In-Game Time for Speedruns

2009-05-06 05:41:02 am

<3

Game timing: The game's internal timer will be used unless it is inconsistent, or fails to display the time after completion. For games without timers, check the FAQ for an explanation on how timing is done.

I really dislike this rule because ingame time and real time are very different.

For Example, The DKC2 100% Speedrun has an length of 1:31 and the TAS an length of 1:23.

I tought: wtf the Run of this guy is only 8 Minutes more then the TAS o_o

but then I saw that it was ingame time oriented.

Don't you think that the real time would be more accurate for a Run?

discuss

Thread title:

AjAX

2009-05-06 05:54:50 am

Lots of game timer are inacurate, loads of them.
Calculating from game timer could easily make a 1hour and 03 minutes run to 1hour and 36 minutes.

LLCoolDave

2009-05-06 06:53:59 am

The main decision regarding using an ingame timer or real time is consistency, not accuracy. Lots of timers pause during cutscenes, or loading screens, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable. As long as they do time consistently, are acurate in WHAT they time (for example, only saving minutes and recounting from 0 seconds on loading is an unreliable timer) and display their time in a way that can be used for timing a run they will always be prefered to manually timing in real time. They save a lot of work, there's no dispute over where exactly timing should start/end, they are easily comparable to not published runs or in other contexts where people don't have a stopwatch while playing the game and people outside SDA will most likely refer to the ingame timer for any related discussion for obvious reasons.

Even for runs not using an ingame timer there will likely be a difference between a TAS and a Speedrun, because the way runs are timed on SDA is based around a very different mindset than the way TASes are timed.

The main decision regarding using an ingame timer or real time is consistency, not accuracy. Lots of timers pause during cutscenes, or loading screens, but that doesn't mean they are unreliable. As long as they do time consistently, are acurate in WHAT they time (for example, only saving minutes and recounting from 0 seconds on loading is an unreliable timer) and display their time in a way that can be used for timing a run they will always be prefered to manually timing in real time. They save a lot of work, there's no dispute over where exactly timing should start/end, they are easily comparable to not published runs or in other contexts where people don't have a stopwatch while playing the game and people outside SDA will most likely refer to the ingame timer for any related discussion for obvious reasons.

Even for runs not using an ingame timer there will likely be a difference between a TAS and a Speedrun, because the way runs are timed on SDA is based around a very different mindset than the way TASes are timed.

andrewg

2009-05-06 11:20:31 am

Hi! I'm andrewg!

I think it's a dumb way to track the runs honestly, but what's done has been done and IMO these games that are tracked this way should be grandfathered. I'd like to see the runs be done according to real-time standard so that the seconds are included as well.

NoiseCrash

2009-05-06 02:29:52 pm

@_@

Quote from Yikarur:

Don't you think that the real time would be more accurate for a Run?

It depends on what you mean by accurate, technically speaking. If an in-game timer stops running, it's usually because there's a cutscene going on, a loading screen, or some other event in which the player doesn't have control. If it seems to be randomly off (as in the case that LL mentioned, knocking off seconds on each save) then the timer wouldn't even be used. In that regard, I would believe the in-game timer to be largely MORE accurate because it's timing only when the player actually has control. I don't care how long it takes a cutscene to play out or a loading screen to go away. If you want accuracy in terms of how long the videos last... well, that's what media players are for. They have a display showing how long the video is. As far as gameplay goes, the timer hits it exactly.

Another more simple answer is that consistant in-game timers make it more convenient to compare runs. You can confidently know that every single run of the game will be timed the exact same way, no variance allowed.

The way I see it, the more in-game timer use the better, since my definition of accuracy is more conditional.

[quote="Yikarur"]
Don't you think that the real time would be more accurate for a Run?
[/quote]

It depends on what you mean by accurate, technically speaking. If an in-game timer stops running, it's [i]usually[/i] because there's a cutscene going on, a loading screen, or some other event in which the player doesn't have control. If it seems to be randomly off (as in the case that LL mentioned, knocking off seconds on each save) then the timer wouldn't even be used. In that regard, I would believe the in-game timer to be largely MORE accurate because it's timing only when the player actually has control. I don't care how long it takes a cutscene to play out or a loading screen to go away. If you want accuracy in terms of how long the videos last... well, that's what media players are for. They have a display showing how long the video is. As far as gameplay goes, the timer hits it exactly.

