Grand Theft Auto 4 - April 30th, 2010 [locked]

2010-05-02 01:43:00 pm

sda loyalist

No matter how many verifiers there are, the 'no' votes are more important.

ExplodingCabbage brings up important points and they are valid no matter how many other people say 'yes'.

Master ZED

2010-05-02 04:47:43 pm

Let me ask the dumb question so no one else has to (mostly because I've not played the game and don't know anything): why not consider different categories (in-game timer and manual timing)?

Inexistence

2010-05-02 05:42:25 pm

Yes, Inexistence is a word.

I assume there's very little difference, certainly not enough to required seperate categories, since they're played almost the same.

ExplodingCabbage

2010-05-02 06:50:06 pm

Yeah different categories doesn't solve the issue and wouldn't even be possible, since the 'in-game timer' category wouldn't be fair anyway because it times loading screens.

stickyman05

2010-05-02 07:02:09 pm

You spoony bard!

I guess I don't understand why the runner is being an indignant douche about this. There are better ways to be disgruntled than acting like he has.

I found that 'Cabbage brought up many of his concerns in the thread, but the runner had not addressed any of the problems before submitting. From the looks of it, the runner simply got lazy and decided to submit anyways.

Here is my third party perspective:

Even though ExplodingCabbage brought up valid points that could have been fixed before submitting, it appears that the runner brushed off the criticisms and submitted because he felt it was good enough. With so much room for improvement, however, I do not think SDA would benefit from publishing this sub-par run.

Now it is 2 against teh internets Wink

trihex

2010-05-02 08:18:17 pm

Yoshi's eggs are at my mercy!

I'm not fluent enough in GTA4 to offer valid opinion on the run in question (obviously), but I can supply some more second-opinion on this situation overall:

I agree with Exploding Cabbage 100% on his points are valid enough for rejection personally. However, given it's the first-generation run of a popular game on SDA, standards could be lowered, but I don't like the practice. I was in the same boat as SCM (just not as severely) with my Crash Bandcioot 2 and 3 speedruns (initial attempt rejected; 6-12 months of practice, reroute, and execution lead to the still-standing current SDA runs) and it made me a better person/speedrunner ever since.

I don't like SCM's reaction(s) on all this. Cabbage backs up his complaints with very detailed reasons and even tried reaching out in his dedicated thread yet still shows blind frustration he isn't getting instant gratifications for his sent 'run. I felt bad at first because of how situational the rejection was, but then I was reminded that it was a segmented speedrun (I was under the impression this was a SS until ridd3r's post) and then my siding was finalized with Cabbage.

I'm not fluent enough in GTA4 to offer valid opinion on the run in question (obviously), but I can supply some more second-opinion on this situation overall:

I agree with Exploding Cabbage 100% on his points are valid enough for rejection personally. However, given it's the first-generation run of a popular game on SDA, standards [i]could[/i] be lowered, but I don't like the practice. I was in the same boat as SCM (just not as severely) with my Crash Bandcioot 2 and 3 speedruns (initial attempt rejected; 6-12 months of practice, reroute, and execution lead to the still-standing current SDA runs) and it made me a better person/speedrunner ever since.

I don't like SCM's reaction(s) on all this. Cabbage backs up his complaints with very detailed reasons and even tried reaching out in his dedicated thread yet still shows blind frustration he isn't getting instant gratifications for his sent 'run. I felt bad at first because of how situational the rejection was, but then I was reminded that it was a [i]segmented[/i] speedrun (I was under the impression this was a SS until [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php?topic=11637.msg324676#msg324676]ridd3r's post[/url]) and then my siding was finalized with Cabbage.

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2010-05-03 03:34:23 am

2010-05-03 03:24:11 am

we have lift off

I think part of the problem here is some of the old records with the lower standards are still up and so new comers can get confused as to what standards are acceptable. stickyman05 - A 4:40 run takes a lot of work, that and the fact the runner was clearly not prepared for the outcome of a rejection, that is why he is acting like he is. There is a language barrier, so I'm not sure how much he visits these forums to see things like Cabbage's posts.

Frankly, I think it is very rare that a run of a new game would have a verifier who is so up to date on all the latest skips and tricks and who really scrutinises runs like Cabbage has done. If it had been another 3 verifiers they probably would not have noticed anything and accepted and 99% of viewers probably won't notice the errors. EC, you are right that some good things should not outweigh the bad; it's more a case of balancing a run which almost everyone will think is good and is likely to bring more people to sda as well as more attention to this game, with the fact that as it happens here, the run isn't really up to scratch (in my opinion, a segmented run, no matter how long should have mere seconds lost overall). If you put this into a machine it would say rejected, but I think it is worth seriously considering which is for the best.

The best outcome would be for the runner to redo it and claim a record he deserves, maybe he will change his mind.

I think part of the problem here is some of the old records with the lower standards are still up and so new comers can get confused as to what standards are acceptable. stickyman05 - A 4:40 run takes [i]a lot[/i] of work, that and the fact the runner was clearly not prepared for the outcome of a rejection, that is why he is acting like he is. There is a language barrier, so I'm not sure how much he visits these forums to see things like Cabbage's posts.

Frankly, I think it is very rare that a run of a new game would have a verifier who is so up to date on all the latest skips and tricks and who really scrutinises runs like Cabbage has done. If it had been another 3 verifiers they probably would not have noticed anything and accepted and 99% of viewers probably won't notice the errors. EC, you are right that some good things should not outweigh the bad; it's more a case of balancing a run which almost everyone will think is good and is likely to bring more people to sda as well as more attention to this game, with the fact that as it happens here, the run isn't really up to scratch (in my opinion, a segmented run, no matter how long should have mere seconds lost overall). If you put this into a machine it would say rejected, but I think it is worth seriously considering which is for the best.

The best outcome would be for the runner to redo it and claim a record he deserves, maybe he will change his mind.

Normand Nubcake

2010-05-03 04:16:38 am

Quote from stickyman05:

I guess I don't understand why the runner is being an indignant douche about this. There are better ways to be disgruntled than acting like he has.

I found that 'Cabbage brought up many of his concerns in the thread, but the runner had not addressed any of the problems before submitting. From the looks of it, the runner simply got lazy and decided to submit anyways.

