Rules and FAQ revision

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2010-09-23 09:09:54 pm

VorpalEdge: 2010-09-23 09:08:40 pm

VorpalEdge: 2010-09-23 09:05:13 pm

VorpalEdge: 2010-09-23 09:04:23 pm

2010-09-23 09:01:02 pm

welcome to the machine

Just saw this post, sorry I didn't reply to it earlier.

Quote from najzere:

So I didn't notice anything about deathless vs. with deaths runs as different categories. Was this left out on purpose, meaning the distinction no longer matters? (If so, cool.)

Actually, it was left out because it was removed along with the writing about deathwarping, and nobody remembered to add it back in. >_> I honestly wasn't aware that deathwarping and 'with deaths' were separate things (figures I would only find out after it goes public), but I've been reminded that being able to credit-feed would break some arcade games and deaths are important distinctions in some other games (like Blaster Master). 'with deaths' is back in now.

Quote:

I also have a question about saving. The new writeup states there is no penalty for using save points and the time in the menu doesn't count. Does this mean timing stops on accessing the menu and resumes in the next segment when the player gains control? I'm assuming that the menu time still counts in games that count it and the in-game timer is used. I don't think the rules need to include something more specific about this, but I've always wondered, so if anyone knows, I'm interested to hear the answer.

If the in-game timer counts menu time and isn't totally broken or otherwise unusable, we go with the ingame timer, even if it counts or doesn't count some pretty weird things (just look at metroid games). So long as it works at all. That section only applies if the run is manually timed.

Quote from ZenicReverie:

the thread of games too long to run

That thread is hilarious.

ExplodingCabbage: ah ok, I see what you means about rules that aren't quite game-specific. I'm not averse to including a little FAQ section at the end of the page that lists them, but as I mentioned to you elsewhere, I have no hope of being able to recall or find them all. I know you haven't formally offered to compile such a list yourself, but I can't, so... :p

re: mods in general, after further discussion, Mike has decided to allow mods at staff discretion. The staff discretion part is kinda necessary to keep out lame EZ MODO versions of games, obviously.

Manocheese, nice post. To address things you bring up,
-That fourth paragraph about overlapping categories is a good idea, and it's in. If you ask why everything defaults to any%, then work out all the possibilities in your head. low%/any% defaults to any, because if you aren't going out of your way to skip items then why should we imply that you do? Same for any/100%. And if low%/100% are identical, then obviously both terms have no meaning in that particular game, and any% is the obvious choice.
-If you've never heard of dummy items, then you haven't spent a large amount of time around RPG forums. That said, noted and removed.
-The multiple-IL-runner thing isn't noteworthy enough, unless it's in the possible FAQ section at the end.
-Mike said we could stick the timing exemption for controllable endings in the FAQ, so that's out of the main rules too.
-If you dislike the term 'quick-save', what would you replace it with?

Solairflaire: appending something about verifier scrutiny there is actually more confusing than leaving it out, since verifiers haven't been introduced yet. That paragraph functions as a kind of very general, non-specific overview, and then it actually goes on to say exactly what you demand of it a few sentences later. I understand why you're suggesting this wording change, but I think it's more important that the base concepts of SDA are established before adding qualifiers to everything.

Finally, about double-spacing after periods: I'll probably end up removing this, but I'm too lazy to do it now and I want to look some things up first.

Finally, I made a few other really minor phrasing changes that I noticed. I was just given control of the first post, so I posted the updated revision there. I'd like for there to be only one more revision before sending this out to the translators, so keep that in mind.

Just saw this post, sorry I didn't reply to it earlier.

[quote="najzere"]So I didn't notice anything about deathless vs. with deaths runs as different categories. Was this left out on purpose, meaning the distinction no longer matters? (If so, cool.)[/quote]

Actually, it was left out because it was removed along with the writing about deathwarping, and nobody remembered to add it back in. >_>  I honestly wasn't aware that deathwarping and 'with deaths' were separate things (figures I would only find out after it goes public), but I've been reminded that being able to credit-feed would break some arcade games and deaths are important distinctions in some other games (like Blaster Master).  'with deaths' is back in now.

[quote]I also have a question about saving. The new writeup states there is no penalty for using save points and the time in the menu doesn't count. Does this mean timing stops on accessing the menu and resumes in the next segment when the player gains control? I'm assuming that the menu time still counts in games that count it and the in-game timer is used. I don't think the rules need to include something more specific about this, but I've always wondered, so if anyone knows, I'm interested to hear the answer.[/quote]

If the in-game timer counts menu time and isn't totally broken or otherwise unusable, we go with the ingame timer, even if it counts or doesn't count some pretty weird things (just look at metroid games).  So long as it works at all.  That section only applies if the run is manually timed.

