Speedrunner Roundtable July 10 at 9 PM EDT [locked]

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-07 09:13:46 pm

2013-07-07 09:13:19 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Cool Matty:

Is there any way to meaningfully quantify that? I really don't think there is. It's not like they can give a percentage or something.

Of course they can't give a number, a percentage, or an abacus value. What they could give is what people might call a "mission statement." How much does this factor into things -- not as a value, but as a guiding principle.

Rakuen

2013-07-07 09:14:08 pm

Weegee Time

Quote from Cool Matty:

It's because there's no way you can convince everyone to agree to something where some people won't get what they want.

The goal (or my goal) isn't to convince everyone, it's to convince more people. The former is completely unrealistic, but I think the latter is attainable to at least a small extent. Smiley

Quote:

It wasn't necessarily towards you, just in general. And it's funny. To me at least.

Fair enough, Matty.

Question: Have we tried suggesting alternative games when someone's suggestion gets shot down? Like game X isn't a good idea for reason Y, but game Z is similar and you could try learning that instead.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 09:15:21 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Rakuen:

Question: Have we tried suggesting alternative games when someone's suggestion gets shot down? Like game X isn't a good idea for reason Y, but game Z is similar and you could try learning that instead.

I seem to recall some runners have had alternatives suggested (sorry, can't remember examples -- maybe it was other games they've run?). One problem is that it's often hard to learn a game between when the game thread goes up and when the marathon happens.

Cool Matty

2013-07-07 09:18:43 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote from Poxnor:

Quote from Cool Matty:

Is there any way to meaningfully quantify that? I really don't think there is. It's not like they can give a percentage or something.

Of course they can't give a number, a percentage, or an abacus value. What they could give is what people might call a "mission statement." How much does this factor into things -- not as a value, but as a guiding principle.

If that's the case, I feel like they answered this a looong, long time ago. Tongue

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-07 09:22:37 pm

2013-07-07 09:22:25 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from Cool Matty:

If that's the case, I feel like they answered this a looong, long time ago. Tongue

But I think a lot of people feel that they haven't Sad

Maybe this is why some sort of "mission statement," and/or some sort of more open selection process would make all of these heated problems vanish in a heartbeat. If people know what the goals *and* the selection process were, then I think everyone could be informed going in.

I think we want the same thing. I just think we're at different stages in seeing the outcome Smiley

Darkwing Duck

2013-07-07 09:30:07 pm

Highly Evolved

First things first, Cool Matty. Thank you for the reply. I appreciate the time put into it. I think we'll be in a better understanding afterward.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Well good. Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process. You'll understand me better.

Is this some stupid "ends justify the means" crap? Knock it off.

It's not since there was no intent. It was honest

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion. You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns. Did you ask to run a game? As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific). I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.

Yes, there is a difference. The difference is that one is going there for the right reasons, and one is going there for the wrong reasons.

I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

B. I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should. I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same!

This is actually news to me, since I've volunteered and wanted to do the stations. I didn't people worked them who didn't want to.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ. Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing. (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.) Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners. Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees. But you can still have it.

There's no "to be fair" about it. Whether there would be a marathon or not is irrelevant. Everyone is equally valued at a marathon. This is the most important factor of this argument. If you forget/ignore everything else discussed, this needs to be understood. What you are saying, whether you intend to or not, is runners are more valuable.

Here's what I think, to be clear. I think that just because we need runners at the marathon to host one doesn't make them more valuable than anyone else. I even include people who are there for little more than motivational support. You're trying to make a distinction here that does NOT need to be made.

Do you know why we're all equal? It's because we're all there for the same reason. We're all there to help an event earn donations for a charity that we believe in. Because we're there trying to better the world through our interests, regardless of whether we're all good at it or not.

This is simply not true. Your stance is that only the runners that bring in the most money should put the effort into doing what it says on the tin, speedrunning games for charity. Runners are NOT treated the same when it comes to who can and can't play. We can't have it both ways. Can't say "you can't do what they do (speedrun games for charity), but they can do what you do (certian parts of the tech)" and claim equality. Everyone runs a game that wants to is what I consider equal.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living? I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.

For the first marathon? No, not really. I assisted UA a bit and did some of the donation station work, but I never did anything close to that for a living (unless clicking a mouse suddenly counts). It wasn't until AGDQ2013 that I even took an active role at the marathon.

Most of my work happens outside of the actual marathons. This past year I was in charge of doing audio work, but I don't do audio work as a profession or even close. I had to do a lot of reading and experimenting to learn how to effectively do that job. I don't even consider it fun, really. But it's a job that's important and I was in a position to help.

