Be nice! :)

2006-01-11 04:18:33 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

IMW, I probably buried it, but my point was sort of a speedrun natural selection. I'm not sure if someone abandons their run due to outside opinion, that it would be any good in the first place, but I could be wrong.

As for your other point, I agree with you about SDA in general and all that, but since you asked I'll answer your question as it applies to me. I've been beating stuff fast since I was a kid. Now that there's SDA, I figure why not record while I'm at it and let other people enjoy it? I'm still doing it for myself, because if I was in an empty thread or one where people were begging me not to do it, I'd do it anyway.

Quote:

In my selected passage, I was referring only to those who, like myself, are generally entertained by all speedruns. I find genuine amusement in viewing a speedrun, particularly of those games currently foreign to my own experience, and I should therefore encourage others. "Oh, you're running Mr. Jump-Logs? Well, I've never heard of the game, but I bet I'll be a-downloadin' its video once it has been completed, so why don't I cheer you on??"

I never thought of that. Smiley

IMW, I probably buried it, but my point was sort of a speedrun natural selection. I'm not sure if someone abandons their run due to outside opinion, that it would be any good in the first place, but I could be wrong.

As for your other point, I agree with you about SDA in general and all that, but since you asked I'll answer your question as it applies to me. I've been beating stuff fast since I was a kid. Now that there's SDA, I figure why not record while I'm at it and let other people enjoy it? I'm still doing it for myself, because if I was in an empty thread or one where people were begging me not to do it, I'd do it anyway.

[quote]In my selected passage, I was referring only to those who, like myself, are generally entertained by all speedruns.  I find genuine amusement in viewing a speedrun, particularly of those games currently foreign to my own experience, and I should therefore encourage others.  "Oh, you're running Mr. Jump-Logs?  Well, I've never heard of the game, but I bet I'll be a-downloadin' its video once it has been completed, so why don't I cheer you on??"[/quote]
I never thought of that. :)

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2006-01-11 05:59:22 am

2006-01-11 05:58:18 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Quote:

IMW, I probably buried it, but my point was sort of a speedrun natural selection. I'm not sure if someone abandons their run due to outside opinion, that it would be any good in the first place, but I could be wrong...
I'm still doing it for myself, because if I was in an empty thread or one where people were begging me not to do it, I'd do it anyway.

In that case, I understand. Cheesy

Nikuvilin

2006-01-17 02:14:15 pm

DMC3,ZOE2 and Xenosaga 2.  Am I crazy?

Quote:

Well, it's hard to be excited about a game that I've never heard of. Loom? Terranigma? What the hell are those games? People who do speed runs should just acknowledge that a lot of the time, their game isn't going to get a ton of obvious visible attention (Look at the DMC1 thread, one of the greatest and well known action games ever, is mostly made up of Sternn, Molotov, myself, Pwesiger, a guest and Nikullivin. Of those people, only myself and the topic runner have posted more than once in the thread).

People will often monitor threads as they progress on these high class games, but not join the discussion because they have nothing to add outside of enthusiasm and these new runners, these runners who are playing the more obscure games, or don't seem to have the huge support of the entire run should understand that as the saying goes, "No news is good news!"

Y'know what I mean? I instead recommend that the new runners look at the number of views their thread is getting after every update to more accurately gauge interest in the run (I.E. I got 50 views inbetween this update and my new update, not counting the few times I reloaded the page). It's not 100% accurate, as every time the page is opened or refreshed it gets added to the counter, but it's better than judging from the praise of one poster inbetween three updates.

Psycho has a really good point. I love DMC1 and absolutely love the speedruns made of it but I can`t post a million posts because I don`t own the game anymore and people wouldn`t really care about my n00b tips for the game. DMC3 thread had almost only me, psycho, gemasis and pweisger posting. So I think it is enough if you post once that you would like to see the run.

[quote]Well, it's hard to be excited about a game that I've never heard of.  Loom?  Terranigma?  What the hell are those games?  People who do speed runs should just acknowledge that a lot of the time, their game isn't going to get a ton of obvious visible attention (Look at the DMC1 thread, one of the greatest and well known action games ever, is mostly made up of Sternn, Molotov, myself, Pwesiger, a guest and Nikullivin.  Of those people, only myself and the topic runner have posted more than once in the thread).

