Cheating?

2009-06-01 11:37:42 am

Joke of all trades

firstly, i know i'm not allowed to cheat due to SDA rules and, well, its cheating.

But if i wanted to do a new game+ run and i couldn't be bothered to spend 6-7 days makeing a perfect character for a run, would it be acepptable for me to make the character with cheats, though without any illegal or unatainable items, then disable them.

there would be nothing which i wouldn't be able to get without playing through the game, but just imagine having to play through castlevania 9 times to get 9 death rings(why you would i don't know but just an example). it would just take time that could be spent optimising the run.

Thread title:

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-01 11:46:54 am

As long as you make sure your character is 'legal' when you begin the run, I'd say this is fine. I mean, how would we know anyway?

UltimateDarius

2009-06-01 11:56:34 am

Back in the game!

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

As long as you make sure your character is 'legal' when you begin the run, I'd say this is fine. I mean, how would we know anyway?

Because he just told us.

Beenman500

2009-06-01 12:00:48 pm

Joke of all trades

i only particularly want some "official" confirmantion, i don't exactly mind going through the game several times, i mean i do love the game i an=m running it. its just a wate of time

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-01 12:07:05 pm

Don't know why it bothers you - you can just cheat and say you didn't, and nobody will be the wiser. Not that the admins are likely to consider it cheating either. And not that it has any bearing on the eventual quality of the run.

Beenman500

2009-06-01 12:27:12 pm

Joke of all trades

ok, i "never even considered cheating my cha" 8)

Sir VG

2009-06-01 02:41:19 pm

Fucking Weeaboo

As long as it's all stuff that can be achieved legit beforehand, who's gonna know (or care)?

Riskbreaker Y

2009-06-01 03:00:21 pm

berserker status

well, i guess that's cool but it sucks for people like me who don't know how to do stuff like that and would have to achieve all the leveling/stats legitimately. i'd want to do a 100% VS run in the future but all the grinding/playthroughs would get extremely tedious. i dunno. i'm a newb here so i'm not going to say either for or against.

KFX

2009-06-04 03:17:08 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

You know what I despise? The speed runs for Infinity Engine games that use stack underflow bug to duplicate a million billion potions/scrolls of WIN EVERYTHING and the switch-maps-while-casting-dimension-door-from-the-million-scrolls-you-just-duped glitch to skip the entire game. Jesus. Can there be anything more boring to watch than that? There is no skill involved at all, a 5 year old could do it.

I wouldn't even mind if not for the fact that these kinds of crappy runs take the place of BETTER, MORE INTERESTING runs that actually beat the game's challenges in unusually clever ways, demonstrating great skill. I've stored on my hard drive one 40 minute run of BG1 and one 30 minute run, both of which were actually clever and inventive. They were replaced at SDA by a 16 minute run that only uses the above two bugs to skip the damn game, no skill involved whatsoever.

I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching. There should be some kind of limits to what kind of abuse you can do. You don't get to use cheat codes in the runs, so why can you use stack underflow bugs? Neither of those are obviously part of the game as it's intended to be played, actually the codes are more okay because they were coded in on purpose while the bugs were clearly programming accidents.

At the very least there should be a no-glitch category for runs that do not abuse clear and obvious programming errors such as stack underflow.

You know what I despise? The speed runs for Infinity Engine games that use stack underflow bug to duplicate a million billion potions/scrolls of WIN EVERYTHING and the switch-maps-while-casting-dimension-door-from-the-million-scrolls-you-just-duped glitch to skip the entire game. Jesus. Can there be anything more boring to watch than that? There is no skill involved at all, a 5 year old could do it.

I wouldn't even mind if not for the fact that these kinds of crappy runs take the place of BETTER, MORE INTERESTING runs that actually beat the game's challenges in unusually clever ways, demonstrating great skill. I've stored on my hard drive one 40 minute run of BG1 and one 30 minute run, both of which were actually clever and inventive. They were replaced at SDA by a 16 minute run that only uses the above two bugs to skip the damn game, no skill involved whatsoever.

