I was assuming the opposite because what if you have more runs than the limit etc?
wrong term i guess, you couldn't add a vote for yourself but it's part of the submission process as a whole, you nominated your runs by submitting them.
SDA Forum
no more umbreons pls
As great an idea of a "community vote" block is, it'll just be a swarm of promotional videos and popular streamers who got rejected getting their run in. Not to mention, even just 1 run with a popular streamer could fill a 4-hour slot
EDIT: Honestly the best thing GDQ staff could do for the salty people in the community is provide some hint of guidelines the staff follow in selecting a game. This allows people to know they're at least attempting the standards that GDQ expects from a submission, even if they're rejected
EDIT: Honestly the best thing GDQ staff could do for the salty people in the community is provide some hint of guidelines the staff follow in selecting a game. This allows people to know they're at least attempting the standards that GDQ expects from a submission, even if they're rejected
NowOwnsAFreaking Plane
Here's the short of it, as mentioned before: your runs aren't what they are looking for. The staff doesn't have time to mention every single case. Listen, I'm sure your speed games are great games. But there isn't time for them all. Field has a lot of good games this year.
Community vote doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. Sometimes, you just have to deal with rejection. That's my two cents with this, coming from a guy who submitted 5 runs from a third world country and had to spend a fair amount of money to get on a boat for hours, staying on a metal roof overnight in the cold, just to be able to reach a stable internet connection to submit. Then all his runs get cut down before the boat left for back home (handy!) So, this just means I have more time to make it to AGDQ and volunteer now, and make it my third GDQ I've volunteered at. Maybe more people with rejected runs can do the same.
Community vote doesn't sound like a good idea to me either. Sometimes, you just have to deal with rejection. That's my two cents with this, coming from a guy who submitted 5 runs from a third world country and had to spend a fair amount of money to get on a boat for hours, staying on a metal roof overnight in the cold, just to be able to reach a stable internet connection to submit. Then all his runs get cut down before the boat left for back home (handy!) So, this just means I have more time to make it to AGDQ and volunteer now, and make it my third GDQ I've volunteered at. Maybe more people with rejected runs can do the same.
So let's talk about Call of Duty.
The franchise itself has yet to appear in a single GDQ. None of its iteraterations.
Yet again this year, rejected. Hopefully not the for the same reason as “The audience that would enjoy this game does not overlap with speedrunning at all, and the potential negative backlash is too much of a risk.” as it was before. Instant rejection for a gaming franchise that has permeated not only the gaming community, but the world audience as a whole. With countless references on television, when an every day person pictures a gamer the first thought is usually CoD. I don't blame Lo1ts for his submission comment "it's CoD" because regardless of the paragraphs he has typed trying to persuade that the game does in fact have speedrun value, it has been rejected for already previously stated reasons.
The reference will proceed to come from this thread: https://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/agdq_2015_a_deeper_analysis_into_the_final_batch_of_games.html
A game franchise which has historically had some of the biggest launches over the years, and CoD4 specifically being considered as one of the best games, is continually unrepresented since first submitted in SGDQ 2014.
The runs (CoD4 and MW2) have been improved in that time as they've been run by people finding your usual skips and time saves, using strafe jumping appropriately to push through sections of the game quickly, and through the usual process of speedrunning, have been made fast and entertaining.
I'm not going to lie, it has hurt to see this constantly rejected and picked on even after all of these years. I just don't get it.
The franchise itself has yet to appear in a single GDQ. None of its iteraterations.
Yet again this year, rejected. Hopefully not the for the same reason as “The audience that would enjoy this game does not overlap with speedrunning at all, and the potential negative backlash is too much of a risk.” as it was before. Instant rejection for a gaming franchise that has permeated not only the gaming community, but the world audience as a whole. With countless references on television, when an every day person pictures a gamer the first thought is usually CoD. I don't blame Lo1ts for his submission comment "it's CoD" because regardless of the paragraphs he has typed trying to persuade that the game does in fact have speedrun value, it has been rejected for already previously stated reasons.
The reference will proceed to come from this thread: https://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/agdq_2015_a_deeper_analysis_into_the_final_batch_of_games.html
Quote from mikwuyma:
"Call of Duty: I don't know, it could either bring in an audience we usually don't get at GDQs, or it could bomb really hard. The games are full of in-level cutscenes that break up the flow, but the actual gameplay in the levels can be pretty fast. Studio does have a point that it could get the COD community more involved in the GDQs. Maybe one could be tried in the future?"
