<- 1234
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
we have lift off
I'm going to keep this civil.

Quote:
ridd3r, for the damn last time: it would be easily improvable by HIM, the RUNNER, that ALREADY MADE a RUN that would not take long for HIM to RERUN. Does that get through your thick skull? (Or do I have to capitalize more?)


It would not be easily improvable for the runner, it would take a hell of a lot of work. Segments requiring a lot of luck can take loads of attempts. Just because you have done something once doesn't make it easy to do again. I never suggested anyone else would try and run this.

Quote:
Also, where did I NOT accept this decision? I called it an unfavorable one, but I respect Mike's verdict and left it at that.


I never said you didn't accept the decision, I was suggesting ending the dicussion on it since it is rendered pointless.

Quote:
Lastly, how does a simple case of logic get overturned by whether or not I've seen the run? I never commented on the quality, I commented on the fact that there were notable and NOTED route changes that would significantly or insignificantly lower the time. Got that? 


Because it's about more than how many mistakes the run has, it's about a run that is good for this site with few noticeable mistakes. As you haven't seen the run you don't know how impressive it looks and that is the point of the argument, that people will find it impressive; it doesn't lower SDA standards. This is just where we differ on opinion, but I really don't think you were considering this aspect of things. I apologise if my previous post offended you, it wasn't meant that way.

Quote:
You might want to try NOT responding when a discussion has been supposedly ended, and still continue it, because it's frustratingly hypocritical to see. (Not in the least because I explicitly said I had no interest in continuing it, until you decided it was wise to voice your own opinion.)


Of course there is irony is someone having to post again to possibly end the discussion, perhaps it was foolish of me to try and do it but it wasn't anything as pathetic as me wanting to have the last word.

Quote:
Some people are so unbelievably incapable of processing and comprehending basically constructed English sentences.


If I was incapable of processing English, bolding and capitalising wouldn't help much would it? You know absolutely nothing about me or how intelligent I am, so please don't treat me like I'm a total idiot just because this is the internet. This is one of the few forums on the internet where people generally respect others opinions and you don't get insulted. This is meant to be a simple debate, not people running their mouths off with high emotions because someone disagrees with them. None of my posts are meant to offend, sometimes I get frustrated when people don't look at other people's point of view but it is very simple to just say why you were offended by my post; as opposed to resorting to a string of, frankly incredibly childish insults. Everyone has their own crap to deal with so I really don't appreciate having to put up with posts like that on what is meant to be a forum for a hobby.
Quote from Miles.:
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
It would certainly take a very long time, but substantially less than the original run must've taken and substantially less than it would take anyone else, less familiar with the game, to do.
When I originally did the first 3 days in my Pikmin 2 run, it took about 10 days. I eventually redid them, and that took 48.


I presume then that either
a) You weren't working as much per day on it on the redo, or
b) You were improving the execution.

The things I've pointed out don't add difficulty to the run.
I love YaBB 1G - SP1!
Besides whatever we are missing you forgot luck manipulation which can turn 10 into two thousand if it wishes
You guys talking about, that you didn't even know. Sometimes you re-loading your save 15 times, for just luckly taxi spawn, on your safehouse exit. And then you f*cked all up on stupid ped-driver, that dont even know what is 'traffic rules'. And how the hell anyone can tell about 'fast redo'? Try this game, and point it out.
Oh, and you all have an good example, 'just' need to figure out those 5-6 minutes mistakes, anyone want to try?
My feelings on The Demon Rush
I don't understand why you guys are still debating. The run is already being re-verified.
Waiting hurts my soul...
Quote from mikwuyma:
I don't understand why you guys are still debating.

it passes the time.
We all scream for Eyes Cream
With the current situation, a lock should be done. The debate is basically over now since the run is being reverified, so we might as well lock it since I'm sure Mike will make a new thread for the new verification.
Waiting hurts my soul...
Quote from Axel Ryman:
With the current situation, a lock should be done. The debate is basically over now since the run is being reverified, so we might as well lock it since I'm sure Mike will make a new thread for the new verification.

Makes sense.

I wanted to suggest that the reverification doesn't obsolete the old verifier comments though. I believe those should be included with the new verifier comments.
Edit history:
eV1Te: 2010-05-09 05:30:21 am
Quote from ZenicReverie:
Quote from Axel Ryman:
With the current situation, a lock should be done. The debate is basically over now since the run is being reverified, so we might as well lock it since I'm sure Mike will make a new thread for the new verification.

Makes sense.

I wanted to suggest that the reverification doesn't obsolete the old verifier comments though. I believe those should be included with the new verifier comments.


I agree!

