EarthBound

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2006-06-19 07:16:57 pm

2006-06-19 07:10:20 pm

welcome to the machine

I'm more worried personally about him deciding to make one improvement overall, starting the game up, and just accruing minutes magically.

That has happened to me before. I have saved minutes for no discernable reason at all. The good thing is, this kind of thing is hard to reject the run for, for obvious reasons. >_>

Either way, though, we'll find out when it gets verified. Personally, I'm hoping it's awesome. I want to watch it since I've never played the game.

Mickey_Mage

2006-06-19 11:06:08 pm

Glitching EB 1 flying man at a time

Ok, how many of you have played this game recently that are criticizing this guy so harshly? This post is actually more geared towards you, Strangeness, you are criticizing him too much and only having negative comments about all of this. You even said yourself that you have not played in some time so you don't know the game inside and out obviously. Evil_Ninja, on the other hand, knows the game very well and he is improving upon a time he has recorded before of this game. If you take the time to go back and read, he puts the time he had before and even talks about how much he has beaten it with this current run. Yes, that means he made alot of mistakes, that also means he has a better route planned out this time around, but you should be happy someone is even attempting a run of this and submitting it at all. Who cares if it was done in a matter of days, if you know a game well enough, and this game in particular, after playing it over and over again, it's easy to get a feel for it. Plus it's segmented, so who knows how many hours he put into it, and how late he was up. Maybe he wasn't, who knows, but he still did the dang game nonetheless. It will be improved upon, other people that love this game will be very willing to take up the challenge of making a better route and improving the time. He has put in so much time in this game if he took the time to challenge himself to do it fast once before. The original guy that made this thread obviously gave up, better to get this game in now instead of a year from now. This is a game I know alot of people want to see, regardless of the speed at which it was recorded in days.

DTaeKim

2006-06-19 11:15:44 pm

I ran through Lufia 5 times, cutting a total of 1 and a half hours.

I started recording my run a week ago, and am only 1/5 into the game.

There is concern that there will be many mistakes and/or possible speed tricks the author missed.

From the looks of it, he only ran through it a couple times. There could be many, MANY tricks he missed.

MissileWaster

2006-06-20 03:52:10 am

Quote:

I ran through Lufia 5 times, cutting a total of 1 and a half hours.

I started recording my run a week ago, and am only 1/5 into the game.

There is concern that there will be many mistakes and/or possible speed tricks the author missed.

From the looks of it, he only ran through it a couple times. There could be many, MANY tricks he missed.

Read Evil_Ninja's posts. He SPEED ran through it twice (recorded the second one). We have no way of knowing how many times he actually played it. I mean, really, play a game so much eventually it becomes second nature to beat it. I can beat Metroid: Zero Mission 5 times a day if I felt like it (only 5 because it gets boring eventually). So why assume he only ever played the game once before? He might have played the game lots before then got interested in running the game getting a time of 7:20. Then he found improvements and recorded his current run. So really, if he doesn't give a set amount of times he previously beat the game, don't make assumptions. Just compliment him on completing a run of a (semi)difficult game in a reasonable time frame.

BTW, most of the people here claiming to have the knowledge that the quality of the run wont be good: Make a run in less than 6:40. If you can't, then the quality of this run is better than you may think.

[quote]I ran through Lufia 5 times, cutting a total of 1 and a half hours.

I started recording my run a week ago, and am only 1/5 into the game.

There is concern that there will be many mistakes and/or possible speed tricks the author missed.

From the looks of it, he only ran through it a couple times.  There could be many, MANY tricks he missed.[/quote]
Read Evil_Ninja's posts. He SPEED ran through it twice (recorded the second one). We have no way of knowing how many times he actually played it. I mean, really, play a game so much eventually it becomes second nature to beat it. I can beat Metroid: Zero Mission 5 times a day if I felt like it (only 5 because it gets boring eventually). So why assume he only ever played the game once before? He might have played the game lots before then got interested in running the game getting a time of 7:20. Then he found improvements and recorded his current run. So really, if he doesn't give a set amount of times he previously beat the game, don't make assumptions. Just compliment him on completing a run of a (semi)difficult game in a reasonable time frame.

BTW, most of the people here claiming to have the knowledge that the quality of the run wont be good: Make a run in less than 6:40. If you can't, then the quality of this run is better than you may think.

Mickey_Mage

Edit history:

Mickey_Mage: 2006-06-20 04:15:51 am

2006-06-20 04:15:31 am

Glitching EB 1 flying man at a time

Thank you Missile, my point exactly.

DTaeKim

2006-06-20 05:14:06 am

You said it yourself. He speed ran through the game TWICE.

I should've clarified. I speed ran through Lufia five times. I've played the game countless times before then. There were many, many tricks I didn't consider in my normal run throughs that I've noticed in my speed runs.

All I'm saying it could be the same here. At the very least, we have a run.

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2006-06-20 07:21:52 am

2006-06-20 07:21:28 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Ok, I figured that I ought to respond. It seems that the two sides on this are coming from different places. I'm not trying to say one is better, but just clarifying if you didn't know.

I know many people watch runs because they like the game, and they want the nostalgia; if it's impressive, even better, but it's not the top priority. I watch runs more to be impressed and care less about the nostalgia. (If I wanted nostalgia, I would just play the game myself.) And in this case, while I like Earthbound, I probably don't even like it as much as everyone else posting in this thread. So let's say I saw an Earthbound run get posted tomorrow in 6.5 hours. I wouldn't bother watching it unless I had people I trust telling me that I should.

This is not to say that I wouldn't be glad that many others would get to watch it and be happy. I know about iterative development (more below), and I've accepted that this is pretty much SDA policy (there was a rejected run that Radix overrode and published anyway for example). I would have no problem with it being posted, but if I was verifying (just in theory, don't worry... I wouldn't ask for Earthbound), I might not accept. Some people out there would probably like to see a 12 hour DK64 run, you know. We all have our different thresholds; I would just be exercising mine.

You're probably asking: "how do you know this run isn't great, huh?" Well, I don't claim to. It's just intuition that I think this should be maybe 5:30 or so, under 5 for a TAS. You might disagree. But please don't just dismiss me as crazy, especially if you haven't tried running the game yourself. Then your opinion is no more valid than mine.

About the iterative development, SDA pretty much tries to achieve game coverage, then let an improvable time attract someone to do it. That sounds nice in theory, and works for something short like the arcade MM games or individual Sonic levels. But for long RPGs, it takes a lot of expertise to even be a candidate for running. The person who has done the first run has a big leg up on everyone else, and might be the most qualified to improve it.

You generally get diminishing returns on run improvements: first maybe an hour, then 30 mins, then 15, etc. When the difference is just a couple minutes, that's when you know the quality has been stabilized, barring any future discoveries. My personal opinion is that a runner should test run until it's stabilized, then submit. I'm not big on watching what are, in my mind, test runs. You might be happy with the hour slower version, and say to yourself: "when the next version is posted, I'll watch that too, no problem."