I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching. There should be some kind of limits to what kind of abuse you can do. You don't get to use cheat codes in the runs, so why can you use stack underflow bugs? Neither of those are obviously part of the game as it's intended to be played, actually the codes are more okay because they were coded in on purpose while the bugs were clearly programming accidents.

At the very least there should be a no-glitch category for runs that do not abuse clear and obvious programming errors such as stack underflow.

Lag.Com

2009-06-04 03:32:23 am

sda loyalist

Welcome to SDA, where speed is everything! Grin

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-04 03:46:55 am

Quote:

I wouldn't even mind if not for the fact that these kinds of crappy runs take the place of BETTER, MORE INTERESTING runs that actually beat the game's challenges in unusually clever ways, demonstrating great skill.

Skill? In an Infinity Engine game? But they're all in the planning...

I agree it's unfortunate if a run using a variety of tricks becomes obsolete due to the invention of one extremely powerful new one, but there's nothing to be done about it.

Quote:

I've stored on my hard drive one 40 minute run of BG1 and one 30 minute run, both of which were actually clever and inventive. They were replaced at SDA by a 16 minute run that only uses the above two bugs to skip the damn game, no skill involved whatsoever.

Again, what 'skill' was there in the first two? They didn't know about a trick/glitch the later one did, and as a result a wider variety of tricks was doubtless required that probably made for a more interesting video. But I reject the idea that this means there was more 'skill' or even superior planning in the first two runs.

Quote:

I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching. There should be some kind of limits to what kind of abuse you can do. You don't get to use cheat codes in the runs, so why can you use stack underflow bugs? Neither of those are obviously part of the game as it's intended to be played, actually the codes are more okay because they were coded in on purpose while the bugs were clearly programming accidents. At the very least there should be a no-glitch category for runs that do not abuse clear and obvious programming errors such as stack underflow.

For some games where one very powerful glitch overshadows everything, this is exactly what happens. It simply isn't practical in Infinity Engine games because almost everything in them is totally broken. I mean, look at the list of bugfixes in the Baldurdash fixpack for BGII - about a fifth of the games spells don't function the way they're meant to. In a game that bug-ridden, you're going to be exploiting bugs every step of the way whether you mean to or not.

Not to mention the ambiguity about what kind of glitches should be banned in the no-glitch category. Your only reason for banning the dimension door glitch is the huge effect it has on the run, not anything about the nature of the glitch itself. And it's entirely possible that as soon as you create a 'no dimension door glitch' category, someone will find some scripting loophole that skips even more of the game than that did.

There was an amusing post in a verification thread for BGII where someone complained it was lame that Smilge used the stack underflow bug to immediately get enough gold to skip chapter 2, whose purpose is gold collection. To which I pointed out that it would take mere seconds longer to not use this bug and instead to abuse the fact that you can steal an item from a fence and sell it back ad infinitum to get the gold in a couple of seconds. Does that fall into the separate category too? How about taking advantage of the fact that the developers forgot to limit the number of traps you can have placed at once to kill enemies that would otherwise be too hard to defeat and sell their items for the gold, at the cost of an extra few seconds?

These runs are all about breaking the game, and there is no clear place to put a separate category.

[quote]I wouldn't even mind if not for the fact that these kinds of crappy runs take the place of BETTER, MORE INTERESTING runs that actually beat the game's challenges in unusually clever ways, demonstrating great skill.[/quote]

Skill? In an Infinity Engine game? But they're all in the planning...

I agree it's unfortunate if a run using a variety of tricks becomes obsolete due to the invention of one extremely powerful new one, but there's nothing to be done about it.

