Ico - December 13, 2013

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2013-12-13 02:13:27 am

2013-11-29 02:16:03 pm

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/Ico.html

Ico (Any %) (Single Segment) (ntscus) (ps3)

Decision: Reject

Reason: The run needs more polish and there are some capture quality issues

https://queue.speeddemosarchive.com/queue/verificationfiles/795/

This run will be available for a month. After that these link(s) will no longer work.

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2013-11-29 02:16:08 pm

Run Information

Ico (Any %) (Single Segment) (ntscus) (ps3)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/icohd/

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by Dec. 13, 2013.

Please post your opinions about the run and be certain to conclude your post with a verdict (Accept/Reject). This is not a contest where the majority wins - I will judge each verification on its content. Please keep your verification brief unless you have a good reason otherwise.

After 2 weeks I will read all of the verifications and move this thread to the main verification board and post my verdict.

bangerra

2013-11-29 09:40:23 pm

Timing: ~1:50:15 SDA timing (not 1:38:25 as mentioned in the comments) - timing ends after the credits when you find Yorda. This is about 50s faster than the SDA SS run (2006)
1:46:52 IGT - (not yet compared to SDA 2006 run)

A/V: -There is some ghosting going on, you can clearly see it when text is displayed, given the blurry nature of the game this is barely an issue though.
-Some frames seem to be skipped in rather frequent intervals (every 15-20 seconds!) and is very obvious, so much so that it distracted me from the run more than it should've.
-Friend messages popped up in numerous occasions (at least 8 times), very annoying imo - not sure if there is an SDA ruling to this.

No cheating detected.

(I gave myself up as a verifier so this will be a little longer than the standard public verification)
Run quality: Given this is the runner's first speedrun I feel kind of bad giving negative comentary, but unfortunately the run leaves a lot to be desired.
If I would have to list every single mistake in the run, which I will not do unless the runner specifically asks for it, I think I would need several pages of paper.
These mistakes range from minor annoyances like bumping into a wall, to Major time losses like falling of the giant cogs of the watermill after Yorda gets turned into stone (this alone
wastes close to 30s).
The consistant flow of mistakes started to make me feel very uneasy with the run the further it went.
I wouldn't be surprised if the mistakes added up to 7-8 minutes of possible improvements - if not more.

To me this run feels like someone watched the segmented speedrun (I believe there is a faster run on youtube than on SDA somewhere) and tried to copy it in a few number of attempts.
If the runner is around, may I ask how much time you spent on getting this run? As in - how long have you been working on this/how many full attempts did you do? I'm sure you can deliver a much better run if you put in more time!

Verdict: The fact that this run made me feel genuinely uneasy while watching it, combined with the A/V issues.. I'm afraid I'll have to reject.
But please UghRochester don't give up on this game, I know you can do better!

Timing: ~1:50:15 SDA timing (not 1:38:25 as mentioned in the comments) - timing ends after the credits when you find Yorda. This is about 50s faster than the SDA SS run (2006)
               1:46:52 IGT - (not yet compared to SDA 2006 run)

A/V: -There is some ghosting going on, you can clearly see it when text is displayed, given the blurry nature of the game this is barely an issue though.
        -Some frames seem to be skipped in rather frequent intervals (every 15-20 seconds!) and is very obvious, so much so that it distracted me from the run more than it should've.
        -Friend messages popped up in numerous occasions (at least 8 times), very annoying imo - not sure if there is an SDA ruling to this.

No cheating detected.

(I gave myself up as a verifier so this will be a little longer than the standard public verification)
Run quality: Given this is the runner's first speedrun I feel kind of bad giving negative comentary, but unfortunately the run leaves a lot to be desired.
                   If I would have to list every single mistake in the run, which I will not do unless the runner specifically asks for it, I think I would need several pages of paper.
                   These mistakes range from minor annoyances like bumping into a wall, to Major time losses like falling of the giant cogs of the watermill after Yorda gets turned into stone (this alone
                   wastes close to 30s).
                   The consistant flow of mistakes started to make me feel very uneasy with the run the further it went. 
                   I wouldn't be surprised if the mistakes added up to 7-8 minutes of possible improvements - if not more.

To me this run feels like someone watched the segmented speedrun (I believe there is a faster run on youtube than on SDA somewhere) and tried to copy it in a few number of attempts.
If the runner is around, may I ask how much time you spent on getting this run? As in - how long have you been working on this/how many full attempts did you do? I'm sure you can deliver a much better run if you put in more time!