Ideally it would work that way and everyone would be happy. But most times I would say, especially for long runs, the original runner never gets back to it. Maybe s/he is satisfied, got busy with life, or had other games to run, whatever. But it happens. My thought is just that, if the runner is already 90% there to creating a great run, why not finish it off instead of coming back to it later, which would waste a good amount of effort or might not even happen at all?

Full disclosure, skip if you want: I have a bit of a personal bias and guilt because I reluctantly accepted the Star Ocean 3 run. There was some scattered talk of improvement afterwards, involving guests and the like, but basically any chance of that has been gone for quite a while. The guilt is that maybe Dragondarch would have improved it long ago if I had rejected it. He called his rejected FFMQ run (which was soon after) the turning point in the quality of his runs. I still wish I know who rejected it so I can thank him/her personally, since Dragon's queue has a lot of games I love.

Ok, I figured that I ought to respond. It seems that the two sides on this are coming from different places. I'm not trying to say one is better, but just clarifying if you didn't know.

I know many people watch runs because they like the game, and they want the nostalgia; if it's impressive, even better, but it's not the top priority. I watch runs more to be impressed and care less about the nostalgia. (If I wanted nostalgia, I would just play the game myself.) And in this case, while I like Earthbound, I probably don't even like it as much as everyone else posting in this thread. So let's say I saw an Earthbound run get posted tomorrow in 6.5 hours. I wouldn't bother watching it unless I had people I trust telling me that I should.

This is not to say that I wouldn't be glad that many others would get to watch it and be happy. I know about iterative development (more below), and I've accepted that this is pretty much SDA policy (there was a [i]rejected[/i] run that Radix overrode and published anyway for example). I would have no problem with it being posted, but if I was verifying (just in theory, don't worry... I wouldn't ask for Earthbound), I might not accept. Some people out there would probably like to see a 12 hour DK64 run, you know. We all have our different thresholds; I would just be exercising mine.

You're probably asking: "how do you know this run isn't great, huh?" Well, I don't claim to. It's just intuition that I think this should be maybe 5:30 or so, under 5 for a TAS. You might disagree. But please don't just dismiss me as crazy, especially if you haven't tried running the game yourself. Then your opinion is no more valid than mine.

About the iterative development, SDA pretty much tries to achieve game coverage, then let an improvable time attract someone to do it. That sounds nice in theory, and works for something short like the arcade MM games or individual Sonic levels. But for long RPGs, it takes a lot of expertise to even be a candidate for running. The person who has done the first run has a big leg up on everyone else, and might be the most qualified to improve it.

You generally get diminishing returns on run improvements: first maybe an hour, then 30 mins, then 15, etc. When the difference is just a couple minutes, that's when you know the quality has been stabilized, barring any future discoveries. My personal opinion is that a runner should test run until it's stabilized, then submit. I'm not big on watching what are, in my mind, test runs. You might be happy with the hour slower version, and say to yourself: "when the next version is posted, I'll watch that too, no problem."

Ideally it would work that way and everyone would be happy. But most times I would say, especially for long runs, the original runner never gets back to it. Maybe s/he is satisfied, got busy with life, or had other games to run, whatever. But it happens. My thought is just that, if the runner is already 90% there to creating a great run, why not finish it off instead of coming back to it later, which would waste a good amount of effort or might not even happen at all?

Full disclosure, skip if you want: I have a bit of a personal bias and guilt because I reluctantly accepted the Star Ocean 3 run. There was some scattered talk of improvement afterwards, involving guests and the like, but basically any chance of that has been gone for quite a while. The guilt is that maybe Dragondarch would have improved it long ago if I had rejected it. He called his rejected FFMQ run (which was soon after) the turning point in the quality of his runs. I still wish I know who rejected it so I can thank him/her personally, since Dragon's queue has a lot of games I love.

MissileWaster

Edit history:

MissileWaster: 2006-06-20 08:18:26 am

2006-06-20 08:15:13 am

Enhasa, to me it sounds as though you would reject a run if there were any possible improvements. That may just be me, but even if there are improvements to be made, no one will know about them if a run is not published. So if a run is pretty good with 2 or 3 possible improvements, it should still be accepted so that other people could see the run and learn of these timesavers to point out to future runners of this game. If someone does decide to run this game again after the first run is published, would you reject it just because it wasn't in your timeframe or if there were a few more improvements to be had? Just because a run could be improved isn't any reason to reject it, otherwise we might not have ever gotten any of the greater runs on this site, like OoT for example.

You said that 5:30 is a reasonable time for a console run, while TASers are working on getting that time. In one of the topics on tasvideos they were talking about getting "under 6 hours". Now, if the TASers are having difficulty getting under 6 hours, how would it be any different on a console run?

EDIT: Dragon might have been able to improve his run but if it is accepted first, as I stated earlier, more people would be able to help improve it. Therefore, better times and tricks and the like, especially for more widely known games like this and the Metroid series.

Enhasa, to me it sounds as though you would reject a run if there were any possible improvements. That may just be me, but even if there are improvements to be made, no one will know about them if a run is not published. So if a run is pretty good with 2 or 3 possible improvements, it should still be accepted so that other people could see the run and learn of these timesavers to point out to future runners of this game. If someone does decide to run this game again after the first run is published, would you reject it just because it wasn't in your timeframe or if there were a few more improvements to be had? Just because a run could be improved isn't any reason to reject it, otherwise we might not have ever gotten any of the greater runs on this site, like OoT for example.

You said that 5:30 is a reasonable time for a console run, while TASers are working on getting that time. In one of the topics on tasvideos they were talking about getting "under 6 hours". Now, if the TASers are having difficulty getting under 6 hours, how would it be any different on a console run?

EDIT: Dragon might have been able to improve his run but if it is accepted first, as I stated earlier, more people would be able to help improve it. Therefore, better times and tricks and the like, especially for more widely known games like this and the Metroid series.

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2006-06-20 09:27:39 am

2006-06-20 09:23:44 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

I tried hard not to push my beliefs on anybody. Warning: You can try, but it's not going to be easy for you to change mine though.

Quote:

That may just be me, but even if there are improvements to be made, no one will know about them if a run is not published.

Not true. The verifier tells the runner how it could be improved, and it generally happens. Often makes the news page too, when the improvement comes in.

Quote:

would you reject it just because it wasn't in your timeframe or if there were a few more improvements to be had?

My "timeframe" is just an estimate for planning purposes and I don't take it seriously. If I was verifying, I would obviously judge the run itself. If there are obvious improvements, then depending on severity, yes I would reject it.

Quote:

Just because a run could be improved isn't any reason to reject it, otherwise we might not have ever gotten any of the greater runs on this site, like OoT for example.

There's a difference between theoretical possibility for improvement (most runs on this site) and known improvements. I'm not talking about "play better" improvements, but route changes and the like. I don't think ZOOT is a very good example for you because at the time, TSA's 5 hour SS was considered optimized. That's what made it "great" actually.