[quote]I've stored on my hard drive one 40 minute run of BG1 and one 30 minute run, both of which were actually clever and inventive. They were replaced at SDA by a 16 minute run that only uses the above two bugs to skip the damn game, no skill involved whatsoever.[/quote]

Again, what 'skill' was there in the first two? They didn't know about a trick/glitch the later one did, and as a result a wider variety of tricks was doubtless required that probably made for a more interesting video. But I reject the idea that this means there was more 'skill' or even superior planning in the first two runs.

[quote]I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching. There should be some kind of limits to what kind of abuse you can do. You don't get to use cheat codes in the runs, so why can you use stack underflow bugs? Neither of those are obviously part of the game as it's intended to be played, actually the codes are more okay because they were coded in on purpose while the bugs were clearly programming accidents. At the very least there should be a no-glitch category for runs that do not abuse clear and obvious programming errors such as stack underflow.[/quote]

For some games where one very powerful glitch overshadows everything, this is exactly what happens. It simply isn't practical in Infinity Engine games because almost everything in them is totally broken. I mean, look at the list of bugfixes in the Baldurdash fixpack for BGII - about a fifth of the games spells don't function the way they're meant to. In a game that bug-ridden, you're going to be exploiting bugs every step of the way whether you mean to or not.

Not to mention the ambiguity about what kind of glitches should be banned in the no-glitch category. Your only reason for banning the dimension door glitch is the huge effect it has on the run, not anything about the nature of the glitch itself. And it's entirely possible that as soon as you create a 'no dimension door glitch' category, someone will find some scripting loophole that skips even more of the game than that did.

There was an amusing post in a verification thread for BGII where someone complained it was lame that Smilge used the stack underflow bug to immediately get enough gold to skip chapter 2, whose purpose is gold collection. To which I pointed out that it would take mere seconds longer to not use this bug and instead to abuse the fact that you can steal an item from a fence and sell it back ad infinitum to get the gold in a couple of seconds. Does that fall into the separate category too? How about taking advantage of the fact that the developers forgot to limit the number of traps you can have placed at once to kill enemies that would otherwise be too hard to defeat and sell their items for the gold, at the cost of an extra few seconds?

These runs are all about breaking the game, and there is no clear place to put a separate category.

Beenman500

2009-06-04 06:22:11 am

Joke of all trades

there's stil skill in an infenity engine game after planning, ever tried to use arrows of detonation in the duchal palace, its dam hard, also actually doint=g the stack underflow glitch for dimention door in real time is hard. And there's lot of luck manipulation too, none of the current runs have any non-scripted random encounters IIRC. You shouldn't insult runs which were properly planned, well executed, SKILLFUL and looking back at those old 30-40mins runs, they used fewer key commands and relied on the mouse alot more than they needed to, no offece to the runners, plus there is one really inportant thing.

wait for it....

THEY WERE SLOWER

go and insult a pointless run like clue, which is esentially and only mashing A or whatever, or runs which were badly executed or planned...

KFX

2009-06-04 08:03:42 am

I love YaBB 1G - SP1!

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

Your only reason for banning the dimension door glitch is the huge effect it has on the run, not anything about the nature of the glitch itself.

That's not true. There's in my mind a major difference between merely abusing the rules of the game (what I feel speedrunning strategic games is all about - finding hyper-efficient tactics) and abusing a programming error in the implementation of those rules.

Example of both: a classic trick in the IE games is to make a lightning bolt bounce between two walls, hitting a boss multiple times and killing them fast. This is not bug abuse, it's just good playing: it's an entirely intended effect that the lightning bolt bounces off walls. Maybe the coders weren't thinking of precisely this sort of use, but it's a logical extrapolation of the rules and therefore a-okay.

Dimension Door OTOH isn't supposed to be able to teleport you into an entirely different map. It's a spell whose function is to teleport you to a different position on the same map you're currently on. The only reason it can be twisted to do anything else is a programming error. If there was an oversight that allowed one to skip half the game by using DD in its intended way, fine. But they're not using DD, they're using a bug in its implementation.

