Fancy Pants Adventures - December 27, 2013

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2013-12-27 03:29:09 pm

2013-12-13 02:16:04 am

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Fancy Pants Adventures (Any %) (Single Segment) [World 1]

Decision: Accept

Reason: It's faster than the run currently further along in the queue, even if there are some missing timesavers

Congratulations to James 'cooopercrisp' Mernin!

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2013-12-13 02:16:07 am

Run Information

Fancy Pants Adventures (Any %) (Single Segment)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/fancypantsadventureworld1-v_HQ.mp4

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by Dec. 27, 2013.

Please post your opinions about the run and be certain to conclude your post with a verdict (Accept/Reject). This is not a contest where the majority wins - I will judge each verification on its content. Please keep your verification brief unless you have a good reason otherwise.

After 2 weeks I will read all of the verifications and move this thread to the main verification board and post my verdict.

J.Y

Edit history:

J.Y: 2013-12-13 06:51:17 am

2013-12-13 06:47:20 am

A/V is excellent, no cheating detected.

Gameplay is for the most part good, the runner has some minor problems with a few jumps (as he mention in the very, very detailed comments) but nothing too serious. There are a few places where a little bit of time could be saved (the last door on level 1, the later part of level 2 and 3) but I think the run is good enough to be on SDA.

Accept

LotBlind

Edit history:

LotBlind: 2013-12-15 12:28:11 pm

2013-12-15 11:34:08 am

So to be clear this is a run of World 1. The worlds are being released sequentially so I guess they count as separate games.

One of the two-ish obvious mistakes in this run seems not to really cost time. The run comments give away that the runner had actually spent a little more time on this than I first imagined.

Accept

Arcanod

2013-12-15 03:43:26 pm

A/V is excellent, no cheating detected.

It's a pretty good run, but below SDA standards in my opinion. A few moves are messed up and it lacks risk-taking. I know this is a crappy and frustrating game, but I think a time of 1:40-1:45 should be the reference the aspire to. On a short game like this, a few seconds often make the difference between a decent run and a great one. I'm sure you can improve it further.

Reject

Eternalspirit

2013-12-15 07:27:42 pm

Hmm.. I feel this is probably very improvable (in the sense of cleaning up the few mistakes that did happen, not improving the time by a significant amount), but unless you're looking for perfection, there is no real reason not to accept this. So, accept.

LotBlind

2013-12-16 08:21:44 am

I really think it doesn't look bad at all and I really don't think we can afford solely to accept the very highest standards. You can set those standards for yourself if you like. This run does not look sloppy. I tried the game myself and I got the feeling that enough effort was put into this run. Furthermore, maybe the runner will run the next few worlds for us and keep improving anyway.

I'm sure any run can be improved further.

cooopercrisp

2013-12-16 12:47:47 pm

Part of a balanced breakfast.

Hi, I'm the one who submitted this run. If anyone here has any questions about the run, send me a PM or ask here on the forum. I try to check the site daily, but if I don't, I'll still try to get back to you in a reasonably timely manner.

As far as the run goes, it's definitely improvable (I could see sub 145 seconds, which I think is what Arcanod meant to say). I run this game in spurts, so I may return and try to improve this run. Level 3 definitely needs practice, as there's a trick I missed completely with bouncing off spiders. The end of Level 2 usually goes better, but there may be a faster strategy to use there as well that's more risky if I can get the timing of the moving platforms correct.

Newtmanking

2013-12-16 08:28:21 pm

Sweet Potato Fan Club

A/V Good, cheating did not happen.

I know from experience (I run world 2) that these games are pretty annoying to run. The physics can get jobbled at times, and since the runs are so short, every mistake can cost the run. That's the reason this is a difficult choice. I mean, if I missed a jump or two in FPAW2, I would probably restart right there because there is so little room for improvement later on. However, I also enjoy watching a fellow Fancy runner improving their runs. So yeah.
Accept (Just hit those jumps next time)

Arcanod

Edit history:

Arcanod: 2013-12-19 05:04:02 pm

Arcanod: 2013-12-19 05:00:33 pm

2013-12-19 05:00:12 pm

Obviously we can't ask for only the highest standards, but we can't accept anything neither. I just gave the game a few tries myself to see how hard it is and I got a 147.37 after about twenty minutes, then 145.70 five minutes later — with an average execution. That's why I encourage cooopercrisp to improve his time; as it is, I really think it's too easily beatable (please cooopercrisp, don't take it wrong, and we can discuss the run further in the game thread if necessary).