Quote:

You said that 5:30 is a reasonable time for a console run, while TASers are working on getting that time. In one of the topics on tasvideos they were talking about getting "under 6 hours". Now, if the TASers are having difficulty getting under 6 hours, how would it be any different on a console run?

Too bad I actually know the thread you're talking about. Someone did a test run (with like ~8 rerecords), taking breaks to talk on the phone etc, and got ~11 hours I think. Someone else then estimated 6 hours. There was no research done; it was just a number thrown out there. He has his "wild ass guess", and I have mine.

I at least have some estimation history on my side, if you check something like Brightstar's "games too long" thread. For example, I don't think anyone else said Lufia could be done under 7, but my guess was 5 hours without core abuse. The current time is now like 5:15 or so, and honestly I think it could reach 5.

Edit: If you haven't seen it yet (sorry if you have), maybe this thread will open your mind. In general, people have a tendency to underestimate what is possible.

Quote:

Dragon might have been able to improve his run but if it is accepted first, as I stated earlier, more people would be able to help improve it. Therefore, better times and tricks and the like, especially for more widely known games like this and the Metroid series.

Please reread what I said. I don't feel like explaining this again because I tried hard the first time.

I tried hard not to push my beliefs on anybody. Warning: You can try, but it's not going to be easy for you to change mine though.

[quote]That may just be me, but even if there are improvements to be made, no one will know about them if a run is not published.[/quote]
Not true. The verifier tells the runner how it could be improved, and it generally happens. Often makes the news page too, when the improvement comes in.

[quote]would you reject it just because it wasn't in your timeframe or if there were a few more improvements to be had?[/quote]
My "timeframe" is just an estimate for planning purposes and I don't take it seriously. If I was verifying, I would obviously judge the run itself. If there are obvious improvements, then depending on severity, yes I would reject it.

[quote]Just because a run could be improved isn't any reason to reject it, otherwise we might not have ever gotten any of the greater runs on this site, like OoT for example.[/quote]
There's a difference between theoretical possibility for improvement (most runs on this site) and known improvements. I'm not talking about "play better" improvements, but route changes and the like. I don't think ZOOT is a very good example for you because at the time, TSA's 5 hour SS [i]was[/i] considered optimized. That's what made it "great" actually.

[quote]You said that 5:30 is a reasonable time for a console run, while TASers are working on getting that time. In one of the topics on tasvideos they were talking about getting "under 6 hours". Now, if the TASers are having difficulty getting under 6 hours, how would it be any different on a console run?[/quote]
Too bad I actually know the thread you're talking about. Someone did a test run (with like ~8 rerecords), taking breaks to talk on the phone etc, and got ~11 hours I think. Someone else then estimated 6 hours. There was no research done; it was just a number thrown out there. He has his "wild ass guess", and I have mine.

I at least have some estimation history on my side, if you check something like Brightstar's "games too long" thread. For example, I don't think anyone else said Lufia could be done under 7, but my guess was 5 hours without core abuse. The current time is now like 5:15 or so, and honestly I think it could reach 5.

[b]Edit:[/b] If you haven't seen it yet (sorry if you have), maybe [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=main;action=display;num=1136789888]this thread[/url] will open your mind. In general, people have a tendency to underestimate what is possible.

[quote]Dragon might have been able to improve his run but if it is accepted first, as I stated earlier, more people would be able to help improve it. Therefore, better times and tricks and the like, especially for more widely known games like this and the Metroid series.[/quote]
Please reread what I said. I don't feel like explaining this again because I tried hard the first time.

MissileWaster

Edit history:

MissileWaster: 2006-06-20 09:57:01 am

2006-06-20 09:48:30 am

Quote:

I tried hard not to push my beliefs on anybody. Warning: You can try, but it's not going to be easy for you to change mine though.

I don't push mine on you, you don't do the same to me. Even trade. I was just pointing stuff out.

Quote:

Not true. The verifier tells the runner how it could be improved, and it generally happens. Often makes the news page too, when the improvement comes in.

But the verifier is one person. If a whole community of people were to crack a game based on a run then there would be much better improvements. If the verifier just said "Play better" that wouldn't really help much. If a lot of people said crap like "Here is a way to do this faster/skip this stuff/blah blah" then the run would be better than just one verifier telling the runner something.

Quote:

My "timeframe" is just an estimate for planning purposes and I don't take it seriously. If I was verifying, I would obviously judge the run itself. If there are obvious improvements, then depending on severity, yes I would reject it.

Yeah, I understand rejection if it is severely long and riddled with mistakes, but this run isn't really all too long if you know how hard some parts can be when you aren't leveled up a fair amount and since it appears to be pretty fast the amount of obvious mistakes might be at a minimum. And I realize that you were just throwing out a time, I was just pointing out that that time would be pretty much impossible on console runs and a more logical approach to throwing out a time should be used.

Quote:

There's a difference between theoretical possibility for improvement (most runs on this site) and known improvements. I'm not talking about "play better" improvements, but route changes and the like. I don't think ZOOT is a very good example for you because at the time, TSA's 5 hour SS was considered optimized. That's what made it "great" actually.

I see what you're getting at here, but you just have to consider the fact that there might not be any "known improvements" for the run. If there are theorectical improvements, it could take a larger amount of people than just one verifier to point it out.

Quote:

Too bad I actually know the thread you're talking about. Someone did a test run (with like ~8 rerecords), taking breaks to talk on the phone etc, and got ~11 hours I think. Someone else then estimated 6 hours. There was no research done; it was just a number thrown out there. He has his "wild ass guess", and I have mine.

Hmm, well his wild ass guess just seemed (to me) more likely than less than 5 hours, but once again, that might just be me.

Quote:

I at least have some estimation history on my side, if you check something like Brightstar's "games too long" thread. For example, I don't think anyone else said Lufia could be done under 7, but my guess was 5 hours without core abuse. The current time is now like 5:15 or so, and honestly I think it could reach 5.

Heh, I never noticed this paragraph the first time I read your post, so this next stuff is kinda off the top of my head.

Good estimation history isn't really all too great. That's because it is just an estimate. You could have been right or wrong, there's no way of knowing which one you will be (unless you can see the future or something >_>). If you are right, woop-dee-doo, luck is on your side. If you are wrong, oh well, no loss on anyone's part.

Quote:

Edit: If you haven't seen it yet (sorry if you have), maybe this thread will open your mind. In general, people have a tendency to underestimate what is possible.

Yeah, I've seen that topic. I never really cared much for it though. I'm not too much of a "ZOMG TEH NEW RPG IZ OUT" type of person. While I admit I do like to play an occasional RPG game, they aren't my favorite type.

Hate me all you want, argue me all you want, never shut up to me all you want but nothing will keep me from not likeing Final Fantasy. If the games followed a story from one game to the next I might like them, but a new cast of characters per game? Not my idea of fun.

Quote:

Please reread what I said. I don't feel like explaining this again because I tried hard the first time.