I don't subscribe to the "if it's in the game, it's in the game" ideology. Some things are clearly and obviously not intended to work the way they do. And there is a streak of "no cheating" going through SDA rules already. There is nothing in the game itself keeping you from calling up the console, spawning you all the things you need and teleporting to the end of the game, beating it in 3-5 minutes, but that still doesn't fly, because it crosses the (somewhat arbitrary, I'll admit) line of "cheating". You don't get to use level skip codes in 80's platformers or Game Genie or emulator savestates, for the exact same reason. I do not see why this case is so very different.

If speed runs were really all about "breaking the game", using any means necessary, all of the above should be accepted. But it's not, is it? It's about breaking the game within its rules. Showing you are better than the game, displaying ultimate skill. Speedrunning a game "properly" is like beating Kasparov in a chess match, while abusing a clear-cut programming error is like taking the king and smashing it with a hammer during a match, saying there's nothing in the rules that says you can't just break your opponent's pieces. It's not clever, impressive or fun to watch.

On a final note, in the end of it this is a spectator sport. There is no "world record" for beating this game or that game the fastest, no million dollar prize in the end. The only thing there is is the adulation of the audience. If you can skim five seconds off your run by doing something that makes it a lot more boring to watch - congrats, you're technically faster, but you will get less views, less rep. The other guy will still be deemed the better man.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]Your only reason for banning the dimension door glitch is the huge effect it has on the run, not anything about the nature of the glitch itself.[/quote]
That's not true. There's in my mind a major difference between merely abusing the rules of the game (what I feel speedrunning strategic games is all about - finding hyper-efficient tactics) and abusing a programming error in the implementation of those rules.

Example of both: a classic trick in the IE games is to make a lightning bolt bounce between two walls, hitting a boss multiple times and killing them fast. This is not bug abuse, it's just good playing: it's an entirely intended effect that the lightning bolt bounces off walls. Maybe the coders weren't thinking of precisely this sort of use, but it's a logical extrapolation of the rules and therefore a-okay.

Dimension Door OTOH isn't [i]supposed[/i] to be able to teleport you into an entirely different [i]map.[/i] It's a spell whose function is to teleport you to a different position on the same map you're currently on. The only reason it can be twisted to do anything else is a programming error. If there was an oversight that allowed one to skip half the game by using DD in its intended way, fine. But they're not using DD, they're using a bug in its implementation.

I don't subscribe to the "if it's in the game, it's in the game" ideology. Some things are clearly and obviously not intended to work the way they do. And there is a streak of "no cheating" going through SDA rules already. There is nothing in the game itself keeping you from calling up the console, spawning you all the things you need and teleporting to the end of the game, beating it in 3-5 minutes, but that still doesn't fly, because it crosses the (somewhat arbitrary, I'll admit) line of "cheating". You don't get to use level skip codes in 80's platformers or Game Genie or emulator savestates, for the exact same reason. I do not see why this case is so very different.

If speed runs were [i]really[/i] all about "breaking the game", using any means necessary, all of the above should be accepted. But it's not, is it? It's about breaking the game [i]within its rules.[/i] Showing you are better than the game, displaying ultimate skill. Speedrunning a game "properly" is like beating Kasparov in a chess match, while abusing a clear-cut programming error is like taking the king and smashing it with a hammer during a match, saying there's nothing in the rules that says you can't just break your opponent's pieces. It's not clever, impressive or fun to watch.

On a final note, in the end of it this is a spectator sport. There is no "world record" for beating this game or that game the fastest, no million dollar prize in the end. The only thing there is is the adulation of the audience. If you can skim five seconds off your run by doing something that makes it a lot more boring to watch - congrats, you're technically faster, but you will get less views, less rep. The other guy will still be deemed the better man.

ZenicReverie

2009-06-04 08:17:03 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

If you'd like to petition for a no-glitch category please collect 100 signatures and contact mike (or just contact mike.) Of course, you could always submit your times to TG since they have the same mentality of "don't do anything the developers wouldn't want you to do."

