the thing is that i don't care whether it's descriptive or not. i care about the reaction people have when they see it.
Emu Rape worked extremely well to that effect.
Archived M2K2 Forum
PAGE BREAKER
Ready and willing.
This went a bit better than expected.
Honestly, 13M13, I don't think very many people KNOW that emulators can do this stuff unless they already know what TASes are, so that's worthless. It just makes people think that maybe they used a few save states or something, and maybe some turbo fire. TAS is much better because it's like, dude, what's this abbreviation. Tool may be vague, but that's kind of an advantage, as it leads to investigation. Go pursuit of knowledge!
Anyway, the two big weak spots here are:
1) as Izo pointed out, making big assumptions about what people want is always inheritely dangerous. If I was forced to guess, I'd lean with your first statement, that most people would think it is cheating. But not only is it hard to predict human nature, it's even harder to convince others that your predictions are valid.
2) SBing. You relegate this to a footnote, but it's pretty damn important. You gloss over the difference you have which is your one hope of resolving the problem. You say that it's accepted by "their" audience. Well, the TASers can say the same thing. Now... I couldn't say at all whether "most" people would consider it cheating; I don't really have anywhere to lean at all. But seriously, you're going to get REALLY hammered here with people insisting that most people would consider that cheating. (You say that it doesn't use outside assistance, but that TAS's do doesn't factor into your descriptions anywhere else at all.) And then you get forced into the untenable postion of proving that most people don't think it's cheating.
Honestly, I think 2 sinks your argument as stands, unless you bolster it.
Honestly, 13M13, I don't think very many people KNOW that emulators can do this stuff unless they already know what TASes are, so that's worthless. It just makes people think that maybe they used a few save states or something, and maybe some turbo fire. TAS is much better because it's like, dude, what's this abbreviation. Tool may be vague, but that's kind of an advantage, as it leads to investigation. Go pursuit of knowledge!
Anyway, the two big weak spots here are:
1) as Izo pointed out, making big assumptions about what people want is always inheritely dangerous. If I was forced to guess, I'd lean with your first statement, that most people would think it is cheating. But not only is it hard to predict human nature, it's even harder to convince others that your predictions are valid.
2) SBing. You relegate this to a footnote, but it's pretty damn important. You gloss over the difference you have which is your one hope of resolving the problem. You say that it's accepted by "their" audience. Well, the TASers can say the same thing. Now... I couldn't say at all whether "most" people would consider it cheating; I don't really have anywhere to lean at all. But seriously, you're going to get REALLY hammered here with people insisting that most people would consider that cheating. (You say that it doesn't use outside assistance, but that TAS's do doesn't factor into your descriptions anywhere else at all.) And then you get forced into the untenable postion of proving that most people don't think it's cheating.
Honestly, I think 2 sinks your argument as stands, unless you bolster it.
Quote from Yoshi348:
1) as Izo pointed out, making big assumptions about what people want is always inheritely dangerous. If I was forced to guess, I'd lean with your first statement, that most people would think it is cheating. But not only is it hard to predict human nature, it's even harder to convince others that your predictions are valid.
don't need to predict or prove anything. the evidence is all around; someone already posted another example in addition to the token one i gave in [1]. anyone who has been around speed runs for any length of time has seen this problem in action.
Quote from Yoshi348:
2) SBing. You relegate this to a footnote, but it's pretty damn important. You gloss over the difference you have which is your one hope of resolving the problem. You say that it's accepted by "their" audience. Well, the TASers can say the same thing. Now... I couldn't say at all whether "most" people would consider it cheating; I don't really have anywhere to lean at all. But seriously, you're going to get REALLY hammered here with people insisting that most people would consider that cheating. (You say that it doesn't use outside assistance, but that TAS's do doesn't factor into your descriptions anywhere else at all.) And then you get forced into the untenable postion of proving that most people don't think it's cheating.