Ok, I reread what you said. Although I never saw the run, so I don't know if the possible improvements are obvious, but even still, they might not be too obvious to the runner. I could play through a game the way I think is perfect, but someone will be able to pinpoint every spot where it could be improved. Now, if a verifier could do this and the run would be utter crap without improvements, I would re-do the run with the knowledge of where to improve. But if the verifier didn't exactly know where the improvements are but other than that the run seemed decent, then it could get uploaded and other people could see what they think about the run and offer insight as far as improvements go.

And yes, I realize OoT wasn't a very good choice for examples, but that was the first thing that came to my head and the fact that there were still some improvements that could have been made, such as backwalking here when he didn't or something. There were still improvements, but at the time that was made it was, I admit, the best run ever. It still is, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that there are areas of improvement (like all of the dungeon skips that are being done).

[quote]I tried hard not to push my beliefs on anybody. Warning: You can try, but it's not going to be easy for you to change mine though.[/quote]

I don't push mine on you, you don't do the same to me. Even trade. I was just pointing stuff out.

[quote]
Not true. The verifier tells the runner how it could be improved, and it generally happens. Often makes the news page too, when the improvement comes in.
[/quote]

But the verifier is one person. If a whole community of people were to crack a game based on a run then there would be much better improvements. If the verifier just said "Play better" that wouldn't really help much. If a lot of people said crap like "Here is a way to do this faster/skip this stuff/blah blah" then the run would be better than just one verifier telling the runner something.

[quote]
My "timeframe" is just an estimate for planning purposes and I don't take it seriously. If I was verifying, I would obviously judge the run itself. If there are obvious improvements, then depending on severity, yes I would reject it.[/quote]

Yeah, I understand rejection if it is severely long and riddled with mistakes, but this run isn't really all too long if you know how hard some parts can be when you aren't leveled up a fair amount and since it appears to be pretty fast the amount of obvious mistakes might be at a minimum. And I realize that you were just throwing out a time, I was just pointing out that that time would be pretty much impossible on console runs and a more logical approach to throwing out a time should be used.

[quote]
There's a difference between theoretical possibility for improvement (most runs on this site) and known improvements. I'm not talking about "play better" improvements, but route changes and the like. I don't think ZOOT is a very good example for you because at the time, TSA's 5 hour SS [i]was[/i] considered optimized. That's what made it "great" actually.[/quote]

I see what you're getting at here, but you just have to consider the fact that there might not be any "known improvements" for the run. If there are theorectical improvements, it could take a larger amount of people than just one verifier to point it out.

[quote]
Too bad I actually know the thread you're talking about. Someone did a test run (with like ~8 rerecords), taking breaks to talk on the phone etc, and got ~11 hours I think. Someone else then estimated 6 hours. There was no research done; it was just a number thrown out there. He has his "wild ass guess", and I have mine.[/quote]

Hmm, well his wild ass guess just seemed (to me) more likely than less than 5 hours, but once again, that might just be me.

[quote]
I at least have some estimation history on my side, if you check something like Brightstar's "games too long" thread. For example, I don't think anyone else said Lufia could be done under 7, but my guess was 5 hours without core abuse. The current time is now like 5:15 or so, and honestly I think it could reach 5.[/quote]

Heh, I never noticed this paragraph the first time I read your post, so this next stuff is kinda off the top of my head.

Good estimation history isn't really all too great. That's because it is just an estimate. You could have been right or wrong, there's no way of knowing which one you will be (unless you can see the future or something >_>). If you are right, woop-dee-doo, luck is on your side. If you are wrong, oh well, no loss on anyone's part.

[quote]
[b]Edit:[/b] If you haven't seen it yet (sorry if you have), maybe [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/yabb/YaBB.pl?board=main;action=display;num=1136789888]this thread[/url] will open your mind. In general, people have a tendency to underestimate what is possible.[/quote]

Yeah, I've seen that topic. I never really cared much for it though. I'm not too much of a "ZOMG TEH NEW RPG IZ OUT" type of person. While I admit I do like to play an occasional RPG game, they aren't my favorite type.

Hate me all you want, argue me all you want, never shut up to me all you want but nothing will keep me from not likeing Final Fantasy. If the games followed a story from one game to the next I might like them, but a new cast of characters per game? Not my idea of fun.

[quote]
Please reread what I said. I don't feel like explaining this again because I tried hard the first time.[/quote]

Ok, I reread what you said. Although I never saw the run, so I don't know if the possible improvements are obvious, but even still, they might not be too obvious to the runner. I could play through a game the way I think is perfect, but someone will be able to pinpoint every spot where it could be improved. Now, if a verifier could do this and the run would be utter crap without improvements, I would re-do the run with the knowledge of where to improve. But if the verifier didn't exactly know where the improvements are but other than that the run seemed decent, then it could get uploaded and other people could see what they think about the run and offer insight as far as improvements go.

And yes, I realize OoT wasn't a very good choice for examples, but that was the first thing that came to my head and the fact that there were still some improvements that could have been made, such as backwalking here when he didn't or something. There were still improvements, but at the time that was made it was, I admit, the best run ever. It still is, but it's becoming increasingly obvious that there are areas of improvement (like all of the dungeon skips that are being done).

getter77

2006-06-20 02:16:13 pm

100% runs=great to watch

Ya know, obviously the time will be MUCH more than TAS levels...what with them allowing for greater luck manipulation on everything,...as well as the fact that the runner isn't using that..erm...rock candy glitch to get ridiculously bloated stats at anything.

Above all once the run is up it'll all be good. What people on the fence can just do is download a LQ version of like...segment 1 or something. If they watch it and become apalled...then they didn't waste much time or HD space and can just ignore the run until perhaps an update beats it one day. Simple. Or they could watch the whole thing and give good tips they might know along with everyone else....ya know....takes a village to raise a kid mentality.

Either way, far as I reckon, the important thing is for the run to get up to where everybody gets a chance to draw their own conclusions...not say one person who thinks it sucks or another that thinks it is equivalent to a religious experience or something.

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2006-06-20 06:19:11 pm

2006-06-20 06:09:47 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

This is spiraling out of control but I can't stop! Tongue

To me, the common theme here seems to be that people are putting words in my mouth instead of going by what I actually said. If you go back and reread my other post and still don't think I'm being more than fair, maybe I didn't write it clearly enough then. I'm afraid that someone just skimming will think this is some kind of flamewar, since really you and me don't disagree on that much.

To restate: Even assuming that this run has obvious improvements, I have no personal problem with this going up anyway. Besides, it doesn't matter what I think since I won't be verifying. If I wanted to impose quality control, I would ask to verify it, but instead I'll leave that up to a certain someone who will.

Quote:

But the verifier is one person. If a whole community of people were to crack a game based on a run then there would be much better improvements. If the verifier just said "Play better" that wouldn't really help much. If a lot of people said crap like "Here is a way to do this faster/skip this stuff/blah blah" then the run would be better than just one verifier telling the runner something.

I don't see how this is any different. Either way, the public is seeing the run eventually and can comment then. But I do want to say that often the verifiers are good people to make suggestions because they are self-selecting and obviously care about the run a lot.