UraniumAnchor

Edit history:

UraniumAnchor: 2013-12-20 07:11:50 pm

UraniumAnchor: 2013-12-20 07:11:44 pm

2013-12-19 08:00:42 pm

Not a walrus

Hmm, normally a verifier being able to beat a run is grounds for a reject, but there's currently a slightly slower run (verification thread) that's nearly ready to be published, and generally improvements should be accepted unless the overall quality is noticeably worse. I'm not sure which should take precedence here but I'm leaning towards the latter, since it's actually mentioned in the guidelines whereas the former is not. Perhaps the original submission should never have been accepted in the first place, but I don't think retroactively cancelling the other submission is the way to go either.

Especially given that the old thread even linked a 144.xx time, I would instead encourage somebody to submit a better run.

LotBlind

2013-12-20 12:51:26 pm

Okay, in the light of recent discoveries... Smiley

Yeah, maybe this could be put on halt until coooper returns once again to prove himself and silence the doubters for all time!

Still I get SDA submissions don't actually have to be the best known times? And in several cases have not been when submitted?

UraniumAnchor

2013-12-20 01:56:46 pm

Not a walrus

Well, there's a difference between "grounds for rejection" and "automatic reject". Usually in cases like this it's either a) a pretty significant margin or b) didn't take the verifier much effort to do so.

But, again, the guideline that improvements should be published probably takes precedence here.

And quoting myself for emphasis:

Quote from UraniumAnchor:

Especially given that the old thread even linked a 144.xx time, I would instead encourage somebody to submit a better run.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-20 02:43:51 pm

Assuming I understand what's going on here..

I agree that the solution here is to go forward with the verification verdict and just allow someone to submit an even better run.

Arcanod

Edit history:

Arcanod: 2013-12-22 10:43:12 am

2013-12-20 06:47:17 pm

On a side note, we should decide whether or not a run which doesn't take advantage of the wall jump deserves a separate category.
I'm leaning towards a "no":

1. After you get the power-up, you don't have to actually finish the game. You just have to exit the cave and return to the main menu.
2. It doesn't make the game any different, only slightly harder (definitely not a problem with some practice).

The wall jump is useful at the end of the first level (moving blocks), where it saves around 2 seconds.
I don't see any good reason to ignore it.

LotBlind

2013-12-21 09:15:27 am

So do you mean someone could go get the walljump, return to the main menu and start again for timed runs? That feels new game +-ey though. Am I right that you can't really save time if you had to go pick it up in the middle of a timed run?

Onin

2013-12-21 09:45:55 am

Sounds like exactly what's done in Rad Raygun, where you level select to a later level, get a big powerup, then go back to the first level to do everything in order. It's the normal route there.

cooopercrisp

2013-12-22 08:22:58 pm

Part of a balanced breakfast.

Quote from Arcanod:

Obviously we can't ask for only the highest standards, but we can't accept anything neither. I just gave the game a few tries myself to see how hard it is and I got a 147.37 after about twenty minutes, then 145.70 five minutes later — with an average execution. That's why I encourage cooopercrisp to improve his time; as it is, I really think it's too easily beatable (please cooopercrisp, don't take it wrong, and we can discuss the run further in the game thread if necessary).

If you can record those runs, I'd be happy to look through them and see what I'm missing, because I have some difficulty getting the times I've gotten now. Otherwise, I'm not sure how much more time I want to invest in this game.

ZenicReverie

2013-12-22 09:58:31 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Onin:

Sounds like exactly what's done in Rad Raygun, where you level select to a later level, get a big powerup, then go back to the first level to do everything in order. It's the normal route there.

It's different if that time is counted towards the run, which it sounds like is the case for Rad Raygun. Doing that with the wall jump here wouldn't save time.

LotBlind

2013-12-23 11:10:59 am

Yeah so it seems it's like I thought: the wall jump can be ignored because getting it would count as NG+ if anything. So that's definitely not a problem with this run. It's 5% off from the world record (if that is, as the runner mentioned, 1:40). This game has by some statistics I saw over 7 million plays. That will include one crazy Japanese guy (who isn't about to submit to SDA).

Arcanod, maybe you really should provide a video of your runs in case there's a trick coooper missed. I'm not finding it that easy (though I'm not really a speed runner). I just visited your channel, seems like you've run a lot of platformers like this... So even though 25 minutes to tie a submitter's time does sound like it shouldn't be possible but you obviously have some experience whereas this is the submitter's first run. I still don't think it looks that bad.

Arcanod

2013-12-23 12:24:19 pm

The links are in the game thread.

LotBlind

2013-12-24 12:22:09 pm

Alright, I saw at least one trick that coooper didn't use. I think I'll leave this to you guys now. Good luck and have a nice Christmas anyway!

SDAVerification

2013-12-27 03:29:13 pm

Decision posted.