Language…
4 users online:  Atari2.0, BabaYegha, sinseiga, Tsquare07 - Guests: 242 - Bots: 339
Users: 64,795 (2,375 active)
Latest user: mathew

The future of "very hard" hacks

Okay so, I just came back after unclaiming the n-th hack... pretty much because I couldn't stand its difficulty.
I was going to make plans about how to treat hacks that kinda break the "hard" field of difficulty. Think about JUMP, or Bits and Pieces: these are examples of hack that goes over the "hard" difficulty. At the same time, it's not considered "kaizo". As some tutorials point out, while in normal hacks you have a variety of paths to choose from, in kaizo hacks, you only have one possible path, and in that path, all the difficulty of the hack is focused (source).
In JUMP and Bits and Pieces, you have a variety of paths still, but they're all awfully hard to pass: may it be sprite spam (Bits and Pieces), extremly tricky gimmick (JUMP), and so on.

Why I'm making this announcement post? Well, the time to pick a decision has come, but the opinion of the whole staff isn't enough: I want your input about which one of these two options you'd be more lenient the most. Depending on the majority, and depending on your "why/why not", we'll finally put a defined line on how we should treat such kind of hack.
After all, who plays hacks the most? You, that's right! My aim is to make the hack section better for all of you players of smw hacks!
Let's go with the two options then.

Option 1: awfully hard hacks won't be allowed.

Again, think about JUMP and Bits and Pieces. If this option will be choosen, this kind of hack will be rejected in future (and the first one will be Bits and Pieces). JUMP will, instead, go trough the newer feature process again, and will be judged again for feature or not. If not, its featured status will be removed. We can't really reject the hack from the section, since it was accepted long ago, back to when Sixcorby was hack mod leader... but at the same time, we can't have an almost impossible-to-play hack featured: many hack makers will be confused, since they can potentially base their hack difficulty on something that awfully violates difficulty standards. And yes, I've seen similar episodes of this, so don't question how important a featured hack is for everyone, especially hack makers.
But yes, with this option, if the hack requires player to savestates spam, this factor will be considered major reason of rejection. The mod who will reject it will also state some examples of design flaws in his removal (extreme item babysitting? low ceilings? claustrophobic design? low reaction time? clusterfuck of sprites? etc..), as well as general tips about how to tone difficulty down (put more powerups? use switch palace blocks more often? etc..).

Pros:
- Faster and better moderation. Unfair hacks get rejected easily. The mod stops playing as soon as he feels like he savestated way too often.
- More design quality / less design flaws on the hacks in the hacks section.
(add more?..)
Cons:
- Those who look for insane hacks won't find much in the section... since we reject them.
(add more?..)

If you think this option will suit better, state why, and suggest which should be the factors that should make the hack mod lenient to a rejection (i.e. savestates abuse, etc..).

Option 2: add a "very hard" difficulty that identifies hacks that go insane, and be 90% more lenient to accept them.

This is the opposite of the first option. If this is choosen, hacks like JUMP and Bits and Pieces will be tagged as "Very Hard" or "Insane" or "<insert your suggestion here>", and will be normally accepted. Hacks tagged this way will also allow mods to use cheats in a fair amount during the moderation (for example, if there's a section you tried 10 times, and that you can't really pass because there are too many sprites to avoid, use a cheat that makes Mario permanently big). Obviously, savestates will also be a must for the mod who is moderating this kind of hack (not in a spammy way, but way more lenient than the first option).
Obviously, broken levels still won't be justified, and will be rejected. Example: you make a level that can't be beaten unless you use a Fire Mario cheat (and there are no Fire Flowers in the level in question, nor in the whole hack). If there's even one level that does that, the hack will be rejected.

Pros:
- People looking for an "inbetween kaizo and hard" hacks will be satisfied, since we now accept such kind of hack.
- Faster moderation here too, since if a section is too hard to pass, cheats and savestates can be used.
(add more..?)
Cons:
- Design flaws can be potentially mislooked. Mods will try avoiding to accept hacks with excessive flaws, but hacks tagged in the new way will happen to have one or two.
(add more?..)

Make sure to clearly state why this should be choosen instead of the other option.



That's all I had to say. I hope I was clear, sorry for any misunderstandings. Be sure to ask if there's something wrong with anything!
As hack team leader, I'm expecting you to post your thoughts so that I can organize my mind and see what we have to do with the difficulty factor in hacks. I'm welcoming other options too if they're valid, but I'd prefer you just stick on one of these two, along with your reasons.