There is a clause in the rules currently that says if the over play is worse than a run, even if it's a faster due to new routes, then it can still be rejeceted. I think overall, even though some runs have been obsoleted using new glitches and shortcuts (probably also not intended by the developers), the gameplay is better, so using the same strategies as the old runs the new ones would still be faster.

julien

2009-06-04 09:02:34 am

Quote from KFX:

You know what I despise? The speed runs for Infinity Engine games that use stack underflow bug to duplicate a million billion potions/scrolls of WIN EVERYTHING and the switch-maps-while-casting-dimension-door-from-the-million-scrolls-you-just-duped glitch to skip the entire game. Jesus. Can there be anything more boring to watch than that? There is no skill involved at all, a 5 year old could do it.

Boring may be true, that's merely a matter of taste. Some people for example don't like glitchless runs because they think it's boring to not break the game in some way.
Skill? I invite you to reproduce the current multi segment run. Lot's of things are pretty much random or require very precise timing etc..

Quote:

I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching.

Hi, I'm here. Please break my fingers. Oh and I'm also the runner of the 40 min run and also improved clone_rizzo's original 30 min run without using any glitches (never submitted though).

Sequence breaking has been used in speed running for a long time. If you don't like it that's ok. This doesn't justify the insults your throwing at other people, mainly me.

Remember that this site is about speed running, not about "showing a pretty fast walkthrough through the game".

[quote="KFX"]
You know what I despise? The speed runs for Infinity Engine games that use stack underflow bug to duplicate a million billion potions/scrolls of WIN EVERYTHING and the switch-maps-while-casting-dimension-door-from-the-million-scrolls-you-just-duped glitch to skip the entire game. Jesus. Can there be anything more boring to watch than that? There is no skill involved at all, a 5 year old could do it.
[/quote]
Boring may be true, that's merely a matter of taste. Some people for example don't like glitchless runs because they think it's boring to not break the game in some way.
Skill? I invite you to reproduce the current multi segment run. Lot's of things are pretty much random or require very precise timing etc..

[quote]
I wish I could break the fingers of whoever the hell it is that thought that kind of crap makes for a good watching. 
[/quote]
Hi, I'm here. Please break my fingers. Oh and I'm also the runner of the 40 min run and also improved clone_rizzo's original 30 min run without using any glitches (never submitted though).

Sequence breaking has been used in speed running for a long time. If you don't like it that's ok. This doesn't justify the insults your throwing at other people, mainly me.

Remember that this site is about speed running, not about "showing a pretty fast walkthrough through the game".

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-04 09:03:34 am

KFX - I reiterate my point that it is impossible to draw a clear line between a programming bug and a correct bit of code being used in a way the developers didn't think of.

Examples:

1) Resting and laying as many traps as you like to kill any enemy in the game instantly the moment it spawns. Clearly the developers never thought of this possibility, or they would've put a limit to the number of traps you can have on the map at a time. If they were still patching the game, you can bet they'd take it out. But is it a bug, or just an unforseen tactic?

2) Yoshimo 'hiding in the shadows' and 'backstabbing' whilst polymorphed into an Iron Golem, a shiny metal creature the size of a small house that uses its man-sized fists as weapons. Wouldn't be allowed in PnP DnD, but technically the rules are all working fine when you do this in BGII, the developers just didn't think to make this impossible. Bug or legit tactic?

3) Using an un-invisibled Wizard Eye - a summon that is only supposed to be used as a scout and is therefore invincible - to soak up damage. Bug or legit tactic?

4) Casting a spell whose effect is delayed immediately prior to an event that would make it impossible for you to cast that spell, in order to have it take effect during a time when spells shouldn't be able to be cast. Bug or legit tactic?

5) Stealing a selling the same item back to a fence over and over for infinite gold without them realising anything is amiss. Bug or legit tactic?

6) Just using the spell Vampiric Touch, which does several times the damage it's supposed to. Bug or legit tactic?