A game franchise which has historically had some of the biggest launches over the years, and CoD4 specifically being considered as one of the best games, is continually unrepresented since first submitted in SGDQ 2014.
The runs (CoD4 and MW2) have been improved in that time as they've been run by people finding your usual skips and time saves, using strafe jumping appropriately to push through sections of the game quickly, and through the usual process of speedrunning, have been made fast and entertaining.
I'm not going to lie, it has hurt to see this constantly rejected and picked on even after all of these years. I just don't get it.
Edit history:
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:28:25 am
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:27:58 am
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:27:20 am
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:19:01 am
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:18:46 am
Linkinito: 2015-10-12 06:18:18 am
This is my avatar
I have discussed it last year in the thread you referenced, in two or three long posts, defending the fact that it could appear in the marathon. As my stance didn't change, i'll just requote them.
Anyway, both CoD games have been rejected again, so that won't change much. Mostly because taking nearly 2 hours in the schedule - setup not included - is a huge factor. If you're running a game that is not a Nintendo or RPG classic, or having a run that can entertain everyone during 120 minutes (like Half-Life 2), the chances to have the game in the final schedule are quite small. May the game be Call of Duty or anything else.
Also, the Call of Duty speedrunning scene is practically non-existent. Lo1ts is pretty much the only one that represents the saga in the scene - we're light years away from communities like Halo or Goldeneye. These games are more known for their multiplayer mode, but there's a huge community around the single player campaign trying to push the limits second after second. That kind of community doesn't exist (yet) for CoD. At most, there's some videos on YouTube with the fastest times in the training ranges and Spec Ops, which both feature a timer. A Veteran mode speedrun would be quite interesting though.
And talking about time, even CoD4 is still fairly recent - most games start to be really broken for speedrunning 10 to 15 years after release. The PS2 classics just started to have a community around them more than 10 years after release, like two years ago, nothing was around (Ratchet & Clank, Jak, Sly, etc.). So it's just a question of time, but the CoD speedrunning community is just an embryo in the womb right now - it could never develop or could get bigger in the months and years to come. And maybe someday the perspective of seeing one of the most popular CoD campaigns in a GDQ will be greater than a Round 1 rejection.
Quote:
I was kinda bummed to see the Call of Duty 4 run rejected straight away for example: the CoD franchise, which is 11 years old, has yet to appear in a GDQ marathon. If I remember correctly, last year, Modern Warfare 2 was rejected because “the target audience of this game isn't the one who watch GDQ marathons”. So that's kinda bad, simply because this game is probably too “modern” to get a spot (even if the run is quite interesting to watch). But the organizers shown that nothing is set in stone, and they can prove themselves to be more open-minded. I remember that, during the first GDQ marathons, that GTA games were out of the question due to their nature, which was contradicting the purpose of an event for a charity. And this year, GTA Vice City is making his third coming. So everything can happen.
Quote:
Well technically, Mario Kart Wii is also mainstream, as it sold 35 million copies which is more than any Call of Duty or Grand Theft Auto game. And it reached people who are not gamers in the first place, far from the "nerd" target audience of GDQ marathons. However, it's not in because the run is impressive to watch (because what run in a GDQ marathon isn't), but mostly because it's emblematic from Nintendo, and well, who knows Mario Kart? Everyone. So that's kind of a double standard, in my opinion.
Showing CoD4/MW2 would definitely not make the viewer count drop into the graveyard shift levels nor bring the donations to a screeching halt (unless it is proven). There will be some haters who'll leave, of course, but honestly, in a future marathon, it's worth a shot (no pun intended). The quality of the run should be the first criteria of selection, above anything else including the reputation of the franchise.
Also, CoD is mostly known for its multiplayer more than its single player campaign, but we could apply the same logic to Goldeneye or Halo. And well, if you communicate through the right channels, CoD could bring some donations like Halo or Starcraft. They have a LARGE fanbase, much bigger than all of the GDQ obscure games combines. If you can mobilize even 0.1% of it (over a base of 15 million people), that would be awesome.
And people watching "game" streams on Twitch might be tempted by seeing CoD4/MW2 at the top spot. They might expect a multiplayer event but they'll end up on GDQ, and they might get interested. Many will leave after discovering it's about speedrunning single player, but if you can catch the attention of a small fraction and get some additional donations alongside the runner's fans and the usual donations that are not game or runner-related, that will still be good.
