Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2238)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
I'd like to present our first of likely many major proposals, based on ikuyo's "TASVideos must die" manifesto. If you haven't read that thread yet, please do so!
Three years ago, we held a long discussion about our old Vault system, where we had originally intended to expand it past any% and 100% runs, but we ended up completely revamping the old tiered system of publications as a result. One of the major things that prompted the tier revamp was the staff, particularly the Judges, growing increasingly uncomfortable with the process of judging a run's entertainment value. Prior to the revamp, we had effectively divided the entire site into "runs deemed worth watching" and "runs nobody should watch because they're boring", which by itself wasn't a good look, but combined with the fact that it complicated judging, especially for runs that received little to no feedback to begin with, it meant we could only ever come off as a bunch of elitists that judged peoples' efforts based on nothing more than the games they chose, and we would punish them for it. This sentiment was growing across the community as well: People didn't really want there to be a clear entertainment divide anymore. Not long after the tier revamp, we started drafting what would become known as Playground, which aimed to catch any and every quality run that didn't qualify under the new Standard/Alternative system. If a run didn't qualify as a Standard category, and wasn't deemed entertaining enough to become an Alternative category, it would instead go to Playground, where it would still have a notable place on the site, but it wouldn't undergo the usual publication process. Now, tell me if that system sounds familiar. If you're thinking "Wait, didn't you all just re-introduce the entertainment divide?", you're correct! We absolutely hecked it! We were so cauight up in the idea of PG needing to be its own thing that we completely overlooked the fact that all we really did was shift the goalposts again, I believe. Entertainment used to determine if the run was published at all, then it was used to determine whether your run was categorized as watchable or not, and now it's still used to determine whether or not your creativity is watchable or not. Sure, we made improvements to the older systems, but they're clearly not working, as there have still been problems with even the current system. So how do we fix that, exactly? The answer is simple: Instead of shifting the goalposts, we take them away entirely. We're proposing the elimination of entertainment as a judgement metric by combining Playground into Alternative. A brief explanation for how we want this to work: Any run that is currently in Playground or that could go to Playground, i.e a wide majority of non-standard categories, would instead be published to Alternative regardless of audience feedback or perceived entertainment level. There are still some types of runs that would remain in the current Playground, mainly individual level (IL) runs and runs that we cannot sync and thus cannot publish, but in the future we will eventually be able to account for those runs on the site in some way. In other words, there will still be some curation, but only on technical levels and only out of current necessity. Now, if you've read ikuyo's thread, you might be wondering how publishing more runs is going to help us keep up with the growing submission influx. Judging is definitely going to be easier, as we no longer need to wait for feedback that might never come and determine whether or not it's "good enough", but the publishing team is going to have to keep up with more runs. We have a solution for that as well, and it might sound a little insane given our 20 year history: Deferring encodes. That is, runs will still get a publication entry, but they may not immediately get an official encode on the YouTube channel. There will most likely be a temporary encode from the author or another user in its place until the publication/encoding team is able to get around to creating an official one. This likely won't be noticeable in lower traffic times, as all accepted runs will be getting encoded and published as normal. In high traffic times, this means the Publishers will simply shift focus to standard categories, as they're much more frequently submitted, but that focus will not prevent any Alternative run from being published and showcased on the site itself. One hidden, but INCREDIBLY MAJOR benefit to adopting this system is that we barely have to add any new site infrastructure for it. Playground implementation was scarce for as long as it was because we never had a concrete, agreed-upon plan for how to implement it. Combining it with Alternative, however, means that we can just use the current publication system, which already has pretty much everything anyone could want out of a showcase system. One thing we would definitely add though is a couple of front page modules dedicated to the expanded Alternative class: We're thinking of having the most recently published Alt runs and a set of random runs, much in the same way we have a box for random Star movies.