Here is my third party perspective:

Even though ExplodingCabbage brought up valid points that could have been fixed before submitting, it appears that the runner brushed off the criticisms and submitted because he felt it was good enough. With so much room for improvement, however, I do not think SDA would benefit from publishing this sub-par run.

Now it is 2 against teh internets Wink

Haha, unbelievable. Not only are you saying this run is sub-par, even though it's better than most of the runs on the site, you're actually saying SDA wouldn't benefit from publishing it? As much as I hate to say it, the site would benefit a lot more from hosting this run than from hosting a thousand flawless runs of lesser-known platformers.

Also, calling the runner an indignant douche who got lazy. The guy had already completed the run before he started posting on the forums. He just wanted to share it with more people and see it published here. Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4? This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.

Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair. If you really think rejecting a run and possibly losing a top-tier run and a potential runner in the vague hopes that the runner cares about what you have to say and tries to improve his run, or the even vaguer hopes that someone grabs the torch and beats the run within the next few years, then power to you. I just hope your opinion isn't taken seriously in the future

[quote="stickyman05"]
I guess I don't understand why the runner is being an indignant douche about this.  There are better ways to be disgruntled than acting like he has.

I found that 'Cabbage brought up [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php?topic=10995.msg307187#msg307187]many of his concerns[/url] in the thread, but the runner had not addressed any of the problems before submitting.  From the looks of it, the runner simply got lazy and decided to submit anyways.

Here is my third party perspective:

Even though ExplodingCabbage brought up valid points that could have been fixed before submitting, it appears that the runner brushed off the criticisms and submitted because he felt it was good enough.  With so much room for improvement, however, I do not think SDA would benefit from publishing this sub-par run.

[spoiler]Now it is 2 against teh internets ;)[/spoiler]
[/quote]

Haha, unbelievable. Not only are you saying this run is sub-par, even though it's better than most of the runs on the site, you're actually saying SDA wouldn't benefit from publishing it? As much as I hate to say it, the site would benefit a lot more from hosting this run than from hosting a thousand flawless runs of lesser-known platformers.

Also, calling the runner an indignant douche who got lazy. The guy had already completed the run before he started posting on the forums. He just wanted to share it with more people and see it published here. Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4? This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.

Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair. If you really think rejecting a run and possibly losing a top-tier run and a potential runner in the vague hopes that the runner cares about what you have to say and tries to improve his run, or the even vaguer hopes that someone grabs the torch and beats the run within the next few years, then power to you. I just hope your opinion isn't taken seriously in the future

ExplodingCabbage

2010-05-03 06:47:28 am

Quote from ridd3r.:

The best outcome would be for the runner to redo it and claim a record he deserves, maybe he will change his mind.

I agree, and I hope so.

Paraxade

2010-05-03 06:50:45 am

Expecting the runner to be able to easily whip out another optimal run of such a long, huge and difficult game is a bit unreasonable. Personally if my Prime 3 run got rejected there's not a chance in hell I'd redo it. Yeah I've already done a run and I know how most of the segments went, but it took me a lot of effort spread across over 2 years, and doing the run became a huge burden that I didn't want and got me stressed as hell most of the times I decided to work on it. Do I want to go through that again? Hell no, and SCM probably feels similarly to this run, and frankly I wouldn't blame him. The standards here are maybe a bit too high, even in a segmented run you can't optimize absolutely everything. I imagine some of the segments in this run were quite difficult. Even knowing what to do, it takes a lot of time to get all the parts reliant on the runner to go well AND all the random factors, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there were segments where it was tough just to survive through the whole thing. Rejecting over route mistakes after he optimized the whole game (in terms of execution anyway) comes across as a bit of a slap in the face and that's probably why he reacted like he did.

Also - in such an open game, route errors are probably a given; also given that the runner seems to have done most of the run himself and likely wasn't aware of the timer issues or some of the strategies posted on the forums, and execution-wise the run is top notch, so overall - this run seems to have impressed the vast majority of the people who watched it, and definitely has the ability to attract people to the site. It's undeniably a great run; SCM seems to be uninterested in redoing it and I doubt anyone else is going to anytime soon, but even if they did, what harm is there in letting this run go up on the site in the meantime?

Quote:

The best outcome would be for the runner to redo it and claim a record he deserves, maybe he will change his mind.

This is true, but also might not happen, so no harm in considering alternatives. :/

Expecting the runner to be able to easily whip out another optimal run of such a long, huge and difficult game is a bit unreasonable. Personally if my Prime 3 run got rejected there's not a chance in hell I'd redo it. Yeah I've already done a run and I know how most of the segments went, but it took me a lot of effort spread across over 2 years, and doing the run became a huge burden that I didn't want and got me stressed as hell most of the times I decided to work on it. Do I want to go through that again? Hell no, and SCM probably feels similarly to this run, and frankly I wouldn't blame him. The standards here are maybe a bit too high, even in a segmented run you can't optimize absolutely everything. I imagine some of the segments in this run were quite difficult. Even knowing what to do, it takes a lot of time to get all the parts reliant on the runner to go well AND all the random factors, and honestly I wouldn't be surprised if there were segments where it was tough just to survive through the whole thing. Rejecting over route mistakes after he optimized the whole game (in terms of execution anyway) comes across as a bit of a slap in the face and that's probably why he reacted like he did.

Also - in such an open game, route errors are probably a given; also given that the runner seems to have done most of the run himself and likely wasn't aware of the timer issues or some of the strategies posted on the forums, and execution-wise the run is top notch, so overall - this run seems to have impressed the vast majority of the people who watched it, and definitely has the ability to attract people to the site. It's undeniably a great run; SCM seems to be uninterested in redoing it and I doubt anyone else is going to anytime soon, but even if they did, what harm is there in letting this run go up on the site in the meantime?

[quote]The best outcome would be for the runner to redo it and claim a record he deserves, maybe he will change his mind.[/quote]

This is true, but also might not happen, so no harm in considering alternatives. :/

stickyman05

2010-05-03 07:00:58 am

You spoony bard!

Quote from Normand Nubcake:

Also, calling the runner an indignant douche who got lazy.

