Discussion on the Out of Bounds rule

slYnki

Edit history:

slYnki: 2006-06-13 04:13:31 am

2006-06-13 04:09:19 am

XXY

First of all, I know this has been discussed before, but maybe I can sway some voters this time around. Also, I thought this forum would serve as the best bed and breakfast for this thread (try and say that without accidently saying breast - and with that, I've lost any credibility, but do not lose sight just yet!), because if I had put it in General Chat as originally planned, I imagine Illuminated would have found it immediately, and assaulted it ruthlessly with spam ;-).

Second, I can tie my shoe laces:

Quote:

Discuss it on the forum and explain why. We're always open to suggestions and welcome intelligent discussion. If enough people hate something maybe we'll compromise... it's already happened.

Third, the part of the rule in question:

Quote:

Glitches: Many speed runs utilize glitches, unintended side effects of the game's programming, to their advantage. There are some glitches which won't be allowed, though: generally any glitch that allows you to leave the normal bounds of the game world

I have a question about the out of bounds rule. What exactly constitutes out of bounds, and how do you make exceptions to this? In Engy's Half-Life run, he uses four skyboxes in Surface Tension, and those are out of bounds areas. For the GNF Halo runs (even though they are down at the moment), goatrope uses the stationary shield to bump himself out of the level, and Cody Miller uses the door leading to the cafeteria in The Maw to boost himself into the ceiling.

I'm going to consider those runs as exceptions to the out of bounds rule, and wonder if the out of bounds rule could have a little more leniency thrown its way. It would be insensitive for me to say, "remove that rule entirely, let's FLY to the ending of levels underground", so I'll play it safe and ask for it to be a little more lenient (but if you want to completely remove the rule and let speedrunners go nuts, I'm fine with that too =D). I think as long as out of bounds glitches are kept within reason, they should be aloud. Because we are speedrunning here, and every speedup that could be used, should be used. So long as you're not swimming through a wall for the entire run, I think it would be fine. Because in some thread I can't remember, some guy found a glitch where he could walk through rocks, and skip a certain portion of level, but technically they were out of bounds, even though they were actually in the level itself, just in an inaccessable area. People of course horded the thread with "that's against the out of bounds rule, BLARG!"

I had a bunch of blisteringly awesome arguments all setup, but they're completely lost to me right now. Oh well, I think I've said enough in a reasonable manner. I welcome intelligent discussion about this rule. Perhaps it could be changed in time. The rest of the glitching rules are perfectly reasonable, not coming here to argue about those. 'Tis all.

Thread title:

First of all, I know this has been discussed before, but maybe I can sway some voters this time around. Also, I thought this forum would serve as the best bed and breakfast for this thread (try and say that without accidently saying breast - and with that, I've lost any credibility, but do not lose sight just yet!), because if I had put it in General Chat as originally planned, I imagine Illuminated would have found it immediately, and assaulted it ruthlessly with spam ;-).

Second, I can tie my shoe laces:
[quote]Discuss it on the forum and explain why. We're always open to suggestions and welcome intelligent discussion. If enough people hate something maybe we'll compromise... it's already happened.[/quote]

Third, the part of the rule in question:
[quote]Glitches: Many speed runs utilize glitches, unintended side effects of the game's programming, to their advantage. There are some glitches which won't be allowed, though: generally any glitch that allows you to leave the normal bounds of the game world[/quote]

I have a question about the out of bounds rule. What exactly constitutes out of bounds, and how do you make exceptions to this? In Engy's Half-Life run, he uses four skyboxes in Surface Tension, and those are out of bounds areas. For the GNF Halo runs (even though they are down at the moment), goatrope uses the stationary shield to bump himself out of the level, and Cody Miller uses the door leading to the cafeteria in The Maw to boost himself into the ceiling.