All that being said, however, we want to know what you think about this proposal. Does it work as is? Does anything need to be changed? Are there any further suggestions on what we can do or how we can organize things? For a quick summary/recap:
  • Entertainment will no longer be used as a judgement metric across the entire site
  • Current and future Playground runs and branches will be merged into Alternative
  • The combined category will continue to be known as Alternative
  • Playground will still exist as a way to catch runs that still do not qualify, though this will be for technical reasons
  • Alternative runs may not immediately receive encodes, but they will be published nonetheless, likely with temp encodes
One thing I'd like to ask is to not discuss what categories go where, yet, i.e questions like "How are you going to handle ILs?". That is absolutely a discussion we will have in the future (especially ILs, I really want ILs, I really want Trackmania ILs please holy hell watch some Trackmania TASes if you haven't already they are incredible), but for now I'd like to specifically keep this discussion focused on the actual merging of Playground into Alternative. There will be other plans, other proposals, other things we're going to do, but right now this is not only a pretty big oversight that needs fixing, but an oversight that we can fix pretty much the moment it's agreed upon. I haven't had a lot of free time lately (and I'm deeply sorry about that), but I'll try and check in on this thread as often as I can. Other staff will definitely be around, though.
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Samsara wrote:
  • Alternative runs may not immediately receive encodes, but they will be published nonetheless, likely with temp encodes
I’d suggest that delayed encodes not be limited to Alternative publications. If a Standard publication is otherwise ready to go aside from an encode, i think it should also be published with temp encodes and an ‘official encode forthcoming’ approach. I do agree that Standard should be a priority, but that is a subjective stance based on personal opinion that i wouldn’t throw a fit about if things went another way.
InputEvelution
She/Her
Editor, Reviewer, Player (36)
Joined: 3/27/2018
Posts: 194
Location: Australia
Everything about this proposal as it stands sounds good to me! I have no complaints.
adelikat
He/Him
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player (3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I fully support this proposal! I just want to add that a change we will make is to track publications in need of an official encode, so they do not get lost in the shuffle.
It's hard to look this good. My TAS projects
Reviewer, Experienced player (920)
Joined: 11/18/2011
Posts: 313
Location: Morocco
I also agree with this proposal. It will surely make publication process a lot more smoother, and will help getting runs more noticeable. TVC already states when a run was originally published, thus delaying an official encode doesn't affect the timing at all.
I still learn more about English. https://www.youtube.com/user/McBobX100
I wrote:
Working is the best way to achieve goals in speedruning. Hardworking is a pain.
Experienced player (704)
Joined: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1799
Location: Brasil
it looks a step in the right direction a question: given the new format, will this be insta accepted after it's sync verified? this is more or less what i expect from the site: https://tasvideos.org/9271S
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto. 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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
Entertainment was the main factor in the old days because the goal was establishing this hobby as an art form, while also attracting people by showing them the best part of the hobby. It persisted and worked for a bunch of years because it was a maintainable requirement while there was still a bunch of people who've recently learned about speedrun and TAS, and things looked novel, and the forum was active. Vault was introduced as a brilliant idea that solves the gatekeeping, because now almost anything (or so it felt back then) can be published, as long as X, Y, and Z. Without X, Y, and Z, it really looked unmaintainable, so there were still rather strict requirements. But games themselves were now treated with much more respect. It's hard to tell why or how, but over the decade of hard feedback dependency for every submission (to decide on its tier) people stopped getting so shocked by every new submission, and stopped posting as much. It's not due to Discord, because we've had an IRC chat for ages and the forum was still fine. My theory is that the hobby did finally establish itself as some cool and known thing. TASBot team's effort played a huge role IMO, also RTA runners got insanely good and kept replicating TAS strats for a decade, so there finally was some nice synergy between the 2 hobbies. But yeah, people got universally used to TAS, it stopped being as jaw-dropping mind-blowing, aside from a few exceptions every year. But conservative nature of our policies for the first 1.5 decades led us to believe entertainment still makes sense as a deciding factor in general. Sure we realized it can't be used at all anymore for every single submission like before. So we introduced a class where it would not be relevant, and everyone loved it and it was awesome. But indeed we ended up just shifting the goalpost, because of all the years of the previous history. Certain aspects of that