[quote="ZenicReverie"][url=http://forum.speeddemosarchive.com/post/games_that_are_too_long_list.html]the thread of games too long to run[/url][/quote]

That thread is hilarious.

ExplodingCabbage: ah ok, I see what you means about rules that aren't quite game-specific.  I'm not averse to including a little FAQ section at the end of the page that lists them, but as I mentioned to you elsewhere, I have no hope of being able to recall or find them all.  I know you haven't formally offered to compile such a list yourself, but I can't, so... :p

[b]re: mods in general,[/b] after further discussion, Mike has decided to allow mods at staff discretion.  The staff discretion part is kinda necessary to keep out lame EZ MODO versions of games, obviously.

Manocheese, nice post.  To address things you bring up,
-That fourth paragraph about overlapping categories is a good idea, and it's in.  If you ask why everything defaults to any%, then work out all the possibilities in your head.  low%/any% defaults to any, because if you aren't going out of your way to skip items then why should we imply that you do?  Same for any/100%.  And if low%/100% are identical, then obviously both terms have no meaning in that particular game, and any% is the obvious choice.
-If you've never heard of dummy items, then you haven't spent a large amount of time around RPG forums.  That said, noted and removed.
-The multiple-IL-runner thing isn't noteworthy enough, unless it's in the possible FAQ section at the end.
-Mike said we could stick the timing exemption for controllable endings in the FAQ, so that's out of the main rules too.
-If you dislike the term 'quick-save', what would you replace it with?

Solairflaire: appending something about verifier scrutiny there is actually more confusing than leaving it out, since verifiers haven't been introduced yet.  That paragraph functions as a kind of very general, non-specific overview, and then it actually goes on to say exactly what you demand of it a few sentences later.  I understand why you're suggesting this wording change, but I think it's more important that the base concepts of SDA are established before adding qualifiers to everything.

Finally, about double-spacing after periods: I'll probably end up removing this, but I'm too lazy to do it now and I want to look some things up first.

Finally, I made a few other really minor phrasing changes that I noticed.  I was just given control of the first post, so I posted the updated revision there.  I'd like for there to be only one more revision before sending this out to the translators, so keep that in mind.

Pootrain

2010-09-23 09:19:52 pm

train kept rollin

hmmm nothing mentioned about RTAs yet?

VorpalEdge

2010-09-23 09:24:47 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from Pootrain:

hmmm nothing mentioned about RTAs yet?

lol. I mentioned to mike less than half an hour ago that I was wondering when people would get around to bringing this up. I've been expecting it for months.

I have no strong feelings on this either way, but given what a major change this would be, it would need its own topic.

ZenicReverie

2010-09-23 10:09:42 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from Pootrain:

hmmm nothing mentioned about RTAs yet?

Do you mean to suggest SDA should start accepting them, or that something should be said about them?

arkarian

2010-09-23 11:03:04 pm

gamelogs.org

Quote from VorpalEdge:

Finally, about double-spacing after periods: I'll probably end up removing this, but I'm too lazy to do it now and I want to look some things up first.

well why would you do it yourself? s/\s\s/ / ftw

Pootrain

2010-09-23 11:35:22 pm

train kept rollin

Quote from ZenicReverie:

Quote from Pootrain:

hmmm nothing mentioned about RTAs yet?

Do you mean to suggest SDA should start accepting them, or that something should be said about them?

That SDA should say one way or the other and a rules update/re-write is as good a time as any.

InsipidMuckyWater

2010-09-24 12:44:38 am

Visit my profile to see my runs!

Quote from VorpalEdge:

re: mods in general, after further discussion, Mike has decided to allow mods at staff discretion. The staff discretion part is kinda necessary to keep out lame EZ MODO versions of games, obviously.

This is probably going to start sounding like my catchphrase, but what about Decay then?

VorpalEdge

2010-09-24 02:08:21 am

welcome to the machine

Quote from InsipidMuckyWater:

This is probably going to start sounding like my catchphrase, but what about Decay then?

PS2 version only.

Mystery

2010-09-24 02:52:02 am

Quote from VorpalEdge:

Solairflaire: appending something about verifier scrutiny there is actually more confusing than leaving it out, since verifiers haven't been introduced yet. That paragraph functions as a kind of very general, non-specific overview, and then it actually goes on to say exactly what you demand of it a few sentences later. I understand why you're suggesting this wording change, but I think it's more important that the base concepts of SDA are established before adding qualifiers to everything.