Quote:

I see what you're getting at here, but you just have to consider the fact that there might not be any "known improvements" for the run. If there are theorectical improvements, it could take a larger amount of people than just one verifier to point it out.

I was saying that if there were known improvements, it would be easiest to fix it then, while the runner is already working on it. If there aren't any, then of course that's the best. It's not a witchhunt. What I meant by theoretical is actually that you can't worry about that since if there are any improvements, they're unknown at the time. I'm not suggesting we try to find theoretical (unknown) improvements since it's just hand-waving and not very useful.

Quote:

Good estimation history isn't really all too great. That's because it is just an estimate. You could have been right or wrong, there's no way of knowing which one you will be (unless you can see the future or something >_>). If you are right, woop-dee-doo, luck is on your side. If you are wrong, oh well, no loss on anyone's part.

Not to suggest that I'm clairvoyant or anything, but don't you think it's possible that one person could be better at predicting this sort of thing than another? That there could be trends like underestimating? That there could be some amount of skill to it? Or maybe that you could get better with experience? If so, I've been exposed to more of these fast times than most people I think.

How many times have you run the game? How qualified are you to talk? I don't bash you because I think your guess is too high. Have a little courtesy.

Quote:

But if the verifier didn't exactly know where the improvements are but other than that the run seemed decent, then it could get uploaded and other people could see what they think about the run and offer insight as far as improvements go.

Do I say anything that in any way contradicts this? I get the feeling that you are arguing against what you think I am saying (i.e. the opposite side of yours), rather than what I am actually saying.

Quote:

Yeah, I've seen that topic. I never really cared much for it though. I'm not too much of a "ZOMG TEH NEW RPG IZ OUT" type of person. While I admit I do like to play an occasional RPG game, they aren't my favorite type.

Hate me all you want, argue me all you want, never shut up to me all you want but nothing will keep me from not likeing Final Fantasy. If the games followed a story from one game to the next I might like them, but a new cast of characters per game? Not my idea of fun.

Ohhhhh boy. Seeing as how I've been accused a lot of being a FF hater, I guess I'll just respond by smiling. Smiley

Now this is offtopic, but whatever. But since you brought it up, the majority of games I play are what you would consider action games. I don't even consider myself a big RPG player anymore, although they do make up some of my favorite games. I don't really like the majority of them though, and there are even entire major subgenres that I can't stand. Go to some actual RPG site like RPGamer or even a gamefaqs board and you will see people who only play RPGs and play all these games I have barely even heard of. I try to be helpful, and post where I can contribute something meaningful. RPGs are where I have expertise, because most people honestly aren't very good at them. How am I going to say anything useful in a Metal Slug thread, or a Zelda thread with 100 pages?

I'd fully understand if someone didn't care for RPGs at all, because there are a lot of genre conventions that frankly are problems. But I've met several people now on SDA that like Earthbound but claim they don't like RPGs in general. I don't understand this, because in many ways EB is a rather standard RPG, and there are other games that are at least as "unique" as the areas EB is "unique". But let me jump to conclusions and say: if I only played the occasional Final Fantasy or Mario RPG-ish game or Fire Emblem or whatever, I would probably have the exact same opinion as you.

To drive my point home: how many big name RPGs are coming out? There's a lot, trust me. Look at my sig. How many of them am I looking forward to? Two. The GC game that's coming out, Super Paper Mario or whatever. I am 95% sure I'm going to get that. I was about 5% sure I was going to get it before I found out it was a platformer and not an RPG.

Edit: I'm not a fan of your attitude either. I don't talk like a fanboy, I don't hate anybody in this world or put down other people's opinions, and I try my hardest not to get into arguments. If you're trying to start something, that's too bad.

This is spiraling out of control but I can't stop! :P To me, the common theme here seems to be that people are putting words in my mouth instead of going by what I actually said. If you go back and reread my other post and still don't think I'm being more than fair, maybe I didn't write it clearly enough then. I'm afraid that someone just skimming will think this is some kind of flamewar, since really you and me don't disagree on that much.

To restate: Even assuming that this run has obvious improvements, I have no personal problem with this going up anyway. Besides, it doesn't matter what I think since I won't be verifying. If I wanted to impose quality control, I would ask to verify it, but instead I'll leave that up to a certain someone who will.

[quote]But the verifier is one person. If a whole community of people were to crack a game based on a run then there would be much better improvements. If the verifier just said "Play better" that wouldn't really help much. If a lot of people said crap like "Here is a way to do this faster/skip this stuff/blah blah" then the run would be better than just one verifier telling the runner something.[/quote]
I don't see how this is any different. Either way, the public is seeing the run eventually and can comment then. But I do want to say that often the verifiers are good people to make suggestions because they are self-selecting and obviously care about the run a lot.

[quote]I see what you're getting at here, but you just have to consider the fact that there might not be any "known improvements" for the run. If there are theorectical improvements, it could take a larger amount of people than just one verifier to point it out.[/quote]
I was saying that if there were known improvements, it would be easiest to fix it then, while the runner is already working on it. If there aren't any, then of course that's the best. It's not a witchhunt. What I meant by theoretical is actually that you can't worry about that since if there are any improvements, they're unknown at the time. I'm [i]not[/i] suggesting we try to find theoretical (unknown) improvements since it's just hand-waving and not very useful.

[quote]Good estimation history isn't really all too great. That's because it is just an estimate. You could have been right or wrong, there's no way of knowing which one you will be (unless you can see the future or something >_>). If you are right, woop-dee-doo, luck is on your side. If you are wrong, oh well, no loss on anyone's part.[/quote]
Not to suggest that I'm clairvoyant or anything, but don't you think it's possible that one person could be better at predicting this sort of thing than another? That there could be trends like underestimating? That there could be some amount of skill to it? Or maybe that you could get better with experience? If so, I've been exposed to more of these fast times than most people I think.

How many times have you run the game? How qualified are you to talk? I don't bash you because I think [i]your[/i] guess is too high. Have a little courtesy.

[quote]But if the verifier didn't exactly know where the improvements are but other than that the run seemed decent, then it could get uploaded and other people could see what they think about the run and offer insight as far as improvements go.[/quote]
Do I say anything that in any way contradicts this? I get the feeling that you are arguing against what you think I am saying (i.e. the opposite side of yours), rather than what I am actually saying.

[quote]Yeah, I've seen that topic. I never really cared much for it though. I'm not too much of a "ZOMG TEH NEW RPG IZ OUT" type of person. While I admit I do like to play an occasional RPG game, they aren't my favorite type.

Hate me all you want, argue me all you want, never shut up to me all you want but nothing will keep me from not likeing Final Fantasy. If the games followed a story from one game to the next I might like them, but a new cast of characters per game? Not my idea of fun.[/quote]
Ohhhhh boy. Seeing as how I've been accused a lot of being a FF [i]hater[/i], I guess I'll just respond by smiling. :)

Now this is offtopic, but whatever. But since you brought it up, the majority of games I play are what you would consider action games. I don't even consider myself a big RPG player anymore, although they do make up some of my favorite games. I don't really like the majority of them though, and there are even entire major subgenres that I can't stand. Go to some actual RPG site like RPGamer or even a gamefaqs board and you will see people who only play RPGs and play all these games I have barely even heard of. I try to be helpful, and post where I can contribute something meaningful. RPGs are where I have expertise, because most people honestly aren't very good at them. How am I going to say anything useful in a Metal Slug thread, or a Zelda thread with 100 pages?