People will often monitor threads as they progress on these high class games, but not join the discussion because they have nothing to add outside of enthusiasm and these new runners, these runners who are playing the more obscure games, or don't seem to have the huge support of the entire run should understand that as the saying goes, "No news is good news!"

Y'know what I mean?  I instead recommend that the new runners look at the number of views their thread is getting after every update to more accurately gauge interest in the run (I.E. I got 50 views inbetween this update and my new update, not counting the few times I reloaded the page).  It's not 100% accurate, as every time the page is opened or refreshed it gets added to the counter, but it's better than judging from the praise of one poster inbetween three updates.  [/quote]

Psycho has a really good point. I love DMC1 and absolutely love the speedruns made of it but I can`t post a million posts because I don`t own the game anymore and people wouldn`t really care about my n00b tips for the game. DMC3 thread had almost only me, psycho, gemasis and pweisger posting. So I think it is enough if you post once that you would like to see the run.

Aresake

2006-01-17 10:13:29 pm

Glowy eyes of DOOM!

Quote:

I find genuine amusement in viewing a speedrun, particularly of those games currently foreign to my own experience, and I should therefore encourage others. "Oh, you're running Mr. Jump-Logs? Well, I've never heard of the game, but I bet I'll be a-downloadin' its video once it has been completed, so why don't I cheer you on??"

I feel differently about that, which is why I post in very few game threads. It's a lot harder for me to appreciate the skill going into a run if I've never attempted the game (or one nearly identical to it) myself. Good runs have many subtle tricks that you won't notice unless you have quite a bit of experience with the game, and in my opinion, this is what makes these runs worth watching.

For example, the Super Metroid runs use an "early wrecked ship entry" trick involving a difficult shinespark and firing a super missile at nearly the same time. This is one of my favorite games, so I tried to repeat the trick one day and discovered how hard it is to actually pull it off. After you start the shinespark I'm pretty sure there's only about a 1/20 second window in which the super missile can be fired in order for it to work. Similar comments apply to the "kraid quick kill," etc. The fact that these tricks are all executed flawlessly in a segment lasting 30+ minutes is what really wows me. If I watch a run of a game I've never played, I'm missing out on all of that.

[quote]

I find genuine amusement in viewing a speedrun, particularly of those games currently foreign to my own experience, and I should therefore encourage others.  "Oh, you're running Mr. Jump-Logs?  Well, I've never heard of the game, but I bet I'll be a-downloadin' its video once it has been completed, so why don't I cheer you on??"  
 [/quote]

I feel differently about that, which is why I post in very few game threads.  It's a lot harder for me to appreciate the skill going into a run if I've never attempted the game (or one nearly identical to it) myself.  Good runs have many subtle tricks that you won't notice unless you have quite a bit of experience with the game, and in my opinion, this is what makes these runs worth watching.

For example, the Super Metroid runs use an "early wrecked ship entry" trick involving a difficult shinespark and firing a super missile at nearly the same time.  This is one of my favorite games, so I tried to repeat the trick one day and discovered how hard it is to actually pull it off.  After you start the shinespark I'm pretty sure there's only about a 1/20 second window in which the super missile can be fired in order for it to work.  Similar comments apply to the "kraid quick kill," etc.  The fact that these tricks are all executed flawlessly in a segment lasting 30+ minutes is what really wows me.  If I watch a run of a game I've never played, I'm missing out on all of that.

nate

2006-01-18 02:57:52 am

based on what i've heard/seen, i think you are probably right about the timing window on that super metroid trick. and i definitely agree about having to play the game religiously, even on a competitive level to understand what a speed run of that game really means. this site may be mass market someday, but it will never be anything other than elite.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-18 03:26:54 am

$inner

which is why it's the best, because technically it is the best

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2006-01-18 06:17:11 am

2006-01-18 05:47:10 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Quote:

based on what i've heard/seen, i think you are probably right about the timing window on that super metroid trick. and i definitely agree about having to play the game religiously, even on a competitive level to understand what a speed run of that game really means. this site may be mass market someday, but it will never be anything other than elite.

That doesn't change my argument, though. There's a difference between what we can appreciate and being frivolously critical or routinely unconcerned...

Maybe you are not directing your post towards me, but if you are, I am not suggesting that people generally download each and every run, like I do, and even if they did, I'm emphatically sure that they cannot always appreciate the skill involved.