How about adding "if it passes SDA's high quality standards" or the like? Perhaps add a little sentence in the beginning somewhere that SDA has certain standard that it demands on speedruns?

KlVis

2010-09-24 02:56:19 am

Le Prince Noir

Quote from VorpalEdge:

Finally, about double-spacing after periods: I'll probably end up removing this, but I'm too lazy to do it now and I want to look some things up first.

Ctrl-H: replace " " by " "

typical

2010-09-24 06:06:26 am

^does not care for console's

Says nothing about using PC console commands.

Has no cap on segments.

Does that include in game scripting as well?

ridd3r.

2010-09-24 06:14:23 am

we have lift off

The save penalty is an effective segment cap. Console commands should probably be included, like no enabling of cheats or changing the gameplay mechanics. In-game scripting like weapon changing etc. is fine.

ExplodingCabbage

2010-09-24 07:36:44 am

In-game scripting is all banned with the (peculiar, in my opinion) exception of weapon-change scripts.

typical

2010-09-24 08:26:09 am

^does not care for console's

Quote:

The save penalty is an effective segment cap.

It's not that effective.

Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.

ridd3r.

Edit history:

ridd3r.: 2010-09-24 08:33:31 am

ridd3r.: 2010-09-24 08:32:18 am

2010-09-24 08:30:43 am

we have lift off

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

In-game scripting is all banned with the (peculiar, in my opinion) exception of weapon-change scripts.

No way to police it? Also it's fine to do things like bind several buttons to one action (i.e. mouse wheel up and down). What other kinds of in-game scripts are banned?

Quote from typical:

Quote:

The save penalty is an effective segment cap.

It's not that effective.

Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.

It's very effective. If you're using fewer segments, you basically shouldn't be; runs should be optimised with regards to the 0.5s save penalty and if you're losing more than 0.5s in a segment then you should are perfectly at liberty to add in another segment. Several runners choose to do longer segments but that's their risk if someone decides to optimise the run more. You should be able to do decent length segments (40s or so), barring some very hard tricks, optimised to within half a second. Segmented runs are meant to be as fast as possible.

How could you possibly choose a sensible segment cap when all games vary in difficulty and length? There would just be no way to generalise it. The current save penalty prevents stupid amounts of segments, look how much time Spider-Waffle lost in his HL run from it, it was like 1.5 minutes, even with hard tricks he almost certainly over segmented.

[quote="ExplodingCabbage"]In-game scripting is all banned with the (peculiar, in my opinion) exception of weapon-change scripts.[/quote]

No way to police it? Also it's fine to do things like bind several buttons to one action (i.e. mouse wheel up and down). What other kinds of in-game scripts are banned?

[quote="typical"][quote]The save penalty is an effective segment cap.[/quote]

It's not that effective.

Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.[/quote]

It's very effective. If you're using fewer segments, you basically shouldn't be; runs should be optimised with regards to the 0.5s save penalty and if you're losing more than 0.5s in a segment then you should are perfectly at liberty to add in another segment. Several runners choose to do longer segments but that's their risk if someone decides to optimise the run more. You should be able to do decent length segments (40s or so), barring some very hard tricks, optimised to within half a second. Segmented runs are meant to be as fast as possible.

How could you possibly choose a sensible segment cap when all games vary in difficulty and length? There would just be no way to generalise it. The current save penalty prevents stupid amounts of segments, look how much time Spider-Waffle lost in his HL run from it, it was like 1.5 minutes, even with hard tricks he almost certainly over segmented.

Player 2

Edit history:

Player 2: 2010-09-24 08:47:41 am

Player 2: 2010-09-24 08:45:02 am

2010-09-24 08:36:04 am

Survive

Quote:

Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.

This is up to the verifiers discretion. For instance, the Megaman Battle Network 3 run has 93 segments, yet is only 3:34. Whereas the Tales of Symphonia run is 70 segments, but ~7:48 hours long. In both runs, it made sense to have that many segments for it to be fully or at least mostly optimized. Both seem somewhat extreme, but the verifiers allowed it, because it made sense for the run.

Now if you're talking about for games that the .5 second penalty would apply, well that's what the penalty is there for in the first place.