Another more simple answer is that consistant in-game timers make it more convenient to compare runs. You can confidently know that every single run of the game will be timed the exact same way, no variance allowed.

The way I see it, the more in-game timer use the better, since my definition of accuracy is more conditional.

UltimateDarius

2009-05-06 03:12:41 pm

Back in the game!

This is almost entirely situational. I think each should be evaulated on an individual basis. The SSB runs, for example, follow the in-game timer. However, this is inaccurate because it does not calculate or tally the milliseconds, and as a result, the time for say, the Link stage, could be factored as 5 seconds even though it actually clocks in at 5.98 or whatever (It's very close to hitting 6, anyway)

Games such as SSBM or anything else that tracks time in the form of XX:XX.xx or whatever, the in-game timer should be used.

Tompa

2009-05-06 03:13:20 pm

In the DKC games the in game timer is only going when you are on a stage and stops during all fadeout.

A TAS is timing from that you start the game until the last input. The in game time of the DKC2 102% TAS is 1 hour and 7 minutes.

And I agree with Andrew, in game timers should show seconds as well.
Let's say that i make a DKC run with the in game time of 00:28:59, which isn't easy to check on consol as the seconds aren't displayed, it will only show 00:28.
Then someone makes a run that's 28:00 long which will also be shown as 28:00, obviously, but being a minute faster.

For longer games like the FF-series, this wouldn't be too much of a problem. But with some shorter games with in game timers that a lot of people are running, not showing seconds is really not that great.

ktwo

2009-05-06 03:17:59 pm

Whatever is the best, I think it could be stated more clearly on the game page how the time was measured (in-game timer and how, player control or something else).

While I can understand that the in-game timer might simplify pc-games and such, I wonder if it's really that beneficial for many older games. By coincidence, I happen to have an example ;). The run for Cobra Triangle (nes) was measured with the in-game timer. I suppose it was just the sum of the "start time-end time" for all the levels (to be honest I don't know). Since 1 game second = 6/5 real seconds on PAL, you can lose (or win) a couple of seconds if you're unlucky (depending on if the majority of the in-game time completions were "early" or "late"). On some levels you can even pick a safer and slower strategy, but still arrive at the same game second (and at least one level springs to mind where a considerably more difficult strategy is only 1/10 or 2/10 s faster, but allows you to complete it one game second faster). Also, you don't really get something for speeding up for example level transitions (at least not in CT), which I personally think are part of a speedrun. If I'm to end with something good to say about the in-game timer, it's that you can easily compare for example NTSC and PAL.

Whatever is the best, I think it could be stated more clearly on the game page how the time was measured (in-game timer and how, player control or something else).

While I can understand that the in-game timer might simplify pc-games and such, I wonder if it's really that beneficial for many older games. By coincidence, I happen to have an example ;). The run for Cobra Triangle (nes) was measured with the in-game timer. I suppose it was just the sum of the "start time-end time" for all the levels (to be honest I don't know). Since 1 game second = 6/5 real seconds on PAL, you can lose (or win) a couple of seconds if you're unlucky (depending on if the majority of the in-game time completions were "early" or "late"). On some levels you can even pick a safer and slower strategy, but still arrive at the same game second (and at least one level springs to mind where a considerably more difficult strategy is only 1/10 or 2/10 s faster, but allows you to complete it one game second faster). Also, you don't really get something for speeding up for example level transitions (at least not in CT), which I personally think are part of a speedrun. If I'm to end with something good to say about the in-game timer, it's that you can easily compare for example NTSC and PAL.

UCpro

2009-05-06 03:26:02 pm

Quote from Tompa:

And I agree with Andrew, in game timers should show seconds as well.
Let's say that i make a DKC run with the in game time of 00:28:59, which isn't easy to check on consol as the seconds aren't displayed, it will only show 00:28.
Then someone makes a run that's 28:00 long which will also be shown as 28:00, obviously, but being a minute faster.

For longer games like the FF-series, this wouldn't be too much of a problem. But with some shorter games with in game timers that a lot of people are running, not showing seconds is really not that great.