Quote:

If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?

I would hope anyone would say yes to this. It doesn't have to be fun work to be "good" work. The two are not related. I take pleasure in helping, full stop.

Quote:

If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.

I find it amusing that this question reveals you made an assumption about what my first answer would be, and you were wrong Wink

Well, no matter if I was right or wrong, the truthfulness of that made my lead-up pretty worthless.

The point was that you have a talent in the field that many who would assist in that area don't, so that might guide you into gravitating to that part of the marathon. Others don't have that, and their talents lie in the games that they run and not in the tech.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon? No help in tech. No help with stream problems. Hell, let's change that. Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker. Is that still ok for you? Has that happened? If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.

Considering that's basically what I did at AGDQ2012 and I came home very happy, yes I'm okay?

I'll concede, though I am confused in you saying that there are people who don't want to work parts of the tech station yet you weren't allowed to help in that regard. I think we'll both need to clarify here.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play. I've been lucky in that regard. However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this. What I can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there. This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons. Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.

I'm fully aware what the target of your analogy was. But that's a thin veil behind what I see as a hell of a lot of ugly bias.

I see the bias as those who get multiples games over those that offer and get none.

Quote from Cool Matty:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

EDIT: And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon. I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.

Here's a good question:

Why?

Why does SGDQ have to be such a big dramatic change from AGDQ? Call me crazy, but it's almost like there's this hidden AGDQ vs. SGDQ thing going on that makes no sense to me. It's like the real problem is you all are concerned AGDQ is "the man" and SGDQ is going to turn into "the man" and DUDE, DOWN WITH THE MAN. SGDQ is going to be a more open and fun atmosphere because that's just how it is from the people who attend and run it. But it's a charity marathon! It's a charity marathon. If you're there to just hang out and have fun, and whoops we made a few bucks for a charity too, that's not the same thing. It loses its value. SGDQ is already getting way too big to be just another CGDQ in a basement having fun and playing games.

There is a middle ground, and there will always be attempts to spread the love for runs. I can't imagine ANYONE on staff doing anything otherwise. But there's also never going to be agreement on where that middle ground is. Someone is always going to feel burned. If folks can't step back and realize that "hey, this sucks, but it's still an event I care about", then that's really sad.

That is a good question. It's not a versus thing. SGDQ was started to give those that didn't have a chance at AGDQ a chance. Geography and game choice were two prime reasons. SGDQ gave those (disclosure: I'm one of, if not the primary beneficiary) an opportunity for a charity marathon, which is to play games for charity. I'm emphasizing playing games for charity. I feel SGDQ is losing that original intent, to give those with little chance to speedrun a game for charity to speedrun a game for charity.

First things first, Cool Matty.  Thank you for the reply.  I appreciate the time put into it.  I think we'll be in a better understanding afterward.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]

Well good.  Now you know how I've felt about this part of the process.  You'll understand me better.[/quote]

Is this some stupid "ends justify the means" crap? Knock it off.[/quote]

It's not since there was no intent.  It was honest

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
A. The welcoming nature of the community at marathons is well known, yet not analogous to the discussion.  You were not, to continue the basketball analogy, a basketball player, as you mention you had zero speedruns.  Did you ask to run a game?  As I mentioned, there's a difference between those who want to go to a marathon to play, and those who don't (non-qualitative, if you want me to be more specific).  I suppose I should have changed hang out, as I copied what Mike wrote, to something different.[/quote]

Yes, there is a difference. The difference is that one is going there for the right reasons, and one is going there for the wrong reasons.[/quote]

I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
B.  I'm off the mindset that, within reason (which is seemingly much broader in my mind then others), everyone who wants to play a game to assist the marathon should, and everyone, within reason, who wants to work the stations should.  I'm not sure how egoism plays into that.[/quote]

Very few people /want/ to work the stations. But they do. Because it has to be done. This may be all fun and games to you, but it's not to me, and forgive me for being presumptuous if I thought everyone else felt the same![/quote]

This is actually news to me, since I've volunteered and wanted to do the stations.  I didn't people worked them who didn't want to.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
C. To be fair, include organizers and runners and take everyone else out, you get JRDQ.  Take out runners and add everyone else and you get nothing.  (I consider you an organizer if you're curious.)  Can't have a game/marathon without players/runners.  Can't have a GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD game/marathon without GOOD/GREAT/OUTSTANDING/BETTER THAN ANYTHING IN THE WORLD coaches/tech guys/emcees.  But you can still have it.[/quote]

There's no "to be fair" about it. Whether there would be a marathon or not is irrelevant. Everyone is equally valued at a marathon. [b]This is the most important factor of this argument[/b]. If you forget/ignore everything else discussed, this needs to be understood. What you are saying, whether you intend to or not, is runners are more valuable.