I'm going to consider those runs as exceptions to the out of bounds rule, and wonder if the out of bounds rule could have a little more leniency thrown its way. It would be insensitive for me to say, "remove that rule entirely, let's FLY to the ending of levels underground", so I'll play it safe and ask for it to be a little more lenient (but if you want to completely remove the rule and let speedrunners go nuts, I'm fine with that too =D). I think as long as out of bounds glitches are kept within reason, they should be aloud. Because we are speedrunning here, and every speedup that could be used, should be used. So long as you're not swimming through a wall for the entire run, I think it would be fine. Because in some thread I can't remember, some guy found a glitch where he could walk through rocks, and skip a certain portion of level, but technically they were out of bounds, even though they were actually in the level itself, just in an inaccessable area. People of course horded the thread with "that's against the out of bounds rule, BLARG!"

I had a bunch of blisteringly awesome arguments all setup, but they're completely lost to me right now. Oh well, I think I've said enough in a reasonable manner. I welcome intelligent discussion about this rule. Perhaps it could be changed in time. The rest of the glitching rules are perfectly reasonable, not coming here to argue about those. 'Tis all.

Radix

2006-06-13 05:05:05 am

I'm addicted to games

Quote:

In Engy's Half-Life run, he uses four skyboxes in Surface Tension, and those are out of bounds areas.

No, they're not. Half-life (and all quake engine games) have to have sealed levels. You can't fall out of the map. He's just in the sky, which is used as a visibility hint in the bsp creator. Therefore when you're inside a sky brush, the engine gets "confused" and isn't sure what to draw.

TheVoid

2006-06-13 07:13:40 am

Quote:

Because in some thread I can't remember, some guy found a glitch where he could walk through rocks, and skip a certain portion of level, but technically they were out of bounds, even though they were actually in the level itself, just in an inaccessable area. People of course horded the thread with "that's against the out of bounds rule, BLARG!"

That was my thread about Shadowgrounds Smiley

Hmm, now I'm wondering something after Radix's post.

Quote:

No, they're not. Half-life (and all quake engine games) have to have sealed levels.

Don't all levels in all games have "sealed levels"?
In most games you'll know when you're getting Out of Bounds when you're continuously falling into nothingness and/or the game keeps drawing stuff multiple times.
All levels are made inside a cube and if you get out of that cube, you're getting Out of Bounds.
The so called Game Cube (Heh Smiley

).

If Out of Bounds would be getting out of the actual intended game area, then things like using Rocket Jumps to get on top of a level would be illegal because it's not the normal game area the developers intended it to be...
Even the Rocket Jump isn't intended Smiley

But I believe in Serious Sam, they knew about the Rocket Jump and applied it to a key or something IIRC.
So then it would be valid again to get on top of a level because the developers knew about it.

Enough of my stupid rambling Wink

I don't know, it's a difficult matter...

[quote]Because in some thread I can't remember, some guy found a glitch where he could walk through rocks, and skip a certain portion of level, but technically they were out of bounds, even though they were actually in the level itself, just in an inaccessable area. People of course horded the thread with "that's against the out of bounds rule, BLARG!"[/quote]

That was my thread about Shadowgrounds :)

Hmm, now I'm wondering something after Radix's post.

[quote] No, they're not. Half-life (and all quake engine games) have to have sealed levels.[/quote]

Don't all levels in all games have "sealed levels"?
In most games you'll know when you're getting Out of Bounds when you're continuously falling into nothingness and/or the game keeps drawing stuff multiple times.
All levels are made inside a cube and if you get out of that cube, you're getting Out of Bounds.
The so called Game Cube (Heh :) ).

If Out of Bounds would be getting out of the actual intended game area, then things like using Rocket Jumps to get on top of a level would be illegal because it's not the normal game area the developers intended it to be...
Even the Rocket Jump isn't intended :)

But I believe in Serious Sam, they knew about the Rocket Jump and applied it to a key or something IIRC.
So then it would be valid again to get on top of a level because the developers knew about it.

Enough of my stupid rambling ;)
I don't know, it's a difficult matter...

InsaneB4st4rd

2006-06-13 09:26:38 am

Still alive...