Yes. My wording was harsh, but he sure wasn't acting like a gentleman.

Quote:

The guy had already completed the run before he started posting on the forums. He just wanted to share it with more people and see it published here. Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4? This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.

Problem bolded. He didn't post anything until the run was completed. This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree. Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine. He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had not been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run.

The italicized part mentions GTA being "...a freaking huge sandbox game." Again, he said nothing about his run until it was completed. 3D games in general have infinite route possibilities, but a game world as open and massive as the GTA series absolutely requires more than 1 head for route planning. Because only one person did the route planning more optimal routes were overlooked. Had the runner posted his route during planning, or some wips for the forum to scrutinize, then the end product would have been tighter and, in my opinion, better.

Quote:

Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair.

I didn't make the decision? *confused shrug*

Quote:

If you really think rejecting a run and possibly losing a top-tier run and a potential runner in the vague hopes that the runner cares about what you have to say and tries to improve his run, or the even vaguer hopes that someone grabs the torch and beats the run within the next few years, then power to you.

Honestly, the runner has already been lost. Even if this run gets reverified and accepted, I doubt he will run another game. Hopefully he will be a little more vocal about his routes and progress if he does decide to run again. Added to that, he has not defended his run. All the runner has done is become the proverbial dejected-kid-kicking-the-dirt. Why should this run be reverified? Why should it be accepted? These are things that I want to know.

Quote:

I just hope your opinion isn't taken seriously in the future

Everyone has a right to their opinions, and belittling another opinion that does not agree with your own is not only wrong but juvenile. I hope you are more accepting of other opinions in real life.

--

Paraxade commented before I finished. He does have some good points, but again, the whole "doing everything without telling anyone" is a problem that is nodded at.

[quote="Normand Nubcake"]
Also, calling the runner an indignant douche who got lazy.[/quote]

Yes.  My wording was harsh, but he sure wasn't acting like a gentleman.

[quote][b]The guy had already completed the run before he started posting on the forums.[/b] He just wanted to share it with more people and see it published here. [i]Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4?[/i] This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.[/quote]

Problem bolded.  He didn't post anything until the run was completed.  This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree.  Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine.  He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had [i]not[/i] been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run.

The italicized part mentions GTA being "...a freaking huge sandbox game."  Again, he said nothing about his run until it was completed.  3D games in general have infinite route possibilities, but a game world as open and massive as the GTA series absolutely requires more than 1 head for route planning.  Because only one person did the route planning more optimal routes were overlooked.  Had the runner posted his route during planning, or some wips for the forum to scrutinize, then the end product would have been tighter and, in my opinion, better.

[quote]Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair.[/quote]

I didn't make the decision? *confused shrug*

[quote]If you really think rejecting a run and possibly losing a top-tier run and a potential runner in the vague hopes that the runner cares about what you have to say and tries to improve his run, or the even vaguer hopes that someone grabs the torch and beats the run within the next few years, then power to you.[/quote]

Honestly, the runner has already been lost.  Even [i]if[/i] this run gets reverified and accepted, I doubt he will run another game.  Hopefully he will be a little more vocal about his routes and progress if he does decide to run again.  Added to that, he has not defended his run.  All the runner has done is become the proverbial dejected-kid-kicking-the-dirt. Why should this run be reverified?  Why should it be accepted?  These are things that I want to know.

[quote] I just hope your opinion isn't taken seriously in the future[/quote]

Everyone has a right to their opinions, and belittling another opinion that does not agree with your own is not only wrong but juvenile.  I hope you are more accepting of other opinions in real life.

--

Paraxade commented before I finished.  He does have some good points, but again, the whole "doing everything without telling anyone" is a problem that is nodded at.

ridd3r.

2010-05-03 09:25:14 am

we have lift off

Quote:

Problem bolded. He didn't post anything until the run was completed. This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree. Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine. He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had not been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run.

I'm not saying he's not capable of reading English, but that doesn't mean you can expect him to regularly post on a forum not in his native language. He's a new runner and of course it's easy and obvious with hindsight. Maybe he wanted to plan and execute the run himself for his own reasons, it's not like he was far off being successful and many people have done things this way.

Quote:

Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair.

Quote:

I didn't make the decision? *confused shrug*

Just because he was in general responding to your post doesn't mean every statement was directed at you; it's obvious he's not referring to you as you have no say in the final decision.

Quote:

Honestly, the runner has already been lost.

I didn't know you could read minds. What's the point in making a statement like that?

Quote:

Why should this run be reverified? Why should it be accepted? These are things that I want to know.

As has been stated, there were only two verifiers and they had confilicting opinions, it's hardly a no brainer reject or accept.

[quote]Problem bolded.  He didn't post anything until the run was completed.  This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree.  Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine.  He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had [i]not[/i] been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run. [/quote]

I'm not saying he's not capable of reading English, but that doesn't mean you can expect him to regularly post on a forum not in his native language. He's a new runner and of course it's easy and obvious with hindsight. Maybe he wanted to plan and execute the run himself for his own reasons, it's not like he was far off being successful and many people have done things this way.

[quote]Anyway, there is not a single doubt in my mind that this decision is completely unfair.[/quote]

[quote]I didn't make the decision? *confused shrug* [/quote]

Just because he was in general responding to your post doesn't mean every statement was directed at you; it's obvious he's not referring to you as you have no say in the final decision.

[quote]Honestly, the runner has already been lost. [/quote]

I didn't know you could read minds. What's the point in making a statement like that?

[quote] Why should this run be reverified?  Why should it be accepted?  These are things that I want to know. [/quote]

As has been stated, there were only two verifiers and they had confilicting opinions, it's hardly a no brainer reject or accept.

stickyman05

2010-05-03 09:48:15 am

You spoony bard!

Quote from ridd3r.:

I'm not saying he's not capable of reading English, but that doesn't mean you can expect him to regularly post on a forum not in his native language. He's a new runner and of course it's easy and obvious with hindsight. Maybe he wanted to plan and execute the run himself for his own reasons, it's not like he was far off being successful and many people have done things this way.

He doesn't need to post regularly, but he could have posted youtube updates or even a general overview of route. Being a loner might be cool and all, but with such a big world and so much planning, it would have been helpful to get a consensus.