Here's what I think, to be clear. I think that just because we need runners at the marathon to host one doesn't make them more valuable than anyone else. I even include people who are there for little more than motivational support. You're trying to make a distinction here that does NOT need to be made.

Do you know why we're all equal? It's because we're all there for the same reason. We're all there to help an event earn donations for a charity that we believe in. Because we're there trying to better the world through our interests, regardless of whether we're all good at it or not. [/quote]

This is simply not true.  Your stance is that only the runners that bring in the most money should put the effort into doing what it says on the tin, speedrunning games for charity.  Runners are NOT treated the same when it comes to who can and can't play.  We can't have it both ways.  Can't say "you can't do what they do (speedrun games for charity), but they can do what you do (certian parts of the tech)" and claim equality.  Everyone runs a game that wants to is what I consider equal.
[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Let me ask you some questions, Cool Matty.

Do you do what you contributed to AGDQ for a living?  I'm talking about audio, tech support, software, anything of the like.[/quote]

For the first marathon? No, not really. I assisted UA a bit and did some of the donation station work, but I never did anything close to that for a living (unless clicking a mouse suddenly counts). It wasn't until AGDQ2013 that I even took an active role at the marathon.

Most of my work happens outside of the actual marathons. This past year I was in charge of doing audio work, but I don't do audio work as a profession or even close. I had to do a lot of reading and experimenting to learn how to effectively do that job. I don't even consider it fun, really. But it's a job that's important and I was in a position to help.

[quote]
If, so, do you take pleasure in doing good work?
[/quote]

I would hope anyone would say yes to this. It doesn't have to be fun work to be "good" work. The two are not related. I take pleasure in helping, full stop.

[quote]
If so, I'm assuming you like to use your talents to assist the speedrunning community since you've obviously done so, and thus your talents have assisted in bettering AGDQ.
[/quote]

I find it amusing that this question reveals you made an assumption about what my first answer would be, and you were wrong ;)[/quote]

Well, no matter if I was right or wrong, the truthfulness of that made my lead-up pretty worthless.

The point was that you have a talent in the field that many who would assist in that area don't, so that might guide you into gravitating to that part of the marathon.  Others don't have that, and their talents lie in the games that they run and not in the tech.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
Now, what if you were told there were enough people handling that part of the marathon and that you should just read donation comments to help the marathon?  No help in tech.  No help with stream problems.  Hell, let's change that.  Maybe in some other life you feel uncomfortable talking on Stream as a representative of SDA and by proxy Prevent Cancer, so you don't want to read comments so all you're allowed to do is update the tracker.  Is that still ok for you?  Has that happened?  If not, you've not been in the same boat as the many that have wanted to do what they do best in regards to a charity speedrun marathon, which is run a game.  [/quote]

Considering that's basically what I did at AGDQ2012 and I came home very happy, yes I'm okay?[/quote]

I'll concede, though I am confused in you saying that there are people who don't want to work parts of the tech station yet you weren't allowed to help in that regard.  I think we'll both need to clarify here.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]And since I've been asked to step back 500 steps, I'll say that I have NEVER been in the position of not being able to attend a marathon with no game to play.  I've been lucky in that regard.  However, many have not and chosen not to come to a marathon for similar reasons Poxnor posted as I've been typing this.  What [i]I[/i] can do personally at a marathon that doesn't include running a game can be done better by the vast majority of EVERYONE else there, and yet if I'm not allowed a game to run, then that's all I can do there.  This is true of A LOT of people at charity speedrun marathons.  Your intention of going to a marathon, as you've stated, was something other than run a game, and as such, the analogy didn't even apply to you.[/quote]

I'm fully aware what the target of your analogy was. But that's a thin veil behind what I see as a hell of a lot of ugly bias.[/quote]

I see the bias as those who get multiples games over those that offer and get none.

[quote="Cool Matty"][quote="Darkwing Duck"]
EDIT:  And Poxnor did a good job of commenting on the goal of the marathon.  I've commented that AGDQ should be more designed for the money aspect and SGDQ for the community aspect.  [/quote]

Here's a good question:

Why?