This is exactly the case with my LostWinds run which was just put up. It's a very short game ... I beat it in 22 minutes for my SS run, but the actual time if seconds WERE displayed would have been around a 22:53. However, it is officially timed at 0:22 by SDA and even though someone could beat my time by 50 seconds, it would still officially be the same time. And since it's such a short game, there is little left to improve on and a time of 0:21 is almost unrealistic ... so 0:22 is basically the fastest time anyone will beat this game in a SS (which is the time i got, but my run is FAR from perfect)

i hope they show seconds for LostWinds 2 ... maybe i should write to Frontier and request they put that in Tongue

[quote="Tompa"]
And I agree with Andrew, in game timers should show seconds as well. 
Let's say that i make a DKC run with the in game time of 00:28:59, which isn't easy to check on consol as the seconds aren't displayed, it will only show 00:28.
Then someone makes a run that's 28:00 long which will also be shown as 28:00, obviously, but being a minute faster.

For longer games like the FF-series, this wouldn't be too much of a problem. But with some shorter games with in game timers that a lot of people are running, not showing seconds is really not that great.
[/quote]

This is exactly the case with my LostWinds run which was just put up.  It's a very short game ... I beat it in 22 minutes for my SS run, but the actual time if seconds WERE displayed would have been around a 22:53.  However, it is officially timed at 0:22 by SDA and even though someone could beat my time by 50 seconds, it would still officially be the same time.  And since it's such a short game, there is little left to improve on and a time of 0:21 is almost unrealistic ... so 0:22 is basically the fastest time anyone will beat this game in a SS (which is the time i got, but my run is FAR from perfect)

i hope they show seconds for LostWinds 2 ... maybe i should write to Frontier and request they put that in  :P

ninetigerr

Edit history:

ninetigerr: 2009-05-14 02:44:02 am

2009-05-09 01:44:38 am

Ah, but there's a rule that says a run must beat the old run by at least one minute.

Except for super-short runs like Super Mario Bros 1, or MOO 2.

== EDIT ==

Wow, that's a complete lie.

ExplodingCabbage

2009-05-09 04:30:51 am

Quote from ninetigerr:

Ah, but there's a rule that says a run must beat the old run by at least one minute.

There is? Where is this rule? And what's the reasoning behind it?

Sir VG

2009-05-09 04:58:45 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Actually, the '1 minute' rule applied to runs over 3 hours long, since seconds were dropped from runs of that length.

MatrixTN

2009-05-09 03:38:58 pm

You got a deletion wish?

Quote from Lord_VG:

Actually, the '1 minute' rule applied to runs over 3 hours long, since seconds were dropped from runs of that length.

What Veege said.

your_name_here

2009-05-09 05:54:36 pm

NG+ runs of mass effect provide times to the nearest 2 minutes. When you complete the game, the total time is displayed on your file, including time spent in previous playthroughs So, to get the time for your run, you must subtract the time of the save file that you used to start the run. Since times are displayed to the nearest minute, they all have an error of ±30 seconds. When you subtract two times, that error is compounded to ±1 minute, giving a two minute range of times that your actual runtime could fall into. Would that require manual timing?

I think that in-game timing should be used as often as possible, because it sets a good standard, and can be accurately recorded. When timing runs, there's always a bit of ambiguity as to when the timer should start/end. You could lose/gain 5+ seconds over a run with enough segments, simply because of the tiniest inaccuracies. With the in game timer, there is a consistent measurement for timing runs, often down to the milisecond. TASVideos always uses real time, because they have an exact framecount from first input to last input, and runs are always single segment. We have no such luxury. Also, game time should be used in megaman runs (although a real-time run would be interesting).

NG+ runs of mass effect provide times to the nearest 2 minutes. When you complete the game, the total time is displayed on your file, including time spent in previous playthroughs So, to get the time for your run, you must subtract the time of the save file that you used to start the run. Since times are displayed to the nearest minute, they all have an error of ±30 seconds. When you subtract two times, that error is compounded to ±1 minute, giving a two minute range of times that your actual runtime could fall into. Would that require manual timing?

