Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of a New World

2012-04-20 11:47:43 am

1-Up!

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Multiplayer Segmented NG+ run

Verifier Responses

I'm going to do something a little different here and summarize the verification proceedings. The reason being that this has been going on since November, and has included a lot of back and forth, runner to verifier communication, verifier to Flip communication outside of the v thread, and edited posts that I can't grab anymore anyway.

4 verifiers.

3 reject based on a/v issues. None reject based on gameplay issues.

Protocol at this point is to defer to nate, as he makes the final call on whether runs have a/v which is SDA-acceptable. Nate basically built the notion of sda-acceptable video to begin with, so that's why he gets to make these decisions.

One thing is different this time - he's the runner

I'll just say before going forward that I watched this run before sending it out to verifiers and there are some moments where the audio capture is wince-worthy. According to nate, his capture device worked fine in testing but while recording it dropped frames like mad and he was unaware. After the run's completion, he put the audio back together by hand. This results in an audio stretching sound from time to time in most segments.

I went to nate anyway and just asked if he was sure that this was allowable. He's confident that this run is on the lower end of sda-acceptable.

This didn't sit well with the verifiers, who are concerned that we're opening the door to lower quality videos here at SDA. I disagree, and I completely trust nate's judgement. He's been an active admin here longer than any of us and I know he's not going to let our standards slip.

Decision: Accept

Reason: All agree that the planning/execution of this run is excellent. Nate says the a/v issues, while not great, are good enough to be on the site.

Congratulations to Nathan Jahnke and Sarah Jahnke!

Thread title:

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Multiplayer Segmented NG+ run

[b]Verifier Responses[/b]

I'm going to do something a little different here and [i]summarize[/i] the verification proceedings. The reason being that this has been going on since November, and has included [i][b]a lot[/b][/i] of back and forth, runner to verifier communication, verifier to Flip communication outside of the v thread, and edited posts that I can't grab anymore anyway.

4 verifiers.

3 reject based on a/v issues. None reject based on gameplay issues.

Protocol at this point is to defer to nate, as he makes the final call on whether runs have a/v which is SDA-acceptable. Nate basically built the notion of sda-acceptable video to begin with, so that's why he gets to make these decisions.

One thing is different this time - [i]he's the runner[/i]

I'll just say before going forward that I watched this run before sending it out to verifiers and there are some moments where the audio capture is wince-worthy. According to nate, his capture device worked fine in testing but while recording it dropped frames like mad and he was unaware. After the run's completion, he put the audio back together by hand. This results in an audio stretching sound from time to time in most segments.

I went to nate anyway and just asked if he was [i]sure[/i] that this was allowable. He's confident that this run is on the lower end of sda-acceptable.

This didn't sit well with the verifiers, who are concerned that we're opening the door to lower quality videos here at SDA. I disagree, and I completely trust nate's judgement. He's been an active admin here longer than any of us and I know he's not going to let our standards slip.

[b]Decision[/b]: Accept

[b]Reason[/b]: All agree that the planning/execution of this run is excellent. Nate says the a/v issues, while not great, are good enough to be on the site.

Congratulations to Nathan Jahnke and Sarah Jahnke!

Flip

2012-04-20 11:48:10 am

1-Up!

I know some people are going to be upset about this and make wild accusations and just generally be a pain in the ass because some people are just that way. Just spare us the drama.

AdamAK

2012-04-20 01:49:57 pm

Totally rad

I'm amazed someone bothered speed running this game. I couldn't stand it beyond the first 2 hours, so maybe this will at least let me see the more interesting parts of the game. Hope that the A/V issues still leave the run watchable.

Congrats, Nate!

nate

2012-04-20 03:31:20 pm

just watch it with the audio commentary.

Sir VG

2012-04-20 03:38:10 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

I'm gonna say it right now. I TRUST NATE.

I've been here long enough to know that nate isn't gonna try anything to tamper with the soul of this website just to get a run up. He's worked here way too long and has too good of a reputation for that.