I'm not Uyama, I'm not choosing the games, but in my opinion, some games suffer from their nature of being "mainstream" and that shouldn't prevent them to get a spot at AGDQ. Half the games at each marathon are new additions, so there's some room. But this is not the main subject of the analysis - the Call of Duty part was just my personal view on game choice and how some games could be rejected because of their pedigree.
Showing CoD4/MW2 would definitely not make the viewer count drop into the graveyard shift levels nor bring the donations to a screeching halt (unless it is proven). There will be some haters who'll leave, of course, but honestly, in a future marathon, it's worth a shot (no pun intended). The quality of the run should be the first criteria of selection, above anything else including the reputation of the franchise.
Also, CoD is mostly known for its multiplayer more than its single player campaign, but we could apply the same logic to Goldeneye or Halo. And well, if you communicate through the right channels, CoD could bring some donations like Halo or Starcraft. They have a LARGE fanbase, much bigger than all of the GDQ obscure games combines. If you can mobilize even 0.1% of it (over a base of 15 million people), that would be awesome.
And people watching "game" streams on Twitch might be tempted by seeing CoD4/MW2 at the top spot. They might expect a multiplayer event but they'll end up on GDQ, and they might get interested. Many will leave after discovering it's about speedrunning single player, but if you can catch the attention of a small fraction and get some additional donations alongside the runner's fans and the usual donations that are not game or runner-related, that will still be good.
I'm not Uyama, I'm not choosing the games, but in my opinion, some games suffer from their nature of being "mainstream" and that shouldn't prevent them to get a spot at AGDQ. Half the games at each marathon are new additions, so there's some room. But this is not the main subject of the analysis - the Call of Duty part was just my personal view on game choice and how some games could be rejected because of their pedigree.
Quote:
Well CoD4 and MW2 are probably the best bets to show off CoD at GDQ (both were proposed by Lo1ts for 2 different GDQs), as they are the most popular campaigns and both feature really epic, iconic moments from the saga. Also, the gameplay, even though it might be linear and contain some unskippable cutscenes, is still pretty fast paced in many missions with frenetic movement and some missions contain script skipping. Remember that interesting commentary can push up the overall enjoyment of a run. And unskippable moments permit to flush out some donation comments, and bring up some ADHD action. After all, even Half-Life 2 and Halo 2 still have some of these moments.
We can't deny that CoD is a genre-defining game, sold over 100 million copies throughout its lifespan and still tops charts for weeks after its release. So expectations in terms of donations are high, so if it performs in the average or bombs completely, well, you'll have your point. But in the end, it would simply be 2 sub-par hours. CoD might be far away from the perfect speedrunning game, and probably isn't meant to become a GDQ Classic, but it's still an experiment to try. But if we can talk about the event as a whole to the CoD competitive community and some CoD streamers/youtubers and tell them there will be some classic Call of Duty, they can relay the information quite quickly as they have a huge influence towards the CoD playerbase and watcherbase. Communication is vital when you are putting some popular franchises into GDQ that are not the Nintendo ones: the playerbase might not even know what a speedrun is. So that's an opportunity to broaden the audience.
If the runner of the said game (and the "saga speedrunning community" around him) can do some efforts to promote his run, communicate about the event on forums and Reddit, try to reach the developers for a good cause and potentially provide some prizes to bump up the donations, that will push the marathon even further. And if it fails, well, it will just perform averagely and won't be repeated - simple as that. After all, over 60% of newcoming games never returned in a following GDQ marathon.
Talking about SC2, remember that HotS did pretty well in donation mostly thanks to the Tychus Findlay statue, where the minimum donation was $50 to enter the raffle (which led to a ton of $50 donations). To adapt it to the CoD community, as an example, there could be an Astro MLG headset as the prize.
We can't deny that CoD is a genre-defining game, sold over 100 million copies throughout its lifespan and still tops charts for weeks after its release. So expectations in terms of donations are high, so if it performs in the average or bombs completely, well, you'll have your point. But in the end, it would simply be 2 sub-par hours. CoD might be far away from the perfect speedrunning game, and probably isn't meant to become a GDQ Classic, but it's still an experiment to try. But if we can talk about the event as a whole to the CoD competitive community and some CoD streamers/youtubers and tell them there will be some classic Call of Duty, they can relay the information quite quickly as they have a huge influence towards the CoD playerbase and watcherbase. Communication is vital when you are putting some popular franchises into GDQ that are not the Nintendo ones: the playerbase might not even know what a speedrun is. So that's an opportunity to broaden the audience.
