Username:
B
I
U
S
"
url
img
#
code
sup
sub
font
size
color
smiley
embarassed
thumbsup
happy
Huh?
Angry
Roll Eyes
Undecided
Lips Sealed
Kiss
Cry
Grin
Wink
Tongue
Shocked
Cheesy
Smiley
Sad
123 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
My feelings on The Demon Rush
Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/ResidentEvil4.html

Evan 'eatsnackysmores' Mitchell's Single-segment Wii special weapons run

Verifier Responses

The reason for striking out part of this verification is because the verifier decided to be neutral on this one.

Quote:
Video is slightly dark audio was fine as far as I noticed.
The play and planning is good for what he set out to do.
He doesnt switch to grenades to run faster when he isnt using his gun for a while.  :/
And the fact he choose not to use a benafical glitch makes it a reject for me.
I would like to see him try again but with this in mind.


Quote:
The capture quality is pretty lacking in terms of picture clearness and brightness, but hopefully that will be fixed in the final transfer.

Gameplay is fine for the majority of the run, except a few spots, like the sewers of 3-2 where the bugs do a good number on him, the bridge in 3-6 where he somehow misses two rockets on targets right in front of him, the bug cave in 4-2 where the bugs gang bang him again, and in 5-4 where the security card part goes really horrible in many ways. But the rest is good.

This run could have been faster if the runner used the Ditman glitch, which he said he didn’t want to for some reason. Not using the tricks available that are necessary to get the fastest time usually results in rejection, but since this has an overall time of 1:48:44 and the old run has a time of 1:59:07 (due to us having a lot better of an understanding of the game now than we did in 2005), I think we can forgo the runner’s punishment for now.

I think this run should replace the one up there. At first, I thought there wasn’t enough difference between the Gamecube and Wii versions when it comes to a special weapons run, then I remembered that “TMP + stock though the door” glitch in Chapters 3-2 and 3-5 in the Gamecube version which allow for large skips, so maybe it should be. This should definitely replace that Gamecube run that’s 10 minutes slower until then.


Quote:
Cheating:
  No issues.

Video:
  No issues.

Audio:
  A lot of clangity-clang from Ashley's armour, but otherwise its good throughout.

Gameplay:
  Overall its pretty good.  The choice of using special costumes 2 is an interesting twist; Leon's just makes him look awesome, but the runner definitely takes good advantage of Ashley's invincibility.
  I could go over the various highs and lows of the run itself, but the runner's comments do a perfectly adequate job of pointing these out.  I'll just say that although not perfect, the runner makes good time when it counts, and never really gets too badly bent out of shape in spite of how hairy some of the later game sections can get.
  Overall the risks the runner takes pay off on average more than the occasions where they cost time. There are a few face-palm moments: missing two rockets on enemies directly in front of him, not dispatching certain enemies and getting grabbed on a few occasions even though it seems pretty clear that one cannot get by otherwise, some awkward knockback from firing rockets too close, but the run as a whole is superbly done and shows off a good deal of planning, memorization, and practice on the part of the runner.

Verdict:
  In the end, there's nothing really terribly wrong with the run, and its more than a 10 minute advantage over the existing special weapons SS, which is significant even if you do factor in any of the version specific advantages.  Thus I can't really see a reason not to accept it.

I originally had a plan to write the entire verification using 20-30s slang in honour of Leon's excellent costume and choice of weaponry, but as it turns out I'm an awful writer, so I'll just say that Leon is looking dapper, the run is the bee's knees, but that dame makes a bit too much of a ruckus.


Decision: Accept

Reason: It's a good 10 minute improvement over the current special weapons run, even if this run was on the Wii version.
Thread title:  
Edit history:
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:49:43 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 07:57:35 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 07:46:01 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 07:40:05 pm




This glitch is already in Derek Taylor's New Game run and Sarou's load game run. This run should *not* be accepted, especially since it's a very easy glitch to do.

Also, to Verifier #2: the load times on the Wii version make up for any time lost without use of the TMP Glitch, and then-some.
wait, so the run does not use the ditman glitch?

judging by that video a runner could save some MAJOR time...
Bad dog! No biscuits!
So, if I'm reading this right, the 10 minute time improvement is due mostly to faster loading times, and not to the use of new (Or past) glitches which could potentially shave another 10-15 minutes off at the very least?
Edit history:
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:33:53 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:31:21 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:30:52 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:30:43 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:30:15 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:29:24 pm
Sounds about right, but judging from the verifier notes alone, there are also some planning errors which are *very* avoidable, on top of not using an easy glitch that the runner was completely aware of... Novistadors will barely even touch you, if you look away from them with the camera controls. You won't get a single kick prompt, either. The bug cave is essentially the same thing, give or take a couple of rockets to get rid of clusters of them on your way out from hitting the switches.