Quote:

Just because he was in general responding to your post doesn't mean every statement was directed at you; it's obvious he's not referring to you as you have no say in the final decision.

I am well aware it was not directed at me. My comments were the subject of his rebuttal paragraph, and as such, that sentence had little place in that bit of writing.

Quote:

I didn't know you could read minds.

I have many magical powers that most mortals know not of.

Quote:

As has been stated, there were only two verifiers and they had confilicting opinions, it's hardly a no brainer reject or accept.

I am aware of how many verifiers there are, and quite frankly I don't care what this thread has to say about rejecting or accepting. I have already said I side with ExplodingCabbage, so I want to hear why the runner thinks it should be reverified or accepted. And I mean something more than "because I worked hard on it" or whatever else. If nothing else, it would help Mike make a decision.

[quote="ridd3r."]
I'm not saying he's not capable of reading English, but that doesn't mean you can expect him to regularly post on a forum not in his native language. He's a new runner and of course it's easy and obvious with hindsight. Maybe he wanted to plan and execute the run himself for his own reasons, it's not like he was far off being successful and many people have done things this way.[/quote]

He doesn't need to post regularly, but he could have posted youtube updates or even a general overview of route.  Being a loner might be cool and all, but with such a big world and so much planning, it would have been helpful to get a consensus.

[quote]Just because he was in general responding to your post doesn't mean every statement was directed at you; it's obvious he's not referring to you as you have no say in the final decision.[/quote]

I am well aware it was not directed at me.  My comments were the subject of his rebuttal paragraph, and as such, that sentence had little place in that bit of writing.

[quote]I didn't know you could read minds.[/quote]

I have many magical powers that most mortals know not of.

[quote]As has been stated, there were only two verifiers and they had confilicting opinions, it's hardly a no brainer reject or accept.[/quote]

I am aware of how many verifiers there are, and quite frankly I don't care what this thread has to say about rejecting or accepting.  I have already said I side with ExplodingCabbage, so I want to hear why the [i]runner[/i] thinks it should be reverified or accepted.  And I mean something more than "because I worked hard on it" or whatever else.  If nothing else, it would help Mike make a decision.

Axel Ryman

2010-05-03 10:03:35 am

We all scream for Eyes Cream

Quote from Normand Nubcake:

Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4? This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.

In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.

stickyman said it best. If you don't want problems like this, discuss your WIP run on the forums with people who understand the game well enough and find the fastest routes so this doesn't happen. Yes the game might be long, yes it took a lot of time to do it, but should it be accepted because of the length, even though the runner did not find the most optimal routes? No. A number of runs have been rejected because runners didn't use the best options possible, both on runs that lasted a few hours and lasted less than an hour.

This run's decision has been made, and should not be overturned, cause then this would especially be unfair for past runs that have been rejected for what could be considered trivial reasons(Since the people who are against this run's rejection believe it's trivial as to why it was rejected). At the same time, this run would be getting special treatment. Same thing with reverifying the run, it would just mean special treatment for it. Soon everyone is going to want their run to be reverified if it gets rejected, or to be accepted because of the length/popularity of the game.

If you don't like the result of a rejection for someone else's run, then do a run yourself.

[quote="Normand Nubcake"]
Do you really expect him to redo an entire run because of ~5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run of a freaking huge sandbox game like GTA 4? This ratio is probably higher for most of the RPG and open-ended games' speedruns, doesn't make it any less acceptable because some of the possible improvements were pointed out on the forums.
[/quote]

In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.

stickyman said it best. If you don't want problems like this, discuss your WIP run on the forums with people who understand the game well enough and find the fastest routes so this doesn't happen. Yes the game might be long, yes it took a lot of time to do it, but should it be accepted because of the length, even though the runner did not find the most optimal routes? No. A number of runs have been rejected because runners didn't use the best options possible, both on runs that lasted a few hours and lasted less than an hour.

This run's decision has been made, and should not be overturned, cause then this would especially be unfair for past runs that have been rejected for what could be considered trivial reasons(Since the people who are against this run's rejection believe it's trivial as to why it was rejected). At the same time, this run would be getting special treatment. Same thing with reverifying the run, it would just mean special treatment for it. Soon everyone is going to want their run to be reverified if it gets rejected, or to be accepted because of the length/popularity of the game.

If you don't like the result of a rejection for someone else's run, then do a run yourself.

Paraxade

Edit history:

Paraxade: 2010-05-03 10:43:46 am

2010-05-03 10:28:50 am

Quote:

In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.

Speedruns aren't all perfect. Have you seen the run? Planning errors aside (which cost 5-6 minutes, quite a bit less than someone who has no knowledge of what to do), it's damn good, certainly far above the level of a random playthrough of a popular game or whatever you're trying to insinuate it is.

Quote:

This run's decision has been made, and should not be overturned, cause then this would especially be unfair for past runs that have been rejected for what could be considered trivial reasons(Since the people who are against this run's rejection believe it's trivial as to why it was rejected). At the same time, this run would be getting special treatment. Same thing with reverifying the run, it would just mean special treatment for it. Soon everyone is going to want their run to be reverified if it gets rejected, or to be accepted because of the length/popularity of the game.

Not every single rejected run gets this level of discussion, it's pretty obvious that this isn't being argued purely because the runner disagrees with the verdict. If this run DID get a new verdict then I don't see why other runs that generate this much discussion and controversy couldn't get similar treatment so I don't think it's a special case. There's a lot of things in this situation that don't happen a whole ton, so I don't see what's wrong with treating the run appropriately given the circumstances, whatever treating it appropriately is exactly (which is the debate in this thread).

[quote]In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.[/quote]

Speedruns aren't all perfect. Have you seen the run? Planning errors aside (which cost 5-6 minutes, quite a bit less than someone who has no knowledge of what to do), it's damn good, certainly far above the level of a random playthrough of a popular game or whatever you're trying to insinuate it is.

