Username:
B
I
U
S
"
url
img
#
code
sup
sub
font
size
color
smiley
embarassed
thumbsup
happy
Huh?
Angry
Roll Eyes
Undecided
Lips Sealed
Kiss
Cry
Grin
Wink
Tongue
Shocked
Cheesy
Smiley
Sad
12 ->
--
--
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/RescueRangers.html

Chip 'n Dale Rescue Rangers (100 %) (Single Segment)

Verifier Responses

Quote from Alowishus:
Retimed the run, got 14:06 but I split slightly late so timing is probably accurate. Having watched the run a few times I can see no cheating. In terms of audio/visual quality: Audio is perfect. The video quality is consistent throughout and is definitely watchable. There’s a line on the left side of the screen, I have not experienced this to my knowledge but with old TVs and NES anything is possible. I’d say it overall that video looks okay, no interlacing problems etc.

With regards to play however I am in two minds. The game has RNG in the bosses. For the most part the runner got good RNG and in the case of the final boss the RNG didn’t cause a huge loss of time. So with regards to RNG it was pretty good.
In terms of time losses the run has one big time loss and a few minor losses. The big loss is the death on Area E. I’d estimate that this death cost at least 10 seconds (I timed it at maybe 13 at the most), fortunately it was at the start of the level. The smaller losses were accidental hits which would probably cost less than a second for each one (I’d guess around 4-5 seconds total) and perhaps slightly costlier stuns with the balls in the boss fights (about a second for each stun about 3 seconds total).

These time losses aside, I’d say the level of play was pretty good. Having played/ran this game the runner knows the game well – well routed for each level, good utilisation of damage boosts to save time and fast kills on bosses.

Overall this run has good play (minor mistakes are forgivable) but the death in Area E, the runner themselves admits was careless. I’d say this is the only major consideration within the run with regards to acceptance and if I was to estimate the timing, it could be in the mid-high 13:40s if you got a really good run. With the run being so short it would be easy to say that the run should be deathless and to not accept it, however RNG has to be considered and with this run the RNG was pretty spot on. With good RNG with good play I would say to accept this run.


Quote from KennyMan666:
I eyeballed it to 14:07 but since I was going by the timer in the media player it's within the margin of error for being 14:06 as well. I'd have to fire it up in vdub to be more accurate than that. Might do that later.

I'm gonna be the hardass on this one and not be fine with a death costing about 15 seconds only six minutes into a 14-minute run. Up until that point, there were these little things that bothered me but that I could ultimately accept - the RNG on the alien ship was godly to make up for a bunch of it as well - but a death like that is just sloppy as hell.

I'm not asking for perfect TAS-like play all the time, but a single player run of such a short game even when it's the all stages category should really be deathless, which is why I'm ultimately giving this a reject.

Good run of the final stage, though, that one was hell to run even in 2-player.


Quote from Uilnslcoap:
Start: very good.

Zone A: one unintentional hit.  Good boss luck.

Zone C: minor problems, still really good.

Zone B: tiny bit of fumbling turning off the faucets (the walking ones, not the jumping ones).  Good boss luck.

Zone D: trouble navigating the ball area, but the damage boosts in the run are very good so far.  Good boss luck (I sense a theme).

Zone E: ouch, a relatively costly death, about 13 seconds.  Try #2 goes well, but the boss gets a hit in and evades a quick death.

Zone F: very good.

Zone G: essentially perfect except losing control of the ball once before the final hit on the boss.

Zone H: very good.

Zone I: missed a throw on a pelican and got hit by the tacks at the end of Zipper invincibility. Great work on the boss.

Zone J: missed a jump over a rhino, gets hit once with non-optimal luck in Fat Cat fight.

This is a good run.  It’s no doubt improvable, but also features a lot of pretty good boss RNG/luck stuff.  I’m inclined to accept it, and hope that someone churns out a deathless attempt down the line with similar luck (that death is a bit hard to swallow).  I get the time as 14:06 plus or minus 0:03 depending on when exactly control begins and ends.  Good job!