Also, pardon me for being blunt, but verifier #3 doesn't appear to have one iota of speedrunning experience in this game, judging from his critique. He seems more interested in using Costume #2 as a source of improvement over anything else.
train kept rollin
I was the 1st verifier was I right about thinking equiping grenades or similar items makes you run faster or did I just make that up?
Edit history:
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:49:59 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:49:23 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:47:44 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:46:48 pm
Carcinogen: 2010-09-20 09:45:03 pm
No, you were correct. Equipping grenades does make you run faster. Also...



This was the image I meant to post. Fucking hotlink traps. Sorry about that.
Whenever I see Carcinogen about the forum he seems to be posting significant and intelligent stuff in the most gratuitously abrasive, unhelpful and confrontational manner possible. This thread would seem to be no exception.

Carc, I know nothing at all about this game but if you're seeking to overturn the verdict, Mike will presumably need these two questions answering:

* Is this run actually still faster than the GameCube run once you factor out both load times and time lost to not having the “TMP glitch" (whatever that may be)?
* If the answer to the above question is 'yes', and this is still an improvement over the old run by any sensibly measure, then why should it be rejected? Isn't replacing a really bad run with a merely slightly bad run* still a good thing?

(* I have no opinions on the quality of the runs myself, since I haven't seen them and know nothing about them.)
train kept rollin
Time will also be faster due to much quicker aiming made possible on the wii.
i don't think overturning the accept is the way to go, i think somebody simply needs to use the glitch and get an easy run up on SDA.
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Whenever I see Carcinogen about the forum he seems to be posting significant and intelligent stuff in the most gratuitously abrasive, unhelpful and confrontational manner possible. This thread would seem to be no exception.


Hey man, anything to win the internet. Granted, I do need to chill the fuck out just a little bit.

Quote:
Carc, I know nothing at all about this game but if you're seeking to overturn the verdict, Mike will presumably need these two questions answering:

* Is this run actually still faster than the GameCube run once you factor out both load times and time lost to not having the “TMP glitch" (whatever that may be)?
* If the answer to the above question is 'yes', and this is still an improvement over the old run by any sensibly measure, then why should it be rejected? Isn't replacing a really bad run with a merely slightly bad run* still a good thing?

(* I have no opinions on the quality of the runs myself, since I haven't seen them and know nothing about them.)


I'd have to see the actual run in order to answer those two questions (having missed the chance to verify this time for whatever reason), but I know the standard should be higher. Considering it's probably going to go through, I hope he obsoletes it before I do.
Whoah, Derekt21288 has a 1:38:34 single segment on Wii.  That time is unacceptable, and the guy failed to use the single easiest glitch in the game.  This is a DEFINITE reject.
Edit history:
TheQuietMan: 2010-09-21 11:03:25 pm
Complete. Global. Saturation.
Than tell this Derek to submit the run to SDA.
question.

if a run on youtube is faster than a run being verified on sda, would that sda run be accepted even if there's a faster run out there?
Edit history:
Tyvious: 2010-09-22 12:00:55 am
Bad dog! No biscuits!
Quote from Thanatos:
question.

if a run on youtube is faster than a run being verified on sda, would that sda run be accepted even if there's a faster run out there?

I'm guessing that a YouTube run being faster is irrelevant, due to their being unable to be properly verified. It might make a good "proof of concept", but it isn't a record set in stone.
gamelogs.org
seems like accepting this run would provoke someone into besting it more effectively than rejecting it would.
Accepting this run is like an invitation/permission to do runs (and get them posted) without using the most common and easiest time saving glitches.

I don't think Wii runs should replace GameCube runs, the version and console differences are too big (load times and mostly aiming). Runs on the GameCube would then be futile as soon as there are runs on the Wii version in each category.

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
Whenever I see Carcinogen about the forum he seems to be posting significant and intelligent stuff in the most gratuitously abrasive, unhelpful and confrontational manner possible. This thread would seem to be no exception.

Yes, and that's good in my opinion. This way mostly helps more than any other because it makes people think. (Well, if they can handle it; unfortunately, most people take it personally and are offended.)

Quote from arkarian:
seems like accepting this run would provoke someone into besting it more effectively than rejecting it would.