[quote]This run's decision has been made, and should not be overturned, cause then this would especially be unfair for past runs that have been rejected for what could be considered trivial reasons(Since the people who are against this run's rejection believe it's trivial as to why it was rejected). At the same time, this run would be getting special treatment. Same thing with reverifying the run, it would just mean special treatment for it. Soon everyone is going to want their run to be reverified if it gets rejected, or to be accepted because of the length/popularity of the game.[/quote]

Not every single rejected run gets this level of discussion, it's pretty obvious that this isn't being argued purely because the runner disagrees with the verdict. If this run DID get a new verdict then I don't see why other runs that generate this much discussion and controversy couldn't get similar treatment so I don't think it's a special case. There's a lot of things in this situation that don't happen a whole ton, so I don't see what's wrong with treating the run appropriately given the circumstances, whatever treating it appropriately is exactly (which is the debate in this thread).

TimADugan

2010-05-03 11:40:18 am

The Gaming Lawyer

I don't really know any of you. I don't speed run games. I haven't watched this run. I have only verified a couple of runs for this site and that's basically my entire involvement with SDA thus far. I say this only so you know where I'm coming from and can give my comments whatever weight you feel fit.

In the grand scheme of things, this run had only two verifiers, and the vote was split 1-1 on acceptance/rejection. I don't know SDA's normal policy on this, but it would seem the best case for "reverification" is due to the original verifiers being unable to make a majority decision. It would appear that the first verifier was disregarded because the second wrote a very well organized, thought out, and longer response.

I understand from lurking over the last few years, and watching many of the runs on this site, that the standards for SDA have changed over the years, and while that makes it harder for people to get runs on the site, it does make for a better SDA. I'm not saying the run should be accepted or not. As an outsider looking in, I would say the only reason to put this run through the verification process again is due to the fact that the original two verifiers were deadlocked.

And for anyone who says "no" votes are "more important," my question would be: why does SDA even use multiple verifiers then? Are runs normally rejected if 1 out of 3-4 people reject the run? Or if a run gets 2 out of 3 "yes" votes, does the run get accepted over the objection of one?

I don't really know any of you.  I don't speed run games.  I haven't watched this run.  I have only verified a couple of runs for this site and that's basically my entire involvement with SDA thus far.  I say this only so you know where I'm coming from and can give my comments whatever weight you feel fit.

In the grand scheme of things, this run had only two verifiers, and the vote was split 1-1 on acceptance/rejection.  I don't know SDA's normal policy on this, but it would seem the best case for "reverification" is due to the original verifiers being unable to make a majority decision.  It would appear that the first verifier was disregarded because the second wrote a very well organized, thought out, and longer response.

I understand from lurking over the last few years, and watching many of the runs on this site, that the standards for SDA have changed over the years, and while that makes it harder for people to get runs on the site, it does make for a better SDA.  I'm not saying the run should be accepted or not.  As an outsider looking in, I would say the only reason to put this run through the verification process again is due to the fact that the original two verifiers were deadlocked.

And for anyone who says "no" votes are "more important," my question would be: why does SDA even use multiple verifiers then?  Are runs normally rejected if 1 out of 3-4 people reject the run?  Or if a run gets 2 out of 3 "yes" votes, does the run get accepted over the objection of one?

ExplodingCabbage

2010-05-03 12:03:19 pm

Quote from TimADugan:

In the grand scheme of things, this run had only two verifiers, and the vote was split 1-1 on acceptance/rejection. I don't know SDA's normal policy on this, but it would seem the best case for "reverification" is due to the original verifiers being unable to make a majority decision.
...
Are runs normally rejected if 1 out of 3-4 people reject the run?

I believe, though I may remember wrong, that runs have indeed been rejected in the situation you describe before. Equally, many runs have got through despite a reject verdict from one verifier.

One thing to bear in mind about verification is that it's not a vote. Verifiers write up their opinions for Mike's consideration, and to provide him with information about the run - their personal verdicts are there just to guide Mike in the right direction and have no weight when not unanimous. Mike is there to make the decision on what gets onto the site and what doesn't.

Back when Twisted Metal 2 was rejected (dunno if you saw that thread), I supported a reverification, on the basis of my limited understanding of the situation, because the runner disputed the claims the verifiers made and said that the strategies they said he should've used do not, in fact, work. That is a problem at the information-gathering level of the process, which is the responsibility of verifiers, and so it is grounds for new verifiers to take a look.

It is not clear to me what the grounds for reverifying here is. Nothing I have said in my response is in dispute. We all know that besides the mistakes I pointed out, the run is impressive, and so far we all agree that the mistakes are indeed mistakes, are indeed simple and easily avoidable, and do indeed cost the amounts of time I have stated. So new verifiers would have nothing to correct and nothing to add. The controversy here is purely about the final verdict, not the content of the verification response, and that verdict is Mike's business, not the verifiers'. If he wants to change the verdict, he is free to do so as far as I'm concerned and it won't trouble me, but I really don't see what is to be gained from having new verifiers look at the run now and would be a little insulted if that were to happen, to be honest.

[quote="TimADugan"]In the grand scheme of things, this run had only two verifiers, and the vote was split 1-1 on acceptance/rejection.  I don't know SDA's normal policy on this, but it would seem the best case for "reverification" is due to the original verifiers being unable to make a majority decision.
...
Are runs normally rejected if 1 out of 3-4 people reject the run?[/quote]

I believe, though I may remember wrong, that runs have indeed been rejected in the situation you describe before. Equally, many runs have got through despite a reject verdict from one verifier.

One thing to bear in mind about verification is that it's not a vote. Verifiers write up their opinions for Mike's consideration, and to provide him with information about the run - their personal verdicts are there just to guide Mike in the right direction and have no weight when not unanimous. Mike is there to make the decision on what gets onto the site and what doesn't.

Back when Twisted Metal 2 was rejected (dunno if you saw that thread), I supported a reverification, on the basis of my limited understanding of the situation, because the runner disputed the claims the verifiers made and said that the strategies they said he should've used do not, in fact, work. That is a problem at the information-gathering level of the process, which is the responsibility of verifiers, and so it is grounds for new verifiers to take a look.