Decision: Accept

Reason: Despite the death, the verifiers mostly thought this run was quite good.

Congratulations to 'philosoraptor42'!
Thread title:  
Edit history:
Joka: 2014-07-14 07:50:33 am
Joka: 2014-07-14 07:49:12 am
Joka: 2014-07-14 07:39:50 am
Joka: 2014-07-14 07:39:43 am
Joka: 2014-07-14 07:37:31 am
Personal text
Quote from SDAVerification:
Quote from Alowishus:
Retimed the run, got 14:06


Quote from SDAVerification:
Despite the death, the verifiers mostly thought this run was quite good.



Wat..

I'm sorry, but a short run of a relatively easy game should at least be deathless.
Yeah this makes no sense, a good run for All Zones would be closer to <12:50, let alone dying.

Here's my 12:58 run http://www.twitch.tv/nudua/c/4661125 for reference. (which is far from perfect)
I agree with the 2 above, this is below SDA standards.
What is a man?
no offence to philosoraptor42, but I agree with bangerra
Dapper as fuck.
No offense taken, I am definitely not happy with that death and will get a better deathless time to knock this one off.  I had hoped to already have one, but vacation got in the way.  I'll be back to work on it tonight.
Edit history:
MASTER-88: 2014-07-14 10:51:44 am
MASTER-88: 2014-07-14 10:48:06 am
MASTER-88: 2014-07-14 10:43:23 am
Master-88
Why you guys who can make this game faster than runner not make own submission? Its not that hard task.

Congrats accepted philosorpator. Those comments are pretty rough. Its nice someone have motivation make submission SDA. Its always nice to see run in SDA. If Nudua are got 12:58 using real NES its will could be pretty easy accept and obsoleted this run. You have just submited.


Because Philospraptor did first run with this category its not need are perfect. Starting point is starting point. But yeah its might always cool see improvements submissions.
Dapper as fuck.
nudua probably has his reasons for not submitting and that's his choice.  I definitely want to get a better run in and will work to do that.  Thanks for posting your 12:58 nudua, I'll look at it and see if I can work in any route improvements you have.  Thanks though for your support Master-88, but these comments are just making me want to get back on the NES and do better, which I believe (and hope) was the reason they posted them.  Smiley
What is a man?
Nudua plays mainly (solely?) on Emulator so I think that's the reason, will be looking forward to your progress though phil Smiley
Dapper as fuck.
Thanks Charleon! Smiley  I look forward to getting a better time to submit. 
Quote from philosoraptor42:
nudua probably has his reasons for not submitting and that's his choice.  I definitely want to get a better run in and will work to do that.  Thanks for posting your 12:58 nudua, I'll look at it and see if I can work in any route improvements you have.  Thanks though for your support Master-88, but these comments are just making me want to get back on the NES and do better, which I believe (and hope) was the reason they posted them.  Smiley


It was mainly the death that tickled my funny bone =3
Dapper as fuck.
Completely understandable.  I'll get a deathless run in to obsolete this don't worry Smiley
Personal text
Quote from charleon:
Nudua plays mainly (solely?) on Emulator so I think that's the reason, will be looking forward to your progress though phil Smiley


Nudua never plays on emulator, except when testing stuff Smiley
Precursor
Quote from MASTER-88:
Because Philospraptor did first run with this category its not need are perfect. Starting point is starting point.

Gonna have to disagree to an extent here. Not perfect, no, but just because there's no run of the category up doesn't mean a sloppy speedrun should be put up to "start" it.
Master-88
Yeah i agree. If you make totally sloppy run its will be rejected. But i think this run not was that sloppy because nearly every verifers seems like accept it.

You guys who can play this game faster than runner. You guys not need cry it here because you can always submit your own run which is faster. thumbsup

Thats still great runner take those comments without got offensive and he will make better run soon. Thats nice to hear.
No pain, no gain
Just to throw it out there, we have many runs on SDA that have deaths. I've also rejected runs that had deaths, but those usually were very sloppy runs. If the rest of the run is solid and impressive, it's probably fine, especially if it's a new category for a run.