Honestly, I think 2 sinks your argument as stands, unless you bolster it.
Honestly, I think 2 sinks your argument as stands, unless you bolster it.
argument is built on majority versus minority standpoints, not on what defines tas. what defines tas is that it is a minority. that's why sequence breaking was footnoted. basically, all i'm saying is that our products should be labeled in such a way that the majority of people will not be deceived (believe something that is inaccurate).
l'appel du vide
Quote from Yoshi348:
Honestly, 13M13, I don't think very many people KNOW that emulators can do this stuff unless they already know what TASes are, so that's worthless. It just makes people think that maybe they used a few save states or something, and maybe some turbo fire. TAS is much better because it's like, dude, what's this abbreviation. Tool may be vague, but that's kind of an advantage, as it leads to investigation...
...which leads to an emulator. EAS...dude, what's this abbreviation. I'm not saying this is the solution to the "problem"...it's just a natural extension of the current term.
PAGE BREAKER
Ready and willing.
Yay, 2 for 2 on missing my true point.
Nate: My point on 2 was: can you prove that people who think sequence breaking is okay are the majority? If you can't, people will turn the argument around on you and demand you label sequence breaking videos as cheated.
BUT, I just thought of something... it's pretty damn obvious when you sequence break. Now, on the one hand, one would think it'd be obvious that a TAS is not humanly possible unless it's a sloppy TAS, but we know that is indeed false. On the other hand, something tells me that sequence breaking is MORE obvious, most of the time, at least to people who've played the game.
13M13: If you just say emulator, people will just think you played on an emulator, and maybe used a save state or two, and stop there. A far cry from what actually happened. On the other hand, I doubt most people able to define TAS would just describe it as simply being on an emulator.
Nate: My point on 2 was: can you prove that people who think sequence breaking is okay are the majority? If you can't, people will turn the argument around on you and demand you label sequence breaking videos as cheated.
BUT, I just thought of something... it's pretty damn obvious when you sequence break. Now, on the one hand, one would think it'd be obvious that a TAS is not humanly possible unless it's a sloppy TAS, but we know that is indeed false. On the other hand, something tells me that sequence breaking is MORE obvious, most of the time, at least to people who've played the game.
13M13: If you just say emulator, people will just think you played on an emulator, and maybe used a save state or two, and stop there. A far cry from what actually happened. On the other hand, I doubt most people able to define TAS would just describe it as simply being on an emulator.
red chamber dream
13M13, the point is that we're trying to get away from using just "TAS" or "EAS" or whatever to describe a cyborg run. We want something to be put on the video itself that clearly gives the viewer a sense of what the video is about. "Cheated" is the perfect word for this situation.
in the name of justice!
okay, quite honestly, i fail to see how this is any different from the situation we had in december, from your point of view. from my perspective, quite a bit has changed. this doesn't affect me at all, really, as i don't care what my run is labeled and it'll probably finish in 20 years (at my current rate of one level per 2 months).
based on the way they describe themselves, i see three possibilities of what's going on.
1. they're not tricking anybody
2. they honestly believe they're not tricking anybody
3. they know they're tricking people but pretend that they're not
actually, i don't really believe that any of those are the case, so perhaps there are more than three possibilities.
there have been acknowledgements, as i recall, that there is such a problem as you describe. yes, they are reluctant to actively deal with this problem, beyond the disclaimer and the prohibition of site material from youtube. not to be rude or disrespectful or anything, but i don't see how they could be convinced that you're not really "out to get them" or change anything about the situation.
based on the way they describe themselves, i see three possibilities of what's going on.
1. they're not tricking anybody
2. they honestly believe they're not tricking anybody
3. they know they're tricking people but pretend that they're not
actually, i don't really believe that any of those are the case, so perhaps there are more than three possibilities.
there have been acknowledgements, as i recall, that there is such a problem as you describe. yes, they are reluctant to actively deal with this problem, beyond the disclaimer and the prohibition of site material from youtube. not to be rude or disrespectful or anything, but i don't see how they could be convinced that you're not really "out to get them" or change anything about the situation.
