Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Wow this is scary!
HistorySince the beginning of times, TASVideos had to protect its reputation from accusations of cheating. After 2 decades of doing that, we succeeded so much that even real-time speedrunners started to dislike us for our extreme purism (often referred to as elitism). All the while awareness about speedrunning and TAS has spread so well that speedrun marathons (sometimes featuring TAS blocks) were able to get $1M+ worth of donations per event. There's also great synergy between real-time speedrunners and TASers thanks to shared information about games and approaching similar problems from different angles.
I always thought that in order to be considered good, a person or a system needs to embrace evolving reality, and remain relevant while maintaining priorities that improve things. One's methodology has to be sought-after and requested in order to be considered valuable. Wisdom is in finding the right balance between ideals and applications, evolution and stability.
The only evolution the cheat code rules have ever seen was allowing them for hard mode and unlocking new gameplay/content.
[2558] SNES Super Metroid "GT code, game end glitch" by amaurea, Cpadolf & total in 14:52.88 was probably the first published movie where a cheat/debug code giving you unfair advantage was allowed. It was allowed because it was not used simply to make the game easier, but as a part of a bigger goal that ended up making the game harder in a bunch of places, while also enabling arbitrary code execution.
So just recently we agreed to allow in-game codes regardless of whether they make the game harder or easier, though only for Wiki: Moons. And it still looks like we're not done with the demand.
#7451: andy120195's DS Pokémon Mystery Dungeon: Blue Rescue Team "Wondermail" in 1:36:40.01 and #7485: ThunderAxe31's GB Rolan's Curse "password, game end glitch" in 04:04.80 use in-game codes to beat the game faster by adding content that gives you speed advantage. As mentioned right above, that is already allowed for Moons, just because it can be entertaining.
Mindset
But then we asked ourselves:
What exactly prevents in-game cheat codes from going to Wiki: Standard?
One obvious negative aspect that's been codified since 2011 is that codes can skip gameplay. Indeed if all the code is doing is removing gameplay or content, it's usually seen as a cheap way of getting farther in the game, reducing the challenge.
A serious offense is when you're trying to trick your viewers. You should not be able to sell your compromised gameplay as legitimate. #3519: RingRush's PSX Croc: Legend of the Gobbos "glitched" in 01:10.12 kinda succeeded in that, even though it was eventually canceled as "just a joke".
A more subjective aspect is if you're cheating, your play feels illegitimate. The game may have a certain feature for "weak" players, but it's not meant for normal play. So when you're using that feature, your play is just training.
Suggestion
In my opinion most issues can be resolved by a rule like this:
In-game codes that add gameplay are allowed for a separate branch in Standard, as long as such codes are used optimally.
As always that wouldn't mean the movie with codes has to be proven unbeatable. It should just not have speed trade-offs, like avoiding some known codes that can save time by adding gameplay. If a new application of those codes is found later, it becomes a known improvement and simply needs to be incorporated as a time-saving technique. Codes would just become an additional optimization factor.
Wait there's more
Hoo boy...
There's also a thing called external codes. We always completely banned them. Things like Game Genie, Action Replay, Gecko codes, etc. Ways to modify the game from the outside without it knowing it's being hacked.
But there's an argument that on principle, they are the same thing as ROM hacks, the latter being the approved way of game modifications, so should be used instead.
Turns out making a ROM hack is not always an option.
For GameCube/Wii games, there's no such thing as modifying game image directly to change gameplay - everybody just uses Gecko codes that patch the game on the fly in software, and they can be as elaborate as full-blown ROM hacks that create new levels.
In some cases modifying your game image is not feasible without deep technical knowledge, for example the last sentence in this post seems to have gotten nowhere.
If some feature doesn't have an in-game code but is otherwise something worth having in a TAS, unlocking it using an external code feels justified at least for Moons, just like we allow unlocking content with in-game codes.
So I suggest adding this rule:
External codes that modify the game are judged as unofficial games if modifications are severe enough. Otherwise, external codes are allowed for Moons only if they unlock gameplay or content that in-game codes can't access.
Allowing this to Standard would be too much IMO. But in Moons we can have quite some arbitrariness as long as it's entertaining and makes sense. External codes could in theory be used to replace a verification movie, though verifying legitimacy of such a code would involve some deep technical knowledge or equally deep trust.
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've been thinking about a "Codes" branch for Standard for the past month or so, and I do support it. Figuring out the best codes to use is an actual optimization challenge, and I don't mind it as long as it's very clearly labeled and doesn't obsolete any Fastest Completion runs.