That said, it IS a bit ironic that the god of our video quality standards can't get a perfectly recorded run. Tongue

sarah

2012-04-20 03:42:48 pm

gyrotechnic lollipop

woo!
and yeah the commentary is pretty good imo :9

MAS8705

2012-04-20 03:44:30 pm

SDA Apprentice -- (3-1)

I feel as though I should throw in my two cents since I was one of those verifiers. I admit that the audio did get bad at times, but all the same, the run was still executed well enough to be added onto SDA. I was also probably the first one to alternate my verification to accept for one simple reason: If the audio is passble by SDA standards, then it falls on the execution, and that again was still good.

nate

2012-04-20 03:45:03 pm

Quote from Sir VG:

That said, it IS a bit ironic that the god of our video quality standards can't get a perfectly recorded run. Tongue

basically last summer i thought i was the master of the easycap. best bet is to never think you're the master of anything. i did learn a lot more about it later, enough to write norichan. of course we know how that turned out so the jury is still out on me right now.

TheThrillness

2012-04-20 03:50:43 pm

thethrillness.blogspot.com

If it's only the audio capture that is the issue, I see no problem with accepting.... bonus if there is audio commentary which eliminates the issue completely.

It's not as if he captured it badly on purpose. To me, videos are just a place holder to proove you did the run so that other people can watch and improve the time (if possible).

I think people are maybe thinking that because nate is a solid and good member here he is getting better treatment and an accept based on this and if they were to submit a run with the same issues they think they would be flat out rejected. This is not the case in my opinion and who ran the game should not be taken into the equation.

Darkwing Duck

2012-04-20 04:47:24 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from AnubisGI:

If it's only the audio capture that is the issue, I see no problem with accepting.... bonus if there is audio commentary which eliminates the issue completely.

It's not as if he captured it badly on purpose. To me, videos are just a place holder to proove you did the run so that other people can watch and improve the time (if possible).

I think people are maybe thinking that because nate is a solid and good member here he is getting better treatment and an accept based on this and if they were to submit a run with the same issues they think they would be flat out rejected. This is not the case in my opinion and who ran the game should not be taken into the equation.

Nate isn't a "solid and good member." He's one of the biggest reasons the site exists and flourishes. He SHOULD get better treatment.

Eternalspirit

2012-04-20 06:41:14 pm

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Quote from AnubisGI:

If it's only the audio capture that is the issue, I see no problem with accepting.... bonus if there is audio commentary which eliminates the issue completely.

It's not as if he captured it badly on purpose. To me, videos are just a place holder to proove you did the run so that other people can watch and improve the time (if possible).

I think people are maybe thinking that because nate is a solid and good member here he is getting better treatment and an accept based on this and if they were to submit a run with the same issues they think they would be flat out rejected. This is not the case in my opinion and who ran the game should not be taken into the equation.

Nate isn't a "solid and good member." He's one of the biggest reasons the site exists and flourishes. He SHOULD get better treatment.

I absolutely disagree. Even if I owned SDA, I would still expect the verifiers to verify my runs to the same standards as they would anyone else. If anything, they should be a lot harsher.

Anyways, I could bitch and whine and moan about this decision (I was one of the verifiers who rejected based on a/v), but the decision was made so whatever. I just pray that this doesn't open the door to more of the same, as there are now SEVERAL precedents for people to turn to if their a/v isn't up to snuff. We can now no longer justify rejecting runs based on a/v unless the run is essentially completely unwatchable due to it.

[quote="Darkwing Duck"][quote="AnubisGI"]If it's only the audio capture that is the issue, I see no problem with accepting.... bonus if there is audio commentary which eliminates the issue completely.

It's not as if he captured it badly on purpose. To me, videos are just a place holder to proove you did the run so that other people can watch and improve the time (if possible).