Discuss.
Option 2. I'd rather we just put them on their own league rather than discard them entirely.

im lowkey expecting jesus to show up and rant about this announcement (i don't even mean this in a rude way)

HackPortsASM"Uploader"

Also going with option 2. As long as the design is fair, as in, no surprise hits, no unavoidable damage, no luck-based difficulty I see no reasons to reject them. Kaizo hacks, especially hard kaizos are usually harder than these hacks, so accepting kaizos but not very hard hacks would be contradictory.
I have always thought that hacks that were insanely difficult but not being kaizo were missing the point. A hard hack can be a great thing, sure, and we should certainly go further than Nintendo has in terms of difficulty. But at what point does it simply detract from the experience rather than add to it? Is the difficulty justifiable? I feel they appeal to a very niche audience already smaller than kaizo. Kaizo at-least make sense to me, since they have a comedy aspect to them - the designer is intentionally trying to screw you over. But insanely difficult hacks just led to incredibly frustrating design. I think a good level of measure is how difficult a hack would be compared to Mega Man, specifically Mega Man 2; if it's even more difficult than THAT, then something has gone wrong.

But I'm not a hack maker and am only starting to get my feet wet in game design. I don't feel I have the authority to speak about this. Option 2 therefore seems the best, ensuring that there is a disclaimer on them that their type of design is not encouraged.

- BMM
Option 2. except you just tag them as Kaizo Light instead of making a whole new category.
Like, Kaizo Light's definition is super hard with a ton of retries but doable without savestates right, that fits JUMP's latter half and Bits and Pieces pretty well.
Your layout has been removed.
Originally posted by Wakana
(for example, if there's a section you tried 10 times, and that you can't really pass because there are too many sprites to avoid, use a cheat that makes Mario permanently big)
This is the only part of this announcement that confuses me. If the mod reviewing the hack has to cheat because they can't get through it any other way, then what, is everybody else just supposed to assume it's possible? *mod's note: this one section i was unable to do until i cheated to be big mario permanently so you probably will have to as well.
I think that as a hack moderator it is crucial that you are able to beat the hack you're reviewing with the same limitations the player will have, and if you aren't sure if it's possible just get a second opinion or something.

Option 2 is the way to go, but if a hack requires some extensive retries and savestates and whatever else just make sure the mod includes it somewhere in the description to give people a better idea of that they're getting themselves into. For example if JUMP is going to try to be featured you could just add a note in the description about the difficulty curve and that it encourages savestates and whatnot (which im pretty sure mods already do anyways?)
ask me if i give a f*ck...
Option 2. I think that really hard hacks should still be accepted because they can be good. Not for everyone, but for those seeking challenges etc. Maybe some of those hacks will have too many flaws or simply impossible parts, and I know that the moderation team will be able to find and reject them on the spot.
If moderators have a hard time dealing with those hacks, why not leaving them to kaizo moderators? If you don't have enough of these, I'd recommend recuiting some. Skilled smw players who have the patience and time to deal with "very hard" hacks.
That or what you said, use save states and cheats if some parts truly are too difficult for you but still beatable. No one wants moderation to be slowed down by such things. I think "very hard" would be a fitting name for the category, if it becomes a thing.

Perhaps Leod is right, and that creating a new category isn't necessary. I have no clue as I never played Bits and Pieces or JUMP. Will it make things easier for the whole moderation team, or will it make them more ambiguous?
Option 2 seems like the most logical choice in my opinion. I mean come on, if we're going to accept kaizo hacks, then we might as well accept hacks that are very difficult, but easier than kaizo as well. It just seems ridiculous not to.
Formerly known as nick 139
My YouTube channel
Option 2. I think "Extreme" or "Very Hard" could work as the difficulty after "Hard".

I don't like the idea of tagging them "Kaizo: Light" because I feel that that difficulty suits specifically hacks that introduce the "Kaizo" difficulty itself to players that usually don't play these, Banzai Mario World being the first example that comes to my mind which was fun so far for someone that doesn't play Kaizo (e: I'm referring to me as the player).

These "Very Hard" hacks which may seem to cross the Kaizo borderline at times, but don't follow this difficulty entirely, shouldn't be tagged "Kaizo: Light". They're not the kind of hacks I'd be looking for if I, being a non-kaizo player, wanted to get start with the difficulty.
definitely against legitimate cheating. savestate and slowdown as you wish, but when you're enabling cheat codes in order to pass a part of a hack and it's the only feasible way you as the hack moderator can beat said part, there's probably an issue with the hack itself.
Originally posted by BlackMageMario
I think a good level of measure is how difficult a hack would be compared to Mega Man, specifically Mega Man 2; if it's even more difficult than THAT, then something has gone wrong.