Verdict: The fact that this run made me feel genuinely uneasy while watching it, combined with the A/V issues.. I'm afraid I'll have to [b]reject[/b].
             But please UghRochester don't give up on this game, I know you can do better!

Eternalspirit

2013-11-30 06:17:32 am

That is the verdict I'm leaning towards myself (about 40 minutes into the video), but based on the runner's comments, I doubt we'll be seeing another submission of this.

Also, as far as frame skipping, I must not be very sensitive to it because I'm not really noticing anything of the sort at all. Which quality did you download? I'm watching the IQ with MPC.

Eternalspirit

Edit history:

Eternalspirit: 2013-11-30 01:48:12 pm

2013-11-30 01:26:17 pm

Ok, so..

First of all, full disclaimer: I have not played this game, nor have I watched Enhasa's run.

I have to agree with the reject verdict, for two simple reasons:

1) There are so many little mistakes made during the run (accidentally climbing a window, falling down, etc.) that cost 1-2 seconds or around there, and it adds up to a LOT of time lost just from that. Future attempts need to shoot for a lot better polish.

2) Any time that the runner may have saved over Enhasa's run, the runner lost due to making mistakes that Enhasa did not (I'm assuming, I'm just going by what he said in his run comments). Obviously, this run is faster (not sure why), but I feel like there is enough time to be saved here, likely in the realm, or close to, double digit minutes, that it likely isn't worth invalidating Enhasa's run. I wouldn't expect an SS of this game to save that much time, but I feel like a good 4-5 minutes, at least, can be saved just by practicing more and having more solid execution.

On top of that, the PS3 notifications (not as many as bangerra claimed, but there were a few) are just an eyesore. Any way to disable those?

It's unfortunate, because I think this run is likely just falling victim to the "improved standards over time" thing, and if it were submitted, say, 2-3 years ago, it likely would have gone through.

That said, while I noted that the runner's comments suggest that this is probably going to be the only submission we see from this runner, I do feel that the runner has the raw talent/skill to be able to pull off a good speed run of this game.. just needs to work on execution. So, I'm with bangerra.. I do hope that the runner continues to try to improve this run!

Ok, so..

First of all, full disclaimer: I have not played this game, nor have I watched Enhasa's run.

I have to agree with the reject verdict, for two simple reasons:

1) There are so many little mistakes made during the run (accidentally climbing a window, falling down, etc.) that cost 1-2 seconds or around there, and it adds up to a LOT of time lost just from that. Future attempts need to shoot for a lot better polish.

2) Any time that the runner may have saved over Enhasa's run, the runner lost due to making mistakes that Enhasa did not (I'm assuming, I'm just going by what he said in his run comments). Obviously, this run is faster (not sure why), but I feel like there is enough time to be saved here, likely in the realm, or close to, double digit minutes, that it likely isn't worth invalidating Enhasa's run. I wouldn't expect an SS of this game to save that much time, but I feel like a good 4-5 minutes, at least, can be saved just by practicing more and having more solid execution.

On top of that, the PS3 notifications (not as many as bangerra claimed, but there were a few) are just an eyesore. Any way to disable those?

It's unfortunate, because I think this run is likely just falling victim to the "improved standards over time" thing, and if it were submitted, say, 2-3 years ago, it likely would have gone through.

That said, while I noted that the runner's comments suggest that this is probably going to be the only submission we see from this runner, I do feel that the runner has the raw talent/skill to be able to pull off a good speed run of this game.. just needs to work on execution. So, I'm with bangerra.. I do hope that the runner continues to try to improve this run!

rinimt

2013-11-30 05:44:49 pm

Kupo!

Quote from Eternalspirit:

On top of that, the PS3 notifications (not as many as bangerra claimed, but there were a few) are just an eyesore. Any way to disable those?

You can disable PS3 notifications (for both friend list and new trophies) somewhere in the system settings.

LotBlind

Edit history:

LotBlind: 2013-12-08 04:34:23 pm

LotBlind: 2013-12-08 03:14:30 pm

LotBlind: 2013-12-08 11:23:51 am

LotBlind: 2013-12-08 09:01:04 am

2013-12-08 08:32:59 am

FINISHED (unless further discussion arises)

A/V: Didn't actually notice problems. Watching the HQ and it looks good all through.

