You Have to Burn the Rope - December 20th, 2009

2010-02-10 11:47:25 pm

welcome to the machine

I would be a lot less opposed to the publication of this run if the visually obvious mistake didn't exist. Regardless of how we time it, if TheVoid improved it by another quarter-second or whatever then I think that would go a long way towards pacifying fears of people submitting unoptimized runs of short games. If we can remove that fear then we only have to worry about crappy game choice... but frankly, given SDA's current game selection, that's already a lost battle. Tongue

I still think this is the dumbest game so far for running but w/e.

In short, yes I think that we need to use smaller time increments for this game and other short games. We already implement a sort of leniency based on run length with longer single-segments: they're allowed more mistakes. That leniency gets smaller and smaller with run length until suddenly it balloons again when we start pushing fractions of seconds, with the justification of "well it wouldn't make any difference in the final time anyways". Screw that. It doesn't make any sense. I thought we were speedrunners, not stat whores. Either use smaller time increments or make it eligible for rejects in verification or something, but since it's come up I think it's time to rewrite it.

Posting this here instead of in Peaches' thread because my request directly affects yhtbtr.

I would be a lot less opposed to the publication of this run if the visually obvious mistake didn't exist.  Regardless of how we time it, if TheVoid improved it by another quarter-second or whatever then I think that would go a long way towards pacifying fears of people submitting unoptimized runs of short games.  If we can remove that fear then we only have to worry about crappy game choice... but frankly, given SDA's current game selection, that's already a lost battle. :P  I still think this is the dumbest game so far for running but w/e.

In short, yes I think that we need to use smaller time increments for this game and other short games.  We already implement a sort of leniency based on run length with longer single-segments: they're allowed more mistakes.  That leniency gets smaller and smaller with run length until suddenly it balloons again when we start pushing fractions of seconds, with the justification of "well it wouldn't make any difference in the final time anyways".  Screw that.  It doesn't make any sense.  I thought we were speedrunners, not stat whores.  Either use smaller time increments or make it eligible for rejects in verification or something, but since it's come up I think it's time to rewrite it.

Posting this here instead of in Peaches' thread because my request directly affects yhtbtr.

ZenicReverie

2010-02-10 11:56:08 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Zurreco:

Quote from ZenicReverie:

I doubt Lag or Zurreco would change their minds even if frames were tracked, but I'd like to hear their opinions on that

Well, you act like we are just being curmudgeons, when we are just reacting to how SDA is... "progressing." Well, I can't speak for him, anyways.

Keep in mind that we have been here a long time. As in, back when SDA was pretty strict on what kinds of games could be played and what couldn't be done. Some of those rules have changed for the good (small glitching is one of the best moves we've made, and the lack of NG run necessity has freed up a lot of people), and those are to be applauded. At the same time, though, we've also slowly been letting lesser and lesser game-y games on the site. Some are silly and some are dumb, but I honestly found this game showing up in the queue to be a tad offensive. It's like, we have a site full of peoples' serious efforts to do something great, and it's going to sit next to a seconds-long video of someone playing a game that requires little to no skill in order to speedrun.

I get that this wasn't a serious submission. Everyone keeps comparing this to Clue, but there is a big difference between the two: the Clue run manipulates the game's construction, where this is tantamount to a casual 5th play or so. Don't fool yourself in to thinking that Clue was anything more than a simple demonstration of how luck manipulation can lead to game breaking speeds without skill, and don't fool yourself in to thinking that YHTBTR has anything to do without serious skills or planning. No disrespect to TheVoid, but I feel that his innocent submission of the run can easily lead to a lot of shitty (but "verifier-approved" shitty) runs going up on the site. I don't want to act like this is some slippery slope of damnation for us, but this is a good example of why Radix tried to control the old SDA.

Lag says that he rolled his eyes when he saw the run in verification. I took it a bit further and contacted mike asking "are we seriously even going to give that game a verification topic?" His response was making me a verifier. Since I got put in that position, I find it hard to not defend my stance and continue to argue against the game going up. I know it'll go up because it passed verification, but I've never seen this many people against a game going up before.