I'd fully understand if someone didn't care for RPGs at all, because there are a lot of genre conventions that frankly are problems. But I've met several people now on SDA that like Earthbound but claim they don't like RPGs in general. I don't understand this, because in many ways EB is a rather standard RPG, and there are other games that are at least as "unique" as the areas EB is "unique". But let me jump to conclusions and say: if I only played the occasional Final Fantasy or Mario RPG-ish game or Fire Emblem or whatever, I would probably have the exact same opinion as you.

To drive my point home: how many big name RPGs are coming out? There's a lot, trust me. Look at my sig. How many of them am I looking forward to? Two. The GC game that's coming out, Super Paper Mario or whatever. I am 95% sure I'm going to get that. I was about 5% sure I was going to get it before I found out it was a platformer and not an RPG.

Edit: I'm not a fan of your attitude either. I don't talk like a fanboy, I don't hate anybody in this world or put down other people's opinions, and I try my hardest not to get into arguments. If you're trying to start something, that's too bad.

MissileWaster

Edit history:

MissileWaster: 2006-06-20 08:15:57 pm

2006-06-20 08:09:42 pm

I never said you were a fanboy, Enhasa. I just said that I'm not the type of person who goes out and buys an RPG the day it comes out. I never said you were, I never said anyone was. I just said I'm not the biggest fan of RPGs although some of my favorite games are RPGs. That last thing I said (about FF) was just because those games pretty much populate any list on "Greatest Game" etc. Meh, I watched my cousin play FF7, but the battle system confused the hell outta me. From what I could tell, you would walk for 5 minutes and you were in a boss fight (I didn't watch much, this might have just been the beginning of the game).

I kinda hope that if anyone reads this that they read the whole discussion. It's not a flamewar, more like "intelligent arguement" Tongue

Meh, I can't really remember all too much right now, but lets just agree that I was wrong and a verifier could point out improvements if there are some really shaky parts. That seems to be the one thing I was confused about (like if the verifier didn't notice the things he couldn't point them out, or if he noticed mistake A but not mistake B then other people, after seeing the run could assist in improving on mistake B and unknown improvement C, etc).

If any of that last sentence didn't make sence, I'm just saying let's quit arguing, mostly cause it seemed to just begin with a misunderstanding on my part >_> Alright, now let's huggle and make up!!! Err, or just post and say it's over or something <_< >_>

EDIT: Hmm, I should have read your post more clearly (I didn't read all of the last part, but I did a second ago). I wasn't trying to start anything bad (arguement, flamewar, unless bad spelling and grammer start that kind of thing in which I'm guilty :/). I was merely having intelligent discussion with you. Or intelligent arguement if that suits you better (it seemed to be more of the latter). And in regards to you saying that "[You] aren't a fan of [my] attitude" that could just be a misunderstanding on what I was saying. I was just saying that I saw the topic but didn't care much for it because I don't like RPGs as much as other game genres and, as I should have stated previously, the ones I do like aren't even there (Earthbound, Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario, unless you updated recently).

I never said you were a fanboy, Enhasa. I just said that I'm not the type of person who goes out and buys an RPG the day it comes out. I never said you were, I never said anyone was. I just said I'm not the biggest fan of RPGs although some of my favorite games are RPGs. That last thing I said (about FF) was just because those games pretty much populate any list on "Greatest Game" etc. Meh, I watched my cousin play FF7, but the battle system confused the hell outta me. From what I could tell, you would walk for 5 minutes and you were in a boss fight (I didn't watch much, this might have just been the beginning of the game).

I kinda hope that if anyone reads this that they read the whole discussion. It's not a flamewar, more like "intelligent arguement" :P Meh, I can't really remember all too much right now, but lets just agree that I was wrong and a verifier [i]could[/i] point out improvements if there are some really shaky parts. That seems to be the one thing I was confused about (like if the verifier didn't notice the things he couldn't point them out, or if he noticed mistake A but not mistake B then other people, after seeing the run could assist in improving on mistake B and unknown improvement C, etc).

If any of that last sentence didn't make sence, I'm just saying let's quit arguing, mostly cause it seemed to just begin with a misunderstanding on my part >_> Alright, now let's huggle and make up!!! Err, or just post and say it's over or something <_< >_>

EDIT: Hmm, I should have read your post more clearly (I didn't read all of the last part, but I did a second ago). I wasn't trying to start anything bad (arguement, flamewar, unless bad spelling and grammer start that kind of thing in which I'm guilty :/). I was merely having intelligent discussion with you. Or intelligent arguement if that suits you better (it seemed to be more of the latter). And in regards to you saying that "[You] aren't a fan of [my] attitude" that could just be a misunderstanding on what I was saying. I was just saying that I saw the topic but didn't care much for it because I don't like RPGs as much as other game genres and, as I should have stated previously, the ones I do like aren't even there (Earthbound, Super Mario RPG, Paper Mario, unless you updated recently).

Enhasa

2006-06-20 09:23:15 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Yeah, we're mostly civilized enough on this site not to have silly arguments (and those generally happen in Zelda threads heh). I would have stopped the line-by-line responses earlier, but I didn't want to be misrepresented.

And yes, I agree we were just having a discussion, but the formatting with lots of replying looks like a flamewar when skimming. =/

I don't want to make any wrong assumptions, so the best way for me to handle this is just to ask you which RPGs have you played (not watched) that you didn't like. There's no way to offend me over this, so go nuts. From your list of EB, Mario RPG, Paper Mario, I'm assuming you own mostly Nintendo consoles, and I don't know how much exposure you have outside of those. I hate to say I've seen some other people like you before, but it might be true.

Side note: I think I ought to go through and rate all the RPGs I've played sometime, so that I can just link it in the future. It's pretty funny how many people apologetically admit to me that they don't like FF or don't anymore, and they're... relieved when I agree.

I got this huge feeling of deja vu, so I found some AIM log I had while talking to someone from SDA that can probably explain it clearer than I just did with two paragraphs.

Code:

-----: well to put it simply, I just got bored with rpgs having the same plot, roughly the same battle system year after year
-----: there are exceptions of course
-----: like vp
Kevin: as for rpgs, i don't like ff or dq and don't play them anymore
-----: whee, yay
Kevin: so i am fed up with old school rpgs
-----: yeah I lost all interest in FF when it got up to X

Kevin: i've noticed a lot of people soured on ff and then were like, i don't like rpgs
Kevin: but they like every non-ff rpg they play, and then say, but i do like x and y
-----: I can understand why someone wouldn't like xenogears though
-----: since half the game is text
Kevin: like maybe some mario rpg or earthbound or something

Yeah, we're mostly civilized enough on this site not to have silly arguments (and those generally happen in Zelda threads heh). I would have stopped the line-by-line responses earlier, but I didn't want to be misrepresented.