7) Polymorphing into a larger creature whilst surrounded and stood next to a locked door so that the nearest empty space is on the other side of the door and you appear there. Bug or legit tactic? If it's a bug, then another question: if someone polymorphs for an unrelated reason whilst surrounded by monsters and the coincidental result is them being teleported significantly closer to where they want to go, saving a significant amount of time, should this disqualify the run?

8) Only doing half a quest and then claiming the reward, because the trigger that makes the questgiver think the quest is done is, presumably erroneously, set after killing a miniboss instead of the quest's final boss. Bug or legit tactic?

9) Killing enemies offscreen with area-of-effect spells so that they don't fight back because their AI doesn't allow them to move when they can't see you. Bug or legit tactic?

Also - I second everything Julien just said.

KFX - I reiterate my point that it is impossible to draw a clear line between a programming bug and a correct bit of code being used in a way the developers didn't think of.

Examples:

1) Resting and laying as many traps as you like to kill any enemy in the game instantly the moment it spawns. Clearly the developers never thought of this possibility, or they would've put a limit to the number of traps you can have on the map at a time. If they were still patching the game, you can bet they'd take it out. But is it a bug, or just an unforseen tactic?

2) Yoshimo 'hiding in the shadows' and 'backstabbing' whilst polymorphed into an Iron Golem, a shiny metal creature the size of a small house that uses its man-sized fists as weapons. Wouldn't be allowed in PnP DnD, but technically the rules are all working fine when you do this in BGII, the developers just didn't think to make this impossible. Bug or legit tactic?

3) Using an un-invisibled Wizard Eye - a summon that is only supposed to be used as a scout and is therefore invincible - to soak up damage. Bug or legit tactic?

4) Casting a spell whose effect is delayed immediately prior to an event that would make it impossible for you to cast that spell, in order to have it take effect during a time when spells shouldn't be able to be cast. Bug or legit tactic?

5) Stealing a selling the same item back to a fence over and over for infinite gold without them realising anything is amiss. Bug or legit tactic?

6) Just using the spell Vampiric Touch, which does several times the damage it's supposed to. Bug or legit tactic?

7) Polymorphing into a larger creature whilst surrounded and stood next to a locked door so that the nearest empty space is on the other side of the door and you appear there. Bug or legit tactic? If it's a bug, then another question: if someone polymorphs for an unrelated reason whilst surrounded by monsters and the coincidental result is them being teleported significantly closer to where they want to go, saving a significant amount of time, should this disqualify the run?

8) Only doing half a quest and then claiming the reward, because the trigger that makes the questgiver think the quest is done is, presumably erroneously, set after killing a miniboss instead of the quest's final boss. Bug or legit tactic?

9) Killing enemies offscreen with area-of-effect spells so that they don't fight back because their AI doesn't allow them to move when they can't see you. Bug or legit tactic?

Also - I second everything Julien just said.

Beenman500

2009-06-04 01:06:43 pm

Joke of all trades

TBH this is a bit off topic, can we get back to disscussing my original point about weather i can cheat my cha to save IRL time rather than making it legitly and many times longer.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-04 01:37:48 pm

I think the answer to that is yes. I suggest you ask Mike:
http://speeddemosarchive.com/forum/index.php?action=pm;sa=send;u=3081

Incidentally, are you planning on doing a NG+ of an Infinity Engine game? I have some serious reservations about accepting that as a category (I know Mike has said it's allowed before but I'm not sure how fully he appreciated what it would entail when he made that decision) which I'll point out if it is an IE game you're planning on NG+ running.

Smilge

2009-06-04 09:20:34 pm

A NG+ run could be quite interesting, or it might turn out to be boring. I don't think it should be barred from the site just because it might be boring though. If people don't want to watch it they don't have to. Wink

About the flames, I've noticed something about RPGs and the people who play them. They're very open ended, so a lot of "rules" are made by the player. For example:

- I've played through an RPG where I would pretend my character didn't have any of this knowledge of the game, and I couldn't use any knowledge gained when I load a previous save (my character wouldn't know about the ambush ahead, so I won't cast my defensive spells or anything).