old history led to policies being almost impossible to change even if judges want it. So we got used to minimalist changes that require overkill arguments in order to happen. We got used to only evolving slowly and painfully. At the start of 2021 I got burnt out from that and realized that site evolution does not have to be so fucking hard. So we kept believing that entertainment has to be the main factor for fundamentally non-standard categories like playarounds, because if they are not entertaining then how do we even have any kind of rules anymore? We'd be an "anything goes" site and eventually drown in questionable content. So we kept being gradual, came up with the class system, added Playground. And then in addition to nobody posting feedback anymore, we found out that overwhelming majority of submissions have standard goals. Sure the Standard class still has to keep expanding to account for those de-facto standard goals. But its sole purpose now is slow expansion until it can't anymore. And the first new standard goal that we added was really hard to agree on, but then everything else was quite smooth, because it all originated from fundamental explicit in-game options. But yeah, even if we start accepting literally all goals now, it won't mean that we'll instantly get 50 times more submissions every day and finally drown in the queue processing hell. People who are already around will just maybe switch to something that they couldn't submit before and submit something different instead. On the other hand, movies that require unrejection become a problem, because there'd now be a ton of them. But IMO attracting more helpers in general should help with rejudging them, and simplifying the publication process when needed should help finalizing them. The community needs to learn that without their involvement the site will die. So yeah, even if we wanted to rely on entertainment, reality ridiculed that intent and made it impossible to keep relying on it in anything important. It has to be retired. Yet I'm not sure if PG and Alt need to literally merge. There are still lots of rules for all publications that apply to Alt but not to PG. The latter is as close to "anything goes" as we could get, but I feel it'd be wiser to retire Alt rules one by one like we move around goals from Alt to Standard upon agreement. Game completion feels like an example of publication requirements (even if the goal is to only complete one segment, then it'd have to complete that segment). Or emulation being decent, like what if a game just crashes at level 3 due to unreleased emulatrion core in bizhawk, yet PG doesn't demand approved emulators. Or what if we can't get any audio out of the game, not even through screen capture? Impossible BIOS/region setups and all sorts of hacked environments? Bad ROMs? Stray savestate anchors? Relying on 10 dependencies that have to be compiled and hosted by staff? IMO it needs to be gradual, but yeah the entertainment factor has to go.
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.
Reviewer, Experienced player (920)
Joined: 11/18/2011
Posts: 313
Location: Morocco
feos wrote:
It's hard to tell why or how, but over the decade of hard feedback dependency for every submission (to decide on its tier) people stopped getting so shocked by every new submission, and stopped posting as much. It's not due to Discord, because we've had an IRC chat for ages and the forum was still fine. My theory is that the hobby did finally establish itself as some cool and known thing. TASBot team's effort played a huge role IMO, also RTA runners got insanely good and kept replicating TAS strats for a decade, so there finally was some nice synergy between the 2 hobbies. But yeah, people got universally used to TAS, it stopped being as jaw-dropping mind-blowing, aside from a few exceptions every year.
That is something has to happen I guess. Like you said, there is just no one to blame here. While TASing is an awesome hobby, the fact that it is getting more and more popular and people seeing such content more frequently, they will just get used to it as a normal thing, and that could one of the reasons why we have less activity in submissions. However, entertainment still important, as seeing a game being broken time to time or moves at a high speed makes people enjoy that game in a different way. I would say that relying on entertainment alone is not too wise, but it at least should be mentioned. Also, people change, and TASing is not exclusive to OG people. New speedrunning enthusiasts might want to explore the site, like we all did more than a decade ago, and they should find awesome content still :)
I still learn more about English. https://www.youtube.com/user/McBobX100
I wrote:
Working is the best way to achieve goals in speedruning. Hardworking is a pain.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
McBobX wrote:
feos wrote:
It's hard to tell why or how, but over the decade of hard feedback dependency for every submission (to decide on its tier) people stopped getting so shocked by every new submission, and stopped posting as much. It's not due to Discord, because we've had an IRC chat for ages and the forum was still fine. My theory is that the hobby did finally establish itself as some cool and known thing. TASBot team's effort played a huge role IMO, also RTA runners got insanely good and kept replicating TAS strats for a decade, so there finally was some nice synergy between the 2 hobbies. But yeah, people got universally used to TAS, it stopped being as jaw-dropping mind-blowing, aside from a few exceptions every year.