Quote from StrangenessDSS:

Quote from lag:

People already say "what's the point?" to me about SDA...

So? What do you care? Do you think we should start changing what we do here in order to gain the approval of people who don't care about speedrunning?

I care because it's hard to support a site that you've been a member of for so long when they're letting bad, undeserving runs go up on the site. Putting this run up on the site is going to further repel those who would be constructive members while attracting people looking to start smashing stupid games so as to get their name out there.

I understand what you're saying, but can we admit this is currently the best time sda will list for this game? Based on that I'm not sure what the big deal is for listing this run. It's like a beginner game for 2d platform speedrunners. Basically, you should be getting 33 seconds if you hope to be running a 2d platformer. It has some basics that should be realized for such games (jumping early to gain falling momentum off edges, controlling jump height, and planning jump patterns). Taken in this context, I think it's a good resource to have for the site. It doesn't mean you'll be making smb in 5 minutes, but it's a good start to show the commitment it takes to make a good run. Measuring frames for this run would make it a better resource though.

Also, I don't think people will start smashing stupid games when they could be running perfectly good games waiting to be run.

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Quote from Zurreco:

Putting this run up on the site is going to further repel those who would be constructive members while attracting people looking to start smashing stupid games so as to get their name out there.

Disagree about it repelling the good people - that's just about plausible but very unlikely - but I am worried this will genuinely encourage people outside the core userbase of SDA to start running shitty flash games that require no work to optimise. And I don't want to see a bunch of sub-minute flash crap on the games list. Sorry if that makes me some kind of bigot / hater, Breakdown et al.

So you're requesting two new categories 'Flash games' and 'All games except flash crap'? That'd be kind of funny.

Quote from VorpalEdge:

I would be a lot less opposed to the publication of this run if the visually obvious mistake didn't exist. Regardless of how we time it, if TheVoid improved it by another quarter-second or whatever then I think that would go a long way towards pacifying fears of people submitting unoptimized runs of short games. If we can remove that fear then we only have to worry about crappy game choice... but frankly, given SDA's current game selection, that's already a lost battle. Tongue

I still think this is the dumbest game so far for running but w/e.

In short, yes I think that we need to use smaller time increments for this game and other short games. We already implement a sort of leniency based on run length with longer single-segments: they're allowed more mistakes. That leniency gets smaller and smaller with run length until suddenly it balloons again when we start pushing fractions of seconds, with the justification of "well it wouldn't make any difference in the final time anyways". Screw that. It doesn't make any sense. I thought we were speedrunners, not stat whores. Either use smaller time increments or make it eligible for rejects in verification or something, but since it's come up I think it's time to rewrite it.

Posting this here instead of in Peaches' thread because my request directly affects yhtbtr.

Stop posting when I'm trying to relpy :P. I agree though, sub minute runs should be improvable by less than a second, especially for yhtbtr. The only thing I'm not sure of is if mike would be willing to do such a thing.

[quote="Zurreco"]
[quote="ZenicReverie"]I doubt Lag or Zurreco would change their minds even if frames were tracked, but I'd like to hear their opinions on that[/quote]
Well, you act like we are just being curmudgeons, when we are just reacting to how SDA is... "progressing."  Well, I can't speak for him, anyways.

Keep in mind that we have been here a long time.  As in, back when SDA was pretty strict on what kinds of games could be played and what couldn't be done.  Some of those rules have changed for the good (small glitching is one of the best moves we've made, and the lack of NG run necessity has freed up a lot of people), and those are to be applauded.  At the same time, though, we've also slowly been letting lesser and lesser game-y games on the site.  Some are silly and some are dumb, but I honestly found this game showing up in the queue to be a tad offensive.  It's like, we have a site full of peoples' serious efforts to do something great, and it's going to sit next to a seconds-long video of someone playing a game that requires little to no skill in order to speedrun.