Quote:

In Engy's Half-Life run, he uses four skyboxes in Surface Tension, and those are out of bounds areas.

If you compile a Level in the Quake engine (should be the same in HL since it's only a modified Quake engine), you need to completly seal it otherwise the editor spits out a error message and a lot of red lines.

Phauxe

2006-06-13 08:51:34 pm

Technicalities aside, I think this topic should be debated. I'm recalling a trick to get past the Gerudo Fortress gate for a single segment that got shot down with this rule, as well as glitching around some giant boxes you had to push otherwise.

And even though I haven't run into it yet, it might happen in any future run that I attempt too.

I agree with what PoCari said, that as long as it isn't overly used, then it should be allowed.

Lets take a few examples through an imaginary game.

ex1/ A guy runs through a level as intended, but as quickly as he could, without abusing any glitches, or just... abusing the engine without glitching (like backwalking in OoT.)

ex2/ A guy runs through a level abusing explosives in order to get up higher and skip towards the end faster.

ex3/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost up to the end quicker.

So far, all 3 examples would of shown a progression of a FPS run (not all cases, but just stick with me).

ex4/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds in order to skip a small segment, reenters the games bounds and continues finishing up the run.

It start getting touchy around here, and this is where the bounds rule comes into question. But compare this to the next 2 examples.

ex5/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skips about half of the level before returning, who then reenters game bounds and continues finishing the runs.

I don't think that should be allowed at all. Even worse though...

ex6/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skip the entire level, not returning except to finish.

That's right out abusing it.

If you've read this far, I congradulate you for enduring my crummy tale of plot holes and spelling errors... But I think if we had some sort of guidlines like those, we could judge how abusive a trick was going out of bounds. Or we could add an extra category (although that would be more work for Radix and Nate...). Just ideas Tongue

Technicalities aside, I think this topic should be debated.  I'm recalling a trick to get past the Gerudo Fortress gate for a single segment that got shot down with this rule, as well as glitching around some giant boxes you had to push otherwise.

And even though I haven't run into it yet, it might happen in any future run that I attempt too.

I agree with what PoCari said, that as long as it isn't overly used, then it should be allowed.

Lets take a few examples through an imaginary game.

ex1/ A guy runs through a level as intended, but as quickly as he could, without abusing any glitches, or just... abusing the engine without glitching (like backwalking in OoT.)

ex2/ A guy runs through a level abusing explosives in order to get up higher and skip towards the end faster.

ex3/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost up to the end quicker.

So far, all 3 examples would of shown a progression of a FPS run (not all cases, but just stick with me).

ex4/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds in order to skip a small segment, reenters the games bounds and continues finishing up the run.

It start getting touchy around here, and this is where the bounds rule comes into question.  But compare this to the next 2 examples.

ex5/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skips about half of the level before returning, who then reenters game bounds and continues finishing the runs.

I don't think that should be allowed at all.  Even worse though...

ex6/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skip the entire level, not returning except to finish.

That's right out abusing it.

If you've read this far, I congradulate you for enduring my crummy tale of plot holes and spelling errors...  But I think if we had some sort of guidlines like those, we could judge how abusive a trick was going out of bounds.  Or we could add an extra category (although that would be more work for Radix and Nate...).  Just ideas :P

Gorash

2006-06-13 11:36:41 pm

${$uid.$user}{' usertext'}

Funny, I was sure I posted something like "on a side note I think it's about time to bring up the out-of-bounds rule again" in some topic, but I can't seem to find it again.

I was about to post a list of the actual games that would be affected by changing the list, but if you think about it it boils down to a major fraction of all titles in existance. To name a few categories:

- NES games. Notoriously weird programming, weird physics, weird assumptions made to speed up the game, you name it. Even masterpieces like SMB3 aren't prone to it.
- Early N64 games. Same as NES games, inexperienced 3d programming cause an increasing number of games to be wide open.
- Very popular games that have been searched for bugs more than others. I'd consider the Zelda ALttP exploration zone glitch an example of this.