I think that in-game timing should be used as often as possible, because it sets a good standard, and can be accurately recorded. When timing runs, there's always a bit of ambiguity as to when the timer should start/end. You could lose/gain 5+ seconds over a run with enough segments, simply because of the tiniest inaccuracies. With the in game timer, there is a consistent measurement for timing runs, often down to the milisecond. TASVideos always uses real time, because they have an exact framecount from first input to last input, and runs are always single segment. We have no such luxury. Also, game time should be used in megaman runs (although a real-time run would be interesting).

Enhasa

2009-05-10 01:34:59 am

everybody wanna tell you the meaning of music

LLCD's post, as is often the case, is pretty much perfect. I just want to add something I think is funny, because I know adelikat says "what SDA does has nothing to do with what we do" (which is true of course, it just annoys him since people bring up "well SDA does blah" all the time). Well, I'm not annoyed at all, I think it's funny, but "what TASvideos/TG/whoever does has nothing to do with what we do." Wink

By the way, philosophical issues aside (Metroid runners ought to have as much of an issue with minute-level granularity as anyone, and for better or worse they set the policy for everyone with this), we would never go with real time for everything. Mike would have to go back and retime everything and he would literally explode into many pieces.

Quote from MatrixTN:

Quote from Lord_VG:

Actually, the '1 minute' rule applied to runs over 3 hours long, since seconds were dropped from runs of that length.

What Veege said.

Just to say it in this thread, the rationale for this was that VHS tapes aren't very consistent, so second-level accuracy is pretty much screwed at that length anyway. They're probably screwed under 3 hours too, but hey.

LLCD's post, as is often the case, is pretty much perfect. I just want to add something I think is funny, because I know adelikat says "what SDA does has nothing to do with what we do" (which is true of course, it just annoys him since people bring up "well SDA does blah" all the time). Well, I'm not annoyed at all, I think it's funny, but "what TASvideos/TG/whoever does has nothing to do with what we do." ;)

By the way, philosophical issues aside (Metroid runners ought to have as much of an issue with minute-level granularity as anyone, and for better or worse they set the policy for everyone with this), we would never go with real time for everything. Mike would have to go back and retime everything and he would literally explode into many pieces.

[quote="MatrixTN"]
[quote="Lord_VG"]
Actually, the '1 minute' rule applied to runs over 3 hours long, since seconds were dropped from runs of that length.
[/quote]

What Veege said.
[/quote]
Just to say it in this thread, the rationale for this was that VHS tapes aren't very consistent, so second-level accuracy is pretty much screwed at that length anyway. They're probably screwed under 3 hours too, but hey.

mikwuyma

2009-05-10 12:24:50 pm

My feelings on The Demon Rush

To add on to what LLCoolDave has to say, a lot of speedrunning communities (Hitman, Tomb Raider, Resident Evil) use the in-game timers to judge whose run is better. If we manually timed these runs, we'd probably cause some confusion among those communities. :-/

And yes, I would explode into many pieces if I had to retime everything with an in-game timer, especially PC runs. Angry

UCpro

2009-05-13 02:51:10 am

I just wanted to mention that i've talked to Frontier about adding in a seconds timer for LostWinds 2 ... they said it's not a high priority right now, but i'm going to try to make sure that's something they end up putting in the game Smiley

Sir VG

2009-05-13 04:05:18 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote from UCpro:

I just wanted to mention that i've talked to Frontier about adding in a seconds timer for LostWinds 2 ... they said it's not a high priority right now, but i'm going to try to make sure that's something they end up putting in the game Smiley

Awesome. I just can't wait for that game to come out anyways. I mean, it's been a year since the original...

ktwo

2009-11-25 03:07:22 pm

I just started to watch the segmented Donkey Kong Country 3 run. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far before giving up. Not because I didn't appreciate the effort the player had put into it (I watched the entire single-segment run already). However, the abusive use of segmenting completely ruined the experience for me. For a game with so much player control not accounted for, is it really necessary to use the in-game timer ? I know there are reasons for sticking to in-game timers as much as possible, but when it's so obvious that it was a ruling (as opposed to not liking the game or bad play quality) that put me off from watching the video, I still felt that I had to mention it somewhere.