And I'm basically saying the same things as ridd3r just posted before me but whatever.

edit: also, just about the rules in general, it seems pretty good Vorpaledge. I haven't had the chance to read it in it's entirety yet, but what I've read seems to be legit. I'll pick out anything strange I notice once I have the time to read it all.

edit edit: ah, sorry, typo. I was just trying to point out how you can't really put a cap on segmentation when different games of different lengths have completely different segment counts.

[quote]Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.[/quote]

This is up to the verifiers discretion. For instance, the Megaman Battle Network 3 run has 93 segments, yet is only 3:34. Whereas the Tales of Symphonia run is 70 segments, but ~7:48 hours long. In both runs, it made sense to have that many segments for it to be fully or at least mostly optimized. Both seem somewhat extreme, but the verifiers allowed it, because it made sense for the run.

Now if you're talking about for games that the .5 second penalty would apply, well that's what the penalty is there for in the first place.

And I'm basically saying the same things as ridd3r just posted before me but whatever.

edit: also, just about the rules in general, it seems pretty good Vorpaledge. I haven't had the chance to read it in it's entirety yet, but what I've read seems to be legit. I'll pick out anything strange I notice once I have the time to read it all.

edit edit: ah, sorry, typo. I was just trying to point out how you can't really put a cap on segmentation when different games of different lengths have completely different segment counts.

ridd3r.

2010-09-24 08:44:35 am

we have lift off

Quote from Player 2:

This is up to the verifiers discretion. For instance, the Megaman Battle Network 3 run has 93 segments, yet is only 3:34. Whereas the Tales of Symphonia run is 70 segments, but ~7:48 minutes long. In both runs, it made sense to have that many segments for it to be fully or at least mostly optimized. Both seem somewhat extreme, but the verifiers allowed it, because it made sense for the run.

Umm, those two examples are hours not minutes! I'm not aware of any examples of segmentation higher than in the half life run.

cyghfer

2010-09-24 10:40:56 am

Since sub-1 second improvements was brought up earlier in this thread, I thought I'd bring up an issue I've voiced in the past about in-game timers that only track by the minute. What is separating games that display a completion time specific to the minute (Donkey Kong Country, Super Metroid) from already highly-optimized games like Super Mario Bros. and Contra? If a DKC run is achieved that performs most of the tricks possible for humans but there is still a little room for improvement, say 10 seconds or so, but at the same time the saving of those 10 seconds would not result in the final time displayed being a minute less, then there would be no way possible for someone to obsolete an imperfect run with a better-quality run.

I agree that SDA should not track fractions of seconds, I understand that in-game timers are convenient for the publishing process, and I realize that the situation I describe above is an unlikely one. But the paradigm we currently have in terms of in-game timers prevents the level of competitive possibility for games that use them that, say, Super Mario Bros. has, wherein Andrew's almost perfect run can still be obsoleted by a run that improves his by, even, slightly less than a whole second (since his run is roughly 5:00.6 iirc). If, theoretically (tjp or tompa correct me here), a low 22:xx was the human limit for DKC, and someone achieved a very high 22:xx but nonetheless a 22:xx run, there would be no way for a prospective competitor to obsolete the run by SDA's rules though he may best that high 22:xx by half a minute.

As I (and others in IRC) have said, this would be a rare situation indeed, but it is a parallel situation to the one that applies currently to SMB and timing rules should be as consistent as possible. I think that the best way to handle this (since, I'm sure, throwing out the usage of in-game timing would create numerous unnecessary headaches for the staff) is to create case-by-case exceptions for particular highly-optimized games whose speed possibilities are well-known. For example, if Hotarubi had actually submitted his 31 minute Super Metroid run, then I think allowances should be made to prospective competitors for them to submit 31 minute runs and determine if, by the way the game's timer times runs, the run is indeed faster.

That probably opens up a whole new set of difficulties, however. There might not be a good way to solve the problem, I just don't like the notion of basing runtimes for sub-3 hour games on in-game timers that only track to the minute.

Since sub-1 second improvements was brought up earlier in this thread, I thought I'd bring up an issue I've voiced in the past about in-game timers that only track by the minute. What is separating games that display a completion time specific to the minute (Donkey Kong Country, Super Metroid) from already highly-optimized games like Super Mario Bros. and Contra? If a DKC run is achieved that performs [i]most[/i] of the tricks possible for humans but there is still a little room for improvement, say 10 seconds or so, but at the same time the saving of those 10 seconds would not result in the final time displayed being a minute less, then there would be no way possible for someone to obsolete an imperfect run with a better-quality run.