The thing is, I'm pro out-of-bounds glitching, even without the constraints that others imply. BUT.
The big but is that it should be a category. I can already hear Radix wail "Not another category" but nothing else makes sense. If a game can be taken apart by glitching through everything to the ending like exploration zone, the logical consequence is to add one and only one additional category named "anything goes". Every rule that was forbidden when SDA opened and has been gradually been allowed could be joined under anything goes. Not "anything goes 100%" or "anything goes hard", only the fastest possible completion without holding back at all.

Funny, I was sure I posted something like "on a side note I think it's about time to bring up the out-of-bounds rule again" in some topic, but I can't seem to find it again.

I was about to post a list of the actual games that would be affected by changing the list, but if you think about it it boils down to a major fraction of all titles in existance. To name a few categories:

- NES games. Notoriously weird programming, weird physics, weird assumptions made to speed up the game, you name it. Even masterpieces like SMB3 aren't prone to it.
- Early N64 games. Same as NES games, inexperienced 3d programming cause an increasing number of games to be wide open.
- Very popular games that have been searched for bugs more than others. I'd consider the Zelda ALttP exploration zone glitch an example of this.

The thing is, I'm pro out-of-bounds glitching, even without the constraints that others imply. BUT.
The big but is that it should be a category. I can already hear Radix wail "Not another category" but nothing else makes sense. If a game can be taken apart by glitching through everything to the ending like exploration zone, the logical consequence is to add one and only one additional category named "anything goes". Every rule that was forbidden when SDA opened and has been gradually been allowed could be joined under anything goes. Not "anything goes 100%" or "anything goes hard", only the fastest possible completion without holding back at all.

Acryte

2006-06-14 08:28:03 pm

Zelda Scientist®

What is "out of bounds" in Zelda OoT? Is it the black space, or is it the black space that is farther out and respawns you when you fall too far?

FIERCELINKMASTER

2006-06-14 08:38:26 pm

No the Quail is not riding the Q

Quote:

What is "out of bounds" in Zelda OoT? Is it the black space, or is it the black space that is farther out and respawns you when you fall too far?

I'm not sure exactly.
We know Ganon's Tower Skip is a seperate category out of bounds.

Flying in a void using a cucco will not be permitted at all.

TSA

2006-06-14 10:28:05 pm

Retired

That's still not even out of bounds according to developers. You're still in the game world "box". Truly going out of the game world, out of bounds, will crash your game or there is ane exit loop.

An example is Super Mario 64. If you truly breach the "fourth wall" of the boxed world, you freeze and die.

In Ocarina of Time, if you breach the fourth wall, the game makes a hideous noise and it freezes.

Most "boxes" do have the intended level design, but then there are "white space" areas, the voids we see, which they have to fill with something. In OoT, it's either a pitfall (warps you back) or water, which leads to a pitfall.

AKA

2006-06-14 11:17:10 pm

He's back!

How is "magically teleport between distant locations " defined. I mean isn't mario stair glitch a mysterious teleport, since every time "A" pressed your incrementing the speed counter which can give ridiculous glitches in Bomb Omb Battlefield in M64. Its possible to go into white space with the main level in the distance if you use an emulator with slow down or turbo controller. How far is mysterious warping got to be before its considered illegal. Is there any paticular game where its banned because there isn't a game which paticularly comes to mind except maybe Scrap Brain 1 in Sonic. Anyway the only way I think that out of bound in OoT at least can be described is if the camera goes fixed. Radix has still never given his word on the trick that enters Shadow without dins.

Like I've said before the only tricks I would ban is any trick that lets you go through any wall at will and tricks that allow players to go into freespace for extenive periods.

Mkt2015

2006-06-15 02:23:43 pm

MGS for PS1 forever.

