I completely agree with you. I just had to exaggerate and hyperbolize the argument a bit to get someone as dull-witted as superjupi to (hopefully) comprehend it. I mentioned the reasons for what you listed in my first post in the topic.
Personally, while it's more boring for me as a viewer, I understand the situation, and feel that it is indeed unrealistic and overly demanding for every SDA speedrunner to adhere to such a system. Doing a quality real time speed run is already taxing enough.
Of course, like I said, it's ultimately about the entertainment. Which is why I enjoy this site more.
ShadowWraith wrote:
Also IronSlayer, Boco has a point because Warp also wrote about the skipping/ruining of cutscenes by the runners instead of leaving them in for people to watch. Though I don't know why she went on a tangent about game developers localisation rather than SDAs rules regarding cutscenes, there's no need to flame her about something that there's no need to be flaming her about. :)
Are you confusing me with Twelvepack? I didn't flame her, just mentioned that it seemed off-topic, and then offered a far lengthier focus about the causes for the issues Warp raised.
Of course, then a debil like superjupi had to jump into the mix. To superjupi: Boco is far more intelligent and articulate than you. I'm sure that if she wishes to respond, she'll do so.
You're not her Public Internet Defender.
I suggest you learn to read slowly and carefully, as you seem to get confused very easily, and don't understand what people are arguing.
You're right, I don't understand why it's imperative to argue over a passing comment about games in western society.
IronSlayer wrote:
It's okay. I'll try to make it as simple as possible for you, like I'm talking to a five year-old, which, let's face it, I probably am;
Twenty-five, but who's counting?
IronSlayer wrote:
Warp made an interesting post about the general lack of side-entertainment in SDA runs, and one issue he mentioned was the low graphic power on computers running newer games.
A valid comment, which was met with a response not my own, and I will thereby not defend.
IronSlayer wrote:
Methinks that's an issue related to motion-capture, (as ShadowWraith correctly pointed out) and playing on older computers, not the philosophical difference between Japanese and Western game designers.
Agreed. I don't think it was anyone's intention to instigate a philosophical debate on the merits of games from a cultural standpoint.
IronSlayer wrote:
And don't use the moronic excuse that it has to do with the available amount of entertainment, as game choice is a completely SEPARATE topic, and presumably has nothing to do with Warp's position at all. Hell, I mentioned how the 120 star Mario 64 run, one of my favorites on SDA, had very little side-entertainment in waited segments, and the reason why. Is that also because of those goddamn Western developers?
I'm not sure why you're attacking me for a view I did not personally express, but okay. The only view I've expressed so far was that lunging for someone's throat out of the blue typically isn't considered socially acceptable behavior. If you'd like to argue that point with me, feel free to do so. Not in this thread, obviously, as it's already been derailed without the two of us driving it off further.
IronSlayer wrote:
As for the ridiculous argument about disposable income for electronics, that's another red herring, because it's nothing more than an excuse.
It may not be an applicable argument in all cases, but it was offered as an explanation for the low graphics settings in SDA movies of PC games. But again, this was not a point that I myself made.
IronSlayer wrote:
I can play the same game;
"HEY GUYS!!! THIS SPEEDRUNNER CAN ONLY RECORD HIS RUNS BY SHOOTING IT ON A SHITTY, MID 90's CAMERA!!! LET'S NOT DISCRIMINATE AGAINST HIM BECAUSE HE'S POOR, AND ACCEPT THE RUN ANYWAYS!!!!"
I don't give a fuck. I want to be entertained. Make an effort to get a computer that can do the graphics of a game justice, because I agree with Warp; some of the SDA runs are so goddamn dark and graphically lifeless, I can't see what the fuck is going on most of the time.
And I agree 100%. I won't fault someone for having an underpowered computer, but there IS an expectation that the video quality be up to a certain level of standards.
IronSlayer wrote:
Now, stop trolling if you can't even bothered to read and understand what the hell people are saying.
Huh. I don't recall resorting to childish name-calling or personal attacks unlike some other folks who preceded me in this thread, but I never said I wasn't a hypocrite. I'm fairly certain my reading comprehension is up to snuff, and yours isn't too shabby, either, albeit with some rather strong assumptions.