If the runner of the said game (and the "saga speedrunning community" around him) can do some efforts to promote his run, communicate about the event on forums and Reddit, try to reach the developers for a good cause and potentially provide some prizes to bump up the donations, that will push the marathon even further. And if it fails, well, it will just perform averagely and won't be repeated - simple as that. After all, over 60% of newcoming games never returned in a following GDQ marathon.
Talking about SC2, remember that HotS did pretty well in donation mostly thanks to the Tychus Findlay statue, where the minimum donation was $50 to enter the raffle (which led to a ton of $50 donations). To adapt it to the CoD community, as an example, there could be an Astro MLG headset as the prize.
Anyway, both CoD games have been rejected again, so that won't change much. Mostly because taking nearly 2 hours in the schedule - setup not included - is a huge factor. If you're running a game that is not a Nintendo or RPG classic, or having a run that can entertain everyone during 120 minutes (like Half-Life 2), the chances to have the game in the final schedule are quite small. May the game be Call of Duty or anything else.
Also, the Call of Duty speedrunning scene is practically non-existent. Lo1ts is pretty much the only one that represents the saga in the scene - we're light years away from communities like Halo or Goldeneye. These games are more known for their multiplayer mode, but there's a huge community around the single player campaign trying to push the limits second after second. That kind of community doesn't exist (yet) for CoD. At most, there's some videos on YouTube with the fastest times in the training ranges and Spec Ops, which both feature a timer. A Veteran mode speedrun would be quite interesting though.
And talking about time, even CoD4 is still fairly recent - most games start to be really broken for speedrunning 10 to 15 years after release. The PS2 classics just started to have a community around them more than 10 years after release, like two years ago, nothing was around (Ratchet & Clank, Jak, Sly, etc.). So it's just a question of time, but the CoD speedrunning community is just an embryo in the womb right now - it could never develop or could get bigger in the months and years to come. And maybe someday the perspective of seeing one of the most popular CoD campaigns in a GDQ will be greater than a Round 1 rejection.
@Linkinito
Thanks for all the effort you did put into your original post, I read through it before I started this whole thing up again, you made all the arguments way past what needed to be said. HL2 gets accepted again, nintendo and rpgs get accepted again, and one of the biggest gaming franchises is left out, again.
I'm just so sick of it happening again, not for the second time, but the fourth.
I don't believe time or the amount of runners is why it's getting rejected, and it's annoying, because there does need to be a straight answer. A lot of arguments can be said the same about minecraft, SC2 was the other one pointed out, and the time since it's been released can be debated (looking directly at Dark Souls).
Everything feels extremely debatable and no arguments against it seem solid enough for outright rejection four times.
Thanks for all the effort you did put into your original post, I read through it before I started this whole thing up again, you made all the arguments way past what needed to be said. HL2 gets accepted again, nintendo and rpgs get accepted again, and one of the biggest gaming franchises is left out, again.
I'm just so sick of it happening again, not for the second time, but the fourth.
I don't believe time or the amount of runners is why it's getting rejected, and it's annoying, because there does need to be a straight answer. A lot of arguments can be said the same about minecraft, SC2 was the other one pointed out, and the time since it's been released can be debated (looking directly at Dark Souls).
Everything feels extremely debatable and no arguments against it seem solid enough for outright rejection four times.
Talk to the Hand
Quote from Cool Matty:
Also, REMINDER: You have a FULL WEEK to submit your games, and there is no value in submitting early! Being first in the door with a crappy submission will NOT improve your chances.
I actually have a question about this. Does the database save the time a game was submitted anywhere in the backend at all? I'd like to, if possible, try and answer* the question of "Is it better to submit early than late?" with some actual data if said data is available for either this or past marathons.
*And yes, I know there are a bunch of other factors that go into whether a game gets accepted or not, which would be difficult/impossible to control for. But I maintain that later submissions are subconsciously held to a higher standard than earlier ones. Not out of malice by the selection committee, mind you, but near the end of submissions, everyone can see that they accept way more than they can fit into the marathon for Round 1 cuts. And when you've ALREADY got ~300 hours worth of games that you need to cut to 150, I don't see how you can possibly avoid subconsciously cranking up the filter toward the "reject" end a few notches when you look at that late submission.
(NOTE: I have not, and will not, submit anything for this particular GDQ; this is more something that's bugged me about the process for awhile--Vulajin may remember chatting with me about it in the aftermath of AGDQ2015--and I'd like to know if my position has a basis in reality or not)
From the community's side I would like to say that Star Fox: Assault is a very interesting speedrun and I hope that the staff doesn't overlook it due to the first level or such. Even though the game didn't get the best response when it was released but played by MrShasta I can guarantee a first class speedrun. Note that I am not trying to debate your decisions, I don't necessarily think this will make you re-think the reject, but the game would be worth to give a chance in the future. I just generally feel like Star Fox is rejected for being Star Fox.