Quote:

If a game can be taken apart by glitching through everything to the ending like exploration zone, the logical consequence is to add one and only one additional category named "anything goes". Every rule that was forbidden when SDA opened and has been gradually been allowed could be joined under anything goes. Not "anything goes 100%" or "anything goes hard", only the fastest possible completion without holding back at all.

While this all sounds nice and everything...where would the skill come in if you just glitch through 3/4 of the game? You could easily say that "finding the glitch and implementing it requires skill." What I mean is, when are you actually playing the game? After all...this site isn't about glitching through a game, but playing through a game. I believe that's why some glitches are allowed like the Super Mario stairs glitch. It allows access to another area but you still have to be good enough to beat that new area.

It would also be rediculous if people had to see if at least 50% of a run was playing...with cutscenes and loading screens, it would just be another hassle.

Now, don't think that I'm completely arguing against it. I think that if a person can do a 3 hr game in 5 minutes, they should be able to, but is it all just glitching through a game or is there actual gameplay?

A good example would be that 5 minute? TAS of a Link to the Past. Does he even play the game? Not really.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

[quote]If a game can be taken apart by glitching through everything to the ending like exploration zone, the logical consequence is to add one and only one additional category named "anything goes". Every rule that was forbidden when SDA opened and has been gradually been allowed could be joined under anything goes. Not "anything goes 100%" or "anything goes hard", only the fastest possible completion without holding back at all.[/quote]

While this all sounds nice and everything...where would the skill come in if you just glitch through 3/4 of the game? You could easily say that "finding the glitch and implementing it requires skill." What I mean is, when are you actually playing the game? After all...this site isn't about glitching through a game, but playing through a game. I believe that's why some glitches are allowed like the Super Mario stairs glitch. It allows access to another area but you still have to be good enough to beat that new area.

It would also be rediculous if people had to see if at least 50% of a run was playing...with cutscenes and loading screens, it would just be another hassle.

Now, don't think that I'm completely arguing against it. I think that if a person can do a 3 hr game in 5 minutes, they should be able to, but is it all just glitching through a game or is there actual gameplay?

A good example would be that 5 minute? TAS of a Link to the Past. Does he even play the game? Not really.

Anyway, that's my 2 cents.

Gorash

Edit history:

Gorash: 2006-06-15 06:44:12 pm

2006-06-15 06:34:45 pm

${$uid.$user}{' usertext'}

Well, look at it this way:
If you have a category anything goes where playing isn't as important, it will shut up the glitch-gamers while preserving the competition for skill-gamers.

Quote:

After all...this site isn't about glitching through a game, but playing through a game.

Well, the site is about getting through the game fast, and part of that is skipping stuff you don't have to play.

I do see your point, but the line is totally arbitrary as it is now. There are a lot of games where the game breaking glitch isn't easy, and take for example the 5 minute CV:CotM, or the 12 minute CV:AoS TASes, standing up against the bosses takes a huge amount of skill. Still then it won't lessen the accomplishment of longer runs, see Mario64 70 stars versus 16 stars. If the glitch takes no skill at all, then it will be a dead competition anyway. One person will make a demo of it (as in speed demos archive) and noone will touch it. Fine with me.

The most important point however is a basic behaviour of the internet: It is a speedrun, it's fast, and only because it doesn't apply to SDA rules doesn't mean it won't get published on the net when someone makes such runs. If there's demand for glitched videos, heck, just give it to the people, or they'll pop up somewhere else and you'll have kids starting threads in the forum with a randomly stupefied version of "I saw a faster run of xxx somewhere".

The only real reasons against it are more work for Radix, and the shift from arbitrary rule for bannable glitches to arbitrary rules for "anything goes" glitches.

Well, look at it this way:
If you have a category anything goes where playing isn't as important, it will shut up the glitch-gamers while preserving the competition for skill-gamers.

[quote]After all...this site isn't about glitching through a game, but playing through a game. [/quote]
Well, the site is about getting through the game fast, and part of that [i]is[/i] skipping stuff you don't have to play.