It is not clear to me what the grounds for reverifying here is. Nothing I have said in my response is in dispute. We all know that besides the mistakes I pointed out, the run is impressive, and so far we all agree that the mistakes are indeed mistakes, are indeed simple and easily avoidable, and do indeed cost the amounts of time I have stated. So new verifiers would have nothing to correct and nothing to add. The controversy here is purely about the final verdict, not the content of the verification response, and that verdict is Mike's business, not the verifiers'. If he wants to change the verdict, he is free to do so as far as I'm concerned and it won't trouble me, but I really don't see what is to be gained from having new verifiers look at the run now and would be a little insulted if that were to happen, to be honest.

gia

2010-05-03 12:40:52 pm

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote from stickyman05:

Problem bolded. He didn't post anything until the run was completed. This is asking for trouble.

Hold there, I completed my first runs without knowing a site for speedruns existed. Later I found Twin Galaxies, then much later I found SDA. You may be asking too much.

EC should run the game to end the discussion Tongue

IcedCube

2010-05-03 12:41:49 pm

Some people are more reliant on their own emotions and inept perspectives on the workings of verification than on a fair criticism of a well-made run. In short, it works like this:

Great planning with inadequate optimization might be rejected, great optimization with inadequate planning must be rejected.

In nerd-speak: I could make a TAS-like optimized OOT run, but if I went to the spirit temple to get bombchus instead of using the now-discovered early-well-chus, I would have added at least 150 seconds to the run.

But more importantly, regardless of whether I'd be doing an all-temple (2-3 hours) or Any-% (1 hour) run, going to the spirit temple would be flawed route-wise, and the duration of the run will do nothing to change that.

This goes for both segmented and SS runs, but more so for segmented runs, because the entire point of segmentation is to get as good of an optimization on a route that is already planned as it should. (The most crucial part of this argument.)

More than this, the runner decided to run outside of SDA and then submit it here. This is fine, but what must be realized is that no matter where criticism is given (YouTube, SDA, etc.), if the criticism is valid, there is no reason to flat out ignore it.

This user decided not only to run outside SDA, not only to ignore criticism, but to post his run in range of Cabbage's scrutinity, ignore his help and THEN submit to the very site that has a community consisting of speedrunners (including, of course, Cabbage)! (People that generally have extensive knowledge of games they play and discuss.)

And now you go up to ExplodingCabbage telling him he's being unreasonable for rejecting? Not only am I disgusted, but if I were in Cabbage's position, I would be very much so offended and appalled at this complete lack of respect and acknowledgement.

As far as the SDA-publicity argument goes, here's an analogy: over 30,000,000 people have read the first Twilight novel. Just because it is widely known, it does not intrinsically possess sufficient (or, in the case of Twilight: any) quality.

There is no reason to accept this run, and every reason to encourage the runner to re-run with laid out (!) route changes. (Or at least certain segments, if possible.)

That is all.

~Iced

Some people are more reliant on their own emotions and inept perspectives on the workings of verification than on a fair criticism of a well-made run. In short, it works like this:

Great planning with inadequate optimization might be rejected, great optimization with inadequate planning must be rejected.

In nerd-speak: I could make a TAS-like optimized OOT run, but if I went to the spirit temple to get bombchus instead of using the now-discovered early-well-chus, I would have added at least 150 seconds to the run.

But [b]more importantly[/b], regardless of whether I'd be doing an all-temple (2-3 hours) or Any-% (1 hour) run, going to the spirit temple would be flawed route-wise, and the duration of the run will do nothing to change that.

This goes for both segmented and SS runs, but more so for segmented runs, because the entire point of segmentation is to get as good of an optimization on a route that is already planned as it should. (The most crucial part of this argument.)

More than this, the runner decided to run outside of SDA and then submit it here. This is fine, but what must be realized is that no matter where criticism is given (YouTube, SDA, etc.), if the criticism is valid, there is [b]no[/b] reason to flat out ignore it.

This user decided not only to run outside SDA, not only to ignore criticism, but to post his run in range of Cabbage's scrutinity, ignore his help and THEN submit to the very site that has a community consisting of speedrunners (including, of course, Cabbage)! (People that generally have extensive knowledge of games they play and discuss.)

And now you go up to ExplodingCabbage telling him he's being unreasonable for rejecting? Not only am I disgusted, but if I were in Cabbage's position, I would be very much so offended and appalled at this complete lack of respect and acknowledgement.

As far as the SDA-publicity argument goes, here's an analogy: over 30,000,000 people have read the first Twilight novel. Just because it is widely known, it does not intrinsically possess sufficient (or, in the case of Twilight: any) quality.

There is no reason to accept this run, and every reason to encourage the runner to re-run with [i]laid out[/i] (!) route changes. (Or at least certain segments, if possible.)

That is all.

~Iced

rTiimber

2010-05-03 12:47:58 pm

First, I have to say that I haven't seen this run, and don't write here all too often, but I feel like I need to express my look on this. This hurts me a little; I generally agree with ExplodingCabbage and at the same time, I want the run to be published. EC makes all valid points and since no-one disagrees with the fact he lays out, I can only assume they are valid.

I would still vote for this run being approved and published. I think this game needs a run, and something for future runners to improve. My suggestion is to use the least flattering timing, even if it adds five minutes to the final time. Think of it as a 10,000 meter run. The winner breaks the World Record but walks into goal for the last 100 meter. Isn't it still a World Record? Isn't the first 9,900 meters still truly amazing and the best out there?

I also agree with EC in another point: Do not reverify, this means questioning the verifiers work, in which I can not see flaws. Picky verifiers like EC is needed and people like that are those who helps making runs perfect in the long run.

As a closing text; I would like to point out once again that I haven't seen the run, I don't know if there is an official non-recorded World Record run of this or anything else that makes my points not valid. So be gentle if you want to correct me. Smiley

First, I have to say that I haven't seen this run, and don't write here all too often, but I feel like I need to express my look on this. This hurts me a little; I generally agree with ExplodingCabbage and at the same time, I want the run to be published. EC makes all valid points and since no-one disagrees with the fact he lays out, I can only assume they are valid.

I would still vote for this run being approved and published. I think this game needs a run, and something for future runners to improve. My suggestion is to use the least flattering timing, even if it adds five minutes to the final time. Think of it as a 10,000 meter run. The winner breaks the World Record but walks into goal for the last 100 meter. Isn't it still a World Record? Isn't the first 9,900 meters still truly amazing and the best out there?

