Metal Max Returns - August 2, 2016

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2016-08-02 11:08:47 am

2016-07-19 12:26:29 pm

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

Metal Max Returns (ntscj) (snes) [Any %] [Single Segment] [Bad Ending]

Decision: Accept

Congratulations to Marcus 'crazedlink00' Duchow!

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2016-07-19 12:26:29 pm

Run Information

Metal Max Returns (ntscj) (snes) [Any %] [Single Segment]

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/madmaxreturns-v_HQ.mp4

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting.

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.

Omnigamer

Edit history:

Omnigamer: 2016-07-19 05:16:50 pm

2016-07-19 05:16:03 pm

All the things

First off: there's some progressive audio desync in the video. Can be corrected in post, at least.

Content-wise, I have to give this a reject based on the precedent set by a prior Metal Saga submission, which is a game in the same series as Metal Max Returns. While this game has a bit more content on the way to its "ending" than Metal Saga, the actual effort involved in completing this ending is pretty minimal. Playing this way also does not show any credits, making it more of a fancy "game over" than an actual ending.

If the runner is really interested in running this game, I would encourage them to check out some Japanese runs of this game. Runs can still be completed in a reasonable amount of time (IIRC, about 1:30) and are pretty interesting.

ktwo

2016-07-20 06:35:53 am

I'm tempted to agree with you. Reading through your post and the run comments, this run does appear to achieve more of a "Japanese-humor-game-over" than a proper ending. However, this category has already been accepted once. Maybe it was a mistake to accept it the first time, but it's a bit late to go back on that decision now. I therefore think this run should be seen in the light of being an improvement to an already existing run rather than rejecting it based on a poor category choice.

Omnigamer

2016-07-20 06:46:15 am

All the things

If it's going to be accepted, I recommend amending the category to reflect its nature a bit better, ie "Bad End" or something like that.

LotBlind

2016-07-20 09:20:18 am

I don't remember if there were any in the last submission, but this run has a few movement mistakes. When hitting the switch that opens the shortcut back from where you get the tank from, the runner goes one step too far left first. There's another one towards the end of the cave part. The second one especially is really weird for a run this short, because it just seems like the runner wasn't quite sure if they were going up or down.

Actually watching it a second time that's not where the movement mistakes end... Sad

Still it looks like this is 3:50 with the old having been 4:11. so... getting there? I second wanting to see a meatier category for this! I'm thinking this is one of the runner's first games (or even the first) they've speedrun, hence choosing something simple, which is fine by itself, but you really should make sure you can remember where to make turns so you're not covering extra tiles. That could even end up saving a random encounter somewhere.

accept as improvement?

ktwo

Edit history:

ktwo: 2016-07-28 11:29:25 am

2016-07-28 11:28:12 am

I've compared the current run with the new submission. There are some less-than-ideal circumstances with the new run. It starts out several seconds slower, but then the routes diverge halfway through and the new run takes a big lead. I can't make out if any rng-elements also make up for the lost time at the start, but my feeling is that there is still a lot of time to be saved here. Despite that, this is a self-improvement, so I'm leaning towards a weak

accept

(this submission is in the "bad ending" category, despite what it says in the first post)

SDAVerification

2016-08-02 11:08:48 am

Decision posted.