These things acknowledged, there is still no reason why you can't show some support or advice, to some obscure, typically overlooked thread every now and then, if you can. Though, if you are of my kindred, then why don't you just offer some enthusiasm whenever time permits you? Considering my schedule, as of late, I have not been able to do so, but when I am able, why not? I'm not proposing that one frantically hunt for threads to exhume for the purposes of overly ambitious encouragement, either, but there's certainly no harm in positively commenting, "Hey, it sounds like you've made progress since your initial trials. Keep it up," in the first/most recently bumped thread on the page about a game that might even be foreign to you.

And yeah, I'll never be able to truly appreciate the Half-life runs [Honestly, I just migrated from my barn and actually played through it for the first time, beating it tonight], but how does this prohibit me from showing admiration? If the comments would be entirely redundant or vague, like someone arbitrarily posting "Hey, can't wait!" for the 20th time, then yes, it could stand to be restricted.

Still, you may not be able to appreciate the skill, but you know, you can probably just assume that there was a lot of skill required to perform run "X," so if the runner seems in need or wouldn't mind some free inspiration, why not say, "Hey, I honestly know nothing of your project, but don't give up. You'll get it, eventually," or something.

If you don't concur with my sentiments, then fine, but there's no need for useless criticism [pedantically scrutinizing n00bs on their first attempts, though there are exceptions], and it's not like you need to know how difficult a run is to provide the most basic or meager of supports. Maybe you lack the capacity to comprehend the profundity of the run, and therefore cannot specifically relate how impressively you evaluate the run, but at some level, you know you're talking to fellow runner, who's career here was doubtlessly instigated by some run he saw, and it can't hurt.

Remember, my first post in this thread shared all of your same views, along with the aforementioned, so I understand. Typically, I still do not post in threads about games that I don't recognize; I'm just saying that, if you think of it, and you've acquired ample time, it wouldn't hurt.

If nothing else, don't maintain a rule that demands, "I must never approach/post in a thread about a videogame I have never experienced."

EDIT: Btw, I am not sure where Nate was going with the elite comment, but if he was further stipulating his argument, I didn't see it as justifiable cause to exempt newcomers, from either performing or downloading, if this was his intention.

I personally have no clue how difficult those Metroid tricks were, but it's not like I can't still be impressed with the run. And I was...

Unless you feel that the site should perpetuate some sort of esoteric community of Mario-clans or Mega Man troupes, then why should we presume that runs must be fully, optimally, and deontologically appreciated by a viewer for it to have an authentic value? I may have beaten FFVII a long time ago, but it's not like a run of it necessitates entirely Final Fantasy hardcores to comprise of its audience; the regular, fairly game-savvy Joe will work, whom I don't believe should be qualified, or needs to be qualified, as elite.

Of course, when a topic starts narrowing down to experts only, as they become somewhat necessary for runners at certain junctures, I understand why only they can truly offer any solace/expertise. However, I don't believe this was the original point of this thread...

---I understand what you're saying; I don't even disagree with it. I'm just trying to perfectly explicate my opinion on this matter; I hope I haven't been overly-critical, once again. Nate's comments simply provided me with another venue for explanation of my views, which might not have been clear to somebody or another out there.

[quote]based on what i've heard/seen, i think you are probably right about the timing window on that super metroid trick. and i definitely agree about having to play the game religiously, even on a competitive level to understand what a speed run of that game really means. this site may be mass market someday, but it will never be anything other than elite.[/quote]

That doesn't change my argument, though.  There's a difference between what we can appreciate and being frivolously critical or routinely unconcerned...

Maybe you are not directing your post towards me, but if you are, I am not suggesting that people generally download each and every run, like I do, and even if they did, I'm emphatically sure that they cannot always appreciate the skill involved.

These things acknowledged, there is still no reason why you can't show some support or advice, to some obscure, typically overlooked thread every now and then, if you can.  Though, if you [i]are[/i] of my kindred, then why don't you just offer some enthusiasm whenever time permits you?  Considering my schedule, as of late, I have not been able to do so, but when I am able, why not?  I'm not proposing that one frantically hunt for threads to exhume for the purposes of overly ambitious encouragement, either, but there's certainly no harm in positively commenting, "Hey, it sounds like you've made progress since your initial trials.  Keep it up," in the first/most recently bumped thread on the page about a game that might even be foreign to you.

And yeah, I'll never be able to [b]truly[/b] appreciate the Half-life runs [Honestly, I just migrated from my barn and actually played through it for the first time, beating it tonight], but how does this prohibit me from showing admiration?  If the comments would be [i]entirely[/i] redundant or vague, like someone arbitrarily posting "Hey, can't wait!" for the 20th time, then yes, it could stand to be restricted.