IronSlayer wrote:
Of course, then a debil like superjupi had to jump into the mix. To superjupi: Boco is far more intelligent and articulate than you. I'm sure that if she wishes to respond, she'll do so.
You're not her Public Internet Defender.
More name-calling. I'll concede that Boco is in all likelihood more intelligent and articulate, and that I am not her public defender, however. Good day to you, sir. :)
(edited for readability)
This is absolutely ridiculous. I understand debates, but this is just a fucking flame war involving many children, apparently. Lets talk civil, people, or dont talk at all.
adelikat wrote:
I very much agree with this post.
Bobmario511 wrote:
Forget party hats, Christmas tree hats all the way man.
Btw, as I said in my original post, I understand that there may be technical reasons for the runner to use low-quality settings for the game. However, my point was that it doesn't really matter: It still makes the game look bad, and rather boring to watch because it's not visually so impressive as it could be. That's one reason I sometimes dislike some regular speedruns.
The optimal thing would be if the game supported recording. Some games actually do (such as for example Quake, or at least its patched version, as the core engine is open source). This way the runner could make the run at any settings he wants, but the video could be created with the highest quality settings. Of course this is just wishful thinking, as only a handful of games support this.
Anyways, as for ruining interactive cutscenes, I don't think there's excuse. Ruining them destroys entertainment for no reason.
Btw, as I said in my original post, I understand that there may be technical reasons for the runner to use low-quality settings for the game. However, my point was that it doesn't really matter: It still makes the game look bad, and rather boring to watch because it's not visually so impressive as it could be. That's one reason I sometimes dislike some regular speedruns.
The optimal thing would be if the game supported recording. Some games actually do (such as for example Quake, or at least its patched version, as the core engine is open source). This way the runner could make the run at any settings he wants, but the video could be created with the highest quality settings. Of course this is just wishful thinking, as only a handful of games support this.
Anyways, as for ruining interactive cutscenes, I don't think there's excuse. Ruining them destroys entertainment for no reason.
SDA is trying to fix the quality issue with many of their runs by making it necessary to record with a DVD recorder. In the specific case you metnioned, it is pretty idiotic to ruin a cutscene if there is no reason to, but denying a fast run because of that reason would be pretty foolish. I mean speedruns generally take a very long time to get finished. There are parts of runs that can be ruined because of a runners' annoying tendancies, but if that's the case, I skip the annoying parts and continue to watch the actual gameplay.
I think it would make sense for SDA to make it a rule to put the display settings for games at the highest quality, because it's lame not to.
Also, if you watch a run you do not find enjoyable, make a note to not watch runs by that runner. ;)
Super Mario Bros. console speedrunner
- Andrew Gardikis
I think it would make sense for SDA to make it a rule to put the display settings for games at the highest quality, because it's lame not to.
As I said previously, there is little point to that, because no runner would lower the quality settings if their computer allows recording at higher ones, and doing any kind of enforcement would only decrease the amount of runs produced.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
There's plenty of reason to skip cutscenes. Cutscenes make the videos bigger without showing any more actual gameplay. If I really wanted to watch them, I would just play the game to earn them myself, or I would find a video site devoted to just cutscenes.
put yourself in my rocketpack if that poochie is one outrageous dude
By making them as obnoxious to look at as possible. Rapid-fire enabling/disabling of nightvision goggles or somesuch, I forget what exactly. Either way, it made the screen go chaotic for no good reason.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
What is the difference in using only using 10 save states, or 10,000 save states?
If the failed saves counted towards total time, it'd be different...
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
DarkKobold wrote:
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
What is the difference in using only using 10 save states, or 10,000 save states?
If the failed saves counted towards total time, it'd be different...
Interesting points. I'm now not sure where I stand on the issue of segmented runs. Thanks for confusing me.
I think it's silly that SDA forbids (according to what I've read) bots to automate even the most meaningless tasks. A Diablo II run, for instance, will be the same whether a human luck manipulates a gambled item, or a bot does.
The only difference is that the human will eventually get old and die trying to manipulate a 1/1000 drop by hand.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
What is the difference in using only using 10 save states, or 10,000 save states?
Segmented runs are useful for games not yet emulated.
And because there is a limitation of segments, it tests speedrunning skill. Using emulator (i.e. arbitrary) savestates doesn't.