I do see your point, but the line is totally arbitrary as it is now. There are a lot of games where the game breaking glitch isn't easy, and take for example the 5 minute CV:CotM, or the 12 minute CV:AoS TASes, standing up against the bosses takes a huge amount of skill. Still then it won't lessen the accomplishment of longer runs, see Mario64 70 stars versus 16 stars. If the glitch takes no skill at all, then it will be a dead competition anyway. One person will make a demo of it (as in speed [i]demos[/i] archive) and noone will touch it. Fine with me.

The most important point however is a basic behaviour of the internet: It is a speedrun, it's fast, and only because it doesn't apply to SDA rules doesn't mean it won't get published on the net when someone makes such runs. If there's demand for glitched videos, heck, just give it to the people, or they'll pop up somewhere else and you'll have kids starting threads in the forum with a randomly stupefied version of "I saw a faster run of xxx somewhere".

The only real reasons against it are more work for Radix, and the shift from arbitrary rule for bannable glitches to arbitrary rules for "anything goes" glitches.

Enhasa

2006-06-18 07:09:37 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

While I agree with Gorash and would have done it that way from the beginning, this issue isn't important enough for me or most people to ask for change. Besides the typical SDA resistance to change, this really would create a lot of problems since a lot of existing runs could be done better now.

TSA: Is there some kind of gaming-specific fourth wall definition that I don't know about? I always thought that referred to the "wall" the audience sees through to see the characters in a play or movie. Breaking the fourth wall would be like Kalas talking to the spirit guardian (the player) in Baten Kaitos, or the player being asked to pray vs Giygas in Earthbound, or that part near the end in Conker's BFD. Something like that.

DK64_MASTER

2006-06-19 02:33:50 am

Quote:

An example is Super Mario 64. If you truly breach the "fourth wall" of the boxed world, you freeze and die.

What is this defined as then?

http://www.savefile.com/files/1480415

Some sort of 3.5th wall?

marshmallow

2006-06-25 06:55:29 am

Jack of all Trades

Quote:

No, they're not. Half-life (and all quake engine games) have to have sealed levels. You can't fall out of the map. He's just in the sky, which is used as a visibility hint in the bsp creator. Therefore when you're inside a sky brush, the engine gets "confused" and isn't sure what to draw.

Cool, glad to see you changed your mind. So when will the PD agent run be put up?

Megatherium

Edit history:

Megatherium: 2006-06-25 10:43:57 am

2006-06-25 10:42:39 am

yes, america's most blunted

it's funny how sometimes the law gets laid down against a particular glitch but in the case of my shinobi run, i was basically ordered to use a glitch to skip 95% of a level. the glitch allowed me to pass what was intended to be an impassable chasm, so what's the difference between a pile of rocks blocking your path and a chasm blocking your path? is the root of this issue found in the term 'clipping'?

sidenote: i know it's something that FPS speed runs were founded upon, but i take issue with bunnyhopping scripts. i think that if you can't pull it off by yourself, it shouldn't be allowed to hold a record alongside games where it's all the player.

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2006-06-25 10:57:54 am

2006-06-25 10:56:50 am

Invisible avatar

To be fair, the script used by Spider-Waffle just helps a little, doesn't do all the job...it's equal to mapping "+jump" to the mwheel and spamming it like a madman. Same with HL2DQ team...they could use the mouse wheel as well...

Megatherium

2006-06-25 11:23:44 am

yes, america's most blunted

don't get me wrong, the runs are certainly skillful and impressive otherwise and i acknowlege that bunnyhopping is only an elemental part of the run... but even so, i actually pushed the X button to dash each time in my shinobi run and the frequency for that is just as fast if not faster than bunnyhops.

i wasn't aware of the mouse wheel alternative. i guess being able to re-map all of the functions makes it a bit more of a grey area...

correct me if i'm wrong but auto-fire controllers are not permitted- so then are bunnyhopping scripts just an exception made in the case of FPSs?