Again, this is not to offend the runner and I understand that he just played by the given rule set. If it was up to me, for whatever it's worth, I'd change the logic to something like "the in-game timer is used when it is known to accuratly reflect the parts where the player can give input to the game". It still makes sense to make exceptions for games with a big community elsewhere though (for example stick to the in-game timer in Mega Man 9 with its untimed menu navigation).

I just started to watch the segmented Donkey Kong Country 3 run. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far before giving up. Not because I didn't appreciate the effort the player had put into it (I watched the entire single-segment run already). However, the abusive use of segmenting completely ruined the experience for me. For a game with so much player control not accounted for, is it really necessary to use the in-game timer ? I know there are reasons for sticking to in-game timers as much as possible, but when it's so obvious that it was a ruling (as opposed to not liking the game or bad play quality) that put me off from watching the video, I still felt that I had to mention it somewhere.

Again, this is not to offend the runner and I understand that he just played by the given rule set. If it was up to me, for whatever it's worth, I'd change the logic to something like "the in-game timer is used when it is known to accuratly reflect the parts where the player can give input to the game". It still makes sense to make exceptions for games with a big community elsewhere though (for example stick to the in-game timer in Mega Man 9 with its untimed menu navigation).

neskamikaze

2009-11-25 04:05:09 pm

Quote from ktwo:

I just started to watch the segmented Donkey Kong Country 3 run. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far before giving up. Not because I didn't appreciate the effort the player had put into it (I watched the entire single-segment run already). However, the abusive use of segmenting completely ruined the experience for me. For a game with so much player control not accounted for, is it really necessary to use the in-game timer ? I know there are reasons for sticking to in-game timers as much as possible, but when it's so obvious that it was a ruling (as opposed to not liking the game or bad play quality) that put me off from watching the video, I still felt that I had to mention it somewhere.

Again, this is not to offend the runner and I understand that he just played by the given rule set. If it was up to me, for whatever it's worth, I'd change the logic to something like "the in-game timer is used when it is known to accuratly reflect the parts where the player can give input to the game". It still makes sense to make exceptions for games with a big community elsewhere though (for example stick to the in-game timer in Mega Man 9 with its untimed menu navigation).

I don't think that should negate the use of the in-game timer. Yes, it's annoying, and I think it should have been segmented less. However, when I did it I just fast-forwarded to the beginning and clicked next when he finished the level. It can be worked around.

[quote="ktwo"]
I just started to watch the segmented Donkey Kong Country 3 run. Unfortunately, I didn't get very far before giving up. Not because I didn't appreciate the effort the player had put into it (I watched the entire single-segment run already). However, the abusive use of segmenting completely ruined the experience for me. For a game with so much player control not accounted for, is it really necessary to use the in-game timer ? I know there are reasons for sticking to in-game timers as much as possible, but when it's so obvious that it was a ruling (as opposed to not liking the game or bad play quality) that put me off from watching the video, I still felt that I had to mention it somewhere.

Again, this is not to offend the runner and I understand that he just played by the given rule set. If it was up to me, for whatever it's worth, I'd change the logic to something like "the in-game timer is used when it is known to accuratly reflect the parts where the player can give input to the game". It still makes sense to make exceptions for games with a big community elsewhere though (for example stick to the in-game timer in Mega Man 9 with its untimed menu navigation).
[/quote]
I don't think that should negate the use of the in-game timer. Yes, it's annoying, and I think it should have been segmented less. However, when I did it I just fast-forwarded to the beginning and clicked next when he finished the level. It can be worked around.

JaggerG

Edit history:

JaggerG: 2009-11-25 06:09:16 pm

2009-11-25 06:01:51 pm

Jumping Turtle

Thought I should mention this: The Bomberman 64 timer seems accurate enough for me, except that hundredths of a second are displayed in-level, but dropped once the level is exited (beaten or quit). The level-select screen only displays minutes, too, even though the seconds are in fact saved. For such a run, I think the individual level times should be added up because of this. So you do use the in-game timer, but not the final time it gives you. >_>

Also, I believe for a 120 card normal category, the final time saved for a decent speedrun is at most 33.66 seconds off - 24 levels in the game, 10 need to be played through a second time. That's of course assuming every level drops .99 seconds. >_>