I('d) like to watch (some MP3 runs)
In b4 the craziness. I've read the thing a few weeks ago. I still think "optimal gameplay demo" with "frame by frame" thrown in somewhere is a better term than something that uses "speedrun" while trying to differentiate from something that uses the exact same word as its description. That is where the confusion still comes from, imo. First it was a lack of saying what was going on, now it's still linking to a url in a video player that no one is likely going to pause a video for the short time it is shown and type it up and just watch the video instead.
l'appel du vide
Quote from Arkarian:
13M13, the point is that we're trying to get away from using just "TAS" or "EAS" or whatever to describe a cyborg run. We want something to be put on the video itself that clearly gives the viewer a sense of what the video is about. "Cheated" is the perfect word for this situation.
For you, perhaps. For them? Absolutely not.
l'appel du vide
http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/CheatFAQ.html
They already have. Why would they choose to label their work with a term that may look belittling. How do you think the general public will respond to them being described as cheaters? And so we go from a(n arguably) vague term to a derogatory term...why should they accept the latter?
They already have. Why would they choose to label their work with a term that may look belittling. How do you think the general public will respond to them being described as cheaters? And so we go from a(n arguably) vague term to a derogatory term...why should they accept the latter?
l'appel du vide
Quote from nate:
from http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/CheatFAQ.html:
basically looks like they don't want to self-label "cheated" because it's their perspective (we aren't cheaters). this label is not for them though - it's for the person watching the video, putting the audience first, etc.
Quote:
Arguably, we do cheat the games. The games have been programmed assuming that the player is a human who has humanly limits. We surpass those limits with tool-assistance.
For example, there are very few humans who can produce a 30 Hz autofire by rapidly bashing the B button, but in tool-assistance, it's trivial to do that.
We also abuse many programming errors in the games.
But we don't cheat the audience. The makers of tool-assisted speedruns are very open at how they've made the movies. There certainly is no deceiving taking part. (We can't help people who just don't read.)
As for rules, tool-assisted speedruns fall under the rules of tool-assisted speedruns, not under the rules of non-assisted speedruns.
Tool-assisted runs are different from regular speedruns. The purpose is different and there is no competition between these two different kinds of runs, so the set of rules does not have to be the same.
We try to keep the difference minimal. For example, our rules dictate that the movies we make must be of non-modified games. We don't crack and hack the games. Basically, the only thing we do is produce unexpected kind of input to the real games, as if a god were playing the game.
For example, there are very few humans who can produce a 30 Hz autofire by rapidly bashing the B button, but in tool-assistance, it's trivial to do that.
We also abuse many programming errors in the games.
But we don't cheat the audience. The makers of tool-assisted speedruns are very open at how they've made the movies. There certainly is no deceiving taking part. (We can't help people who just don't read.)
As for rules, tool-assisted speedruns fall under the rules of tool-assisted speedruns, not under the rules of non-assisted speedruns.
Tool-assisted runs are different from regular speedruns. The purpose is different and there is no competition between these two different kinds of runs, so the set of rules does not have to be the same.
We try to keep the difference minimal. For example, our rules dictate that the movies we make must be of non-modified games. We don't crack and hack the games. Basically, the only thing we do is produce unexpected kind of input to the real games, as if a god were playing the game.
basically looks like they don't want to self-label "cheated" because it's their perspective (we aren't cheaters). this label is not for them though - it's for the person watching the video, putting the audience first, etc.
Allow me to reiterate...
Quote:
But we don't cheat the audience. The makers of tool-assisted speedruns are very open at how they've made the movies. There certainly is no deceiving taking part. (We can't help people who just don't read.)
How are they not putting the audience first?
Wow, I have a lot to say about it.
