like talking to a wall, or a cult of a brainwashed hive mind, with staff members never questioning the rules or each other, or presenting any differing viewpoints, and where the staff has absolute power and users have zero power, and their opinions don't matter at all. During all the time I was in that forum I don't remember any member of the staff reversing, or even questioning, the decision of another, nor any sort of public discussion about such decisions, or the very rules of the forum. Needless to say, if you got on the bad side of the hive mind, you had absolutely no recourse against it. Here, however, the opinions and suggestions of visitors are heard and considered, and it sometimes causes serious discussion on how the site should operate. When you say "this site is pretty poor when it comes to a firm stance on anything controversial", and "I lack any faith in the site to be consistent on anything", I don't really understand what you mean. It sounds like you want the site staff to be that kind I describe above, ie. a totalitarian dictatorial hive mind which rules with an iron fist and always thinks it's right, never changes its mind regardless of the situation, never changes the forum rules, and the users have no say on anything. I would never want this site to become like that. (If that's not what you tried to say, I apologize. It just sounds to me like that.)
Joined: 5/23/2014
Posts: 162
No, Warp, I am trying to say that the site is too far in the opposite direction; it does a ton of talking about stuff but rarely does anything happen with that talk. And because rarely does something happen with that talk, I lack faith in the site to change in any way, despite seeming very open to it.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1250)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11469
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
As a person who introduced a few changes and came up with some new rules that keep working well, I can tell you that changing our system is VERY hard. It can be done, it costs tons of effort, but it should be something that needs to happen anyway, only then it can be done. You can not inject something that won't fly, but you will need to convince others that it will.
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.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2210)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1086
Location: US
I recently proposed some new rules that were adopted regarding CPU frequency for DOS games using JPC-rr. Also some discussion that arose out of my work on C64 games this year led to a clarification of NTSC vs PAL rules for that system. Changes and additions do happen. In both of these cases, it took discussion regarding appropriateness as well as potential impact on the site.
darkszero
He/Him
Joined: 7/12/2009
Posts: 181
Location: São Paulo, Brazil
I'd like to point out that the term serious game exists in the game industry and means roughly what is being defined as "non-serious" here. Oops! You can see the extensive references on that page, and I can personally vouch for seeing the term being used to describe companies that work in "serious games" as opposite to my own that focus on entertainment.
MESHUGGAH
Other
Skilled player (1916)
Joined: 11/14/2009
Posts: 1353
Location: 𝔐𝔞𝔤𝑦𝔞𝔯
To be fair, you have to have a very high IQ to understand Math Blaster. The gameplay is extremely subtle, and without a solid grasp of arithmetic assignments most of the TAS will go over a typical viewers head. There's also Blasternaut's nihilistic outlook, which is deftly woven into his characterisation- his personal philosophy draws heavily from education, for instance. The serious TASers understand this stuff; they have the intellectual capacity to truly appreciate the depths of these additions, to realise that they're not just calculator- they say something deep about VAULT. As a consequence people who dislike education truly ARE idiots- of course they wouldn't appreciate, for instance, the platforming in level 2 "Caves" which itself is a cryptic reference to dressed up homework. I'm smirking right now just imagining one of those addlepated TASers scratching their heads in confusion as qflame's genius wit unfolds itself on their monitor screens. What fools.. how I pity them. 😂 And yes, by the way, i DO have a Sesame Street tattoo. And no, you cannot see it. It's for Carmen Sandiego's eyes only- and even then she have to demonstrate that she is within 5 player points of my own (preferably lower) beforehand. Nothin personnel kid 😎 edit: this is famous copypasta with different keywords to fit this "debate". This is just a joke.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Experienced player (674)
Joined: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1777
Location: Brasil
I think if the submitted solution shows gameplay that deviates from the compliance with the obvious educational goals,it should be accepted, provided it's optimal.
TAS i'm interested: Megaman series, specially the RPGs! Where is the mmbn1 all chips TAS we deserve? Where is the Command Mission TAS? i'm slowly moving away from TASing fighting games for speed, maybe it's time to start finding some entertainment value in TASing.
Skilled player (1002)
Joined: 10/13/2014
Posts: 409
Location: nowhereatthemiddleofnoone
When people don't think like you, so them are idiots! qflame should start by play the bonus levels, for him it will very easy because he have an high IQ ! Ho and, thank to all IDIOTS, who give opinions, negative or not, because these permit to have the best debates! I voting no, just because the bonus levels are not played and this is not entertaining to watch the cursor in a stopping mode. But, sorry, it's just an idiots opinion...
GAW sms... Totally destroyed
Joined: 11/15/2004
Posts: 804
Location: Canada
Wow, a lot of chat about this submission! I skipped the last 5 pages. I came here to say (as has already been said) that doing nothing in the bonus stages is boring. If there's anything that you can do that won't cost you time, do it. Can you fly over the ship? Narrowly avoid the bonuses? Move to the music? Anything is better than nothing.
TASing or playing back a DOS game? Make sure your files match the archive at RGB Classic Games.
1 2
5 6 7 8