Pocket Monster II - October 5, 2014

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2014-10-05 05:18:37 pm

2014-09-22 12:24:35 pm

Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Pocket Monster II (Any %) (Single Segment) (Easy)

Decision: Accept

Congratulations to Dylan 'CavemanDCJ' Jock!

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2014-09-22 12:24:40 pm

Run Information

Pocket Monster II (Any %) (Single Segment) (Easy)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/pocketmonster/

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by Oct. 6, 2014.

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.

Soliduz Znake

Edit history:

Soliduz Znake: 2014-09-23 06:35:15 am

Soliduz Znake: 2014-09-23 06:34:29 am

Soliduz Znake: 2014-09-23 06:34:23 am

2014-09-23 06:33:53 am

does this game really exist?! 0_o anyways I watched the run and I must say the music really catchy. the only minor slowdown I found was in 1:36 when Pikachu's head bumped on the ceiling. apparently shiny Oddish-es are very common in this game. Koffing and Pikachu are having a freestyle dance it seems Tongue

not perfect nearly there. Accept.

HoboWithaShotgun

2014-09-23 04:55:20 pm

Wake up and be awesome

WTF is this game?

The face that Pikachu makes whenever's he's hit is priceless
And that final boss fight was amazing. Pikachu just wouldn't stop humping. Dear god that guy has got determination

Anyway, the run itself is good, and very few mistakes
Accept

TheMG2

Edit history:

TheMG2: 2014-09-23 05:21:10 pm

2014-09-23 05:19:56 pm

I saw this run before before and I now that I've read the comments... those were short hops?!? I thought it was some weird attack.

I don't really see any major mistakes in it, and no technical issues or signs of cheating.

Accept

Soliduz Znake

2014-09-23 05:25:26 pm

a boss Koffing appeared
Pikachu used Short Hops.....it hit 42 times
it's super effective!
Koffing fainted

Kewne

2014-09-24 01:11:09 am

First of all, I have no previous experience with this game. That being said, I think this run looks really good and couldn't see any major mistakes. Route seems optimized with lots of damageboosting. Accept from me.

AlecK47

2014-09-24 10:14:58 pm

A/V surprisingly good for what this game is (No audio skips when sound effects are triggered? What is this madness?)

So this may end up the first Chinese pirate game on SDA... hooray? The run is well executed, and if there is a better route I would not be the one to find it. Horrible programming is abused, normal programming is taken advantage of, etc. Accept

PS: Please at least play a real Genesis game, dude, the console is worth more than this Tongue

Worn_Traveler

2014-09-30 11:28:32 pm

Formerly known as Skullboy

I played the rom of this for about two minutes years ago. I swear some of those sound effects are from High Seas Havoc (a decent Genesis game, unlike this one).

A/V is fine. No cheating is detected.

Run looked pretty good. Nothing to complain about. Accept.

As Aleck47 said, please play a real Genesis game, or at least a good Chinese pirate. While the system may have a number of bad games, the quality of the good and great ones make up for it.

SDAVerification

2014-10-05 05:20:04 pm

Decision posted.

CavemanDCJ

2015-08-15 02:11:47 am

Totally Radical Awesome Game

I was wondering why this run was never published up on the front page.
Turns out it was "Cancelled due to being a pirate cart" according my to queue page.
Why is this rule not stated anywhere on the site?
Why was the verification accepted?
Was anyone going to tell me this?

moooh

2015-08-15 04:38:33 am

Exoray

hmm, I can see that the admin who cancelled your run put the cancellation comment as an information comment rather than a critical comment. That was an error since critical comments immediately go out as a PM to the runner and was what should have been used.
We have always only accepted runs that were officially released so I'm just as surprised as you that I can no longer find this statement in the rules. The only thing I can think of is that it must have been lost in the last rules rewrite.

CavemanDCJ

Edit history:

CavemanDCJ: 2015-08-15 03:53:42 pm

2015-08-15 03:46:32 pm

Totally Radical Awesome Game

Oh you mean like the Battle Kid run that's on the site?
Or maybe you mean Bible Adventures?
I'm just trying to figure out the definition of "official" here.

moooh

2015-08-17 11:02:05 am

Exoray

I guess officially released could sound slightly off since we accept freeware PC games nowadays.

When it comes to freeware PC games, by officially released we mean that the game should have a complete published version (in a non-beta version) and that it should be publicly available (distributed through at least one persistent web site). Games like IWBTG and Mega Man Unlimited would fall under this category for instance as well as most flash games. This excludes things like "I made this game that you win in 3 seconds and then gave to two friends, now here's a run of it".