We talked a bit about it in staff Discord, and I like the following guidelines for the Codes branch:
The codes should be entered as part of some in-game system, external devices like Gameshark are not allowed.
The benefit of the code must manifest itself as part of some intended game mechanic. For example, codes that give you items, characters, unlockable abilities, or stat boosts are allowed. Things that are not allowed are mechanics the developers specifically hacked in for the code, such as noclip, infinite god mode, infinite air jumping, etc.
Codes that skip content are not allowed, i.e. level skip codes, unlocking every level, or warp cheats. If a code unlocks something that enables the ability to do a new skip, such as getting an intended ability early, that's still allowed.
And yeah, allowing AR codes is a bit too powerful for Standard. I would be fine with AR codes in place of verification movies, but the burden of proof must be on the author to show that the game state they are creating is actually possible.
To put my opinion as concisely as possible:
I like the idea of allowing in-game codes into standard if they ADD to gameplay, but not if they take away from gameplay.
I think external codes should always be limited to Moons, with one hypothetical exception:
In the event that there is a game out there (or will be in the future) that has a programming bug present which prevents a normal win condition from being achieved; I'm fine with an external code being used to bypass the bug and allow succesful completion the game. I think that only this one situation should be eligible for standard. Ideally, the external code here would only allow bypassing the bug and not enable other features that allow for skipping other gameplay.
Of one such game where cheats are required for the ending, the US release of the PS2 game Tokyo Xtreme Racer 3 is impossible to clear without the maximum money cheat due to not correctly converting the money requirements for the last race of the game. There is one racer, Whirlwind Fanfare, that can't be challenged without a maximum money cheat. Since all other racers must be defeated to challenge the final boss, this means that the ending is locked out without cheating on the US version of the game.
For a game that can't be 100% completed without cheats, there's Space Station Silicon Valley. One of the collectibles, the trophy for the level Fat Bear Mountain, doesn't have collision detection, thus 100% is impossible in normal gameplay. Either an in-cheat has to be entered to have all collectibles obtained or a GameShark code has to be entered to adjust the trophy's hitbox to work correctly.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
DrD2k9 wrote:
In the event that there is a game out there (or will be in the future) that has a programming bug present which prevents a normal win condition from being achieved; I'm fine with an external code being used to bypass the bug and allow succesful completion the game. I think that only this one situation should be eligible for standard. Ideally, the external code here would only allow bypassing the bug and not enable other features that allow for skipping other gameplay.
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: 2/26/2020
Posts: 44
Location: Super Bell Hill
I am for in-game codes if it creates different gameplay.
I am against external cheats. There are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use. It also can lead to gamebreaking glitches which in-game codes mostly cannot achieve. I have nightmares of SMB game genie TASes.
I highly exhibit the purist sentiment mentioned in the OP. I believe that cheats should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and should seriously carry their weight when used. I think that speedrunning (and by extension, TASing) should be a showcase of absolute mastery over the game. Cheats, when used, should be in service of that. This could involve a cheat that makes the game harder, or a cheat that unlocks a level that would not otherwise be accessible, so we can also dunk on that bonus level. What I think cheats should specifically not be in service of is just getting the fastest possible time by any means necessary. Another valid use of cheats is unlocking a bonus character or something else that drastically changes the gameplay itself.
I think the rule suggestion, as it is worded, is quite reasonable.
As for external codes, I think the standards should be even higher, because external codes allow more room for subtle manipulation. Again, it's lame to just use a code to remove something inconvenient that you don't like. I think using a code to unlock otherwise broken content, as DrD2k9 put forward, is quite fair however.
That said, let me just take everything I've written so far and throw it into the woodchipper here: TASvideos should be inclusionist if it gets new people on the site. If people like speedrunning some category that involves external or internal codes, and people want to see a TAS of that, I think that TAS should also have a place on TASvideos. It's better in the long term than being all high and mighty about purism.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Mizumaririn wrote:
I am against external cheats. There are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use.
Playarounds are also completely arbitrary, and the decision on them is mostly on the audience and depends on how entertained they were. If people dislike certain external code usage, it can't go to Moons, therefore it would not be published.
Mizumaririn wrote:
It also can lead to gamebreaking glitches which in-game codes mostly cannot achieve. I have nightmares of SMB game genie TASes.
If the result is entertaining, at the very least we could obsolete different movies that use external codes with one another if the audience agrees.