I count that the new run takes 1:38:24 to defeat the final boss. The old SS takes 1:51:05 to reach the same spot and I guess SDA policies have changed because the old run ends at that point. So we can only compare the part that comes before the credits. The difference in that case would be 12 minutes 41 seconds. However, I'd like to remind ourselves of the fact that this is two different versions of the game! Ico (PS2) and Ico HD (PS3) and there are version differences, mostly in favour of the PS3 version though...

I'd like to ask the runner how much time he estimates he saves over the old SDA SS record from sheer routing/new skips (and how much from other things). Also why do you bring up the menu in various places?

I'm trying to compare this with Enhasa's old run and find out where the differences are born and whether that had more or less mistakes than this. I see Enhasa making similar mistakes here and there. One of the version differences is that in the HD you are allowed to skip almost all cutscenes so that's going to save a lot of time overall.

Here's me trying to figure out how the runs compare: (cs means cutscene skipping)

-----

1:57 by first room transition lose 1 sec to execution (better to jump over the railing?)
1:59 lose 2 secs to worse strategy and execution in this room
3:30 lose maybe 3 secs in this room to worse execution up till this cutscene
3:57 bringing up the menu? won maybe 1 sec here with better execution. wins 10 secs cs
5:11 lost 5 secs execution getting back down from where the lever was
5:16 wins 4 secs here with better strategy (and maybe execution? rng?)
after: wins 8 secs cs
5:50 wins 5 secs to better rng (princess AI)
5:55 wins 5 secs to cs and the princess not walking to the side
6:20 lose 7 seconds to the princess dangling for longer (rng? versions?)
6:40 win 10 secs cs
7:15 lose 1 sec execution
From 7:23 on till the room with the chandelier, the submitter uses a different route that seems to save around a minute of not having to drag the princess around.
12:20 lose maybe 2 secs around here to execution
13:30 I think this gate opening animation is quicker in some places in the HD, win 3 secs.
14:05 lose 2-3 seconds in this room due to execution.
14:25: in this room lose 2 secs to something (execution? better to jump less?).
~16:00: win 25 (!) seconds to better approach to the puzzle + getting it first try unlike Enhasa.
16:14: win 3 secs cs
16:42 win a second or so because pulling the crate seems faster than pushing
17:07 win a second cs
17:52 win 2 secs cs + 3 secs not getting hit (rng?)
18:48 lose 1 sec got stuck
19:10-19:26 lost 1 sec execution
right after win 8 secs cs
19:45 win 2 min 50 secs (!!!) good rng (princess co-operates): the old run would have an extremely hard time justifying this segment if it was submitted now.
20:13 here you can clearly see one of the version differences: the stone block that he initially climbs at the foot of the windmill is not present at all in Enhasa's version. They climb it in a different way. However, any time the submitter would have won is lost because he misses the previous windmill wing anyway
21:00-21:20 win 1 sec execution
after: win 4 sec cs
21:15 win 8 secs because the guy does the shout earlier, during the mini-cutscene, but I think this might be a version difference
22:40 this area looks like submitter went for risky but high-pay strats (I expect it skips the fight entirely if you're quick enough down the hole). Ends up losing maybe 10 secs compared to old run but there might be some version difference in addition (the cutscene triggers in a different spot at least)
24:40 in this area 20 secs lost to bad rng (princess AI)
after: lose 5 secs to what seems like an execution mistake (the other run gets control of the girl faster)
25:47 lose 2 secs to execution
25:54 win 1 sec execution
27:15 ~~lose~~ win around 30 secs to faster fight... is it a version difference when the fight is triggered?
28:06 win 6 sec cs
Somewhere in the next 2 minutes: win 4 secs rng, lose 2 execution
31:25 lose 2 secs execution in this area I think
32:10 win 9 seconds to version difference (there's a gate in the archway in the other version)
33:15 win 12 seconds cs
33:20 lose 10 seconds to taking the fight that the other run skips
34:14 win 12 seconds cs
34:16 the section starting from here and ending at when the cage is lowered saves about a 1 min including a cutscene due largely to better routing, but contains at least one 4-sec execution mistake at 37:20. Otherwise difficult to judge performance due to different approach.
after: I think the 10 secs of fighting at 33:20 is now explained as the old run has to fight for the princess here. overall the submission may have saved 15-20 seconds doing so. also another cutscene saves 4 secs.
38:00 ish: the waterslide section loses about 13 seconds falling off.
39:20 lose 3 secs execution
after: win 4 secs cs
39:35 win 2 secs execution (cuts both ropes with one swing)
after win 4 secs cs
39:48 win 7 secs cs
40:00 win 2 secs around here (princess was closer?)
40:42 win 2 secs - gate opened faster for some reason
40:53 win 1-2 secs cs
41:30 win 30+ secs various cutscenes