That is something has to happen I guess. Like you said, there is just no one to blame here. While TASing is an awesome hobby, the fact that it is getting more and more popular and people seeing such content more frequently, they will just get used to it as a normal thing, and that could one of the reasons why we have less activity in submissions. However, entertainment still important, as seeing a game being broken time to time or moves at a high speed makes people enjoy that game in a different way. I would say that relying on entertainment alone is not too wise, but it at least should be mentioned. Also, people change, and TASing is not exclusive to OG people. New speedrunning enthusiasts might want to explore the site, like we all did more than a decade ago, and they should find awesome content still :)
We’re not advocating for removing entertainment from TASing. We’re advocating for removing entertainment as being a requirement for publication. There will still be entertainment to be found here. In fact, the proposed changes will allow more stuff to get get published that some people might find entertaining even if the majority of viewers wouldn’t. In a way it is actually expanding opportunity for people to find things that they will find entertaining.
Post subject: Wait, we need to talk about playarounds
Samsara
She/They
Senior Judge, Site Admin, Expert player (2238)
Joined: 11/13/2006
Posts: 2822
Location: Northern California
I know I said in the OP that I wasn't really looking to discuss specifics, but I had a thought earlier and I think it needs to be addressed: Playarounds. In theory, without any entertainment requirements whatsoever, every single publishable game could have a playaround run. While I don't usually like saying "there's a chance we could get flooded so let's nip it in the bud early", I'm wondering if it's actually viable to remove what is essentially the sole factor of curation on the playaround branch, i.e runs that are inherently created to be pure entertainment showcases. Is this actually going to be a problem for us? Are we actually going to have people try and sneak Desert Bus playarounds through? Is it still worth curating things in that regard or would that defeat the purpose of the proposal? How would playarounds be obsoleted? Would it even be worth doing so? I'm honestly on the fence about all of this, since there isn't really a clean way of handling it. Removing playaround curation kinda ruins the point of the branch, as theoretically any run of any game can be published regardless of entertainment, but keeping curation ruins the point of the proposal, as we would still be judging runs on entertainment. That being said, however, I think a middle ground approach works well: I don't think we can completely remove playaround curation, but we don't have to keep the standards as high as they are currently, i.e caring less about obsoletions and comparisons. For example, I wouldn't see an issue with un-obsoleting Pokemon "Pi day" and having it alongside Pokemon "actually 5 other games", as even though they use the same setup method, they are completely different approaches to the playaround itself, but I'd be more hesitant with a theoretical third branch of something like "Tau day" or "actually 5 different other games". In other words, we don't have to limit playarounds to a single branch per game, but we'd still make sure they're all sufficiently different enough from each other. Obsoletions can still happen if two playarounds are similar enough to be compared, but we would no longer compare ALL of a game's playarounds to each other and leave just one published. As for "any game could have a playaround now", I don't really think there's a middle ground approach. For our sanity, I think we need to keep some form of entertainment curation there, because as I mentioned earlier the entire point of the playaround branch is ruined if it isn't curated that way. If our objective is to encourage creativity, telling people they no longer need to be creative in playarounds is absolutely the wrong way of going about it. Technically, any game COULD still have a playaround, there's still just a bar to reach. I wouldn't mind if we as a community could lower that bar a bit, of course, but I think it should still be there in order for playarounds to mean something. Does this actually work, though? Is there a better compromise solution, or should we just not try to compromise at all here?
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 Bluesky
warmCabin wrote:
You shouldn't need a degree in computer science to get into this hobby.
Darkman425
He/They
Editor, Judge, Skilled player (1290)
Joined: 9/19/2021
Posts: 263
Location: Texas
Playaround TASes are definitely something that feels like needing to vet for entertainment as usually that's the entire point of them. If they fail to entertain in any way then that kind of defeats the whole point of the playaround's goal. The tricky part is if it's meant to entertain a niche audience rather than a broader one.