Dromiceius wrote:
I think it's silly that SDA forbids (according to what I've read) bots to automate even the most meaningless tasks. A Diablo II run, for instance, will be the same whether a human luck manipulates a gambled item, or a bot does.
The only difference is that the human will eventually get old and die trying to manipulate a 1/1000 drop by hand.
Problem is that allowing bots would open up a can of worms.
Joined: 4/30/2006
Posts: 480
Location: the secret cow level
SDA does tack on a certain amount of time for each segment, don't they? I think it's only a second per, though... not much of a difference in a multi-hour run that's unlikely to be obseleted.
Although runs of console games that include the save/load sequences in each segment ( God of War, RE4 ) are significantly longer because of them.
That Half-Life 2 run a while back used a script to automate bunnyhopping, although that was done entirely ingame, so I'm not sure if that qualifies as a "tool."
Problem is that allowing bots would open up a can of worms.
Not so much if nobody can tell that a bot was used, I think. ;)
The Half-Life scripting is another point that makes me think the rules are a bit pedantic.
I've manipulated many drops in diablo 2, one with the odds 1:1250. I was lucky and got it after only about 500 tries though. Using bots for something like that would be ridiculous, IMO. If you're not capable of making a run of a game yourself, without the help of external tools, then stay away from running it. That the way I see it.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
I think it depends on the game. For example in Quake I am completely for them to make the speedrun one level at a time (ie. practically as having a savestate at the beginning of each level). It improves the overall quality of the speedrun a lot. 1-segment runs of Quake are much less interesting.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
a single segment is also like using limited save states... only 1 save state. the problem is that you can use it (restart) infinite times, so there's no skill required, it's just a matter of who has most patience to play it until you get everything right. there should be speedruns where you only get one chance, then you can see who's the most skilled.
I dislike any type of 'normal' segmented run. It is like using a 'limited' set of save states.
a single segment is also like using limited save states... only 1 save state. the problem is that you can use it (restart) infinite times, so there's no skill required, it's just a matter of who has most patience to play it until you get everything right. there should be speedruns where you only get one chance, then you can see who's the most skilled.
IMO segmented runs (with restarts possible eg. at the beginning of each level) actually display *more* of the player's skill, not less.
Why? Because with a single-segment run the player is forced to play more carefully and cannot try the wildest tricks he is capable of, if those tricks are very dangerous and could easily cause the player to die, thus ruining the entire attempt.
A segmented run, however, allows for the player to truely show his skill at the game, without having to worry so much about dying and ruining 30 minutes of gameplay.
The Quake done Quick speedruns are the quintessential example of this: They are polished to almost perfection, showing almost superhuman skills from the players. True playing skills. A single-segment Quake run would simply hinder the player and forbid him from even trying the craziest stunts. Thus we wouldn't see as much playing skill in a single-segment run.
IMO segmented runs (with restarts possible eg. at the beginning of each level) actually display *more* of the player's skill, not less.
Why? Because with a single-segment run the player is forced to play more carefully and cannot try the wildest tricks he is capable of, if those tricks are very dangerous and could easily cause the player to die, thus ruining the entire attempt.
A segmented run, however, allows for the player to truely show his skill at the game, without having to worry so much about dying and ruining 30 minutes of gameplay.
I don't know how you came to that conclusion, many of the segmented runs were just segmented for the sake of convenience, many have been subsequently beaten by a SS. I think the Sonic 2 and Mario 70+120 star runs are strong counterstatements to anyone who think SS runs elimate any risk. SS runs tend to tighten up towards the end of a run not throughout, since the runner doesn't want to wreck a good run by doing some trick that saves a miniscule amout of time, but only has a 10% success rate.
EDIT: I've tried doing individial level runs in Sonic, its mostly just trying to replicate a routine much like any racing game. You're not trying to react and deal sufficently with a sudden event. Something I would class more of as skill. You're replicating a routine through memorization that you've done possibly 100/1000s of times in the hope that you get lucky on the tight and random areas.
Why? Because with a single-segment run the player is forced to play more carefully and cannot try the wildest tricks he is capable of, if those tricks are very dangerous and could easily cause the player to die, thus ruining the entire attempt.
The player isn't really forced, though, as there are SS runs that show very aggressive play (also applicable to 25-50 minute long score runs of arcade games). It's up to the players, their patience, and their consistency in trick performance.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