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
* Is this run actually still faster than the GameCube run once you factor out both load times and time lost to not having the “TMP glitch" (whatever that may be)?
* If the answer to the above question is 'yes', and this is still an improvement over the old run by any sensibly measure, then why should it be rejected? Isn't replacing a really bad run with a merely slightly bad run still a good thing?

I think runs should not be posted to provoke people to improve it but to show the fastest speedrun of a game with all means which were known at the time the run was done. I think that is what the verification should guarantee.
Quote from spiralout1123211:
Whoah, Derekt21288 has a 1:38:34 single segment on Wii.  That time is unacceptable, and the guy failed to use the single easiest glitch in the game.  This is a DEFINITE reject.


Hmm. And the time for the run that's just been accepted is 10 minutes faster than the one on the site, making it about 1:49? Sounds like Derek21288's run is much better than the one just accepted. Has anyone from SDA who's familiar with RE4 speedrunning sought him out and asked him if he'd like to submit? If not, then like TheQuietMan says, they should.

Quote from Thanatos:
question.

if a run on youtube is faster than a run being verified on sda, would that sda run be accepted even if there's a faster run out there?


There's no rule specifically requiring that runs get rejected if they are slower than other runs already posted elsewhere on the internet. However, normally the existence of another run which is substantially faster than a submitted run (as in, minutes rather than seconds, for a game of this length) would be evidence that the submitted run wasn't up to SDA's standards and solid grounds for rejection. What makes this case different and less clear is that the submitted run is an improvement to a run already on the site.

Back when Enhasa was admin he posted a couple of times that he would always rather accept a bad run which was an improvement than leave the worse run up on the site, because what's up on the game pages is there indefinitely and improving it (even by less than what is possible) can only be good, whereas a News post drawing attention to the bad run drops off the top of the front page within a month. I don't know whether Mike takes the same view, but it seems like a sensible one to me.

Quote from Medeon:
Quote from arkarian:
seems like accepting this run would provoke someone into besting it more effectively than rejecting it would.

I think runs should not be posted to provoke people to improve it


I agree. I've never put any stock in the 'accepting this will encourage people to improve it' argument - it's probably true for all games that posting a bad run will increase the chances that someone else will run the game to try and beat it, so pointing that out as a reason for accepting a specific run just feels to me like an excuse for arbitrarily lowering standards. It may be one argument for lowering verification standards generally, but that's a seperate issue.

Quote from Medeon:
to show the fastest speedrun of a game with all means which were known at the time the run was done. I think that is what the verification should guarantee.


I loosely agree with this statement, albeit with some reservations*. This leads me to suggest another important question is whether this run improved over the GameCube run thanks to improved execution / subtle planning improvements, or due to implementing new tricks found by people other than the runner. If the original run was highly optimised and used all tricks known at the time, and the new one is less well optimised and shaved time due to new tricks, but didn't use all known glitches, then that might be reasonable grounds for rejection, too. The verification responses don't give much clue about exactly where the improvement came from, but verifier 2 says its down to the community having a 'better understanding of the game now than in 2005', which suggests the scenario I'm describing may be reality.

* Off topic stuff:
The whole 'all tricks and glitches known at the time' thing always causes me a little discomfort, because it seems to suggest that it isn't up to the runner to hunt down tricks and glitches, and that discoveries of tricks and glitches are things that just 'happen' by magic over which the runner has no control. Of course in most cases this isn't true. If a beneficial trick or glitch is discovered after a runner has finished his run, the default response shouldn't be to say 'Well, it's not his fault - he didn't know about it', it should be to ask 'Well, why didn't he find it himself, then?' There are of course plenty of perfectly good answers to this question; maybe the game is simply so vast or so laden with features that the runner couldn't reasonably hope to test everything, or maybe a particular glitch was something simply bizarre that there's no obvious explanation for that could only really be discovered by luckily stumbling across it, not by systematic testing, or maybe discovering a particular glitch required someone to delve into the source code of the game and the runner didn't have the necessary experience in programming to be able to do so himself, or maybe a trick is just really damn clever and most people would never be able to come up with it. I think there has to be something to excuse it, though, or else failure to find a trick or glitch is a mistake like any other, and should be treated as such.
welcome to the machine
I would like to hear the runner's thoughts.  Did he intentionally choose not to use the glitch, as verifier 2 implies?  If so, why?  How familiar was he with other runs?  What's his reaction to all this?
thethrillness.blogspot.com
[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
Quote from spiralout1123211:
Has anyone from SDA who's familiar with RE4 speedrunning sought him out and asked him if he'd like to submit? If not, then like TheQuietMan says, they should.