----

At this point, the runner has gained 2 full minutes from cutscene skips, maybe another 40 seconds from faster loading times, another 2 min 45 secs from version differences (so far as I could tell) and faster routes/strategies, and 3 min 20 secs to better rng (if we count the 2 min 50 sec unnecessary fight which is initiated when the princess is too slow to react under identical circumstances AFAICS). That's 8 min 45 sec. We're not at the half-way point. On the other hand the run has worse rng in some places so let's cut that down to 8 minutes. If we multiply by 2 in a rough estimate of how much all that stuff weighs in the 12:41 difference we can see that it probably makes up for more than that. Even if we use a more conservative estimate for what version differences account for (and don't count the better rng either) the evidence seems to show that for the largest part, the run loses on execution.

We have to bear in mind it's a different category though. So this should be treated as the first submission in the new category. However, I'm still using the old run as a measuring stick because I can't see obvious gameplay differences in things other than I mentioned.

I think what the new runner has going for himself though is at least the fights seem to go generally (much) better and he gets knocked down less, but again I can't tell what's version differences and what's not. So anyway unless the runner can construct a case for himself and point out places where he genuinely just played better, this has to be a

reject.

Good luck anyway! I think the runner mostly did this for the in-game achievement anyway.

FINISHED (unless further discussion arises)

A/V: Didn't actually notice problems. Watching the HQ and it looks good all through.

I count that the new run takes 1:38:24 to defeat the final boss. The old SS takes 1:51:05 to reach the same spot and I guess SDA policies have changed because the old run ends at that point. So we can only compare the part that comes before the credits. The difference in that case would be 12 minutes 41 seconds. However, I'd like to remind ourselves of the fact that this is two different versions of the game! Ico (PS2) and Ico HD (PS3) and there are version differences, mostly in favour of the PS3 version though...

I'd like to ask the runner how much time he estimates he saves over the old SDA SS record from sheer routing/new skips (and how much from other things). Also why do you bring up the menu in various places?

I'm trying to compare this with Enhasa's old run and find out where the differences are born and whether that had more or less mistakes than this. I see Enhasa making similar mistakes here and there. One of the version differences is that in the HD you are allowed to skip almost all cutscenes so that's going to save a lot of time overall.

Here's me trying to figure out how the runs compare: (cs means cutscene skipping)