I also agree with EC in another point: Do not reverify, this means questioning the verifiers work, in which I can not see flaws. Picky verifiers like EC is needed and people like that are those who helps making runs perfect in the long run.

As a closing text; I would like to point out once again that I haven't seen the run, I don't know if there is an official non-recorded World Record run of this or anything else that makes my points not valid. So be gentle if you want to correct me.  :)

IcedCube

2010-05-03 12:55:18 pm

But the point here is that the runner REFUSES to FIX EASILY FIXABLE route changes. If we accept his run, we might as well accept every other run that ever suffered from route problems, lack of optimization, etc., simply because it's the fastest one available.

This is precisely what this verification system is supposed to prevent!

I could run Assassin's Creed in 6 hours casually playing. Should I record that without Audio/Video glitches and then complain the route changes/optimization weren't that good, but still better than what is there?

Of course, this is absurd, but still valid reasoning.

EDIT: additionally, yes, it would be a WR, but on the 9,900 meters category, which simply doesn't exist. There are certain limits we set, certain boundaries, to determine quality. We could have a WR in the fastest 10CM, the fastest launch, the fastest 37.65 meters, but we don't simply because these weren't the categories that were set.

If I competed for the World Championship of Chess, would it really matter whether I was winning a 40-move match until the 37th move? Of course not! I was competing in a game where you have to checkmate the King, like I would be running for 10,000 meters, not 9,900.

But the point here is that the runner REFUSES to FIX EASILY FIXABLE route changes. If we accept his run, we might as well accept every other run that ever suffered from route problems, lack of optimization, etc., simply because it's the fastest one available.

This is precisely what this verification system is supposed to prevent!

I could run Assassin's Creed in 6 hours casually playing. Should I record that without Audio/Video glitches and then complain the route changes/optimization weren't that good, but still better than what is there?

Of course, this is absurd, but still valid reasoning.

EDIT: additionally, yes, it would be a WR, but on the 9,900 meters category, which simply doesn't exist. There are certain limits we set, certain boundaries, to determine quality. We could have a WR in the fastest 10CM, the fastest launch, the fastest 37.65 meters, but we don't simply because these weren't the categories that were set.

If I competed for the World Championship of Chess, would it really matter whether I was winning a 40-move match until the 37th move? Of course not! I was competing in a game where you have to checkmate the King, like I would be running for 10,000 meters, not 9,900.

rTiimber

2010-05-03 01:01:42 pm

The big differences are:

* This appears to not be casual gameplay.
* Many viewers praise the strategy and gameplay, apart for the five minutes lost.
* The time lost is not too big from "optimized" version.
* The general opinion seems to be that this is indeed a good gameplay, while casual gameplay would give the viewers (of the finally posted run) a feeling of being disgusted and avoid future movies.

Quote:

EDIT: additionally, yes, it would be a WR, but on the 9,900 meters category, which simply doesn't exist. There are certain limits we set, certain boundaries, to determine quality. We could have a WR in the fastest 10CM, the fastest launch, the fastest 37.65 meters, but we don't simply because these weren't the categories that were set.

Ah, but what I mention is still a WR on 10,000 meters, but not the last 100 meters. Others will still compete against the full run.

ZenicReverie

2010-05-03 01:03:37 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from gia:

EC should run the game to end the discussion Tongue

Isn't that how he ended up running Hitman? I think this is how EC should be choosing what games he runs. Wink

Here's a fix, let's accept any runs for new games if any of the verifiers agree it should be accepted. Then we'll just always accept improvements as well. Or maybe we should accept the run on the condition that the runner be locked in a room until he finishes an improvement... yes, that's much better...

Normand Nubcake

2010-05-03 01:48:31 pm

I can’t believe I’m doing this since I hate internet arguments more than anything, but I guess I’ll bite. Stickyman, I quoted you because I thought your post was mind-blowing. Like saying that this run is sub-par and bad for SDA. And calling SCM an indignant douche because he made two brief posts stating that he was upset with the verdict and that he didn’t care if we didn’t want to take his run, all this without resorting to derogatory comments. This is actually the most sensible and natural reaction I can think of considering he understandably doesn’t want to redo the whole run. Most of my response wasn’t entirely directed at you though

Quote from stickyman05:

Problem bolded. He didn't post anything until the run was completed. This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree. Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine. He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had not been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run.

The italicized part mentions GTA being "...a freaking huge sandbox game." Again, he said nothing about his run until it was completed. 3D games in general have infinite route possibilities, but a game world as open and massive as the GTA series absolutely requires more than 1 head for route planning. Because only one person did the route planning more optimal routes were overlooked. Had the runner posted his route during planning, or some wips for the forum to scrutinize, then the end product would have been tighter and, in my opinion, better.

The run is supposed to speak for itself. I really don’t get where you’re going with this. Maybe the runner found out about the existence of SDA weeks or months after completing the run. Maybe he doesn’t speak English (I know SCM does but you don’t have to do a background check and analyze the runner’s grammar to be able to verify a run) and therefore can’t be expected to post WIPs, communicate on the forums or read most of the walkthroughs available online. You can’t use any of that as an argument to reject a run, you have to judge it on its own terms.

Quote from stickyman05:

Honestly, the runner has already been lost. Even if this run gets reverified and accepted, I doubt he will run another game.

Even if that’s true, I said this precisely because I don’t want it to happen again

Quote from stickyman05:

Everyone has a right to their opinions, and belittling another opinion that does not agree with your own is not only wrong but juvenile. I hope you are more accepting of other opinions in real life.

I wasn’t trying to belittle anyone’s opinions, I just think it would be best for the site if the verdict of a self-proclaimed “ridiculously picky verifier”, as devoted as he is, would be taken with a grain of salt. EC should’ve been that lone verifier who does his job better than anybody else but whose personal verdict doesn’t really matter in the end, if more people had verified the run. But because his opinion was actually taken into consideration here, we have a fantastic run that’s not easy to improve by any stretch of the imagination (can anyone really tell me with a straight face after watching it and taking a step back that this run is reject-worthy?) that might be dropped in the bin and a competent runner being turned away.