And yes, I agree we were just having a discussion, but the formatting with lots of replying looks like a flamewar when skimming. =/

I don't want to make any wrong assumptions, so the best way for me to handle this is just to ask you which RPGs have you played (not watched) that you [i]didn't[/i] like. There's no way to offend me over this, so go nuts. From your list of EB, Mario RPG, Paper Mario, I'm assuming you own mostly Nintendo consoles, and I don't know how much exposure you have outside of those. I hate to say I've seen some other people like you before, but it might be true.

Side note: I think I ought to go through and rate all the RPGs I've played sometime, so that I can just link it in the future. It's pretty funny how many people apologetically admit to me that they don't like FF or don't anymore, and they're... relieved when I agree.

I got this huge feeling of deja vu, so I found some AIM log I had while talking to someone from SDA that can probably explain it clearer than I just did with two paragraphs.

[code]-----: well to put it simply, I just got bored with rpgs having the same plot, roughly the same battle system year after year
-----: there are exceptions of course
-----: like vp
Kevin: as for rpgs, i don't like ff or dq and don't play them anymore
-----: whee, yay
Kevin: so i am fed up with old school rpgs
-----: yeah I lost all interest in FF when it got up to X

Kevin: i've noticed a lot of people soured on ff and then were like, i don't like rpgs
Kevin: but they like every non-ff rpg they play, and then say, but i do like x and y
-----: I can understand why someone wouldn't like xenogears though
-----: since half the game is text
Kevin: like maybe some mario rpg or earthbound or something[/code]

Lucid Faia

2006-06-20 09:42:07 pm

Yeah, I said it.

Well, if you want a fun RPG with originality, EarthBound is the game for you. Smiley

Enhasa

Edit history:

Enhasa: 2006-06-20 10:35:33 pm

2006-06-20 09:58:24 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

This is the EB topic you know. You're preaching to the choir. Tongue

Edit: Maybe this was obvious to you, but my point is that some people decide they really don't care for FF, but they like the other RPGs they try, in part just because they are not FF. If you play mostly Nintendo games, this will be mostly EB and Paper Mario.

Edit for below: Well, I was asking MissileWaster but you're free to share, heh. Playing the game a lot is a given. The question is: if he did it again, how much time would the next version save? I'd prefer if the answer was <5 mins. You wouldn't mind if it was more. That's where we disagree, no problem.

Mickey_Mage

2006-06-20 10:17:08 pm

Glitching EB 1 flying man at a time

Never played paper mario or ever had any interest in it. I love the FF games, i play mostly rpgs anyway and im sure alot of other ppl do as well that want to see this run so badly. O well, going back to what you all are talking about, yes he did only speed run it twice, but thats because he played the game itself alot more to get to that point or it wouldnt be possible for him at all to even attempt it.

Evil_Ninja

2006-06-20 11:01:26 pm

A Pink Floyd fan

Woah, a lot has happened since I last posted. I'm sorry that I had caused a lot of controversy about my run. I also apologize that all the controversy had caused an argument (you can blame me if you want). I'm glad it had stopped though. Enhasa, I thank you for your opinion, along with every one elses opinion. i will take them into consideration for my next improved run. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to send my tapes over yet (I haven't even contacted Radix yet Sad

). I have been watching over my run a few times to see what improvements I could have made. I also made some copies of my run for myself and my friends. It's true that I only did 2 speedruns on this game, but I did a lot of planning before hand (I have started ever since I did my first run). Yeah, i know my levels were high, that's mainly because I was worried that my levels would be too low. ( like magicant for example. In my test runs on this, ness was under leveled and it took forever to defeat ness's nightmare. The bigger challenge was getting there. So I wanted to be at a good level before I get there.). Perhaps I could of not leveled up Paula as much, but it was a great help doing so. pooisdaman is correct, I did played this game a lot. ( I only owned like 5 or 6 SNES games ever since I had the SNES. Cry

) Anyway the main reason i posted was to apologize about causing all this controversy which caused the argument to happen. I think ths run would be entertaining to watch, even if you never played the game before. Like I said, thanks for everyone who gave their opinions (even though you all never saw the run yet), it means a lot to me. I hope you all will enjoy my run (if it gets accepted). If you don't like it, I'm working on an improvement for the route, even though I wont run this game any time soon. You know, I'm also a huge RPG fan. But I also love action games like ninja gaiden (that's were I got my name from). I should send my run whenever I contact Radix first.

Woah, a lot has happened since I last posted. I'm sorry that I had caused a lot of controversy about my run. I also apologize that all the controversy had caused an argument (you can blame me if you want). I'm glad it had stopped though. Enhasa, I thank you for your opinion, along with every one elses opinion. i will take them into consideration for my next improved run. Sorry, I haven't had a chance to send my tapes over yet (I haven't even contacted Radix yet  :( ). I have been watching over my run a few times to see what improvements I could have made. I also made some copies of my run for myself and my friends. It's true that I only did 2 speedruns on this game, but I did a lot of planning before hand (I have started ever since I did my first run). Yeah, i know my levels were high, that's mainly because I was worried that my levels would be too low. ( like magicant for example. In my test runs on this, ness was under leveled and it took forever to defeat ness's nightmare. The bigger challenge was getting there. So I wanted to be at a good level before I get there.). Perhaps I could of not leveled up Paula as much, but it was a great help doing so. pooisdaman is correct, I did played this game a lot. ( I only owned like 5 or 6 SNES games ever since I had the SNES.  :'( ) Anyway the main reason i posted was to apologize about causing all this controversy which caused the argument to happen. I think ths run would be entertaining to watch, even if you never played the game before. Like I said, thanks for everyone who gave their opinions (even though you all never saw the run yet), it means a lot to me. I hope you all will enjoy my run (if it gets accepted). If you don't like it, I'm working on an improvement for the route, even though I wont run this game any time soon. You know, I'm also a huge RPG fan. But I also love action games like ninja gaiden (that's were I got my name from). I should send my run whenever I contact Radix first.

Enhasa

2006-06-20 11:15:06 pm

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

Nah, no controversy, don't apologize. Smiley

Discussing run quality in general isn't exactly a new topic anyway, and it'll probably pop up in the future too.

MissileWaster

Edit history:

MissileWaster: 2006-06-21 02:57:00 am

2006-06-21 01:04:15 am

Quote:

I don't want to make any wrong assumptions, so the best way for me to handle this is just to ask you which RPGs have you played (not watched) that you didn't like. There's no way to offend me over this, so go nuts. From your list of EB, Mario RPG, Paper Mario, I'm assuming you own mostly Nintendo consoles, and I don't know how much exposure you have outside of those. I hate to say I've seen some other people like you before, but it might be true.