That's "Mr." Speedrunner, to you
Quote from mt76907:
Here's your solution to the "rejected but what the community really wants to see" problem.
Allocate, say, 4 hours as a Community Choice Block. After round 1 or 2 of cuts or whatever, allow the runners that submitted runs a day or two to vote to save rejected runs, each person's total time of vote to save runs < 4 hours OR a maximum of 2/3/whatever runs, whichever is less time.
This corrects for:
A) Unavoidable committee oversight of a few "deserving"/good runs
B) Community feeling ignored in the selection process
C) Whether a run is actually strongly supported and not just an organized vocal minority
This happens EVERY GDQ, multiple people campaigning for a game or two they feel got slighted, let's end it.
Allocate, say, 4 hours as a Community Choice Block. After round 1 or 2 of cuts or whatever, allow the runners that submitted runs a day or two to vote to save rejected runs, each person's total time of vote to save runs < 4 hours OR a maximum of 2/3/whatever runs, whichever is less time.
This corrects for:
A) Unavoidable committee oversight of a few "deserving"/good runs
B) Community feeling ignored in the selection process
C) Whether a run is actually strongly supported and not just an organized vocal minority
This happens EVERY GDQ, multiple people campaigning for a game or two they feel got slighted, let's end it.
Ok, I thought about this for more than 10 seconds and I can see why this is a great idea, but with a few more ideas to add.
gamesdonequick.com already has a system in place where confirmed runners have a discount on registering for AGDQ, therefore, the site has the capability of giving runner-only access to things. With this in place, make it so only runners will be able to vote for the Community Choice Block, which will only be 2-3 games anyway. This will prevent some important voters, but I guess those few can personally request voting powers if wanted(people like 0xwas, iateyourp1e, gocnak, etc.). Just give confirmed runners a list of rejected games, and the top few make it in.
I already listed the only legitimate problem to this, with a workable solution, so here are some positives:
1) Removes the spamming and popularity votes by not giving the ballots out to reddit/twitter/twitch and so on.
2) The voters are trusted as accomplished speedrunners because they are already going through a system that judges that(2 birds 1 stone).
3) Flavor-of-the-week and meme-submissions won't have a great chance, there has never been a legitimate and strong uprising for that stuff.
And so what if some Barbie game gets in, or some Call of Duty gets in? It's only going to be for a small block, and if the donations or viewers are bad then you guys can finally yell at us instead. We know more than anyone else what people like to watch, and we wouldn't complain every year if the decision process was sturdier. This can take an afternoon to set up on the site, and there is still plenty of time to do so for these submissions. I know, years back, the committee didn't sign up for this current feeling of a medieval-"what I say goes"-hierarchy, and they want there to be love in the community just as much as everyone else. Please don't stall, come out from behind the curtain and do a small change that will make the people that you spend 14 days out of the year with very happy.
LennyPls
Quote from BubblesDelFuego:
Quote from mt76907:
Here's your solution to the "rejected but what the community really wants to see" problem.
Allocate, say, 4 hours as a Community Choice Block. After round 1 or 2 of cuts or whatever, allow the runners that submitted runs a day or two to vote to save rejected runs, each person's total time of vote to save runs < 4 hours OR a maximum of 2/3/whatever runs, whichever is less time.
This corrects for:
A) Unavoidable committee oversight of a few "deserving"/good runs
B) Community feeling ignored in the selection process
C) Whether a run is actually strongly supported and not just an organized vocal minority
This happens EVERY GDQ, multiple people campaigning for a game or two they feel got slighted, let's end it.
Allocate, say, 4 hours as a Community Choice Block. After round 1 or 2 of cuts or whatever, allow the runners that submitted runs a day or two to vote to save rejected runs, each person's total time of vote to save runs < 4 hours OR a maximum of 2/3/whatever runs, whichever is less time.
This corrects for:
A) Unavoidable committee oversight of a few "deserving"/good runs
B) Community feeling ignored in the selection process
C) Whether a run is actually strongly supported and not just an organized vocal minority
This happens EVERY GDQ, multiple people campaigning for a game or two they feel got slighted, let's end it.