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: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
scrimpeh wrote:
I highly exhibit the purist sentiment mentioned in the OP. I believe that cheats should only be used in exceptional circumstances, and should seriously carry their weight when used. I think that speedrunning (and by extension, TASing) should be a showcase of absolute mastery over the game. Cheats, when used, should be in service of that. This could involve a cheat that makes the game harder, or a cheat that unlocks a level that would not otherwise be accessible, so we can also dunk on that bonus level. What I think cheats should specifically not be in service is of is just getting the fastest possible time by any means necessary. Another valid use of cheats is unlocking a bonus character or something else that drastically changes the gameplay itself.
[...]
That said, let me just take everything I've written so far and throw it into the woodchipper here: TASvideos should be inclusionist if it gets new people on the site. If people like speedrunning some category that involves external or internal codes, and people want to see a TAS of that, I think that TAS should also have a place on TASvideos. It's better in the long term than being all high and mighty about purism.
I think a neat solution to this dichotomy is the very nature of separate branches. Purists still have their maximally legitimate Wiki: FastestCompletion branch, and people who are less pure strict can also have their thing alongside it. Our goal is embracing the good things while annoying the fewest people.
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.
While I support loosening the restrictions on in-game codes in general, I think we should be very careful about allowing external codes for anything outside Playground. There is a clear line between utilizing what's provided by the game itself and modifying it IMO.
scrimpeh wrote:
If people like speedrunning some category that involves external or internal codes, and people want to see a TAS of that, I think that TAS should also have a place on TASvideos.
I see less of a reason to try to fit everything in Standard and Moon when Playground is already a thing, really. If anything, wouldn't allowing things like real time RAM modification somewhat take away from the purpose of Playground in the first place?
feos wrote:
ROM modification and RAM modification might be similar to an extent in a metaphysical sense, but is there really a proper way to translate these rules regarding homebrews and hacks to apply for external cheat code usage in practice?
We allow unofficial games, such as bootlegs, prototypes and ROM hacks. However, these games are judged just as much as their TASes:
* Unofficial games need to meet a minimum standard of game quality. They should be complete and original.
* Bootleg games must not be direct clones of a licensed game on the same console. Unlicensed ports with unique gameplay, such as demakes, are allowed.
* Prototypes are only allowed if gameplay is significantly different to the release version, or if there is no release version at all.
ROM hacks must not be overly obscure. If a hack is known to [https://emulation.gametechwiki.com/index.php/GoodTools|GoodTools], [https://www.romhacking.net/|ROMhacking.net], [https://www.smwcentral.net/|SMW Central], or some other well-known database, that usually means its quality is decent and it won't be completely lost in the future.
As others have pointed out, "there are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use". The requirement for a hack to be featured on a well-known database effectively sets up canons and categories for the specifics of modifications done to the original game and makes it easy to track them. I doubt something similar can be done for external cheat code usage / RAM modification.
feos wrote:
External codes that modify the game are judged as unofficial games if modifications are severe enough. Otherwise, external codes are allowed for Moons only if they unlock gameplay or content that in-game codes can't access.
Also, how would this fit into the game system on the site?
Even though I've voted for certain in-game cheats, I would like to mention a possibility to allow some external cheats for "infinite" arcade-style games where each further level (or level chain) is a little harder than the current one. Sometimes getting to the "final" level or to the spot where the difficulty stops gaining makes movies so long and boring. A game genie or RAM address adjustment to pass levels 98-99 would be a decent compromise, I think.
TASing is like making a film: only the best takes are shown in the final movie.
The site only recently added the Playground, and as I understand it, this new area already allows any and all cheats.
And that's fine. It just means that allowing cheats outside the Playground doesn't seem necessary, and I'd say it's changing too many things too quickly.
However, I like the idea of using internal cheats that add more content, so I'll vote for that onw.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fortranm wrote:
While I support loosening the restrictions on in-game codes in general, I think we should be very careful about allowing external codes for anything outside Playground. There is a clear line between utilizing what's provided by the game itself and modifying it IMO.
scrimpeh wrote:
If people like speedrunning some category that involves external or internal codes, and people want to see a TAS of that, I think that TAS should also have a place on TASvideos.
I see less of a reason to try to fit everything in Standard and Moon when Playground is already a thing, really. If anything, wouldn't allowing things like real time RAM modification somewhat take away from the purpose of Playground in the first place?
Radiant wrote:
The site only recently added the Playground, and as I understand it, this new area already allows any and all cheats.
And that's fine. It just means that allowing cheats outside the Playground doesn't seem necessary, and I'd say it's changing too many things too quickly.
The point of Playground is keeping movies with esoteric goals that are not entertaining enough for Moons. If something entertains the general audience, why is it bad to publish it?
Fortranm wrote:
The requirement for a hack to be featured on a well-known database effectively sets up canons and categories for the specifics of modifications done to the original game and makes it easy to track them. I doubt something similar can be done for external cheat code usage / RAM modification.