Still, you may not be able to appreciate the skill, but you know, you can probably just assume that there was a lot of skill required to perform run "X," so if the runner seems in need or wouldn't mind some free inspiration, why not say, "Hey, I honestly know nothing of your project, but don't give up.  You'll get it, eventually," or something.

If you don't concur with my sentiments, then fine, but there's no need for useless criticism [pedantically scrutinizing n00bs on their first attempts, though there are exceptions], and it's not like you need to know how difficult a run is to provide the most basic or meager of supports.  Maybe you lack the capacity to comprehend the profundity of the run, and therefore cannot specifically relate how impressively you evaluate the run, but at some level, you know you're talking to fellow runner, who's career here was doubtlessly instigated by some run [i]he[/i] saw, and it can't hurt.

Remember, my first post in this thread shared all of your same views, along with the aforementioned, so I understand.  Typically, I still do not post in threads about games that I don't recognize; I'm just saying that, if you think of it, and you've acquired ample time, it wouldn't hurt.

If nothing else, don't maintain a rule that demands, "I must never approach/post in a thread about a videogame I have never experienced."

EDIT: Btw, I am not sure where Nate was going with the elite comment, but if he was further stipulating his argument, I didn't see it as justifiable cause to exempt newcomers, from either performing or downloading, if this was his intention.

I personally have no clue how difficult those Metroid tricks were, but [i]it's not like I can't still be impressed with the run.[/i]  And I was...

Unless you feel that the site should perpetuate some sort of esoteric community of Mario-clans or Mega Man troupes, then why should we presume that runs must be fully, optimally, and deontologically appreciated by a viewer for it to have an authentic value?  I may have beaten FFVII a long time ago, but it's not like a run of it necessitates entirely Final Fantasy hardcores to comprise of its audience; the regular, fairly game-savvy Joe will work, whom I don't believe should be qualified, or needs to be qualified, as elite.

Of course, when a topic starts narrowing down to experts only, as they become somewhat necessary for runners at certain junctures, I understand why only they can truly offer any solace/expertise.  However, I don't believe this was the original point of this thread...

---I understand what you're saying; I don't even disagree with it.  I'm just trying to perfectly explicate my opinion on this matter; I hope I haven't been overly-critical, once again.  Nate's comments simply provided me with another venue for explanation of my views, which might not have been clear to somebody or another out there.

Nikuvilin

2006-01-18 06:15:15 pm

DMC3,ZOE2 and Xenosaga 2.  Am I crazy?

That is the longest post with a really good point that I have ever seen. Good Job!

nate

2006-01-19 01:42:58 am

Quote:

I am not sure where Nate was going with the elite comment, but if he was further stipulating his argument, I didn't see it as justifiable cause to exempt newcomers, from either performing or downloading, if this was his intention.

no, not at all. by "elite" i meant merely that "amateur running" (an oxymoron if i've ever seen one) will not find a place here even as the size of the audience increases, hopefully beyond any of our wildest dreams. a good rule of thumb is that for any group of individuals, only one will be the best by a digital rubric of sufficient resolution (the game), and that individual is the raison d'être of sda. so yeah, no cause for alarm there: i'd say that as the audience grows, so will the appreciation (hello, my name is captain obvious).

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-19 01:45:11 am

$inner

most of that post I didn't understand :-[

InsipidMuckyWater

Edit history:

InsipidMuckyWater: 2006-01-19 03:01:32 am

2006-01-19 02:47:52 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Haha; don't worry. Nate was simply clarifying, in satisfyingly eruditial terms, his original contribution, so that my own (retrospectively tangential) commitment could be reconciled, as we were actually arguing concurrent sentiments. Now that I have heard his viewpoint reiterated in a more developed construction, I see that we weren't, necessarily, in discordance.

Basically, I argued from a specific, pragmatic, normative, and ethical standpoint, and Nate was commenting from a more macrocosmic, observational, and possibly even Darwinian one, although I realize there is an unintended connotation in that analysis.