Switch friend code: SW-2632-3851-3712
Reviewer, Experienced player (920)
Joined: 11/18/2011
Posts: 313
Location: Morocco
I second what Darkman said. Playarounds conceptually aim at entertaining the audience, and as a result, time isn't a major factor, which what other classes aim for generally. Also, if a run aims for entertainment, then it will judged based on how much it is entertaining, otherwise, to stay within the proposal scope, entertainment will ignored and thus judged the way it is intended to be. Thus, it won't hurt the goal of this proposal. Actually, playaround isn't very common, like you would get a run or two in a year maybe, and mostly in fighting games, or a compilation of glitches here and there in a certain game, and that wouldn't affect judgement smoothness a lot imo.
I still learn more about English. https://www.youtube.com/user/McBobX100
I wrote:
Working is the best way to achieve goals in speedruning. Hardworking is a pain.
DrD2k9
He/Him
Editor, Judge, Expert player (2213)
Joined: 8/21/2016
Posts: 1090
Location: US
Our submissions system has a line for “goal” which is usually baseline/any %, full completion, max score, etc. The purpose of most goals is to beat the game with whatever condition is included in the “goal” of the TAS, so runs are judged according to the goal. As the purpose of a “playaround” goal is entertainment, then judging the run based on the goal (as we would do with every other submission) requires judging a playaround run from a standpoint of entertainment.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
DrD2k9 wrote:
Our submissions system has a line for “goal” which is usually baseline/any %, full completion, max score, etc. The purpose of most goals is to beat the game with whatever condition is included in the “goal” of the TAS, so runs are judged according to the goal. As the purpose of a “playaround” goal is entertainment, then judging the run based on the goal (as we would do with every other submission) requires judging a playaround run from a standpoint of entertainment.
Yeah this is what I wanted to say too. Alt still wants goals to be meaningful, and the only meaning of a playaround is entertainment. On the other hand, we've established that entertainment feedback is a poor metric. Some people may get border, others (on Discord on Youtube) may love it. As long as there are people who love it, I agree that it should be acceptable. But it's hard to make such an assessment in certain cases. For example entertainment feedback to Prof Oak Challenge was overwhelmingly negative, which made us question the whole value of entertainment feedback. Won't we also question things when some playaround that looks different from regular branches, still collects overwhelmingly negative feedback on the site? Maybe we need to add some extra guidelines that help determine entertainment value of a playaround, not just immediate feedback on the forum. One of important aspects is "variety needs to be attempted". Sure they'd remain subjective, but I think it's a case where we'll be able to collectively assess art regarding its artistic values.
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.
OceanBagel
He/Him
Player (193)
Joined: 8/18/2020
Posts: 27
I personally think it makes sense to judge playarounds for entertainment in the same sense as speedruns are judged for time optimization. If a playaround is submitted and it's just a bunch of standard gameplay with nothing interesting or entertaining, that seems like something that shouldn't be accepted to me, and without criteria to judge playarounds based on entertainment, there wouldn't be a good reason that could be pointed to for such a rejection. It also makes sense to have multiple playaround branches when applicable. Otherwise, once a sufficiently entertaining movie is accepted, no other attempted playaround submissions could be accepted even if they'd stand on their own. I agree that the criteria between such branches would be that they're sufficiently different from each other, and that naturally would lead to people either wanting to differentiate their playaround or wanting to improve upon the existing one. The way I'd like to see it would be like this:
  • Does the author describe the submission as a playaround or otherwise make it clear it's not aiming for speed? If yes:
  • Does the movie make a clear attempt to be entertaining? If yes:
  • Is the movie largely similar to an existing playaround branch?
  • If yes, is the movie more entertaining than the existing similar branch, based on subjective feedback from those familiar with both playarounds? If no, is the movie entertaining to some portion of the audience (members of that game's community, TASVideos forum users, discord users, Youtube comments)?