I dunno, I find MM2 to be one of the easier MMs (alongside 5, 6 and 8)

Outside of the obvious parts that is (Heat Man's stage, the poorly designed nonsense that is Boobeam Trap)
HackPortsASM"Uploader"

I'd go for option 2 as well. Hard hacks that go beyond the average difficulty we're used to should still be accepted, with the obvious exception of when a certain level is broken such that the hack itself deserves to be rejected on the spot.
In JUMP's case, it begins like a normal hack at first and then it crosses the Kaizo territory way later, so a "very hard" category should suit it nicely. If we go by that, then the same logic could be applied to hacks like Bits and Pieces once this particular one gets accepted. Hacks such as the ones I mentioned shouldn't be labelled as light Kaizo hacks because they are not actual Kaizo hacks even though the difficulty seems suspicious upon reaching that point. We should also know very well at which point they become frustrating difficulty-wise for players who may not be used to those hacks if we give them a try.
Windowless ride, feeling alive
Are you alive or just breathing?
Wow! I just watched Dodechehedron beat JUMP in 18 hours. I myself can beat Manky Bridge and 1F8 within 10 minutes each. (of course, Depraved Stronghold is an exception and is more like a Bits and Pieces level. See below.) One really great thing about JUMP is its replayability. Sure, House of the Holy seemed daunting at first, but now I can beat the secret exit first try, and this game actually got me into speedrunning because of how fun it is. Weird that in the cons section, you talk about hacks with more design flaws. That's weird because many of the accepted hacks in the hacks section make me bored, which means it's poorly designed. The whole point of playing games is to have a lot of fun and take a break from the monotony of life, and JUMP is certainly very fun.

Many of these super-long "very hard" hacks also tend to be quite polished, and they will never make glaring design issues that you see in the "low-hanging fruit".

Bits and pieces on the other hand. Each "midway" takes either 5 minutes, an hour, two hours, a few days, or a month. I don't think this hack is kaizo. There are lots of ways to complete each level, even though each way is extremely long and precise. In actual kaizo levels, the author tries to lead you through just one way. This is the case in a few JUMP levels. (Shouldering On and Miscellaneous Monument come to mind.) But, JUMP is still not Kaizo: Light, as Hinalyte explained.

Wakana, it's also weird that you supposedly need some sort of cheat to beat the levels. I have been playing the hack SAVESTATELESS, and I am currently at 46 out of the 57 exits. Of course, I'm probably one of the only people up here, but cheating isn't required lol

Anyway, Option 2. Rejecting my most treasured, favorite hack that has inspired me so much in my own levels is ludicrous and cannot be allowed. Bits and Pieces, although poorly designed, does not deserve to be completely rejected from the site's hacks.
Like in the original staff topic my vote is for option 2 since it allows people the freedom to make harder hacks with the possibility of submitting it rather than having to silently host it in a file bin somewhere.
add a new difficulty rating. i think jump is a poorly designed hack but i guess people enjoy jump's schizophrenic difficulty curve and inconsistent level quality, so it would be unfair to people who enjoy that sort of thing.

but it's a whole different beast from something like super mario bros 2 - tough game, but it's playable without emulator tools or having an aneurysm. neither is it kaizo, it's not consistently frustrating enough. it's this weird middle ground that disqualifies it from being either.

very hard is a good name for the new rating imo
Just go with option 2.

I think it makes more sense, after all, if Kaizo is accepted anyway, why not accept these too? As long are they're not bad, it's all ok.

I prefer them over most Kaizo anyway.

That's probably why I find it way more fun to play games like that than Kaizo (in which I can only play the easier ones and still have fun, and when it's too hard that I can't even play at all, I have to watch TAS to entertain myself).

I think that's the main difference.

Anyway, I'd rather have Insane/Verd Hard than just not putting them in the site because they're hard without being Kaizo.

I generally like hardcore hacks that don't require you savestates, even if you can use them when you want, rather than literally requiring them all the time.
Originally posted by Y.Y.
rather than literally requiring them all the time


Clarification: Kaizo: Light usually does not REQUIRE savestates. Heck, even Snarly, the first stage of Cool or Cruel, can be beaten without savestates.
While I believe that option 1 is a major reason, considering that it makes hacks follow a 'tight' way instead of abusing features, such as cheats and savestates, it could potentitally disrupt the work of someone, while I don't agree much, in lights of that, Option 2 is what suits people most, especially regarding that if Kaizo is accepted, so should these. So that's my two cents.
Originally posted by ft029
Originally posted by Y.Y.
rather than literally requiring them all the time


Clarification: Kaizo: Light usually does not REQUIRE savestates. Heck, even Snarly, the first stage of Cool or Cruel, can be beaten without savestates.


That's true.
But when I say hardcore hacks, I really mean anything hard.
And when I say that I include Kaizo, I like Kaizo: Light, but the thing I said about savestates is really about anything that goes too abusive to be fun for a more regular player. Even if it's not Kaizo (Or that just use difficult and nothing else, but I was not being really clear).

In less words, this is the kind of hack I find fun, while anything too hard is only fun for me to watch.
For example, I love watching TAS of certain hacks that I can't even get through the first minutes.