[b]I think people are maybe thinking that because nate is a solid and good member here he is getting better treatment and an accept based on this [/b]and if they were to submit a run with the same issues they think they would be flat out rejected. This is not the case in my opinion and who ran the game should not be taken into the equation.[/quote]

Nate isn't a "solid and good member."  He's one of the biggest reasons the site exists and flourishes.  He SHOULD get better treatment.[/quote]

I absolutely disagree. Even if I owned SDA, I would still expect the verifiers to verify my runs to the same standards as they would anyone else. If anything, they should be a lot harsher.

Anyways, I could bitch and whine and moan about this decision (I was one of the verifiers who rejected based on a/v), but the decision was made so whatever. I just pray that this doesn't open the door to more of the same, as there are now SEVERAL precedents for people to turn to if their a/v isn't up to snuff. We can now no longer justify rejecting runs based on a/v unless the run is essentially completely unwatchable due to it.

Freezard

2012-04-20 07:19:22 pm

Congrats nate Smiley

dballin

2012-04-20 08:45:51 pm

Balls jerky

The audio on this must be complete and total shit because I couldn't STAND the audio on the controversially rejected (for gameplay) BK run and not ONE verifier said anything. Should be an interesting watch. Tongue

I've never even played this game but I look forward to seeing nate's name back on the front page after how long?

Axel Ryman

Edit history:

Axel Ryman: 2012-04-21 12:07:38 am

2012-04-21 12:06:54 am

We all scream for Eyes Cream

I'm pretty sure the bad audio is the game itself, not the recording Tongue

Although I hate this game, I can't wait for the run. Congratulations Nate!

MrSparkle

2012-04-21 02:18:04 am

Doin Good

I'm upset you would make a wild accusation like we are going to make wild accusations and just generally be a pain in the ass, because we are that way. I think the thread has been fairly civil, otherwise. Please spare us the drama.

moooh

2012-04-21 04:00:27 am

Exoray

Just making a note here that in the past, video errors have always been way more serious than audio errors. This hasn't changed to this date.

I don't know specifics about this run, but if the video quality is acceptable and the SDA video expert says that the audio is on par with other runs with audio issues that we've accepted in the past, then I don't see why there would be any problem accepting this one as well.

MrSparkle

2012-04-21 04:35:54 am

Doin Good

How hard would it have been to for this one case, leave any audio video sda quality meeting decisions up to someone else, at least for the initial ok? Could this be considered for any future runs submitted by staff members?

Sir VG

2012-04-21 04:38:47 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from MrSparkle:

I'm upset you would make a wild accusation like we are going to make wild accusations and just generally be a pain in the ass, because we are that way. I think the thread has been fairly civil, otherwise. Please spare us the drama.

There's been threads in the past that have not. See Grand Theft Auto 4. The locked thread.

Eternalspirit

2012-04-21 07:26:58 am

Quote from Sir VG:

Quote from MrSparkle:

I'm upset you would make a wild accusation like we are going to make wild accusations and just generally be a pain in the ass, because we are that way. I think the thread has been fairly civil, otherwise. Please spare us the drama.

There's been threads in the past that have not. See Grand Theft Auto 4. The locked thread.

Or the Link to the Past thread. Yeah.. that one got out of hand, very, very quickly.

André

Edit history:

André: 2012-04-21 09:02:51 am

André: 2012-04-21 09:00:32 am

2012-04-21 08:08:30 am

Main Work!!!

Good job Nate,
I'll be honest that I was in the verifier that rejected this run for A/V quality. I agree that you are the A/V admin and that you are conscious of the lowest requirement, so I also trust you but honestly, some of the segment was really a pain and was discouraging to me... but since the gameplay is excellent, I'll just say great job and try to be more careful with your next speedruns Tongue

.