I said I watched my cousin play, that's cause when I played FF7 I wasn't too good at it 6_9 While the characters are cool, I never got into liking FF because as soon as there is a character you like (Cloud for me) s/he is gone in the next game. I primarily own Nintendo systems, so those RPGs are the main ones I play (I was | | <--this close to getting FF3 on SNES but got Mega Man X3 instead). I have a PS2, but don't own any RPGs on it. Other than FF (that I've played and don't like) there is KotOR, which, while fun just gets kinda boring and repetitive after a while. I did have fun with it, but after beating it once I kinda put it away. It was fun for a bit, then you realize that if you put skin B on character A there is no other difference :/ If there were a wider variety of enemies (not all the exact same) and maybe online (however that would work) I would have liked it more. I also got Quest 64 (used, like 5 dollars :D) but didn't like it too much. The leveling system was too difficult, no other weapons, the only good part I can think of are the graphics. Then there was some arcade game (Gauntlet? I can't remember the name) that wasn't very good unless you started at the beginning of the game, start in the middle and you are screwed. And yes, it is an RPG, just not turn-based.

Evil_Ninja: I was wondering what had happened to you. It's good to know that you are gonna submit the run, too! Here's what you have to do to get this run up (don't read if you don't watch South Park, it won't be funny):
1. Contact Radix
2. Submit
3. Huh?

4. Profit!

EDIT: Whenever I talk to people who are FF fanatics, I always want an edit button so I can change the topic of discussion Tongue

If the topic moves to FF I just walk off or something, I have nothing to say about FF that wont get nerds to try and cause any form of harm to me Tongue

EDITDOS: Enhasa, you are mighty!

[quote]I don't want to make any wrong assumptions, so the best way for me to handle this is just to ask you which RPGs have you played (not watched) that you [i]didn't[/i] like. There's no way to offend me over this, so go nuts. From your list of EB, Mario RPG, Paper Mario, I'm assuming you own mostly Nintendo consoles, and I don't know how much exposure you have outside of those. I hate to say I've seen some other people like you before, but it might be true.[/quote]
I said I watched my cousin play, that's cause when I played FF7 I wasn't too good at it 6_9 While the characters are cool, I never got into liking FF because as soon as there is a character you like (Cloud for me) s/he is gone in the next game. I primarily own Nintendo systems, so those RPGs are the main ones I play (I was | | <--this close to getting FF3 on SNES but got Mega Man X3 instead). I have a PS2, but don't own any RPGs on it. Other than FF (that I've played and don't like) there is KotOR, which, while fun just gets kinda boring and repetitive after a while. I did have fun with it, but after beating it once I kinda put it away. It was fun for a bit, then you realize that if you put skin B on character A there is no other difference :/ If there were a wider variety of enemies (not all the exact same) and maybe online (however that would work) I would have liked it more. I also got Quest 64 (used, like 5 dollars :D) but didn't like it too much. The leveling system was too difficult, no other weapons, the only good part I can think of are the graphics. Then there was some arcade game (Gauntlet? I can't remember the name) that wasn't very good unless you started at the beginning of the game, start in the middle and you are screwed. And yes, it is an RPG, just not turn-based.

Evil_Ninja: I was wondering what had happened to you. It's good to know that you are gonna submit the run, too! Here's what you have to do to get this run up (don't read if you don't watch South Park, it won't be funny):
1. Contact Radix
2. Submit
3. ???
4. Profit!

EDIT: Whenever I talk to people who are FF fanatics, I always want an edit button so I can change the topic of discussion :P If the topic moves to FF I just walk off or something, I have nothing to say about FF that wont get nerds to try and cause any form of harm to me :P

EDITDOS: [url=http://enhasa.youaremighty.com]Enhasa, you are mighty![/url]

deutsch_joe

Edit history:

deutsch_joe: 2006-06-27 12:01:27 am

2006-06-27 12:00:45 am

............... .......

Well, I'm looking forward to this run, regardless if it's a "practice run" in some people's eyes.

Earthbound took me FOREVER to beat when I played it. I've also restarted it a few times since then and I've played it way more than seven hours and have gotten nowhere near the end.

So, I'm definitely looking forward to your run!

By the way, I don't think you can send the tapes off yet. The guy who encodes them, nate, is moving into a new apartment at the start of July. You'll have to give him time to get his equipment setup.

Mickey_Mage

2006-06-27 12:06:37 am

Glitching EB 1 flying man at a time

Well that sucks, so no new videos for awhile :(. o well, hopefully in the next few months we'll have this game up on here :D.

Evil_Ninja

2006-06-27 06:51:59 pm

A Pink Floyd fan

Yeah, I know I have to wait until nate is ready before I send the tapes over. But I'm working on an improvement run, so expect this run to be faster. I watched my 6 hour and 40 minute run a few times and found what my mistakes were. I'm doing my improvement run to fix all of these mistakes the best I can. I forgot were I am at in my improvement run (kind of embarrassing), I'll post later to tell you all my current time and were I'm located. I can tell you though my run is already faster. I probably wont be done till the mid of july or so, if I'm lucky enough this run should be done by early July. I'm going to take my time on this so I don't really know when I'm going to be done. I should finish the game in under 6 hours and 30 minutes (hopefully). Like before I am not going to use the rock candy glitch. I will still keep my 6 hour and 40 minute run in case I screw up or something.

Evil_Ninja

2006-06-28 04:28:16 pm

A Pink Floyd fan

After watching my tapes from my last run over and over again, and made a better route and fixed most of my mistakes in my last run, I have done my new and improved run.

Here are my new times
final save: 5 hours 48 minutes
Final Hit: 6 hours 8 minutes
After conversation with Ness's mom and right before credits: 6 hour 15 minutes
Till the screen says THE END, including credits: 6 hours 29 minutes.

If I had done everything perfect, then this run would be under 6 hours, but I'm satisfied with this run. And of course I'm going to submit this run.

I made some mistakes with the diamond dog and the electro specter, among other things which probably costs me around 10 minutes total. :-/

This run is in 40 segments and I didn't use the rock candy glitch as stated before. Again I timed it so that it will start when I have control of my party till I press record from the telephone for every segment.

I hope this run gets accepted and gets put up soon so you all can see it and give opinions on it. Cheesy

After watching my tapes from my last run over and over again, and made a better route and fixed most of my mistakes in my last run, I have done my new and improved run.

Here are my new times
final save: 5 hours 48 minutes
Final Hit: 6 hours 8 minutes
After conversation with Ness's mom and right before credits: 6 hour 15 minutes
Till the screen says THE END, including credits: 6 hours 29 minutes.

If I had done everything perfect, then this run would be under 6 hours, but I'm satisfied with this run. And of course I'm going to submit this run.

I made some mistakes with the diamond dog and the electro specter, among other things which probably costs me around 10 minutes total.  :-/

This run is in 40 segments and I didn't use the rock candy glitch as stated before. Again I timed it so that it will start when I have control of my party till I press record from the telephone for every segment.

I hope this run gets accepted and gets put up soon so you all can see it and give opinions on it.  :D

connect4

2006-06-29 01:09:09 am

Insert text here later

Wow... it just keeps getting better and better!

Congrats, Ninja Smiley