dex

Edit history:

dex: 2006-06-25 11:46:12 am

2006-06-25 11:42:17 am

Invisible avatar

Spider-Waffles script merely just makes the time in which you can press the button longer by few decimals. You still need to strafe and move your mouse appropiatelly, so the script hardly helps at all. It's just an alternative to the MWheel idea. It ain't in any case a turbo-controller.
HL2DQ team using a kind of autofire is much more controversial, but still, the MWHeel idea makes using a script nothing, as you could use something almost every watcher has - an MWheel.
Bunnyhopping isn't just pressing buttons. It's much more about controls. At least in HL, Q or any other quake engine game. You still need heaps of skill to do it even with those scripts. They hardly ease the job more that something completely common (Mouse wheel) could produce. Comparing it with turbo controllers is just plain bad thinking...

PS> I had a post three times longer, but the power shortage came.... <3 the folks at power plant Angry

Megatherium

2006-06-25 07:56:09 pm

yes, america's most blunted

oh, i must have been mistaken, i thought the bunnyhop script made it so you just had to hold down the jump button and it would auto-hop as soon as you land. a friend of mine had used something like that in HL1. so they actuallt hit jump each time? the script just makes the window larger? that's not so bad i suppose

dex

2006-06-25 09:06:24 pm

Invisible avatar

Yes. And you still HAVE to control Gordon in a way so you gain speed.

Kibbo

2006-06-26 12:07:12 pm

TIOLET!

I go by "If you can't add/change it through the menu then you're not allowed to add/change it at all", but that's just me.

AKA

2006-06-28 08:49:41 am

He's back!

There should definitley an anything goes run since most people want to watch a game being completed in the fastest possible way even if it means skipping right to Dracula in castlevania. Of course some glitches can make a run very boring and are banned quite fairy such as duplicating skulltulas in OoT, since it would bore the hell put of every to see someone do the same simple trick 70-80 times in a row.

Lag.Com

2006-06-28 09:08:03 am

sda loyalist

Lower times are better. Entertaining movies are better.

Aim for quicker, more entertaining movies.

When you first saw Mario ramming his way through that door up the endless stair, did you laugh or were you deadpan?
Entertainment.
When you watched the first level of Perfect Dark where she enters a wall, gets stuck for a while then spontaneously completes the level, did you laugh or were you deadpan?

I know my answers.

mike89

2006-07-23 01:44:09 pm

SEGA Junkie

Quote:

ex1/ A guy runs through a level as intended, but as quickly as he could, without abusing any glitches, or just... abusing the engine without glitching (like backwalking in OoT.)

ex2/ A guy runs through a level abusing explosives in order to get up higher and skip towards the end faster.

ex3/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost up to the end quicker.

So far, all 3 examples would of shown a progression of a FPS run (not all cases, but just stick with me).

ex4/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds in order to skip a small segment, reenters the games bounds and continues finishing up the run.

It start getting touchy around here, and this is where the bounds rule comes into question. But compare this to the next 2 examples.

ex5/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skips about half of the level before returning, who then reenters game bounds and continues finishing the runs.

I don't think that should be allowed at all. Even worse though...

ex6/ A guy bunnyhops through a level employing explosives to boost out of the level's normal intended bounds and skip the entire level, not returning except to finish.

That's right out abusing it.

I have a problem with this methodology.

Basically what you're saying is "you can abuse glitches all you like up until this point, then no more." Aren't you then basically putting an arbitrary limit on how low the speedrun can go, which is not linked to either the length of the game or the skill of the runner?

Any rule of this sort has to be steadfast, and apply in all cases. Either the "anything goes" category is permitted for all games, or none.

I'm sure my point has already been brought up at length, but I felt I needed to get my views clear on the issue as well.

For the record, I'd prefer to see a run be done as fast as possible utilising any (legitimate) means available instead of playing through in the intended manner because it "makes sense" from the character's point of view.

[quote]ex1/ A guy runs through a level as intended, but as quickly as he could, without abusing any glitches, or just... abusing the engine without glitching (like backwalking in OoT.)