Pokemon Red - January 13th, 2009

DRybes

Edit history:

DRybes: 2009-01-18 03:05:17 pm

2009-01-18 02:58:14 pm

O Zlda?

Quote from t r i - h e x:

So, if DRybes/whoever eventually submits a 1-star run, it creates a new category beside the 16-star, or obsoletes it?

Much like a Pokemon Red run where the runner took the excessively tedious but technically fastest approach of segmenting for tons of critical hits, such a run would almost certainly be segmented, and thus a seperate category.

I don't see a problem with the runner's work here, and the run is an improvement on the old one. Accepting it is the right move. If someone wants to take the time to rerecord until there's tons of criticals, they can do it and submit it to obsolete this run. Arguing to reject this run on the basis of it not implementing such a thing (when no prior runs that use the strategy exist) is sort of overly demanding. Our standards are always going up, but this is kinda getting into the territory of tedium vs practicality, before we've reached the point where we literally need to go for those rare occurances to beat an existing time. I think the TASes have narrowed our view of Pokemon (and segmented runs in general)... "hey, how about you redo surge till thunderbolt misses" is the next step in this argument. Naturally though, a run that improves on THIS run will use critical hit abuse. But you're skipping a step in the chain of improvement that I think needs to be there.

Heh, here I go defending both new Pokemon runs against people who think they should have been rejected. Honestly, this is by far the less plausable case of the two.

N.B. I cannot comment on route or anything else other than the criticals yet, as I have not finished watching, but eugh, why even start the debate with the criticals if there are other more plausible improvements to whine about?

[quote="t r i - h e x"]
So, if DRybes/whoever eventually submits a 1-star run, it creates a new category beside the 16-star, or obsoletes it?
[/quote]
Much like a Pokemon Red run where the runner took the excessively tedious but technically fastest approach of segmenting for tons of critical hits, such a run would almost certainly be segmented, and thus a seperate category.

I don't see a problem with the runner's work here, and the run is an improvement on the old one. Accepting it is the right move. If someone wants to take the time to rerecord until there's tons of criticals, they can do it and submit it to obsolete this run. Arguing to reject this run on the basis of it not implementing such a thing (when no prior runs that use the strategy exist) is sort of overly demanding. Our standards are always going up, but this is kinda getting into the territory of tedium vs practicality, before we've reached the point where we literally need to go for those rare occurances to beat an existing time. I think the TASes have narrowed our view of Pokemon (and segmented runs in general)... "hey, how about you redo surge till thunderbolt misses" is the next step in this argument. Naturally though, a run that improves on THIS run will use critical hit abuse. But you're skipping a step in the chain of improvement that I think needs to be there.

Heh, here I go defending both new Pokemon runs against people who think they should have been rejected. Honestly, this is by far the less plausable case of the two.

N.B. I cannot comment on route or anything else other than the criticals yet, as I have not finished watching, but eugh, why even start the debate with the criticals if there are other more plausible improvements to whine about?