I am actually one of the persons who signed up for the reverification and it is impossible to ignore the previously stated comments about the run.  Therefore I decided to analyze in detail, the parts of the run that gave the reason for the first rejection.

EDIT: I have already turned in my re-verification, no chance that my opinions would be affected by me revealing myself at this stage.

I also want to add that ExplodingCabbage must be very skilled since he noticed these mistakes the first time, they are very valid arguments although you have to wait until the verification is done for my full explanation!
Balls jerky
you're not supposed to tell people you're a verifier though
We all scream for Eyes Cream



Best way to describe that post. Tongue
Breaking verifier secrecy doesn't really matter here; the purpose of that rule is to stop the verifier's views being influenced by others, which is kind of a moot point after a 6 page debate on whether to accept the run has just taken place.

Best not to get into verifiers openly expressing their views and provoking more open debate, though. I figure the main thing Mike has to gain from having verifiers take a look at this is that he gets a bunch more detailed, measured, privately thought-out responses written without the need to be defensive or to shoot down others' points. Letting more open debate happen, especially open debate involving the verifiers before they write their responses, compromises this.
sounds interesting. im a fan of gta iv so if i have time, i will watch it
Quote from ZenicReverie:
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.


Seconding this great idea.
SDA Apprentice -- (3-1)
Quote from najzere:
Quote from ZenicReverie:
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.


Seconding this great idea.


*Falls onto floor and bursts out laughing*

I'm sorry... Its just that, well... If that was actually allowed, I would already have 5 runs on the site by now...  I've had my fair share of rejected runs since I started speed running, but I learned from my mistakes...  the idea of "accepting any new games" sounds good, but really after you watch it, you really begin to question as to how this was allowed to be posted...  I can say that attempting muramasa was a bit of a mistake on my part and (while I did get a final time of 2:20) I felt that I had offended a few people be submitting a very lackluster run...  The same can be said of the failed Final fantasy 1 runs, they were good, but too many mistakes (and stalling for time) makes one wonder how it is considered to be a great speed run... Now, I'm not saying that this run is lackluster, but when a run is rejected, nine times out of ten, it's for a very good reason...  This run is a special case considering the lack of verifiers, but in most to all cases (especially in my runs) I can understand why runs get turned down...

((The following was written based off my own opinion, this in no way reflects any other person's thought on the matter))
The part where it says "if any of the verifiers agree it should be accepted" implies at least two verifiers must accept the run. This would stop obviously inappropriate runs from being accepted, which is different than blanket-accepting any new runs. Instead of having two runs up on the site that you're not totally satisfied with and that may spur you or someone else to beat, we have no FF1 or Muramasa runs. Personally, I would prefer having your runs hosted because I'd like to see your hard work get some exposure and grow SDA's catalog.
Waiting hurts my soul...
So, I wasn't going to reply because what I said was mostly meant as a joke.

First of all SDA shouldn't automatically accept any run of a game that would make it ineffective as a goto place to find speedruns. We'd be little better than any other video hosting site (Mainly because you're sure to find the game you want and only speedruns). One of the main things SDA has going for it is a source of quality (well executed) speedruns, so laxing the standards would be good for increasing popularity because now we have more games, but it degrades the quality and thus the uniqueness of SDA as a site. Once quality falls, other sites can easily pop up to mimic what SDA does.

Just look at nico videos. Stealing our ideas and being better at some games. I mean really, besides the language barrier, what's keeping all those users from submitting here. We want your runs! SDA needs to get with the times and start accepting emulators, then we'd make it to the big time...

Muramasa was unanimously rejected, so it wouldn't be accepted anyway. Final Fantasy 1 was SS and should be automatically accepted. That should be a new rule. SS games are automatically accepted as well.

Moral of the story: I'm crazy and you can't trust what I'm saying is what I believe or am seriously suggesting. Good day.
Quote from najzere:
Quote from ZenicReverie:
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.


Seconding this great idea.


Completely disagreed. There's been more than a couple cases where there was at least one verifier who had no idea how the game works on a speedrunner's level. Terrible runs could easily make it on the site that way. GTA4 is a rare case; the current system works perfectly fine, though maybe mikwuyma should've put the run back up for verification when one of the verifiers told him they couldn't verify the run.

Also, there's no guarantee that someone is going to do a better run just because there's a subpar run on the site. There are still runs on the site that are generally considered terrible, accepted back when standards were more lax, which have been up for years. Further, I'd rather encourage someone to try to work on a run for SDA because we host such an impressive collection and they want to add to it, not because there's a giant blemish that sticks out like a sore thumb that they decide they need to correct.

tl;dr: quality > quantity.
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Topic locked because there's a new one now.

http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php?topic=11714.0