- I've played through an RPG by using all of my prior knowledge and saves to help make decisions (I know there's an ambush up ahead, so I'll lay down a cloudkill now).

- I've played through where I use any glitches in the game to my advantage (If I force talk this guy, I can kill him without retaliation and he won't ever spawn the ambush).

- I've even played where I use console cheats (I'll just Control + J to teleport to the place I need to be, I don't even have to deal with this ambush).

Sometimes people feel very strongly that their set of "rules" that they play the game by are the only acceptable ones. A player who only plays by the first set of rules (no prior knowledge) might think that a player who goes by the second set (any prior knowledge is fair game) is cheap and not playing the game right. A player who uses the second set might think the same of one who uses the third, and so on.

This mindset often leads to claims that any achievements and accomplishments from a person with a different set of rules is void, or even something to be ashamed of. This mindset can also lead to shallow finger-breaking internet threats.

You can argue all day about whose set of rules is the best, and no one is going to change their minds. I've found it's best to ignore people who think UR DOIN IT WRONG, and respect those who accomplish something even if it's not how you would do it. "Hey, that guy used console cheats to beat the game in 3 minutes, good for him. I don't think that's how the game should be played, but it really has no effect on me whatsoever."

A NG+ run could be quite interesting, or it might turn out to be boring. I don't think it should be barred from the site just because it might be boring though. If people don't want to watch it they don't have to. ;)

About the flames, I've noticed something about RPGs and the people who play them. They're very open ended, so a lot of "rules" are made by the player. For example:

- I've played through an RPG where I would pretend my character didn't have any of this knowledge of the game, and I couldn't use any knowledge gained when I load a previous save (my character wouldn't know about the ambush ahead, so I won't cast my defensive spells or anything).

- I've played through an RPG by using all of my prior knowledge and saves to help make decisions (I know there's an ambush up ahead, so I'll lay down a cloudkill now).

- I've played through where I use any glitches in the game to my advantage (If I force talk this guy, I can kill him without retaliation and he won't ever spawn the ambush).

- I've even played where I use console cheats (I'll just Control + J to teleport to the place I need to be, I don't even have to deal with this ambush).

Sometimes people feel very strongly that their set of "rules" that they play the game by are the only acceptable ones. A player who only plays by the first set of rules (no prior knowledge) might think that a player who goes by the second set (any prior knowledge is fair game) is cheap and not playing the game right. A player who uses the second set might think the same of one who uses the third, and so on.

This mindset often leads to claims that any achievements and accomplishments from a person with a different set of rules is void, or even something to be ashamed of. This mindset can also lead to shallow finger-breaking internet threats.

You can argue all day about whose set of rules is the best, and no one is going to change their minds. I've found it's best to ignore people who think UR DOIN IT WRONG, and respect those who accomplish something even if it's not how you would do it. "Hey, that guy used console cheats to beat the game in 3 minutes, good for him. I don't think that's how the game should be played, but it really has no effect on me whatsoever."

Waef

2009-06-04 10:44:33 pm

I'm amazed at how emotional people get over glitches and whatnot. In fact, many runs even have separate categories for glitch/glitchless runs.

I go by the mentality that the creator's of SDA can create their own rules, and I'm happy to watch whatever ends up on here. If someone else wants to do their own type of run, more power to them, but it may not be appropriate for SDA. If you disagree with SDA's rulings, then simply don't attempt to put your run on the site. There are other sites that will accept runs that SDA wouldn't. SDA isn't the only speedrunning site on the internet, and if you think something should be changed, there's no one forcing you to stay here.

I know everyone has their own opinion on what should and shouldn't be allowed, but ultimately the decision is left up to the staff of SDA. It's impossible to appeal to everyone, simply because people have wildly varying opinions.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-05 05:33:42 am

Quote from Smilge:

A NG+ run could be quite interesting, or it might turn out to be boring.