Also, about everybody saying that since it's only audio, then it's fine. If I remember correctly, the video skip a lot of frame too and is unwatchable in some segments, sure the audio was worst but there were also video issue but even then, I rejected this and FF2(or 4 for some of you Tongue

) SS for A/V because I didn't want those to open door to lowest quality of run but it wasn't because I was saying Nathan, his sister and Rane(IIRC for the FF run)were bad or anything, because they were insane. I trust Nate but I only hope the A/V quality won't decrease more and more. So finally, I agree with the acceptation of this run because I trust nate's judgement, so don't misunderstand me and I'm sorry that my A/V judgement was completely wrong but I can't deny that this only happen in the couples of first segment(1 to 15 around this if I remember correctly) after it's becoming better and better.

Good job Nate,
I'll be honest that I was in the verifier that rejected this run for A/V quality. I agree that you are the A/V admin and that you are conscious of the lowest requirement, so I also trust you but honestly, some of the segment was really a pain and was discouraging to me... but since the gameplay is excellent, I'll just say great job and try to be more careful with your next speedruns :P .

Also, about everybody saying that since it's only audio, then it's fine. If I remember correctly, the video skip a lot of frame too and is unwatchable in some segments, sure the audio was worst but there were also video issue but even then, I rejected this and FF2(or 4 for some of you :P ) SS for A/V because I didn't want those to open door to lowest quality of run but it wasn't because I was saying Nathan, his sister and Rane(IIRC for the FF run)were bad or anything, because they were insane. I trust Nate but I only hope the A/V quality won't decrease more and more. So finally, I agree with the acceptation of this run because I trust nate's judgement, so don't misunderstand me and I'm sorry that my A/V judgement was completely wrong but I can't deny that this only happen in the couples of first segment(1 to 15 around this if I remember correctly) after it's becoming better and better.

moooh

2012-04-21 09:13:49 am

Exoray

Well if the video quality was bad as well we should probably ask the runner to post a video quality test before attempting to record anything in the future.

gia

Edit history:

gia: 2012-04-21 10:34:46 am

gia: 2012-04-21 10:34:01 am

2012-04-21 10:31:51 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

I have no way to fully describe how the last person I'd expect to have a/v trouble is the a/v guy lol. I give low priority to a/v so its not an issue for me unless it's really really really that bad (as in ancient handheld camcorder recording an old/any? tv).

Still, if you are not posting the verifications in the future I think you should post the verifier names. Just for transparency, you know, disclose one or the other. There should have been a final verification text for each verifier anyway so this wasn't necessary. Also nate should have recused himself and let someone else/public thread decide, that's more for a possible Flip run though since verification decision have more weight that audio/video.

Eternalspirit

2012-04-21 10:45:29 am

I think the 3 guys who rejected for a/v have already revealed themselves, so.. I don't think it's a big issue in this case. I do kind of agree with you, however, gia.

André

2012-04-21 11:09:58 am

Main Work!!!

Here you go Gia, maybe some post will have no sense because I didn't quote the others answer, etc. but here's mine.

Quote from AndréLucLévesque:

I know the argument there are relatively strong but as you can see, I was the only one rejecting FFIV run for A/V reason and the main reason was because I was afraid this run would open doors to lower quality run and this would be endless and that's exactly what's happening, I was sure that if FFIV run would be accept people would use this run as an example saying"Yeah but the Final Fantasy run has been accept and it's a similar quality". So sorry for not following the mass but I'll stick with my decision, if I didn't accept FF4 run for A/V quality, I don't know why I would accept this one considering it's worst(Final Fantasy had like 4 minutes in total for a 4 hours run and this one have like 3 segments that doesn't do it). So, I'm sorry but I'm still rejecting this.

Quote from AndréLucLévesque:

I agree with this, it would be surprising if someone would be saying"ah, the A/V of this run is awful, I'll run this to fix this point". in my opinion, if there a reason someone want to do a run is because he love this game, speaking of TOS, the reason why I want to run the first one is that it was one of the greatest game I played in my life and that the run on SDA motivate me at some point, if the A/V most of the segment would be like this, I wouldn't even have watch the run and it would have been far from motivating me more on my choice.