External codes that modify the game are judged as unofficial games if modifications are severe enough. Otherwise, external codes are allowed for Moons only if they unlock gameplay or content that in-game codes can't access.
Also, how would this fit into the game system on the site?
I'd have them as branches of the same (base) game.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
That seems more like a collection of guides on how to hack the rom/ram, not a library/database of "end products". Databases of rom hacks are functionally similar to a list of officially licensed games that they set up a canon of game versions to choose from. Having a list of external cheat codes where arbitrary combinations can be created from is exactly why "there are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use". This makes the situations surrounding rom hacking and ram hacking too different imo.
Databases of rom hacks are functionally similar to a list of officially licensed games that they set up a canon of game versions to choose from. Having a list of external cheat codes where arbitrary combinations can be created from is exactly why "there are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use". This makes the situations surrounding rom hacking and ram hacking too different imo.
So how do we solve the situation with consoles where ROM hacking per se is non-existent? Just blanket ban the whole thing from publications?
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.
...not a library/database of "end products". ...Having a list of external cheat codes where arbitrary combinations can be created from is exactly why "there are too many possibilities and it is up to the players what codes and how many to use".
In this sense it's still more similar to how rom hacking tutorials teach one how to make changes to an official game where the person later decides on the combination of changes to make that eventually result in a finished product, except there isn't a comparable "finished product" for ram hacking.
feos wrote:
So how do we solve the situation with consoles where ROM hacking per se is non-existent? Just blanket ban the whole thing from publications?
The phrasing "blanket ban the whole thing" sounds weird here. There is no banning on the rom hacking side; it's just that it's not available yet. This is like saying we are blanket banning movies of games on 9th gen consoles when there isn't a way of making one. :P
For reasons brought up earlier, I do prefer to see movies involving RAM hacking stay in Playground for the foreseeable future when that is still a place to showcase the movies in some way on the site.
Also, if part of the reason this discussion is happening right now is to figure out what to do with #7481: Natetheman223's GC Spider-Man "Green Goblin" in 20:47.65...
feos wrote:
If some feature doesn't have an in-game code but is otherwise something worth having in a TAS, unlocking it using an external code feels justified at least for Moons, just like we allow unlocking content with in-game codes.
Natetheman223 wrote:
This skin is pretty snazzy and I wanted to show it off.
To me it sounds like the otherwise unavailable feature is just a skin. If that's the case, allowing external cheat codes for this is almost on par with allowing purely cosmetic hacks even if we do try to treat ram hacking and rom hacking in a similar way.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fortranm wrote:
The phrasing "blanket ban the whole thing" sounds weird here. There is no banning on the rom hacking side; it's just that it's not available yet. This is like saying we are blanket banning movies of games on 9th gen consoles when there isn't a way of making one. :P
It's not ever going to become available because, say, with GC/Wii people simply use Gecko instead, and each Gecko code can include a whole bunch of things it changes, so binary patching of the ROM becomes redundant. The blanked ban is regarding how we would refuse to recognize the functional similarity between that and ROM hacking existing on older consoles.
Fortranm wrote:
For reasons brought up earlier, I do prefer to see movies involving RAM hacking stay in Playground for the foreseeable future when that is still a place to showcase the movies in some way on the site.
If someone doesn't like a "playaround" submission, they vote No. If most people have voted No, it gets rejected (or sent to Playground instead). If most people liked it, then it goes to Moons. Similar degree of arbitrary variety is available with external cheats. Even then, the suggestion does not include going completely rogue with modifications, so I don't get what's so bad about judging subjectivity subjectively.
Fortranm wrote:
To me it sounds like the otherwise unavailable feature is just a skin. If that's the case, allowing external cheat codes for this is almost on par with allowing purely cosmetic hacks even if we do try to treat ram hacking and rom hacking in a similar way.
If a ROM hack unlocks a feature that's disabled in the game, it's an interesting thing to consider. If it simply adds something out of nowhere, it's not what my suggestions are advocating.
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.
It's not ever going to become available because, say, with GC/Wii people simply use Gecko instead, and each Gecko code can include a whole bunch of things it changes, so binary patching of the ROM becomes redundant. The blanked ban is regarding how we would refuse to recognize the functional similarity between that and ROM hacking existing on older consoles.
The modding/hacking scene of New Super Mario Bros Wii. similar to that of SMB and SMW, is active or was active at some point from what I saw, just for example. While it's most likely true that games on consoles released from ~2005 onward generally have less hacks/mods than the ones on consoles that came before, this ROM hacking vs RAM hacking thing doesn't correlate with older vs newer consoles that much imo since older consoles probably have more variations of external cheat codes in general as well.