Quote from Axel Ryman:

In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.

Who said anything about popularity? I didn’t mean “huge” as in “huge blockbuster”.

I didn’t read anything after Cabbage’s last post, but I’d just like to reemphasize before people who haven’t watched the run start arguing semantics and concepts : This run has about 5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run. Most of which couldn’t be spotted by astute viewers, none of which would’ve been even brought up if a single verifier (who the verdict is entirely based on) hadn’t gone out of his way to find them

I can’t believe I’m doing this since I hate internet arguments more than anything, but I guess I’ll bite. Stickyman, I quoted you because I thought your post was mind-blowing. Like saying that this run is sub-par and bad for SDA. And calling SCM an indignant douche because he made two brief posts stating that he was upset with the verdict and that he didn’t care if we didn’t want to take his run, all this without resorting to derogatory comments. This is actually the most sensible and natural reaction I can think of considering he understandably doesn’t want to redo the whole run. Most of my response wasn’t entirely directed at you though

[quote="stickyman05"]
Problem bolded.  He didn't post anything until the run was completed.  This is asking for trouble.

Someone mentioned a language barrier, and I have to disagree.  Although his grammar is a bit rough in places, I can understand him just fine.  He also seems capable of reading English, since he has replied to posts, so I so no reason why he had [i]not[/i] been posting in the GTA4 thread as he worked on his run.

The italicized part mentions GTA being "...a freaking huge sandbox game."  Again, he said nothing about his run until it was completed.  3D games in general have infinite route possibilities, but a game world as open and massive as the GTA series absolutely requires more than 1 head for route planning.  Because only one person did the route planning more optimal routes were overlooked.  Had the runner posted his route during planning, or some wips for the forum to scrutinize, then the end product would have been tighter and, in my opinion, better.[/quote]
The run is supposed to speak for itself. I really don’t get where you’re going with this. Maybe the runner found out about the existence of SDA weeks or months after completing the run. Maybe he doesn’t speak English (I know SCM does but you don’t have to do a background check and analyze the runner’s grammar to be able to verify a run) and therefore can’t be expected to post WIPs, communicate on the forums or read most of the walkthroughs available online. You can’t use any of that as an argument to reject a run, you have to judge it on its own terms.

[quote="stickyman05"]Honestly, the runner has already been lost.  Even [i]if[/i] this run gets reverified and accepted, I doubt he will run another game.[/quote]  
Even if that’s true, I said this precisely because I don’t want it to happen again

[quote="stickyman05"]Everyone has a right to their opinions, and belittling another opinion that does not agree with your own is not only wrong but juvenile.  I hope you are more accepting of other opinions in real life.[/quote]  
I wasn’t trying to belittle anyone’s opinions, I just think it would be best for the site if the verdict of a self-proclaimed “ridiculously picky verifier”, as devoted as he is, would be taken with a grain of salt. EC should’ve been that lone verifier who does his job better than anybody else but whose personal verdict doesn’t really matter in the end, if more people had verified the run. But because his opinion was actually taken into consideration here, we have a fantastic run that’s not easy to improve by any stretch of the imagination (can anyone really tell me with a straight face after watching it and taking a step back that this run is reject-worthy?) that might be dropped in the bin and a competent runner being turned away.

[quote="Axel Ryman"]
In that case can I do a speedrun of FFXIII or any other well known game ithout having any knowledge of what to do and it should be accepted because of its popularity? I thought this was a site that hosted speedruns, not popular games played by people.
[/quote]
Who said anything about popularity? I didn’t mean “huge” as in “huge blockbuster”.

I didn’t read anything after Cabbage’s last post, but I’d just like to reemphasize before people who haven’t watched the run start arguing semantics and concepts : This run has about 5 minutes worth of planning mistakes in a 4.5 hours run. Most of which couldn’t be spotted by astute viewers, none of which would’ve been even brought up if a single verifier (who the verdict is entirely based on) hadn’t gone out of his way to find them

ZenicReverie

2010-05-03 03:04:04 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

It is not clear to me what the grounds for reverifying here is.

I believe the grounds are to get additional opinions on those mistake you've astutely pointed out. There's no disputing the existence of them, but it is opinion, and thus subjective, that the mistakes warrant a rejection. The planning mistakes might be easily avoidable with knowledge, but isn't great execution more often better than planning? A run can be rejected because of worse gameplay, and yet it could have a better time due to a better route. Thus, someone would have to match the current level of play and include the newly found route before the improvement would be accepted. Is there really that much difference just because the better route was found before the run was accepted to the site officially? Just because we know a trick or route is possible, why can't someone submit a run that doesn't use that route if it still has stellar gameplay? I think we should guide skilled gamers and encourage them to be more open with the community rather than shut them out with a rejection. Maybe it was made prior to the tricks reaching a level of general knowledge, or they take precise timing, or whatever. I think it's a little harsh to reject an otherwise great run for route issues that add under 2% of the run time.

I don't really care one way or the other on this topic, and having never played the game, I can't say how bad those mistakes are. In fact, I don't really like GTA... why am I here again?

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
It is not clear to me what the grounds for reverifying here is.
[/quote]
I believe the grounds are to get additional opinions on those mistake you've astutely pointed out. There's no disputing the existence of them, but it is opinion, and thus subjective, that the mistakes warrant a rejection. The planning mistakes might be easily avoidable with knowledge, but isn't great execution more often better than planning? A run can be rejected because of worse gameplay, and yet it could have a better time due to a better route. Thus, someone would have to match the current level of play and include the newly found route before the improvement would be accepted. Is there really that much difference just because the better route was found before the run was accepted to the site officially? Just because we know a trick or route is possible, why can't someone submit a run that doesn't use that route if it still has stellar gameplay? I think we should guide skilled gamers and encourage them to be more open with the community rather than shut them out with a rejection. Maybe it was made prior to the tricks reaching a level of general knowledge, or they take precise timing, or whatever. I think it's a little harsh to reject an otherwise great run for route issues that add under 2% of the run time.

I don't really care one way or the other on this topic, and having never played the game, I can't say how bad those mistakes are. In fact, I don't really like GTA... why am I here again?