Don't forget the Monkeyball verifications in years past. The run on the site had a death, and a faster run with no deaths was submitted. However, the faster run was rejected because it wasn't as impressive--the one with deaths took some pretty insane risks.

The verifiers spoke, and I figure it's good to go with what they said. If someone improves it, then fantastic. Deaths are painful, but they're not an automatic reject in all cases.
Edit history:
KennyMan666: 2014-07-14 02:29:01 pm
KennyMan666: 2014-07-14 02:28:23 pm
Precursor
Quote from MASTER-88:
But i think this run not was that sloppy because nearly every verifers seems like accept it.

Two out of three is not a big enough sample size. Were it ten verifiers and I was the only one wanting to reject it, it'd be one thing.

But I was the third one out of three. I've actually watched the run. It's sloppy. A death six minutes in that costs ~15 seconds when the full run is just slightly above 14 minutes is sloppy. There were other things about the gameplay that weren't all there, making it feel a bit sloppy even outside of the death.

No offense to the runner, but I'm definitely calling this run too sloppy for SDA standards.

I will say nothing about the other verifiers, but from responses in this thread, people are mostly calling this run sloppy purely through knowing the final time and that there was a costly death in there.

Saying that other runners can just obsolete it is not a good argument. Like it or not, there's already a lot of people who don't think very highly of SDA. Putting up a sloppy run just because there's no run of the category already and people can just obsolete it is just going to make it look worse, it makes it seem like both runners and staff have low standards. The runners of the game have the strongest argument here, because they know what the potential for this game is. They, more than any other people, want to see a good run go up on the site. If a run that's far below the potential for the game gets put up just because "there was no run", it'll just make it harder for them to take the site and its staff seriously.

So there's that.
Quote from Brossentia:
Don't forget the Monkeyball verifications in years past. The run on the site had a death, and a faster run with no deaths was submitted. However, the faster run was rejected because it wasn't as impressive--the one with deaths took some pretty insane risks.

There weren't any monkey ball runs submitted to SDA before Cosmo's deathless one (rejected), and Miles's deathless one (accepted) after that.
Perhaps I was not clear enough in my decision but I was really on the fence with the death. If the run had bad RNG and consistently poor play on top of this I would have went for reject - but it didn't. I based my decision solely based on the criteria i was presented with.

Though I will say that since there is such a vocal response that perhaps the runners should actually put themselves as verifiers for the games instead of complaining about the outcome after, if the quality of the runs is that important to them you would think they would be a bit more vocal at the time.

I agree with KennyMan666's sentiments that because a category doesn't have a run that it should just be accepted and in my case that was not a consideration but it is clear within the thread that my response is not agreed with. I think KennyMan666 is too polite to trash my thoughts on the run - "I will say nothing about the other verifiers"
Edit history:
KennyMan666: 2014-07-14 02:47:41 pm
KennyMan666: 2014-07-14 02:47:30 pm
Precursor
Quote from Alowishus:
Though I will say that since there is such a vocal response that perhaps the runners should actually put themselves as verifiers for the games instead of complaining about the outcome after, if the quality of the runs is that important to them you would think they would be a bit more vocal at the time.

I'll agree with this, I'm really surprised there were only three verifiers, and none of them were people who I know actually run the game. (I don't know if you or Uinslcoap run it.)

I mean no offense to you other verifiers, I'm by no means an authority on the game. And, I mean, I've changed my verdict on a run I verified and I originally accepted but on a rewatch with what other verifiers had said in mind agreed that it was not quite up to par. But this verification was posted so quickly, there was no time at all for us to actually discuss it in the verification topic.
Quote from KennyMan666:
Quote from Alowishus:
Though I will say that since there is such a vocal response that perhaps the runners should actually put themselves as verifiers for the games instead of complaining about the outcome after, if the quality of the runs is that important to them you would think they would be a bit more vocal at the time.