-----

1:57 by first room transition lose 1 sec to execution (better to jump over the railing?)
1:59 lose 2 secs to worse strategy and execution in this room
3:30 lose maybe 3 secs in this room to worse execution up till this cutscene
3:57 bringing up the menu? won maybe 1 sec here with better execution. wins 10 secs cs
5:11 lost 5 secs execution getting back down from where the lever was
5:16 wins 4 secs here with better strategy (and maybe execution? rng?)
after: wins 8 secs cs
5:50 wins 5 secs to better rng (princess AI)
5:55 wins 5 secs to cs and the princess not walking to the side
6:20 lose 7 seconds to the princess dangling for longer (rng? versions?)
6:40 win 10 secs cs
7:15 lose 1 sec execution
From 7:23 on till the room with the chandelier, the submitter uses a different route that seems to save around a minute of not having to drag the princess around.
12:20 lose maybe 2 secs around here to execution
13:30 I think this gate opening animation is quicker in some places in the HD, win 3 secs.
14:05 lose 2-3 seconds in this room due to execution.
14:25: in this room lose 2 secs to something (execution? better to jump less?).
~16:00: win 25 (!) seconds to better approach to the puzzle + getting it first try unlike Enhasa.
16:14: win 3 secs cs
16:42 win a second or so because pulling the crate seems faster than pushing
17:07 win a second cs
17:52 win 2 secs cs + 3 secs not getting hit (rng?)
18:48 lose 1 sec got stuck
19:10-19:26 lost 1 sec execution
right after win 8 secs cs
19:45 win 2 min 50 secs (!!!) good rng (princess co-operates): the old run would have an extremely hard time justifying this segment if it was submitted now.
20:13 here you can clearly see one of the version differences: the stone block that he initially climbs at the foot of the windmill is not present at all in Enhasa's version. They climb it in a different way. However, any time the submitter would have won is lost because he misses the previous windmill wing anyway
21:00-21:20 win 1 sec execution
after: win 4 sec cs
21:15 win 8 secs because the guy does the shout earlier, during the mini-cutscene, but I think this might be a version difference
22:40 this area looks like submitter went for risky but high-pay strats (I expect it skips the fight entirely if you're quick enough down the hole). Ends up losing maybe 10 secs compared to old run but there might be some version difference in addition (the cutscene triggers in a different spot at least)
24:40 in this area 20 secs lost to bad rng (princess AI)
after: lose 5 secs to what seems like an execution mistake (the other run gets control of the girl faster)
25:47 lose 2 secs to execution
25:54 win 1 sec execution
27:15 [s]lose[/s] [b]win[/b] around 30 secs to faster fight... is it a version difference when the fight is triggered?
28:06 win 6 sec cs
Somewhere in the next 2 minutes: win 4 secs rng, lose 2 execution
31:25 lose 2 secs execution in this area I think
32:10 win 9 seconds to version difference (there's a gate in the archway in the other version)
33:15 win 12 seconds cs
33:20 lose 10 seconds to taking the fight that the other run skips
34:14 win 12 seconds cs
34:16 the section starting from here and ending at when the cage is lowered saves about a 1 min including a cutscene due largely to better routing, but contains at least one 4-sec execution mistake at 37:20. Otherwise difficult to judge performance due to different approach.
after: I think the 10 secs of fighting at 33:20 is now explained as the old run has to fight for the princess here. overall the submission may have saved 15-20 seconds doing so. also another cutscene saves 4 secs.
38:00 ish: the waterslide section loses about 13 seconds falling off.
39:20 lose 3 secs execution
after: win 4 secs cs
39:35 win 2 secs execution (cuts both ropes with one swing)
after win 4 secs cs
39:48 win 7 secs cs
40:00 win 2 secs around here (princess was closer?)
40:42 win 2 secs - gate opened faster for some reason
40:53 win 1-2 secs cs
41:30 win 30+ secs various cutscenes

----

At this point, the runner has gained 2 full minutes from cutscene skips, maybe another 40 seconds from faster loading times, another 2 min 45 secs from version differences (so far as I could tell) and faster routes/strategies, and 3 min 20 secs to better rng (if we count the 2 min 50 sec unnecessary fight which is initiated when the princess is too slow to react under identical circumstances AFAICS). That's 8 min 45 sec. We're not at the half-way point. On the other hand the run has worse rng in some places so let's cut that down to 8 minutes. If we multiply by 2 in a rough estimate of how much all that stuff weighs in the 12:41 difference we can see that it probably makes up for more than that. Even if we use a more conservative estimate for what version differences account for (and don't count the better rng either) the evidence seems to show that for the largest part, the run loses on execution.

We have to bear in mind it's a different category though. So this should be treated as the first submission in the new category. However, I'm still using the old run as a measuring stick because I can't see obvious gameplay differences in things other than I mentioned.

I think what the new runner has going for himself though is at least the fights seem to go generally (much) better and he gets knocked down less, but again I can't tell what's version differences and what's not. So anyway unless the runner can construct a case for himself and point out places where he genuinely just played better, this has to be a

[b]reject.[/b]

Good luck anyway! I think the runner mostly did this for the in-game achievement anyway.

SDAVerification

2013-12-13 02:13:30 am

Decision posted.

LotBlind

2013-12-13 10:41:28 am

Just to be clear it looks like only Bangerra was getting the A/V glitches so in case there's a new attempt it might be alright. Probably worth checking in the quality test thread though.

bangerra

2013-12-13 02:18:36 pm

The ghosting is not only me, check out white text: there is a clear ghosting line to the right of the letters. It's just not very obvious because the game is so blurry by itself.

LotBlind

2013-12-14 09:51:47 am

A/V problems is given as part of the rejection reason which I don't think is fair. Whether there's some artifact or not, it's obviously not a major issue.

I noticed the ghosting now when you told me what to look for.

presjpolk

2013-12-14 12:04:32 pm

HELLO!

Of course it's fair. The runner should have posted quality tests before getting the run, sad to say.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-14 12:31:49 pm

Quote from presjpolk:

Of course it's fair. The runner should have posted quality tests before getting the run, sad to say.