He already has a RE4 run here, "Best time, normal skill: European version 1:50:53 by Derek Taylor on 2008-07-03"

He himself could beat his 1:38:34 with little effort now (just spoke to him on MSN)

And yeah reject this run and cast it into the depths of hell. Any run that does not use all the tools available should not be accepted. I have not actively speedran RE4 in 2 years and I could beat this time with little effort.....
Quote from ExplodingCabbage:
* Off topic stuff:
The whole 'all tricks and glitches known at the time' thing always causes me a little discomfort, because it seems to suggest that it isn't up to the runner to hunt down tricks and glitches, and that discoveries of tricks and glitches are things that just 'happen' by magic over which the runner has no control. Of course in most cases this isn't true. If a beneficial trick or glitch is discovered after a runner has finished his run, the default response shouldn't be to say 'Well, it's not his fault - he didn't know about it', it should be to ask 'Well, why didn't he find it himself, then?' There are of course plenty of perfectly good answers to this question; maybe the game is simply so vast or so laden with features that the runner couldn't reasonably hope to test everything, or maybe a particular glitch was something simply bizarre that there's no obvious explanation for that could only really be discovered by luckily stumbling across it, not by systematic testing, or maybe discovering a particular glitch required someone to delve into the source code of the game and the runner didn't have the necessary experience in programming to be able to do so himself, or maybe a trick is just really damn clever and most people would never be able to come up with it. I think there has to be something to excuse it, though, or else failure to find a trick or glitch is a mistake like any other, and should be treated as such.


I'm going to sound like a broken record, but it's one thing if the runner has already finished a run and a trick is discovered during verification. New tricks and glitches during verification happen all the time, otherwise a majority of runs (take a run on a newer Zelda game for example) would be rejected on principle in the middle of the verification process.

What happens here is completely different. The runner openly admits to knowing every trick in the book when he writes out his submission form, and all the tricks are already in a more recent SDA run belonging to someone who's optimized the game to from here to kingdom come. All the strategies found since Tim Bright's runs are very much considered public knowledge, considering they're right here on the site.

Improvement or not, the runner didn't put enough effort into it. I expect Derek to crap out a better run in less than a couple of weeks if he still has any interest in running the game at all.
Hey folks,

Seems to be a lot of dissention on my run. That's fine, please understand the point of my not using the ditman glitch was that it was forbidden by Twin Galaxies. I'm completely aware of it and how much time it saves. This seems to have risen the ire of a few people ("reject this run and cast it into the depths of hell") but please remember, I just formulated a run with a particular goal in mind (meet the TG criteria) and submitted it. Anybody have any questions feel free to ask me.

I'm also not averse to this run being obsoleted, were that to happen I would certainly do my best to beat the new time. I thought that was also sort of the point of the site.

Cheers,

Evan
Also: the majority of the improvements in time over the existing run have to do with better strategy, optimization and execution. Wii load times, while definitely a factor, are less important than the gameplay improvements. I've played the existing run with my run side my side after lining up each individual segment (negating differing load times) and that's where most of the saved time adds up.
Edit history:
spiralout1123211: 2010-09-22 01:50:59 pm
spiralout1123211: 2010-09-22 01:48:59 pm
spiralout1123211: 2010-09-22 01:48:41 pm
Okay, I feel a little better knowing that the runner had a reason to not use the Ditman (what a weird glitch to disallow o_O), and I obviously have no say in whether this gets put up, but as it stands I'd hate to see it put up.  And also, it's no exaggeration to say that Derek is to RE4 as Seth Glass is to MM2; anyone who has followed RE4 speed running knows that and is probably laughing at the notion of him posting a fake time or cheating.  Not that any of that is at all relevant. Tongue

About the Wii/GC category issue, they are DEFINITELY two different categories, and I'm pretty sure we talked about this a while ago in one of the RE4 threads.  Load times are hugely faster with Wii, and there are big enough differences (e.g. no TMP glitch in Wii) to justify making them separate, so no, Wii times should not obselete GC times.
Edit history:
ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-22 02:08:36 pm
ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-22 02:08:13 pm
ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-22 02:06:17 pm
New runs can obsolete old runs in different categories if they're uncontroversially better (which, just to be doubly clear, isn't the same thing as just having a faster time, since times are generally not directly comparable between categories) by a substantial margin. Good example was the GTA 3 any% run on PC obsoleting the old, vastly inferior PS2 run. No idea whether this is a good idea here or not.