I agree that SDA should not track fractions of seconds, I understand that in-game timers are convenient for the publishing process, and I realize that the situation I describe above is an unlikely one. But the paradigm we currently have in terms of in-game timers prevents the level of competitive possibility for games that use them that, say, Super Mario Bros. has, wherein Andrew's almost perfect run can still be obsoleted by a run that improves his by, even, slightly less than a whole second (since his run is roughly 5:00.6 iirc). If, theoretically (tjp or tompa correct me here), a low 22:xx was the human limit for DKC, and someone achieved a very high 22:xx but nonetheless a 22:xx run, there would be no way for a prospective competitor to obsolete the run by SDA's rules though he may best that high 22:xx by half a minute.

As I (and others in IRC) have said, this would be a rare situation indeed, but it is a parallel situation to the one that applies currently to SMB and timing rules should be as consistent as possible. I think that the best way to handle this (since, I'm sure, throwing out the usage of in-game timing would create numerous unnecessary headaches for the staff) is to create case-by-case exceptions for particular highly-optimized games whose speed possibilities are well-known. For example, if Hotarubi had actually submitted his 31 minute Super Metroid run, then I think allowances should be made to prospective competitors for them to submit 31 minute runs and determine if, by the way the game's timer times runs, the run is indeed faster.

That probably opens up a whole new set of difficulties, however. There might not be a good way to solve the problem, I just don't like the notion of basing runtimes for sub-3 hour games on in-game timers that only track to the minute.

ExplodingCabbage

2010-09-24 11:11:30 am

Quote from typical:

Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.

That really depends what you mean by spamming them. Segments 5 seconds long? 10 seconds long? 20 or 30 seconds long? For any game there's going to be a point where it just doesn't pay off to put in any extra segmentation, and even the most densely segmented run on the site (Spider-Waffle's HL run), which is widely regarded as over-segmented (I don't know enough to be sure either way), still has an average of just under 10 seconds per segment. By comparison, we have IL runs up of games like Marble Blast Gold or Ganbare Natsuki San where the average length of a level is probably about 5 seconds, so those 10 second segments don't trouble me too much.

Also, as ridd3r said,

Quote from ridder:

How could you possibly choose a sensible segment cap when all games vary in difficulty and length?

I agree completely. Regardless, the issue of reforming the save penalty has been brought up in the past and after pages of debate Mike decided it would not be changed. It seems unlikely this will ever change now.

Quote from "ridd3r:

What other kinds of in-game scripts are banned?

'Binds' are fine but 'scripts' are banned with the exception of weapon change scripts. As far as I know nobody has so far had any confusion about what counts as a bind and what counts as a script. Basically the spirit of the rule is that stuff like turbo scripts, the 180 degree turn scripts in Spider-Waffle's Half Life run, and the script dex used to run a custom Quake map entirely automatically, are all banned, since they're too close to TASing to fit at SDA, even if the scripts used are in-game ones.

Quote from cyghfer:

I just don't like the notion of basing runtimes for sub-3 hour games on in-game timers that only track to the minute.

I agree, and would happily see this rule change too. I'm not sure how easy it would be to deal with the runs that are already up of games with such timers, though, since optimising for the in-game timer and optimising for real time might, depending upon the game, require completely different methods. I'll let people familiar with those games comment further.

[quote="typical"]Something much more sensible is something which limits the amount of segments you use with the amount of time the run took otherwise you could spam them and still probably save time over people who are trying to run with fewer segments.[/quote]

That really depends what you mean by spamming them. Segments 5 seconds long? 10 seconds long? 20 or 30 seconds long? For any game there's going to be a point where it just doesn't pay off to put in any extra segmentation, and even the most densely segmented run on the site (Spider-Waffle's HL run), which is widely regarded as over-segmented (I don't know enough to be sure either way), still has an average of just under 10 seconds per segment. By comparison, we have IL runs up of games like Marble Blast Gold or Ganbare Natsuki San where the average length of a [i]level[/i] is probably about 5 seconds, so those 10 second segments don't trouble me too much.

Also, as ridd3r said,
[quote="ridder"]How could you possibly choose a sensible segment cap when all games vary in difficulty and length?[/quote]

I agree completely. Regardless, the issue of reforming the save penalty has been brought up in the past and after pages of debate Mike decided it would not be changed. It seems unlikely this will ever change now.