The issue I would have is that you could bring in keys and plot items and thus totally break the scripting of the game. (Not that there's any part of the scripting of the BG games we haven't somehow broken anyway.)

ZenicReverie

2009-06-06 01:23:16 am

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Smilge:

- I've played through an RPG where I would pretend my character didn't have any of this knowledge of the game, and I couldn't use any knowledge gained when I load a previous save (my character wouldn't know about the ambush ahead, so I won't cast my defensive spells or anything).

Wow, I don't think I've ever played a game with that mentality. I mean if I've just died at an ambush and load from a previous save, then I don't think I'll walk into the ambush again without being prepared just to stay in character. Smiley

I do have a thing about not using walkthroughs and strategy guides the first time I play a game. I suppose it's the same way. I knew someone who would always buy a game with a strategy guide and basically walk through the game. To each their own.

Smilge

2009-06-06 10:34:26 am

Quote:

Wow, I don't think I've ever played a game with that mentality. I mean if I've just died at an ambush and load from a previous save, then I don't think I'll walk into the ambush again without being prepared just to stay in character.

I've bent the rules before it gets frustrating. Gaxx the demi-lich comes to mind. If you absolutely need to do some preparations before an ambush, you can be like, "My character's got a bad feeling about this..."

Quote:

(Not that there's any part of the scripting of the BG games we haven't somehow broken anyway.)

That's exactly my point. It will still be a challenge to see what is possible to break, what keys and items you can hold on to, etc. for the fastest time possible.

mikwuyma

2009-06-06 11:09:54 am

My feelings on The Demon Rush

I remember the time when Beenman5000 asked a question and wanted it answered.

I'm going to have to say I guess it's okay, though I personally don't agree with it.

Why it should (or would) happen: Like everyone else said, it's impossible to tell whether you built the character in a legit fashion or of you hacked him/her. Even if I banned it, you could just make a character with some imperfections and we'd be none the wiser. :-/

Why it shouldn't happen: The chances of actually getting a character with perfect stats and perfect levelups is ridiculously slim. We do already have runs with brute-forced luck anyways, so yeah....

ExplodingCabbage

2009-06-06 12:11:45 pm

Quote:

(Not that there's any part of the scripting of the BG games we haven't somehow broken anyway.)

That's exactly my point. It will still be a challenge to see what is possible to break, what keys and items you can hold on to, etc. for the fastest time possible.

The thing is that I don't think the developers ever intended the export/import character options to be used for running a character through the same game repeatedly. I think they were meant so you could create a character and save it for use in multiplayer, import characters from BGI into BGII, and export your BGII character for use in any future games they might make in the series (and into NWN, before they changed NWN into 3rd edition rules - there's a note on the BGII saving screen that says you'll be able to import your BGII character into NWN). I don't think they ever intended the existence of a NG+ mode, and I think SDA NG+ runs are supposed to be runs of NG+ modes the developers intended to exist, not ones that we create for ourselves by exploiting their silly coding.

[quote][quote](Not that there's any part of the scripting of the BG games we haven't somehow broken anyway.)[/quote]
That's exactly my point. It will still be a challenge to see what is possible to break, what keys and items you can hold on to, etc. for the fastest time possible.
[/quote]

The thing is that I don't think the developers ever intended the export/import character options to be used for running a character through the same game repeatedly. I think they were meant so you could create a character and save it for use in multiplayer, import characters from BGI into BGII, and export your BGII character for use in any future games they might make in the series (and into NWN, before they changed NWN into 3rd edition rules - there's a note on the BGII saving screen that says you'll be able to import your BGII character into NWN). I don't think they ever intended the existence of a NG+ mode, and I think SDA NG+ runs are supposed to be runs of NG+ modes the developers intended to exist, not ones that we create for ourselves by exploiting their silly coding.