~~In short,~~ Nate was simply illustrating that SDA's utility derives from its demos, which, as has been stated, are the products of experts helping experts, compounded by previous efforts and secondary sources, which cannot be described as amateur or elementary due to the competition, dedication, and selectivism of its members/administration; what we have at SDA, is a consequentially [albeit unintentionally] esoteric community of reasonably prolific Alphas, whose material and final causes [borrowing from Aristotelian theory] is to produce the most optimized set of speedruns available. This argument is verily acceptable, and it does not conflict with my previous allegations, now that it has been explained.

EDIT: Okay, sorry; I'm sure I could've been less pompous and actually could've appropriately addressed your confusion. Basically: Nate said that SDA will inevitably be defined by its zealous runners and their correlating speedruns, which was not his way of saying that SDA can only be enjoyed or consist only of elites. Rather, the elites perfect the inventory of SDA, and the masses, whether they come or do not, should and will be able to appreciate their work, although they potentially won't fully realize how immensely difficult it was.

Haha; don't worry.  Nate was simply clarifying, in satisfyingly eruditial terms, his original contribution, so that my own (retrospectively tangential) commitment could be reconciled, as we were actually arguing concurrent sentiments.  Now that I have heard his viewpoint reiterated in a more developed construction, I see that we weren't, necessarily, in discordance.

Basically, I argued from a specific, pragmatic, normative, and ethical standpoint, and Nate was commenting from a more macrocosmic, observational, and [i]possibly[/i] even Darwinian one, although I realize there is an unintended connotation in that analysis.

[s]In short,[/s] Nate was simply illustrating that SDA's utility derives from its demos, which, as has been stated, are the products of experts helping experts, compounded by previous efforts and secondary sources, which cannot be described as amateur or elementary due to the competition, dedication, and selectivism of its members/administration; what we have at SDA, is a consequentially [albeit unintentionally] esoteric community of reasonably prolific Alphas, whose material and final causes [borrowing from Aristotelian theory] is to produce the most optimized set of speedruns available.  This argument is verily acceptable, and it does not conflict with my previous allegations, now that it has been explained.

EDIT: Okay, sorry; I'm sure I could've been less pompous and actually could've appropriately addressed your confusion.  Basically: Nate said that SDA will inevitably be defined by its zealous runners and their correlating speedruns, which was [i]not[/i] his way of saying that SDA can only be enjoyed or consist only of elites.  Rather, the elites perfect the inventory of SDA, and the masses, whether they come or do not, should and [i]will[/i] be able to appreciate their work, although they potentially won't fully realize how immensely difficult it was.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-19 02:59:53 am

$inner

Hmm, I understood that Shocked

But yes, experts helping experts will of course always come out good

Aresake

Edit history:

Aresake: 2006-01-19 08:19:25 am

2006-01-19 04:25:06 am

Glowy eyes of DOOM!

It ought to be noted that the word "elite" usually has a negative connotation referring to snobbery and condescention. I feel safe in saying that this is far from true with regard to nearly everyone on this site.

However, as proven in the previous posts, there are definitely elite elements to SDA. In fact, speedrunning itself is essentially a function from a game to an elite game. Most games are designed to be played by anyone, and only the dullest are not intended to provide a tough challenge. However, to speedrun a game presupposes that merely completing it is no challenge whatsoever, and demands a vast new skill set that subsumes the original one.

For this reason it seems to me that the speedrunning endeavor, as a whole, concerns itself only with a rather elite group of people. Unfortunately, this also suggests to me that speedrunning is unlikely to become popular except possibly as a spectator activity. Feel free to debate me on this, though.

EDIT: Then again, I'm not sure I really said anything new here, and if so then a debate is rather unneccesary.

It ought to be noted that the word "elite" usually has a negative connotation referring to snobbery and condescention.  I feel safe in saying that this is far from true with regard to nearly everyone on this site.

However, as proven in the previous posts, there are definitely elite elements to SDA.  In fact, speedrunning itself is essentially a function from a game to an elite game.  Most games are designed to be played by anyone, and only the dullest are not intended to provide a tough challenge.  However, to speedrun a game presupposes that merely completing it is no challenge whatsoever, and demands a vast new skill set that subsumes the original one.

For this reason it seems to me that the speedrunning endeavor, as a whole, concerns itself only with a rather elite group of people.  Unfortunately, this also suggests to me that speedrunning is unlikely to become popular except possibly as a spectator activity.  Feel free to debate me on this, though.