I'll provide more, but I'll just say that we must consider those two points IMO :
-If they are making TAS only for entertainment purposes, so why showing the final time? Oftenly TASers came to say "my run is *time* faster than this one". It shows that that TAS is meant to be a speedrun, which is somehow not the goal they're supposed to follow. If it were looking for the best time ever, then why shouldn't it be considered as some kind of demo, like something not official (The time IS NOT official, the WR real-time is official).
- We search here for a name somehow that asks for player reaction, for the player is not reacting when he sees the TAS message before a video. I think we should also look for a compromise between TAS community and real-time player community, for if not they would never accept the word "cheated" no matter how "thought" would be that idea. If we ask for TASers' agreement, then things would get okay right? Just some kind of utopia, but we'll look for a situation the closest to it. Let's say that in a TAS you see "That TAS/cyborg/whatever is not made on real-time conditions.", it's actually the softest thing I've managed to find, for it is true and asks for player's reaction.
I made this quickey quickey so correct me if I'm wrong.
I'll provide more, but I'll just say that we must consider those two points IMO :
-If they are making TAS only for entertainment purposes, so why showing the final time? Oftenly TASers came to say "my run is *time* faster than this one". It shows that that TAS is meant to be a speedrun, which is somehow not the goal they're supposed to follow. If it were looking for the best time ever, then why shouldn't it be considered as some kind of demo, like something not official (The time IS NOT official, the WR real-time is official).
- We search here for a name somehow that asks for player reaction, for the player is not reacting when he sees the TAS message before a video. I think we should also look for a compromise between TAS community and real-time player community, for if not they would never accept the word "cheated" no matter how "thought" would be that idea. If we ask for TASers' agreement, then things would get okay right? Just some kind of utopia, but we'll look for a situation the closest to it. Let's say that in a TAS you see "That TAS/cyborg/whatever is not made on real-time conditions.", it's actually the softest thing I've managed to find, for it is true and asks for player's reaction.
I made this quickey quickey so correct me if I'm wrong.
Quote from 13M13:
How are they not putting the audience first?
l'appel du vide
Quote from Qlex:
If they are making TAS only for entertainment purposes, so why showing the final time? Oftenly TASers came to say "my run is *time* faster than this one". It shows that that TAS is meant to be a speedrun, which is somehow not the goal they're supposed to follow. If it were looking for the best time ever, then why shouldn't it be considered as some kind of demo, like something not official (The time IS NOT official, the WR real-time is official).
Because they are speedruns. In the vast majority of cases, if I create a run that is faster than yours, it is replaced...and my run becomes the official tool-assisted time.
There may be exceptions, of course, but in general...
Quote from http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/WhyAndHow.html:
we value creativity, variability, surprising outcomes, and speed.
Quote from http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/Guidelines.html:
Be quick.
--Never wait for anything unless it is absolutely necessary.
--Compare different paths and select the one that can be done fastest.
--If you have to stop to kill an enemy, find a way to kill the enemy without stopping your movement.
--If taking damage slows you down, do not take damage. Avoid the enemy. Luck-manipulate the enemy into nothingness!
--If avoiding an enemy costs you time, take damage!
--Whichever way you decide -- taking or not taking damage -- be consistent in your decision.
--If enemies cause the game to lag, kill them before it is too late.
--Never wait for anything unless it is absolutely necessary.
--Compare different paths and select the one that can be done fastest.
--If you have to stop to kill an enemy, find a way to kill the enemy without stopping your movement.
--If taking damage slows you down, do not take damage. Avoid the enemy. Luck-manipulate the enemy into nothingness!
--If avoiding an enemy costs you time, take damage!
--Whichever way you decide -- taking or not taking damage -- be consistent in your decision.
--If enemies cause the game to lag, kill them before it is too late.
Quote from BlueGlass:
I think a good way would be to have a message that pops up periodically throughout the video saying something along the lines of "This video was made with the use of the savestate and slowdown features found on many emulators. It was not played by a human in real time." Also, they really should remove the word speedrun from the title.