Ok, I thought about this for more than 10 seconds and I can see why this is a great idea, but with a few more ideas to add.
gamesdonequick.com already has a system in place where confirmed runners have a discount on registering for AGDQ, therefore, the site has the capability of giving runner-only access to things. With this in place, make it so only runners will be able to vote for the Community Choice Block, which will only be 2-3 games anyway. This will prevent some important voters, but I guess those few can personally request voting powers if wanted(people like 0xwas, iateyourp1e, gocnak, etc.). Just give confirmed runners a list of rejected games, and the top few make it in.
I already listed the only legitimate problem to this, with a workable solution, so here are some positives:
1) Removes the spamming and popularity votes by not giving the ballots out to reddit/twitter/twitch and so on.
2) The voters are trusted as accomplished speedrunners because they are already going through a system that judges that(2 birds 1 stone).
3) Flavor-of-the-week and meme-submissions won't have a great chance, there has never been a legitimate and strong uprising for that stuff.
And so what if some Barbie game gets in, or some Call of Duty gets in? It's only going to be for a small block, and if the donations or viewers are bad then you guys can finally yell at us instead. We know more than anyone else what people like to watch, and we wouldn't complain every year if the decision process was sturdier. This can take an afternoon to set up on the site, and there is still plenty of time to do so for these submissions. I know, years back, the committee didn't sign up for this current feeling of a medieval-"what I say goes"-hierarchy, and they want there to be love in the community just as much as everyone else. Please don't stall, come out from behind the curtain and do a small change that will make the people that you spend 14 days out of the year with very happy.
I love this idea, even if it isn't something that was implemented this marathon. I wouldn't care that much if the game I submitted wasn't a choice by people either, that's not the part that matters here. What this idea would do is give the smaller communities that feel they have absolutely ZERO chance to get into a GDQ their time to shine, and hopefully gain some more runners to keep increasing the size of their community. As a Ty the Tasmanian Tiger runner, this would be very nice to give the game some form of exposure since I am the only "active" runner (depending on how you look at it), but nearly everyone who comes across the game while I'm streaming it comes in purely for nostalgia. I've seen it happen time and time again, and this system would reconnect people to so many games that they remember on a nostalgic level and had no idea there was speedrunning community to go along with the game.
Just note that this is my take on the concept, and I'm nowhere near the authority to say whether or not this is a good or bad idea. I'm just giving the point of view from someone who is apart of a community that would benefit from this.
Quote from LeScraf:
I can't submit a game because I'm too young (turn 16 right before start of AGDQ). Maybe next time!
You actually can, if you still want to, LeScraf! I'll quote the discussion had earlier in this thread:
Quote from Cool Matty:
Quote from epicallytossed:
Can someone just tell me how do I submit a game if I'm under 16? I talked to a staff member at sgdq 2015 and they said I could but I cannot figure out how.
We talked it over internally, and the best option would be to have your parent/guardian make an account and submit for you. Make sure to specify that in your submission so we're aware. They will need to register and pay like any runner, and they would need to attend the event with you.
Quote:
Quote:
Can someone just tell me how do I submit a game if I'm under 16? I talked to a staff member at sgdq 2015 and they said I could but I cannot figure out how.
Quote from TonyOgbot:
Just wanted to stop by and ask what a Waitlist on Shantae and the Pirate's Curse race entails. Does that mean you're holding off on final judgment until everyone submits, or is this one of those "We'll put it in the schedule if something drops after 2nd round of cuts" kind of situations?
Quote from Front Page:
Waitlist:
This status is rare, but it means although you haven’t been scheduled, you may be soon. Typically if runs must be cut from the schedule, runs with this status will replace them first.
This status is rare, but it means although you haven’t been scheduled, you may be soon. Typically if runs must be cut from the schedule, runs with this status will replace them first.
It seems to be more of the latter. I am not a mod.
ㅋㅋㅋㅋ
As a gentle reminder, I'd like to remind everyone that the AGDQ 2016 game committee does not take individual (or group) requests for a game to be run, as stated in the FAQ:
Quote from Games Done Quick FAQ:
Can I request for [specific person] to run [specific game] at a GDQ?
No. Running a game at a GDQ is on a volunteer basis. It is the responsibility of the speedrunner to offer their game(s) for each event. As there are many factors considered when constructing a GDQ schedule, we do not honor individual requests to have a specific game put into the schedule.
No. Running a game at a GDQ is on a volunteer basis. It is the responsibility of the speedrunner to offer their game(s) for each event. As there are many factors considered when constructing a GDQ schedule, we do not honor individual requests to have a specific game put into the schedule.