EDIT: Then again, I'm not sure I really said anything new here, and if so then a debate is rather unneccesary.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-19 02:59:49 pm

$inner

That's pretty much what all sports are now these days, one in which elite players compete against each other and people spectate

VorpalEdge

2006-01-19 09:40:00 pm

welcome to the machine

Of course doing speedruns won't be too popular. There's a limited amount of games and a small subset of people to do them.

Now, spectators on the other hand... I expect this statistic to grow exponentially.

Lam6ch0p

2006-01-19 09:50:47 pm

$inner

Yep, just like multiplayer, it's gone from people facing each other to people facing each other while other people are watching (bad analogy)

marshmallow

2006-01-19 11:19:40 pm

Jack of all Trades

Is this where someone mentions professional CS/SC? No? Well, I did it anyway.

Enhasa

2006-02-03 10:14:32 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote:

no, not at all. by "elite" i meant merely that "amateur running" (an oxymoron if i've ever seen one) will not find a place here even as the size of the audience increases, hopefully beyond any of our wildest dreams.

There are some that say that "amateur running" is already entrenched within SDA.

I'm staying out of this. I would definitely like to see the verifiers be a lot meaner, and this would help out Radix's workload somewhat in the process. However, SDA is at this point favorable to bisqwit's, where you will only get posted if you are doing a popular 2D action game like Mario, Metroid, Castlevania, Sonic. At any rate, complaining about a free service is not something I do.

VorpalEdge

2006-02-03 11:46:35 pm

welcome to the machine

Quality is defined relatively.

Some want TAS-quality and only TAS-quality runs. Some are much more lenient.

I'm guessing that the former are the ones who state that amateur running is entrenched. I'm somewhat more lenient personally - but I'd also define a run as acceptable unless I have a reason *not* to accept it. Such as a horribly bad mistake or something.

I go with the foot in the door phenomenon.

nate

2006-02-04 12:07:17 am

Quote:

I go with the foot in the door phenomenon.

seconded.

Ekarderif

2006-02-04 02:24:40 am

Your almighty lordship

My run is pretty amateur... Someone should go fix it. Or buy me a Cube to fix it. Wink

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2006-02-04 07:12:14 am

2006-02-04 07:11:28 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote:

I go with the foot in the door phenomenon.

Well, that's exactly the phrase I used in the other thread.

You need to strike a happy medium, one that I think is between current SDA and current bisqwit's. Almost all the projects over there stall out, because the level of perfection you need in say a SNES RPG is simply overwhelming the first time. hero took everyone by surprise by storming through CT and FFMQ, and I know spezzafer came out of nowhere to do the original SMRPG TAS. FFMQ and SMRPG have since been improved, and CT is being improved, and I'm not sure if any of these runs would exist if someone just didn't say, fuck it.

Of course here, you have some people who complete a run in 2 days or don't do any research at all. Nate, I know you helped Sir VG redo his MM7. Obviously, you and Radix can only "screen" games you know well, so I just think the verifiers should be instructed to be a little stricter. I know the anonymity of the verifiers helps a little, but since the runner is known, it's not double blind and I'm sure there's some natural bias going on in wanting to be nice.

There is a point to this. People like Dragondarch, trihex, et al have been known to rededicate themselves after having a run rejected. I could ask you to estimate acceptance rate, but just like site stats, I'm not certain that's something you're happy to give out?

[quote]I go with the foot in the door phenomenon.[/quote]
Well, that's exactly the phrase I used in the other thread.

You need to strike a happy medium, one that I think is between current SDA and current bisqwit's. Almost all the projects over there stall out, because the level of perfection you need in say a SNES RPG is simply overwhelming the first time. hero took everyone by surprise by storming through CT and FFMQ, and I know spezzafer came out of nowhere to do the original SMRPG TAS. FFMQ and SMRPG have since been improved, and CT is being improved, and I'm not sure if any of these runs would exist if someone just didn't say, fuck it.

Of course here, you have some people who complete a run in 2 days or don't do any research at all. Nate, I know you helped Sir VG redo his MM7. Obviously, you and Radix can only "screen" games you know well, so I just think the verifiers should be instructed to be a little stricter. I know the anonymity of the verifiers helps a little, but since the runner is known, it's not double blind and I'm sure there's some natural bias going on in wanting to be nice.

There is a point to this. People like Dragondarch, trihex, et al have been known to rededicate themselves after having a run rejected. I could ask you to estimate acceptance rate, but just like site stats, I'm not certain that's something you're happy to give out?