I honestly did not notice any A/V problems.. at all.

presjpolk

2013-12-14 01:03:03 pm

HELLO!

In the Wizards and Warriors 2 run I didn't think it was *that* bad either. But it also got rejected on video quality.

So my point is it's not *unfair*. It's the standard.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-14 01:11:09 pm

Quote from presjpolk:

In the Wizards and Warriors 2 run I didn't think it was *that* bad either. But it also got rejected on video quality.

So my point is it's not *unfair*. It's the standard.

Is this in response to me? Because I did not notice any A/V problems, period. Not that they "weren't bad". I just don't think they actually exist.

presjpolk

2013-12-14 01:29:25 pm

HELLO!

Clearly others did.

But I'm responding to the point by LotBlind that there's unfairness against the runner here. Disagreeing with the existence of the AV problems is one thing. Suggesting there's some sort of unfairness against the runner is another thing altogether.

UraniumAnchor

2013-12-14 07:17:45 pm

Not a walrus

If I had rejected the run for AV reasons I would have a) watched it first and b) listed that as the reason first. I rejected primarily because people were complaining about the level of execution.

Decisions like this aren't final (they never are), but I would need a fair amount of convincing to change my mind.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-15 08:27:32 am

Quote from presjpolk:

Clearly others did.

But I'm responding to the point by LotBlind that there's unfairness against the runner here. Disagreeing with the existence of the AV problems is one thing. Suggesting there's some sort of unfairness against the runner is another thing altogether.

Yeah, I don't think there's any unfairness at all. If anyone noticed that there were a/v problems, certainly that should factor into the decision. However, I definitely agree that based on execution the run should have been rejected.

LotBlind

2013-12-15 10:04:21 am

presjpolk, no offence but why do you need to come in when you weren't doing the verification? Now I'M sad to say that you've caused a completely stupid argument in this thread by taking what you thought someone was saying and interpreting it wrong. You didn't even bother reading the verification comments did you? Or you read just enough to think you know what's happening.

I didn't say that I or anyone else was disagreeing with the decision, this is clear from what we wrote in our verifications. I didn't even say there's "unfairness against the runner". I only said I didn't (and Eternalspirit also didn't) think A/V problems should really be part of the reason for rejection. Of course we know what you meant by what you wrote under "Reason" for the verdict UA, but when I saw it I just wanted it to be clear for the runner too that THAT was hardly important at all.

Now please don't respond to this unless you actually know what you're talking about.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-15 02:42:49 pm

Quote from LotBlind:

presjpolk, no offence but why do you need to come in when you weren't doing the verification? Now I'M sad to say that you've caused a completely stupid argument in this thread by taking what you thought someone was saying and interpreting it wrong. You didn't even bother reading the verification comments did you? Or you read just enough to think you know what's happening.

I didn't say that I or anyone else was disagreeing with the decision, this is clear from what we wrote in our verifications. I didn't even say there's "unfairness against the runner". I only said I didn't (and Eternalspirit also didn't) think A/V problems should really be part of the reason for rejection. Of course we know what you meant by what you wrote under "Reason" for the verdict UA, but when I saw it I just wanted it to be clear for the runner too that THAT was hardly important at all.

Now please don't respond to this unless you actually know what you're talking about.

I think I see what you're saying now. presjpolk, if you look at the verdict, it notes that quality issues were a part of the rejection. 2/3 verifiers didn't think the A/V had any major problems at all, so to state the A/V as a reason for the rejection is.. I guess inaccurate.

I don't think it's a huge issue though, certainly not one worth fighting about. If the runner seriously wants to make another attempt, he will likely read all the comments here (I hope), post a quality test to be sure that it's up to snuff and do it again.

[quote="LotBlind"]presjpolk, no offence but why do you need to come in when you weren't doing the verification? Now I'M sad to say that you've caused a completely stupid argument in this thread by taking what you thought someone was saying and interpreting it wrong. You didn't even bother reading the verification comments did you? Or you read just enough to think you know what's happening.

I didn't say that I or anyone else was disagreeing with the decision, this is clear from what we wrote in our verifications. I didn't even say there's "unfairness against the runner". I only said I didn't (and Eternalspirit also didn't) think A/V problems should really be part of the reason for rejection. Of course we know what you meant by what you wrote under "Reason" for the verdict UA, but when I saw it I just wanted it to be clear for the runner too that THAT was hardly important at all.