I get that this wasn't a serious submission.  Everyone keeps comparing this to Clue, but there is a big difference between the two: the Clue run manipulates the game's construction, where this is tantamount to a casual 5th play or so.  Don't fool yourself in to thinking that Clue was anything more than a simple demonstration of how luck manipulation can lead to game breaking speeds without skill, and don't fool yourself in to thinking that YHTBTR has anything to do without serious skills or planning.  No disrespect to TheVoid, but I feel that his innocent submission of the run can easily lead to a lot of shitty (but "verifier-approved" shitty) runs going up on the site.  I don't want to act like this is some slippery slope of damnation for us, but this is a good example of why Radix tried to control the old SDA.

Lag says that he rolled his eyes when he saw the run in verification.  I took it a bit further and contacted mike asking "are we seriously even going to give that game a verification topic?"  His response was making me a verifier.  Since I got put in that position, I find it hard to not defend my stance and continue to argue against the game going up.  I know it'll go up because it passed verification, but I've never seen this many people against a game going up before.

[quote="StrangenessDSS"][quote="lag"]People already say "what's the point?" to me about SDA...[/quote]

So? What do you care? Do you think we should start changing what we do here in order to gain the approval of people who don't care about speedrunning?
[/quote]
I care because it's hard to support a site that you've been a member of for so long when they're letting bad, undeserving runs go up on the site.  Putting this run up on the site is going to further repel those who would be constructive members while attracting people looking to start smashing stupid games so as to get their name out there.
[/quote]
I understand what you're saying, but can we admit this is currently the best time sda will list for this game? Based on that I'm not sure what the big deal is for listing this run. It's like a beginner game for 2d platform speedrunners. Basically, you should be getting 33 seconds if you hope to be running a 2d platformer. It has some basics that should be realized for such games (jumping early to gain falling momentum off edges, controlling jump height, and planning jump patterns). Taken in this context, I think it's a good resource to have for the site. It doesn't mean you'll be making smb in 5 minutes, but it's a good start to show the commitment it takes to make a good run. Measuring frames for this run would make it a better resource though.

Also, I don't think people will start smashing stupid games when they could be running perfectly good games waiting to be run.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]
[quote="Zurreco"]Putting this run up on the site is going to further repel those who would be constructive members while attracting people looking to start smashing stupid games so as to get their name out there.[/quote]

Disagree about it repelling the good people - that's just about plausible but very unlikely - but I am worried this will genuinely encourage people outside the core userbase of SDA to start running shitty flash games that require no work to optimise. And I don't want to see a bunch of sub-minute flash crap on the games list. Sorry if that makes me some kind of bigot / hater, Breakdown et al.
[/quote]
So you're requesting two new categories 'Flash games' and 'All games except flash crap'? That'd be kind of funny.

[quote="VorpalEdge"]
I would be a lot less opposed to the publication of this run if the visually obvious mistake didn't exist.  Regardless of how we time it, if TheVoid improved it by another quarter-second or whatever then I think that would go a long way towards pacifying fears of people submitting unoptimized runs of short games.  If we can remove that fear then we only have to worry about crappy game choice... but frankly, given SDA's current game selection, that's already a lost battle. :P  I still think this is the dumbest game so far for running but w/e.

In short, yes I think that we need to use smaller time increments for this game and other short games.  We already implement a sort of leniency based on run length with longer single-segments: they're allowed more mistakes.  That leniency gets smaller and smaller with run length until suddenly it balloons again when we start pushing fractions of seconds, with the justification of "well it wouldn't make any difference in the final time anyways".  Screw that.  It doesn't make any sense.  I thought we were speedrunners, not stat whores.  Either use smaller time increments or make it eligible for rejects in verification or something, but since it's come up I think it's time to rewrite it.

Posting this here instead of in Peaches' thread because my request directly affects yhtbtr.
[/quote]
Stop posting when I'm trying to relpy :P. I agree though, sub minute runs should be improvable by less than a second, especially for yhtbtr. The only thing I'm not sure of is if mike would be willing to do such a thing.