VorpalEdge

2006-02-05 02:27:12 am

welcome to the machine

Quote:

Well, that's exactly the phrase I used in the other thread.

I know. I saw it. That's why I used that phrase. Tongue

I do not feel that verifiers should be a little stricter, simply because I have yet to see a run that people generally regard as crappy (except for d.darch's AoS, but that's a whole different topic, and it was an improvement of a previous run anyways) outside of some random dolt going 'i r god!'

Of course, I don't keep up with runs of games I haven't played or at least heard lots of good things about at *all*, so I may easily be missing some. But if I'm not...

Until we start seeing those posts, I say the system is working well.

InsipidMuckyWater

2006-02-05 07:27:30 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Yeah, I would have to concur. I admire your commitment to the old adage, "the best of the best," but I see some issues with your sentiments...

First of all, it is unlikely that one who has played a game, to the extent that they're comfortable verifying it, anyways, would even recognize the difficulty of performing its respective run, and the effort put forth by its author, despite their previous, and presumably casual experience with the title. Of course, since these members are the best options we currently have, they adequately perform their functions, but I highly doubt that most of them were ever aware of the true magnitude of each run's skill, so having them generate stricter reviews might lead to arbitrary, naive, or pedantic conclusions.

Also, there isn't really an operational definition for "stricter;" no, I'm not pretending that I'm oblivious to your intention with the word, but there is still a problem with the term. How does one rate how strictly a verifier evaluated a run? There is no specific, measurable scale by which we can scrutinize someone's judgment, first of all, and the only ones who could offer an alternative/modification to it would be others who had played the game and, for whatever reason, did not acquire the privlege to verify it. Also, disputing raw opinions typically doesn't lead to anything beneficial.

As Maur suggests, SDA seems to have an efficacious system as it is; I would rather see a [sufficient] run of a game, as long as its mastered well enough to nominally qualify for the term "speedrun," at least, than see no run at all...

Yeah, I would have to concur.  I admire your commitment to the old adage, "the best of the best," but I see some issues with your sentiments...

First of all, it is unlikely that one who has played a game, to the extent that they're comfortable verifying it, anyways, would even recognize the difficulty of performing its respective run, and the effort put forth by its author, despite their previous, and presumably [i]casual[/i] experience with the title.  Of course, since these members are the best options we currently have, they adequately perform their functions, but I highly doubt that most of them were ever aware of the true magnitude of each run's skill, so having them generate stricter reviews might lead to arbitrary, naive, or pedantic conclusions.

Also, there isn't really an operational definition for "stricter;" no, I'm not pretending that I'm oblivious to your intention with the word, but there is still a problem with the term.  How does one rate how [i]strictly[/i] a verifier evaluated a run?  There is no specific, measurable scale by which we can scrutinize someone's judgment, first of all, and the only ones who could offer an alternative/modification to it would be [i]others[/i] who had played the game and, for whatever reason, did not acquire the privlege to verify it.  Also, disputing raw opinions typically doesn't lead to anything beneficial.

As Maur suggests, SDA seems to have an efficacious system as it is; I would rather see a [sufficient] run of a game, as long as its mastered well enough to nominally qualify for the term "speedrun," at least, than see no run at all...

Enhasa

2006-02-05 10:32:25 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Quote:

I know. I saw it. That's why I used that phrase. Tongue

Oh right, whoops. Sorry! Tongue

Quote:

I do not feel that verifiers should be a little stricter, simply because I have yet to see a run that people generally regard as crappy (except for d.darch's AoS, but that's a whole different topic, and it was an improvement of a previous run anyways) outside of some random dolt going 'i r god!'

That's because we're so nice! Actually, what you said is funny because Dragondarch's new AoS is actually a well above average run on SDA. That thread creator just knew that game well and was being a dick. You can usually just tell the random dolts from the people who end up being like andrewg.

Seriously though, at least me and others I talk to think a lot of the runs are pretty crappy, but it's not worth the hassle and meanness to post about it and single someone out.

Quote:

paraphrase: verifiers are casual but the best we've got, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to be stricter outside their expertise

There's both a catch-22 and serendipity that goes with this. Runs with highly qualified verifiers are usually ones in which they will be helping out the runner, so the run will be very good anyway. Some of the subpar runs, the runner might well be the most knowledgable. But the lucky part is: if that's the case, then there won't be anybody to notice that it could be better!