Quote from AndréLucLévesque:

I'll be totally honest, I can understand the context but the A/V is totally unacceptable, just to show you, I personally recommend that you go listen to segment 8 which is a good example. The gameplay is great and totally acceptable for SDA but not enough incredible that I feel guilty rejecting this because of the A/V. it seems to be a lot better in the later segment(in example 56) but it still have a couple of problem in some segment(in example 57). It's a good gameplay, incredible job on the planning there but I end up with a rejecting decision. I know that maybe worst have been post in the past but I was really uncomfortable with the A/V(mainly the audio). I really can't accept this.
Sorry!!!
Decision:Rejected

Quote from AndréLucLévesque:

The run I've said that the audio was worst was in a smaller part(about 3 to 6 minutes in total for FF2) and just in the segment 8, it should look like something like this, at first when I talked about that I wasn't aware that there was a couple of segment that were worst than the one I listen at that time, now that the whole run is verified, I can't accept these audio issue. If it's accept, then it will mean that my judgement as a verifier is totally bad and I'll be totally sorry but if this wasn't for verification, I wouldn't listen to this run just because of the audio.

Here you go Gia, maybe some post will have no sense because I didn't quote the others answer, etc. but here's mine.
[quote="AndréLucLévesque"]I know the argument there are relatively strong but as you can see, I was the only one rejecting FFIV run for A/V reason and the main reason was because I was afraid this run would open doors to lower quality run and this would be endless and that's exactly what's happening, I was sure that if FFIV run would be accept people would use this run as an example saying"Yeah but the Final Fantasy run has been accept and it's a similar quality". So sorry for not following the mass but I'll stick with my decision, if I didn't accept FF4 run for A/V quality, I don't know why I would accept this one considering it's worst(Final Fantasy had like 4 minutes in total for a 4 hours run and this one have like 3 segments that doesn't do it). So, I'm sorry but I'm still rejecting this.[/quote]
[quote="AndréLucLévesque"]I agree with this, it would be surprising if someone would be saying"ah, the A/V of this run is awful, I'll run this to fix this point". in my opinion, if there a reason someone want to do a run is because he love this game, speaking of TOS, the reason why I want to run the first one is that it was one of the greatest game I played in my life and that the run on SDA motivate me at some point, if the A/V most of the segment would be like this, I wouldn't even have watch the run and it would have been far from motivating me more on my choice.[/quote]
[quote="AndréLucLévesque"] I'll be totally honest, I can understand the context but the A/V is totally unacceptable, just to show you, I personally recommend that you go listen to segment 8 which is a good example. The gameplay is great and totally acceptable for SDA but not enough incredible that I feel guilty rejecting this because of the A/V. it seems to be a lot better in the later segment(in example 56) but it still have a couple of problem in some segment(in example 57). It's a good gameplay, incredible job on the planning there but I end up with a rejecting decision. I know that maybe worst have been post in the past but I was really uncomfortable with the A/V(mainly the audio). I really can't accept this.
Sorry!!!
[b]Decision:[/b]Rejected[/quote]
[quote="AndréLucLévesque"]The run I've said that the audio was worst was in a smaller part(about 3 to 6 minutes in total for FF2) and just in the segment 8, it should look like something like this, at first when I talked about that I wasn't aware that there was a couple of segment that were worst than the one I listen at that time, now that the whole run is verified, I can't accept these audio issue. If it's accept, then it will mean that my judgement as a verifier is totally bad and I'll be totally sorry but if this wasn't for verification, I wouldn't listen to this run just because of the audio.[/quote]

MortyreR45

(user is banned)

2012-04-21 03:43:05 pm

I AM FUCKED ANGRY

the verification make not sense.
I hope sda do not go down in the grave in the future of her own broken rules.

I take the time to watch some profiles from users which have verdict some runs in the last year. So there are some profiles with 1 post. I mean this is the perfect way to do this job.
The verification of the run The X Files was a joke, because I was one of this verify persons. Flip do the best job. But to the time of mike, he had not trust everybody. And nate like a dictator, he say it is accept and than it is so. I mean, the verify has spoken and it is ignored ?

old times please come back