The modding/hacking scene of New Super Mario Bros Wii. similar to that of SMB and SMW, is active or was active at some point from what I saw, just for example. While it's most likely true that games on consoles released from ~2005 onward generally have less hacks/mods than the ones on consoles that came before, this ROM hacking vs RAM hacking thing doesn't correlate with older vs newer consoles that much imo since older consoles probably have more variations of external cheat codes in general as well.
The difficulty in making rom hacks has drastically increased since the NES/SNES era, whereas the difficulty in making external codes hasn't increased by as much. Plus, gc/wii rom hacks are still going to be limited to first party games with tons of players, while just about anyone can easily learn how to make external codes for other games on those systems.
The site only recently added the Playground, and as I understand it, this new area already allows any and all cheats.
And that's fine. It just means that allowing cheats outside the Playground doesn't seem necessary, and I'd say it's changing too many things too quickly.
The point of Playground is keeping movies with esoteric goals that are not entertaining enough for Moons. If something entertains the general audience, why is it bad to publish it?
I thought the point of Playground is to keep movies that break the rules from Moons, and that they can break the rules by (a) not being entertaining, or (b) using cheat codes, or (c) breaking some other rule.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Radiant wrote:
I thought the point of Playground is to keep movies that break the rules from Moons, and that they can break the rules by (a) not being entertaining, or (b) using cheat codes, or (c) breaking some other rule.
It's almost like listing every single Standard and Moons rule and saying "anything that breaks those rules is by definition meant for Playground". The rules are changing, they are meant to be changing. The class division speaks for itself: Standard hosts the most traditional and legitimate goals, Moons hosts anything else that manages to entertain the audience, and Playground hosts the rest as long as it's well done.
The main question we need to have a fundamental answer to is still "What makes something bad for Moons if the audience is entertained?"
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.
Standard hosts the most traditional and legitimate goals, Moons hosts anything else that manages to entertain the audience, and Playground hosts the rest as long as it's well done.
The main question we need to have a fundamental answer to is still "What makes something bad for Moons if the audience is entertained?"
Well, wasn't there even a proposal for Playground about allowing runs done on otherwise unacceptable emulators? It definitely does feel like a major purpose of Playground is to host movies that break the usual rules, especially the ones more on the technical side.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11478
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Fortranm wrote:
Well, wasn't there even a proposal for Playground about allowing runs done on otherwise unacceptable emulators? It definitely does feel like a major purpose of Playground is to host movies that break the usual rules, especially the ones more on the technical side.
What I'm saying is, the exact borderline between Standard/Moons rules for publications and Playground submissions is destined to change all the time, because we don't want to consider our rules perfect at any point in time. So it doesn't make sense to point out specific publication rules as being the opposite of Playground. The opposite of Playground is movies that make sense as legitimate speedruns with standard goals and and movies that entertain the audience. To simplify it to the point of stupidity, movies that are not niche. And Playground is for movies that are niche. That's the only substantial difference.
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: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
Sorry I'm late to this discussion, I've had kind of an insane week and it's stunted my ability to think about video games in slow motion. I can post more detailed thoughts tomorrow, when it isn't Literally My Birthday Today.
feos wrote:
In my opinion most issues can be resolved by a rule like this:
In-game codes that add gameplay are allowed for a separate branch in Standard, as long as such codes are used optimally.
So I suggest adding this rule:
External codes that modify the game are judged as unofficial games if modifications are severe enough. Otherwise, external codes are allowed for Moons only if they unlock gameplay or content that in-game codes can't access.
These look good to me.
In general, I'm a very hard "NO" on allowing external cheats universally. The logistics of judging that would be impossible to figure out. Not for lack of trying: It's been a thought of mine for well over a decade, and I have yet to come up with a single passable solution. We have Playground now for that sort of thing. People can make their own rules, every run exists on entirely its own merits, and we don't need to figure out some kind of insane logic with cheat usage and obsoletion in order to keep things sane. The way the suggestion is worded right now fits in with the maximum I would personally allow. It limits things sanely and nicely.
I'm way more lenient on in-game codes, but there's still a lot of things that need to be figured out there. The suggested rule is pretty much perfect, though I could see it being relaxed even further in the future.
TASvideos Admin and acting Senior Judge 💙 Currently unable to dedicate a lot of time to the site, taking care of family.
Now infrequently posting on BlueskywarmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
I pretty much agree with what was suggested in the opener. I'd be ok with some additional external cheats but it'd definitely have to either be moons or playground.
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