Now please don't respond to this unless you actually know what you're talking about.[/quote]

I think I see what you're saying now. presjpolk, if you look at the verdict, it notes that quality issues were a part of the rejection. 2/3 verifiers didn't think the A/V had any major problems at all, so to state the A/V as a reason for the rejection is.. I guess inaccurate.

I don't think it's a huge issue though, certainly not one worth fighting about. If the runner seriously wants to make another attempt, he will likely read all the comments here (I hope), post a quality test to be sure that it's up to snuff and do it again.

UghRochester

Edit history:

UghRochester: 2013-12-26 04:52:08 am

UghRochester: 2013-12-26 04:50:31 am

2013-12-26 04:46:07 am

I'm simple

As for practicing for this, clearly I made many mistakes and the run is could definitely be improved. I have a Roxio Game Capture HD Pro and was hoping it was just me seeing the frame rate drop. Not sure why it did that. I did do a quality test before posting it, but it was just a small clip where I was told to change the audio from mono to speaker. Source

Above all, thanks for the advice. Sorry it took me such a long time to respond. I'm much more knowledgeable of the game now. If I do, do another run, it'll most likely be an 100% All Trophy run. The all trophy run takes about 3:45:00 though (which I would have to show the notifications for it to prove I got the trophy). Again, I'm not sad or angry about this being rejected, because this run is pretty sloppy. I just wanted to post something on here, because I've been a lurker for a while.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-26 08:56:58 am

Hey Rochester, good to see you. It's great that this rejection isn't going to negatively affect your determination to continue speed running this game! Good luck! Smiley

LotBlind

Edit history:

LotBlind: 2013-12-26 10:52:51 am

2013-12-26 10:51:43 am

Yeah, maybe it could have been accepted had there not been a nice quite well executed run already up. If you eventually get comparable execution to the old one, it's an easy accept for the any%.

Have fun with speed running! You now have one submission more than me though I've been around for a little while already.

UghRochester

Edit history:

UghRochester: 2013-12-26 11:46:22 am

2013-12-26 11:44:07 am

I'm simple

The controls are quite weird and it's a little difficult for me to see walls and other textures. I've also found out how to rapid jump which I remember Enhasa saying nobody knows how to do that (you just put slight pressure on your analog stick until ICO is walking. Rapidly press the jump and he'll perform a series of rapids jumps) . Of course, that was years ago and I'm sure somebody discovered that as well. Although I haven't played the PS2 version, the PS3 version and PS2 version are different with a slew of mechanisms added to make it easier, as well as the speed. Also, you'll noticed right away the text is translated as well, but not if that had any effect on the speed. I will continue to practice in hopes I can make a solid run without any minor mistakes. As for the 100 % run, that's a different story.

The reason why it would take me about 03:45:00 to complete the 100 % All trophy run would be the fact you have to complete the game two times. One of the runs you would have to waste time going to all save points and having to fight the shadowy figures. Also collecting a secret weapon on both runs. I wouldn't declare the 100% run final until the platinum trophy appears and you would have to wait until after the long credits for that.

The controls are quite weird and it's a little difficult for me to see walls and other textures. I've also found out how to rapid jump which I remember Enhasa saying nobody knows how to do that (you just put slight pressure on your analog stick until ICO is walking. Rapidly press the jump and he'll perform a series of rapids jumps) . Of course, that was years ago and I'm sure somebody discovered that as well. Although I haven't played the PS2 version, the PS3 version and PS2 version are different with a slew of mechanisms added to make it easier, as well as the speed. Also, you'll noticed right away the text is translated as well, but not if that had any effect on the speed. I will continue to practice in hopes I can make a solid run without any minor mistakes. As for the 100 % run, that's a different story.

The reason why it would take me about 03:45:00 to complete the 100 % All trophy run would be the fact you have to complete the game two times. One of the runs you would have to waste time going to all save points and having to fight the shadowy figures. Also collecting a secret weapon on both runs. I wouldn't declare the 100% run final until the platinum trophy appears and you would have to wait until after the long credits for that.

Eternalspirit

2013-12-26 11:52:10 am

Before you try the 100%, I would suggest you ask the community for guidelines about how to go about that. Reason being that at least one verifier was bothered by the PS3 notifications you got in the submitted run. Perhaps something along the lines of playing the game with a friendless account or something..