Basically what kind of games we currently don't accept:
* alpha/beta versions or early access of a game
* shareware and demos (i.e. partial full games)
* romhacks and illegal bootlegs
* games that people can't obtain and thus not be able to challenge a record

Battle Kid? Well it's an original game published and sold by RetroZone.
Bible Adventures? Looks like a regular NES game cept for the fact that it was mainly sold in bookstores. Apparently sold 350 000 copies too so I'd say it's obtainable.

I guess officially released could sound slightly off since we accept freeware PC games nowadays.

When it comes to freeware PC games, by officially released we mean that the game should have a complete published version (in a non-beta version) and that it should be publicly available (distributed through at least one persistent web site). Games like IWBTG and Mega Man Unlimited would fall under this category for instance as well as most flash games. This excludes things like "I made this game that you win in 3 seconds and then gave to two friends, now here's a run of it".

Basically what kind of games we currently don't accept:
* alpha/beta versions or early access of a game
* shareware and demos (i.e. partial full games)
* romhacks and illegal bootlegs
* games that people can't obtain and thus not be able to challenge a record

Battle Kid? Well it's an original game published and sold by RetroZone.
Bible Adventures? Looks like a regular NES game cept for the fact that it was mainly sold in bookstores. Apparently sold 350 000 copies too so I'd say it's obtainable.

presjpolk

Edit history:

presjpolk: 2015-08-17 12:15:04 pm

2015-08-17 12:14:54 pm

HELLO!

Of course the only reason Bible Adventures wasn't 'illegal' was that Nintendo lost the court case over the copy protect chip.

VorpalEdge

2015-08-17 12:57:24 pm

welcome to the machine

Gonna preface this by saying that, despite the green name, I am no longer affiliated with SDA and have been gone for a while.

I'm posting primarily because of one particular comment:

Quote:

We have always only accepted runs that were officially released so I'm just as surprised as you that I can no longer find this statement in the rules. The only thing I can think of is that it must have been lost in the last rules rewrite.

Lost isn't the right word. It was intentionally deleted. I don't recall the exact text of the previous wording, nor do I recall what discussions we admins had or didn't have over it. However, it didn't make sense to me to accept fangames like (your example) MMU but not romhacks or bootlegs. The only difference there is the medium of distribution, and I thought this was consensus when I wrote the current iteration of the rules.

imo this run should be posted. It's not like pocket monster ii is gonna get hotpatched tomorrow.

Emptyeye

Edit history:

Emptyeye: 2015-08-30 10:02:48 am

Emptyeye: 2015-08-30 10:02:37 am

2015-08-30 07:48:46 am

Talk to the Hand

I'm late here, but I have to agree with VorpalEdge. Like he said, the rule about "only 'officially' released games" (My memory actually has it as "Only officially PUBLISHED games") went out years and years ago after Cave Story proved that indies could be good games too (I actually remember, potentially incorrectly, exactly that being the reason for getting rid of the rule in the first place. Basically, staff at the time felt bad that the rules as written excluded Cave Story from ever going on the site just because it had no official publisher, which was BS).

Put another way, if this game were a PC game of some kind (Flash or otherwise), you'd have no problem putting it on the site. The fact that the system it came out on, by whatever means, is the ONLY thing keeping it from publication is, well, dumb.

EDITED for some clarification, the substance of the post is the same.

ShadowDraft

2015-08-30 09:59:45 am

Get over here!

So I guess this was some sorta miscommunication?
As that rule doesn't exist anymore there shouldn't be a problem with posting the run. Right?

Onin

2015-08-30 11:51:17 am

Honestly this sounds like a situation that shouldn't be bound by rules but just decided on a case by case basis. And this case is pretty solidly in the acceptance corner.

Worn_Traveler

2015-08-30 05:48:02 pm

Formerly known as Skullboy

I think the big difference between Cave Story, IWBTG, and this game here is that this game was sold and not freeware or shareware. I was a bit hesitant to verify the run due to the pirate nature of the game but I felt it was ok since it made it to verification.

moooh

2015-08-31 12:49:37 am

Exoray

Emptyeye: publishing in some form is still a requirement for the games so that they are obtainable. I explained this part in my previous post. (There's nothing preveting you from publishing your own game).

It's pretty much what Worn_Traveler said, the difference lies in that this game was illegaly sold for profit using a stolen IP.
We're not sure that we should host any content from these kind of games as we don't want the site to get into trouble. However we are currently overseeing this and the legal implications it may bring. Stay tuned.

Emptyeye

2015-08-31 12:26:21 pm

Talk to the Hand

So it seems that there are a combination of factors that led to this decision. If I had to clarify your position, it would be that it was rejected for the totality of "was illegaly sold for profit using a stolen IP".

Because it's not just that the developers used "a stolen IP". Otherwise, goodbye Super Mario 63.