[quote="ridd3r]What other kinds of in-game scripts are banned?[/quote]

'Binds' are fine but 'scripts' are banned with the exception of weapon change scripts. As far as I know nobody has so far had any confusion about what counts as a bind and what counts as a script. Basically the spirit of the rule is that stuff like turbo scripts, the 180 degree turn scripts in Spider-Waffle's Half Life run, and the script dex used to run a custom Quake map entirely automatically, are all banned, since they're too close to TASing to fit at SDA, even if the scripts used are in-game ones.

[quote="cyghfer"]I just don't like the notion of basing runtimes for sub-3 hour games on in-game timers that only track to the minute.[/quote]

I agree, and would happily see this rule change too. I'm not sure how easy it would be to deal with the runs that are already up of games with such timers, though, since optimising for the in-game timer and optimising for real time might, depending upon the game, require completely different methods. I'll let people familiar with those games comment further.

Manocheese

2010-09-24 12:16:11 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from VorpalEdge:

If you dislike the term 'quick-save', what would you replace it with?

It doesn't need to be replaced, but it should be defined. If I understand it correctly, the concept of a quick save does not exist in the vast majority of console games, so only PC gamers will be able to understand that part of the rules without further research.

arkarian

2010-09-24 12:50:43 pm

gamelogs.org

yeah all console gamers are total fucktards who don't know anything

ZenicReverie

2010-09-24 01:21:11 pm

Waiting hurts my soul...

Quote from arkarian:

yeah all console gamers are total fucktards who don't know anything

Finally! Somebody came out and said it! Being a console gamer I can joke about this...

"Quick-save refers to the ability to save anywhere with the press of a button without going into a menu."
Something like this if you want to add it to a glossary.

NMS

2010-09-24 03:06:23 pm

Great work VorpalEdge! I just have a couple suggestions:

I feel this draft gives undue emphasis to 100%/any%/low% compared to other categories. Maybe console gamers feel differently. Whether you keep it as a separate heading or not though, I would refer to them as something like "completion percentage categories" rather than "main categories".

You might want to specify that deathless is a harder/better category than with deaths, so deathless can obsolete with deaths but not vice versa.

And there's no save penalty for games where you load in a fixed place, like Diablo 2? Has this always been the case?

Paraxade

2010-09-24 04:07:55 pm

Quote from Manocheese:

Quote from VorpalEdge:

If you dislike the term 'quick-save', what would you replace it with?

It doesn't need to be replaced, but it should be defined. If I understand it correctly, the concept of a quick save does not exist in the vast majority of console games, so only PC gamers will be able to understand that part of the rules without further research.

I understood the term fine, as a console gamer... I don't think there's an issue with quicksaves being referenced. There's probably a few things in there that are exclusive to console gaming too.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2010-09-24 05:17:13 pm

2010-09-24 05:02:39 pm

Quote from NMS:

I feel this draft gives undue emphasis to 100%/any%/low% compared to other categories. Maybe console gamers feel differently. Whether you keep it as a separate heading or not though, I would refer to them as something like "completion percentage categories" rather than "main categories".

Agree. I've always seen segmented vs SS as the 'main' categories; certainly that distinction applies to almost all games whereas the low%/any%/100% distinction applies to games in a few of the series that are very popular and contested at SDA (Contra, Castlevania, Mega Man all come to mind) but only a small handful of others. I think perhaps it would be better to merge the two sections about categories into one?

I also agree with Paraxade and others that 'quicksave' requires no clarification; it's a standard term, and every game that I've ever played which has a quicksave function calls it Quicksave. If we give a definition of a word which already has an accepted meaning that most people are familiar with, at best it seems silly and patronising and at worst we'll confuse people by giving the impression that we're using the word in a non-standard way when we actually aren't.

[quote="NMS"]I feel this draft gives undue emphasis to 100%/any%/low% compared to other categories. Maybe console gamers feel differently. Whether you keep it as a separate heading or not though, I would refer to them as something like "completion percentage categories" rather than "main categories".[/quote]

Agree. I've always seen segmented vs SS as the 'main' categories; certainly that distinction applies to almost all games whereas the low%/any%/100% distinction applies to games in a few of the series that are very popular and contested at SDA (Contra, Castlevania, Mega Man all come to mind) but only a small handful of others. I think perhaps it would be better to merge the two sections about categories into one?

I also agree with Paraxade and others that 'quicksave' requires no clarification; it's a standard term, and every game that I've ever played which has a quicksave function [i]calls[/i] it Quicksave. If we give a definition of a word which already has an accepted meaning that most people are familiar with, at best it seems silly and patronising and at worst we'll confuse people by giving the impression that we're using the word in a non-standard way when we actually aren't.