The problem in practice is that we don't get the most qualified verifiers to do the work. Of course, they might not want to do it, or they might not frequent the site (like that earlier guy), in which case, tough noogies for them. But currently we don't make the effort and Radix just gets the most convenient/trusted on a personal level verifiers.

Quote:

Also, there isn't really an operational definition for "stricter;" ... There is no specific, measurable scale by which we can scrutinize someone's judgment, first of all, and the only ones who could offer an alternative/modification to it would be others who had played the game

Objectively, stricter would be more likely to reject a run. Since sample size is very low for most verifiers now, if you aggregate and take SDA's acceptance rate, stricter would mean a lower rate. Pretty simple.

And it doesn't matter if we can't measure it anyway. It's just a guideline. At the very least, you can tell which way is stricter and which is laxer, so it's not too bad.

Quote:

I would rather see a [sufficient] run of a game, as long as its mastered well enough to nominally qualify for the term "speedrun," at least, than see no run at all...

Well, we all feel this way. The difference is in your personal threshold. There are others that would accept a plot run. I always got the impression that most verifiers are simply fans of their game and want to see a run go up, and would be willing to accept runs that are much below the level they could play it at. (Disclaimer: if a certain run I was verifying was just a little worse, I would have been in this situation myself.) But from what you guys are saying, maybe this is not the case. A lot of the verifiers are probably just not that good at the game they like so much.

I guess what we should do is find better verifiers. This should not all be on Radix. Everything that needs verification should be listed, and people who know the game should work to find someone who knows what's up. If you are verifying, think: are there others that know this game a lot better than I do? That is enough.

[quote]I know.  I saw it.  That's why I used that phrase. :P[/quote]
Oh right, whoops. Sorry! :P

[quote]I do not feel that verifiers should be a little stricter, simply because I have yet to see a run that people generally regard as crappy (except for d.darch's AoS, but that's a whole different topic, and it was an improvement of a previous run anyways) outside of some random dolt going 'i r god!'[/quote]
That's because we're [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=other;action=display;num=1138939320;start=15#15]so nice[/url]! Actually, what you said is funny because Dragondarch's new AoS is actually a well above average run on SDA. That thread creator just knew that game well and was being a dick. You can usually just tell the random dolts from the people who end up being like andrewg.

Seriously though, at least me and others I talk to think a lot of the runs are pretty crappy, but it's not worth the hassle and meanness to post about it and single someone out.

[quote]paraphrase: verifiers are casual but the best we've got, and it would be unreasonable to ask them to be stricter outside their expertise[/quote]
There's both a catch-22 and serendipity that goes with this. Runs with highly qualified verifiers are usually ones in which they will be helping out the runner, so the run will be very good anyway. Some of the subpar runs, the runner might well be the most knowledgable. But the lucky part is: if that's the case, then there won't be anybody to notice that it could be better!

The problem in practice is that we don't get the most qualified verifiers to do the work. Of course, they might not want to do it, or they might not frequent the site (like that earlier guy), in which case, tough noogies for them. But currently we don't make the effort and Radix just gets the most convenient/trusted on a personal level verifiers.

[quote]Also, there isn't really an operational definition for "stricter;" ... There is no specific, measurable scale by which we can scrutinize someone's judgment, first of all, and the only ones who could offer an alternative/modification to it would be [i]others[/i] who had played the game[/quote]
Objectively, stricter would be more likely to reject a run. Since sample size is very low for most verifiers now, if you aggregate and take SDA's acceptance rate, stricter would mean a lower rate. Pretty simple.

And it doesn't matter if we can't measure it anyway. It's just a guideline. At the very least, you can tell which way is stricter and which is laxer, so it's not too bad.

[quote]I would rather see a [sufficient] run of a game, as long as its mastered well enough to nominally qualify for the term "speedrun," at least, than see no run at all...[/quote]
Well, we all feel this way. The difference is in your personal threshold. There are others that would accept a plot run. I always got the impression that most verifiers are simply fans of their game and want to see a run go up, and would be willing to accept runs that are much below the level they could play it at. (Disclaimer: if a certain run I was verifying was just a little worse, I would have been in this situation myself.) But from what you guys are saying, maybe this is not the case. A lot of the verifiers are probably just not that good at the game they like so much.

[b]I guess what we should do is find better verifiers.[/b] This should not all be on Radix. Everything that needs verification should be listed, and people who know the game should work to find someone who knows what's up. If you are verifying, think: are there others that know this game a lot better than I do? That is enough.