TheVoid

2010-02-11 03:56:27 am

As was more preferred, got rid of the mistake and improved it with 3 frames, awesome dodge included... Wink

Attachment:

YHTBTR.mp4

Lag.Com

2010-02-11 05:50:26 am

sda loyalist

Z didn't mean to speak for me but he ended up saying what I meant anyway.

Emptyeye

2010-02-11 06:00:44 am

Talk to the Hand

Quote from Zurreco:

I don't want to act like this is some slippery slope of damnation for us, but this is a good example of why Radix tried to control the old SDA.

The same Radix who, more than once, said "Quality-wise, you can make a very good argument that this shouldn't be on SDA...but I like this game, so up it goes."? I'm just saying that Radix-run SDA had its own problems with crappy runs, just at the run level instead of the game-selection level. If those runs (One of which I think was the original Yoshi's Island--not exactly a small-name title--run where tri-hex lost like 5 minutes thanks to a stupid death right at the end of an auto-scrolling level) didn't scare people off, I don't think YHTBTR is going to.

Also, the question that hasn't been answered yet: Has anyone complaining about how short and easy this game is (Which I won't argue with per se) actually been able to match 0:33? NOT "0:34 after 5 minutes of trying", NOT "Well no but I bet with an hour or two I could", but actually matched the time?

My thoughts in short: The subtitle on the front page says "Playing through games quickly, skillfully, and legitimately".

Is the run quick? Yes.
Is it legitimate? I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise.
is it skillful? Here's where the big argument is. I would argue that, since no one on the topic has actually been able to match the time instead of just talking about how easy it would be to do, yes, it is skillful. Alternately, I think you could always go back to the original argument for allowing Clue on the site: "The skill is in the game selection."

[quote="Zurreco"]I don't want to act like this is some slippery slope of damnation for us, but this is a good example of why Radix tried to control the old SDA.
[/quote]

The same Radix who, more than once, said "Quality-wise, you can make a very good argument that this shouldn't be on SDA...but I like this game, so up it goes."? I'm just saying that Radix-run SDA had its own problems with crappy runs, just at the run level instead of the game-selection level. If those runs (One of which I think was the original Yoshi's Island--not exactly a small-name title--run where tri-hex lost like 5 minutes thanks to a stupid death right at the end of an auto-scrolling level) didn't scare people off, I don't think YHTBTR is going to.

Also, the question that hasn't been answered yet: Has anyone complaining about how short and easy this game is (Which I won't argue with per se) [b]actually been able to match 0:33[/b]? NOT "0:34 after 5 minutes of trying", NOT "Well no but I bet with an hour or two I could", but [b]actually matched the time[/b]?

My thoughts in short: The subtitle on the front page says "Playing through games quickly, skillfully, and legitimately".

Is the run quick? Yes.
Is it legitimate? I haven't seen anyone claim otherwise. 
is it skillful? Here's where the big argument is. I would argue that, since no one on the topic has [i]actually been able to match the time[/i] instead of just talking about how easy it would be to do, yes, it is skillful. Alternately, I think you could always go back to the original argument for allowing Clue on the site: "The skill is in the game selection."

ExplodingCabbage

2010-02-11 06:39:45 am

Quote from Emptyeye:

Has anyone complaining about how short and easy this game is (Which I won't argue with per se) actually been able to match 0:33?

I may have done. I was within a couple of frames at any rate, I think I was one frame off. I was recording with the trial version of Camtasia and I forget why but I wasn't able to save a file I could open in VirtualDub, so I couldn't accurately time to the frame.

Lag.Com

2010-02-11 12:11:18 pm

sda loyalist

Quote from Emptyeye:

"Playing through games

you forgot that part

Thanatos

2010-02-11 01:05:50 pm

Quote from lag:

Quote from Emptyeye:

"Playing through games

you forgot that part

lol

screamsquad

2010-02-11 01:06:41 pm

lag and Zurreco's compelling arguments like "No." and "Seriously, no." have completely swayed me. I support the publishing of this run.