I'll agree with this, I'm really surprised there were only three verifiers, and none of them were people who I know actually run the game. (I don't know if you or Uinslcoap run it.)

I mean no offense to you other verifiers, I'm by no means an authority on the game. And, I mean, I've changed my verdict on a run I verified and I originally accepted but on a rewatch with what other verifiers had said in mind agreed that it was not quite up to par. But this verification was posted so quickly, there was no time at all for us to actually discuss it in the verification topic.

Yes, honestly I thought there would be more verifiers and I agree with what you said earlier that perhaps the decision may have been different with more verifiers. I have done a few runs but nothing serious.

No offense is taken, I am not the grand authority either. Yes, discussion would have been better because I honestly think we were all on the same page regarding the death (that it was costly - perhaps you disagree?) but we made different overall decisions so in that respect it would have been more useful.
Edit history:
Joka: 2014-07-14 03:17:12 pm
Personal text
I would definitely have verified it if I had noticed someone submitted a run. It's just so rare that someone submits anything I can verify, so I barely ever check the "runs that need verification" -post. And currently that's the only way to see what runs needs verification.
Master-88
You guys need checkout it if you want verifer something. Its too late regret now.

Joka & Nudua could also submit own runs, its seems both are make better run than Philospraptor.

My personal opinion are, those comments Joka & Nudua are pretty rude IMO . If i was are verifer i might towards reject (just with this death) or weak accept if other things are fine. Im not are see that run yet so im not going say anythings. If someone runner did better run he/she are welcomed submit it. You guys don,t need cry it after verification are completed succesfully.

I have to only say: Congrats your accepted run Philospraptor. You have to be glad you pass long way to SDA. Nice job and keep trying. thumbsup
Edit history:
UraniumAnchor: 2014-07-14 03:31:59 pm
Not a walrus
Alright so let me explain a few things here:

-Of the three verifiers, two of them voted to accept, and even the rejecting verifier said the run was good other than the death, and the death was "only" 13 seconds. I probably should have said "other than the death" instead of "despite", that is closer to how they actually worded it.
-This was a short game that got all three of its verifiers to answer quickly, and all three of them were somewhat detailed, and people already complain often enough about stuff getting stuck in verification. Wink
-I tend to err on the side of accepting things, and while sometimes when there's some disagreement I'll ask for more discussion, this seemed far enough on the "accept" side that I went with that.

Knowing what I know now I would have given this run a weak reject rather than a weak accept, but that's marginal enough that I probably won't reverse my decision. I do hope that a faster run of this category gets submitted soon, either by the runner or somebody else. I'll make sure to add you to the list when that happens, Joka and Nuduua. (I really do need to get that notification system for new runs working...)
Precursor
Quote from UraniumAnchor:
even the rejecting verifier said the run was good other than the death

If I said that, I didn't mean to. There were good parts, not denying that, but also a bunch of parts I was unsure of that were only balanced by good boss RNG. The death just brought it so far down into the red for me that not even perfect play from there on out would have made me not reject it. But it wasn't perfect play, and good RNG isn't enough to outweigh a sloppy run. Having seen it with the death is of course going to colour any opinion I might have on the run, but even without the death I can't promise I wouldn't have given it a reject anyway. A weaker reject, perhaps, but the level of play wasn't on the level I would expect from a run this short.

Even disregarding that, I do have opinions about the immediate judging and posting. I'd suggest at least some number of hours waiting period after all verifiers have posted theirs to allow for discussion - I only saw one, wrote mine, and next thing I knew this topic was posted. Previous verifications I've been involved with have often involved actually discussing things about the run as well, and I think the space for that is an important part of the verification process. Even for a short run such as this, especially when we were only three verifiers and there was no consensus. Runs being stuck in verification is one thing - waiting, I don't know, 12 hours between the last verifier have posted their verdict and actually posting the decision so that the verifiers may discuss the run as well in light of having read each other's verdicts is another.

I mean, I like the streamlined verification system, but maybe it moves a bit too quickly in some cases.