You've got to be kiddin' me...
it looks like the primary disconnect here is in why the label "cheated" is better than the status quo. the answer is simple: it will solve the problem that occurs when someone sees a tas video and does not understand what it is, then spreads that ignorance to the people around him or her.
this same result might be achieved through educating every man, woman and child on this planet about what tas is. this same result might be achieved by putting up even more signs pointing to a distant, lengthy and layman-unfriendly description of what tas is and is not. but i contend that applying that single word to every tas video will be much more effective than either of those courses of action. it's also much easier to implement.
basically what you are seeing here is the minority making excuses because they don't want to face up to the reality of the situation. and because there is no one there making them face up to it, they have no reason to change. blueglass in his above post puts it pretty well, i think, but i disagree with him when he says no one will watch tases anymore if "cheated" appears before they begin. d.fangs's fusion tas's success exemplifies this. i agree with 13m13 when he says that tases are considered speed runs (but see my first post in this topic for more on that). basically, in the eyes of the majority audience, tases are cheated speed runs, and therefore should be labeled as such.
How are they not putting the audience first?
why aren't they reaching out to the people who "just don't read"? i contend that putting the audience first means labeling things "cheated" so that everyone knows what they are seeing. anything less is negligent and self-serving.
that's really good, actually. not quite as concise or as potent as my suggestion, but i think that if it were done right, it would make a difference. maybe not as big a difference as my way, but sometimes we must take one step back in order to take two steps ahead.
this same result might be achieved through educating every man, woman and child on this planet about what tas is. this same result might be achieved by putting up even more signs pointing to a distant, lengthy and layman-unfriendly description of what tas is and is not. but i contend that applying that single word to every tas video will be much more effective than either of those courses of action. it's also much easier to implement.
basically what you are seeing here is the minority making excuses because they don't want to face up to the reality of the situation. and because there is no one there making them face up to it, they have no reason to change. blueglass in his above post puts it pretty well, i think, but i disagree with him when he says no one will watch tases anymore if "cheated" appears before they begin. d.fangs's fusion tas's success exemplifies this. i agree with 13m13 when he says that tases are considered speed runs (but see my first post in this topic for more on that). basically, in the eyes of the majority audience, tases are cheated speed runs, and therefore should be labeled as such.
Quote from 13M13:
Quote from nate:
from http://bisqwit.iki.fi/nesvideos/CheatFAQ.html:
Quote:
(We can't help people who just don't read.)
How are they not putting the audience first?
why aren't they reaching out to the people who "just don't read"? i contend that putting the audience first means labeling things "cheated" so that everyone knows what they are seeing. anything less is negligent and self-serving.
Quote from Qlex:
"That TAS/cyborg/whatever is not made on real-time conditions."
that's really good, actually. not quite as concise or as potent as my suggestion, but i think that if it were done right, it would make a difference. maybe not as big a difference as my way, but sometimes we must take one step back in order to take two steps ahead.
l'appel du vide
Quote from Nate:
basically what you are seeing here is the minority making excuses because they don't want to face up to the reality of the situation.
But I also see you (and others here) forcing a reality upon them that may or may not truly exist.
Quote:
why aren't they reaching out to the people who "just don't read"?
Maybe they don't care what those individuals think? Maybe they don't feel like serving the same audience that you do? Maybe their target audience does not consist of every single person who happens upon such runs?
I dunno...is that not a possibility...?
Cook of the Sea
Quote from nate:
why aren't they reaching out to the people who "just don't read"? i contend that putting the audience first means labeling things "cheated" so that everyone knows what they are seeing. anything less is negligent and self-serving.
Because one word is not "reaching out". One word says very little, and in this case the situation is more complex than the fact that the runs are made with external assistance. If all a person is willing to read is one word, they aren't worth reaching out to, because they would either be unable to understand the concepts at hand or they just wouldn't care.