VorpalEdge

2010-02-11 01:11:31 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from TheVoid:

As was more preferred, got rid of the mistake and improved it with 3 frames, awesome dodge included... Wink

Thanks!

Lag.Com

2010-02-11 02:35:34 pm

sda loyalist

Quote from screamsquad:

lag and Zurreco's compelling arguments like "No." and "Seriously, no." have completely swayed me. I support the publishing of this run.

You're an idiot. Learn to read.

spiralout1123211

2010-02-11 02:49:58 pm

You guys are acting like SDA has never had half-assed, shitty runs get through the hallowed verification process. Putting this run up isn't going to have the slightest bit of effect on SDA. Well, except a 97% increase in whining.

ShadowWraith

2010-02-11 02:52:47 pm

.

It's not a half-assed shitty run. It's a half-assed shitty 'game'.

spiralout1123211

2010-02-11 03:00:35 pm

Quote from ShadowWraith:

It's not a half-assed shitty run. It's a half-assed shitty 'game'.

Then I would say it has an advantage over a half-assed, shitty run of an awesome game.

ShadowWraith

2010-02-11 03:11:02 pm

.

The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.

spiralout1123211

2010-02-11 03:25:06 pm

Quote from ShadowWraith:

The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.

No, crappy runs can still squeak through the verification process. It's all a function of the standards of the verifiers and how familiar they are with speed running the game. Just because you've played a game a bunch doesn't mean you will necessarily be a good verifier, and that's how we've had bad runs make it up on the site in the past. Even so, I don't see how this run getting put up on the site is going to signal a new era of stupid flash game dominance, and I'm sure that if it ever DOES get to that point, then the site administrators will take proper steps to keep them from interfering with the flow of the site.

But seriously, how many similar flash games do you think it will take to "ruin" the site?

[quote="ShadowWraith"]
The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.
[/quote]

No, crappy runs can still squeak through the verification process.  It's all a function of the standards of the verifiers and how familiar they are with speed running the game.  Just because you've played a game a bunch doesn't mean you will necessarily be a good verifier, and that's how we've had bad runs make it up on the site in the past.  Even so, I don't see how this run getting put up on the site is going to signal a new era of stupid flash game dominance, and I'm sure that if it ever DOES get to that point, then the site administrators will take proper steps to keep them from interfering with the flow of the site.

But seriously, how many similar flash games do you think it will take to "ruin" the site?

ZenicReverie

2010-02-11 04:01:44 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from ShadowWraith:

The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.

So, it's the length of the game that makes it bad? Or that there's only one way to beat it? Because I think those Japanese visual novel things you're speaking of would be able to go on the site if they're anything like Shadowgate and other adventure games. If on the other hand it's more like what it sounds like, where your interaction is "next page" then I guess that won't work out too well. I mean heck, if someone made a flash 'game' that spit out random math equations and timed you, that'd go on the site right? If not, then where does that leave Math Blaster?

Quote from spiralout1123211:

Quote from ShadowWraith:

The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.

No, crappy runs can still squeak through the verification process. It's all a function of the standards of the verifiers and how familiar they are with speed running the game. Just because you've played a game a bunch doesn't mean you will necessarily be a good verifier, and that's how we've had bad runs make it up on the site in the past. Even so, I don't see how this run getting put up on the site is going to signal a new era of stupid flash game dominance, and I'm sure that if it ever DOES get to that point, then the site administrators will take proper steps to keep them from interfering with the flow of the site.

But seriously, how many similar flash games do you think it will take to "ruin" the site?

uhmmm... two. So we better watch out.

[quote="ShadowWraith"]
The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.
[/quote]
So, it's the length of the game that makes it bad? Or that there's only one way to beat it? Because I think those Japanese visual novel things you're speaking of would be able to go on the site if they're anything like Shadowgate and other adventure games. If on the other hand it's more like what it sounds like, where your interaction is "next page" then I guess that won't work out too well. I mean heck, if someone made a flash 'game' that spit out random math equations and timed you, that'd go on the site right? If not, then where does that leave Math Blaster?