  • Accept or reject based on the above answers
The main difference from the current way entertainment is judged is lowering the bar from just "entertainment value to the users [...] assessed via votes, comments, and views" to "entertaining to some portion of the audience". This would mean some playarounds that appeal to only certain groups of people (such as highly technical playarounds that aren't as visually spectacular) could still be accepted even if a majority of people aren't entertained, as long as there's still a subgroup of the audience that enjoys it. And then if no portion of the audience seems to enjoy it, that's when it's rejected for not being entertaining (or possibly sent to Playground if it's still technically sound). This also allows easier rejection of clearly not at all entertaining playarounds such as the Desert Bus playaround example, since if it's clear there wasn't even an attempt at entertainment then there's no sense having to wait around and make people watch it just to tell you what you can already see.
Reviewer, Experienced player (920)
Joined: 11/18/2011
Posts: 313
Location: Morocco
Regarding Alt, is it now okay if a game has so many categories? Because I remember that we were cautious about that, as accepting some (arbitrary) goals might increase the number of categories unnecessarily, but in some cases, a game might have many interesting goals.
I still learn more about English. https://www.youtube.com/user/McBobX100
I wrote:
Working is the best way to achieve goals in speedruning. Hardworking is a pain.
Experienced player (704)
Joined: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1799
Location: Brasil
Does that mean the site can finally publish the Garou Playaround https://tasvideos.org/5205S or is the pokemon living dex TAS being published not enough disregard for entertainment value to make actual players of a game determinant of the playaround value instead of the randos on the net? This TAS used to have a lot of positive comments before the player took the video down.
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto. 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.
Site Admin, Skilled player (1254)
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11475
Location: Lake Char­gogg­a­gogg­man­chaugg­a­gogg­chau­bun­a­gung­a­maugg
McBobX wrote:
Regarding Alt, is it now okay if a game has so many categories? Because I remember that we were cautious about that, as accepting some (arbitrary) goals might increase the number of categories unnecessarily, but in some cases, a game might have many interesting goals.
Any limit on arbitrary numbers and goals would also be arbitrary. And still even for goals that are not entertaining, they'd still need to differ from all other goals in some more or less obvious way. When we have too many similar goals for a given game, we may obsolete some of them based on consensus.
KusogeMan wrote:
Does that mean the site can finally publish the Garou Playaround https://tasvideos.org/5205S or is the pokemon living dex TAS being published not enough disregard for entertainment value to make actual players of a game determinant of the playaround value instead of the randos on the net? This TAS used to have a lot of positive comments before the player took the video down.
New entertainment requirements for playarounds will definitely be different. If the movie has lots of variety, it should be fine to accept. If someone encodes it we may unreject it right away.
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.
Experienced player (704)
Joined: 2/5/2012
Posts: 1799
Location: Brasil
feos wrote:
McBobX wrote:
Regarding Alt, is it now okay if a game has so many categories? Because I remember that we were cautious about that, as accepting some (arbitrary) goals might increase the number of categories unnecessarily, but in some cases, a game might have many interesting goals.
Any limit on arbitrary numbers and goals would also be arbitrary. And still even for goals that are not entertaining, they'd still need to differ from all other goals in some more or less obvious way. When we have too many similar goals for a given game, we may obsolete some of them based on consensus.
KusogeMan wrote:
Does that mean the site can finally publish the Garou Playaround https://tasvideos.org/5205S or is the pokemon living dex TAS being published not enough disregard for entertainment value to make actual players of a game determinant of the playaround value instead of the randos on the net? This TAS used to have a lot of positive comments before the player took the video down.
New entertainment requirements for playarounds will definitely be different. If the movie has lots of variety, it should be fine to accept. If someone encodes it we may unreject it right away.
Link to video
I want all good TAS inside TASvideos, it's my motto. 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.
Editor, Expert player (2073)
Joined: 6/15/2005
Posts: 3282
Samsara (from News feed) wrote:
It took until last month, two and a half years after Playground was drafted, for us to show those runs on game pages. We completely dropped the ball on it. Part of that I think was due to lack of interest across... Everyone on the site, really.
Considering that the news post this quote is from is the first and so far only news post to mention "Playground" at all... I wasn't even sure whether "Playground" was supposed to be taken seriously. It just came across as no one having any idea of what it was ultimately supposed to be.