I can't find any 100% accurate examples of "game illegally sold for profit", though I note that anything that comes out for the NES nowadays is unlicensed, a la Battle Kid. Bible Adventures is another unlicensed game, this one released during the NES's lifespan.

As for "publishing", I'd argue that releasing the game counts as publishing it. Caveman clearly obtained a copy of the game despite it not being "published" according to your definition.

I would also argue that a stolen IP is a stolen IP, although I acknowledge that most of the time companies aren't going to bother going after that if you're not also selling it for profit.

Regardless, I know I'm being an ass, but it's because I still disagree with the decision not to publish this run, especially in light of the other games I and others brought up. Just so I'm clear, if Super Mario 63 weren't free (And all other things about it remained the same, like its release by that well-known and respected video game company "some guy"), it would be rejected for the same reason this game was, correct?

So it seems that there are a combination of factors that led to this decision. If I had to clarify your position, it would be that it was rejected for [b]the totality of[/b] "was illegaly sold for profit using a stolen IP".

Because it's not [b]just[/b] that the developers used "a stolen IP". Otherwise, goodbye [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/SuperMario63.html]Super Mario 63[/url].

I can't find any 100% accurate examples of "game illegally sold for profit", though I note that anything that comes out for the NES nowadays is unlicensed, a la [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/BattleKidFoP.html]Battle Kid[/url]. [url=http://speeddemosarchive.com/BibleAdventures.html]Bible Adventures[/url] is another unlicensed game, this one released during the NES's lifespan.

As for "publishing", I'd argue that releasing the game counts as publishing it. Caveman clearly obtained a copy of the game despite it not being "published" according to your definition.

I would also argue that a stolen IP is a stolen IP, although I acknowledge that most of the time companies aren't going to bother going after that if you're not also selling it for profit.

Regardless, I know I'm being an ass, but it's because I still disagree with the decision not to publish this run, especially in light of the other games I and others brought up. Just so I'm clear, if Super Mario 63 weren't free (And all other things about it remained the same, like its release by that well-known and respected video game company "some guy"), it would be rejected for the same reason this game was, correct?

CavemanDCJ

2015-09-15 04:07:31 am

Totally Radical Awesome Game

Quote:

We're not sure that we should host any content from these kind of games as we don't want the site to get into trouble. However we are currently overseeing this and the legal implications it may bring. Stay tuned.

any update on that?

RazorDoesGames

2015-09-15 04:17:49 am

Pretty obscure game lol Congratulations none the less Smiley

moooh

2015-09-16 12:09:09 pm

Exoray

Quote from Emptyeye:

Regardless, I know I'm being an ass, but it's because I still disagree with the decision not to publish this run, especially in light of the other games I and others brought up. Just so I'm clear, if Super Mario 63 weren't free (And all other things about it remained the same, like its release by that well-known and respected video game company "some guy"), it would be rejected for the same reason this game was, correct?

Yeah this is pretty much correct.

I don't like clumping fan games and pirated games together, as the former is all about creativity and passion while the latter is all about taking advantage of someone. Personally, I would always be more open to offer leeway to the former. Also, chances that a company would bother to pursue legal actions are a lot less when it comes to free games.

Quote from CavemanDCJ:

Quote:

We're not sure that we should host any content from these kind of games as we don't want the site to get into trouble. However we are currently overseeing this and the legal implications it may bring. Stay tuned.

any update on that?

We have decided that we can host runs for these kind of games from now on with the stipulation that we'll take the videos down "if the game ever gets in legal hot water" as Radix put it.
You will be contacted by someone from staff (if you haven't already) in regards to the final encodes that would be required to resume this submission.

[quote="Emptyeye"]
Regardless, I know I'm being an ass, but it's because I still disagree with the decision not to publish this run, especially in light of the other games I and others brought up. Just so I'm clear, if Super Mario 63 weren't free (And all other things about it remained the same, like its release by that well-known and respected video game company "some guy"), it would be rejected for the same reason this game was, correct?[/quote]
Yeah this is pretty much correct.

I don't like clumping fan games and pirated games together, as the former is all about creativity and passion while the latter is all about taking advantage of someone. Personally, I would always be more open to offer leeway to the former. Also, chances that a company would bother to pursue legal actions are a lot less when it comes to free games.

[quote="CavemanDCJ"][quote]We're not sure that we should host any content from these kind of games as we don't want the site to get into trouble. However we are currently overseeing this and the legal implications it may bring. Stay tuned.[/quote]

any update on that?[/quote]
We have decided that we can host runs for these kind of games from now on with the stipulation that we'll take the videos down "if the game ever gets in legal hot water" as Radix put it.
You will be contacted by someone from staff (if you haven't already) in regards to the final encodes that would be required to resume this submission.