[quote="spiralout1123211"]
[quote="ShadowWraith"]
The difference being that with the current verification system half-assed shitty runs are thrown out. We just need some quality control on the kind of games we accept, and this... this is not my idea of a quality game. It's not Zurreco or Lag.Com's idea of a quality game, hence the large debate in the thread.

...and before you start pulling lists of games that are subpar from the woodwork, yes, there are other shitty games out there. They're still games, with interactive involving gameplay even if they suck (and if they don't, such as with those japanese visual novel things, they don't get accepted on the site). This doesn't have that.
[/quote]

No, crappy runs can still squeak through the verification process.  It's all a function of the standards of the verifiers and how familiar they are with speed running the game.  Just because you've played a game a bunch doesn't mean you will necessarily be a good verifier, and that's how we've had bad runs make it up on the site in the past.  Even so, I don't see how this run getting put up on the site is going to signal a new era of stupid flash game dominance, and I'm sure that if it ever DOES get to that point, then the site administrators will take proper steps to keep them from interfering with the flow of the site.

But seriously, how many similar flash games do you think it will take to "ruin" the site?
[/quote]
uhmmm... two. So we better watch out.

dballin

2010-02-11 04:33:56 pm

Balls jerky

Quote from Emptyeye:

Also, the question that hasn't been answered yet: Has anyone complaining about how short and easy this game is (Which I won't argue with per se) actually been able to match 0:33? NOT "0:34 after 5 minutes of trying", NOT "Well no but I bet with an hour or two I could", but actually matched the time?

So I see you're directly calling me out huh? (Unless, of course, other people have made the same claim) You hurt my feelings. I don't like you anymore. Sad

Emptyeye

2010-02-11 05:34:12 pm

Talk to the Hand

Quote from dballin:

So I see you're directly calling me out huh? (Unless, of course, other people have made the same claim) You hurt my feelings. I don't like you anymore. Sad

Sorry man but I gotta do what I gotta do. Sad

...I dunno.

spineshark

2010-02-11 07:29:19 pm

新世紀進歩的羽扇子音楽

Quote from Emptyeye:

Has anyone complaining about how short and easy this game is (Which I won't argue with per se) actually been able to match 0:33? NOT "0:34 after 5 minutes of trying", NOT "Well no but I bet with an hour or two I could", but actually matched the time?

Sweet, thanks for directing my attention toward this amazing new excuse! "I mean, I could do this Radiata Stories segment, but since I could probably get it in an hour or two, why bother? Not even worth my time."

dballin

2010-02-11 07:58:12 pm

Balls jerky

so how is this actually timed? I might have gotten a 33 and just timed it wrong Wink

Not that I actually have video proof of my fantastic gaming achievements so I could just be lying anyway.

TheVoid

2010-02-11 09:58:23 pm

It's timed from when you gain control after the "Click to start" screen till the game has completely faded out after beating the boss (You need to use a brightness filter in VirtualDub to check this precisely).

stanski

2010-02-18 11:31:33 pm

wise fwom yo gwave

i completed 33 seconds in about an hour or so when i tried this game about a month ago afair.

ExplodingCabbage

2010-06-04 06:03:33 am

What happened to this in the end? Did TheVoid submit his newer (improved by a few frames but still 0:33) run? Did he withdraw the run behind the scenes? Unless I'm really stupid, his final decision was for his submission to stand but it hasn't appeared on SDA.

ZenicReverie

2010-06-04 07:30:48 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

What happened to this in the end? Did TheVoid submit his newer (improved by a few frames but still 0:33) run? Did he withdraw the run behind the scenes? Unless I'm really stupid, his final decision was for his submission to stand but it hasn't appeared on SDA.

It's not even been 6 months. Give it some time... I mean 3 - 6 runs posted a month. 12 runs accepted in the month of May alone. SDA is obviously going to run into a backlog.