Why does SGDQ have to be such a big dramatic change from AGDQ? Call me crazy, but it's almost like there's this hidden AGDQ vs. SGDQ thing going on that makes no sense to me. It's like the real problem is you all are concerned AGDQ is "the man" and SGDQ is going to turn into "the man" and DUDE, DOWN WITH THE MAN. SGDQ is going to be a more open and fun atmosphere because that's just how it is from the people who attend and run it. But it's a charity marathon! It's a [b]charity marathon[/b]. If you're there to just hang out and have fun, and whoops we made a few bucks for a charity too, that's not the same thing. It loses its value. SGDQ is already getting way too big to be just another CGDQ in a basement having fun and playing games.

There is a middle ground, and there will always be attempts to spread the love for runs. I can't imagine ANYONE on staff doing anything otherwise. But there's also never going to be agreement on where that middle ground is. Someone is always going to feel burned. If folks can't step back and realize that "hey, this sucks, but it's still an event I care about", then that's really sad.
[/quote]

That is a good question.  It's not a versus thing.  SGDQ was started to give those that didn't have a chance at AGDQ a chance.  Geography and game choice were two prime reasons.  SGDQ gave those (disclosure: I'm one of, if not the primary beneficiary) an opportunity for a charity marathon, which is to play games for charity.  I'm emphasizing playing games for charity.  I feel SGDQ is losing that original intent, to give those with little chance to speedrun a game for charity to speedrun a game for charity.

PJ

2013-07-07 09:34:21 pm

Is PJ

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Everyone runs a game that wants to is what I consider equal.

There's 717 in the #speedrunslive IRC right now. Run a marathon in which each of them gets a game. Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

Romi

2013-07-07 09:35:12 pm

Quote from PJ:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Everyone runs a game that wants to is what I consider equal.

There's 717 in the #speedrunslive IRC right now. Run a marathon in which each of them gets a game. Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

Amen.

Darkwing Duck

2013-07-07 09:38:21 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from PJ:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

Everyone runs a game that wants to is what I consider equal.

There's 717 in the #speedrunslive IRC right now. Run a marathon in which each of them gets a game. Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

I agree that it's not possible, but for SGDQ, I feel that should be a goal, or the mindset. The alternate extreme is take runner and game into full account. I obviously don't lean toward that preference. I would aim for as far the other way as possible.

Poxnor

Edit history:

Poxnor: 2013-07-07 09:38:51 pm

2013-07-07 09:38:31 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

Quote from PJ:

Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

No, but give multiple games to one runner and claim there's "no room" for another runner -- then the equality complaint is entirely valid and not absurd in the slightest. I'm not claiming DW is the most eloquent person I've ever met, but please don't dismiss his concerns through hyperbole Smiley

PJ

Edit history:

PJ: 2013-07-07 09:39:20 pm

2013-07-07 09:38:58 pm

Is PJ

Quote from Poxnor:

Quote from PJ:

Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

No, but give multiple games to one runner and claim there's "no room" for another runner -- then the equality complaint is entirely valid and not absurd in the slightest. I'm not claiming DW is the most eloquent person I've ever met, but please don't dismiss his concerns through hyperbole Smiley

This isn't hyperbole at all. If they all suggest one game, how do YOU pick?

Poxnor

2013-07-07 09:40:00 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

There aren't 717 suggestions in the games thread, so it is hyperbole. If/when we hit the point where there are 717 game suggestions, then there needs to be a far better system in place than there is now Tongue

PJ

2013-07-07 09:42:40 pm

Is PJ

I feel like this entire thread is just a nonstop semantics discussion. I don't know why I even bothered posting. :/

Essentia

2013-07-07 09:43:20 pm

Everything's better with Magitek

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.

I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).

Rakuen

Edit history:

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 09:50:46 pm

Rakuen: 2013-07-07 09:45:46 pm

2013-07-07 09:44:14 pm

Weegee Time

Quote from PJ:

Quote from Poxnor:

Quote from PJ:

Deny one of them and it's not equal. Your entire complaint is not even remotely viable and the fact that you keep debating this is absurd.

No, but give multiple games to one runner and claim there's "no room" for another runner -- then the equality complaint is entirely valid and not absurd in the slightest. I'm not claiming DW is the most eloquent person I've ever met, but please don't dismiss his concerns through hyperbole Smiley

This isn't hyperbole at all. If they all suggest one game, how do YOU pick?

Basic method: Roll against 717 until the schedule is filled.
Better method: Add weight for shorter games to accommodate more people.
Betterer method: Add weight for people who haven't played in a previous event to accommodate new people.

Note that I don't think this is a good idea but it's how I'd implement a random system myself.

Darkwing Duck

2013-07-07 09:46:13 pm

Highly Evolved

Quote from PJ:

This isn't hyperbole at all. If they all suggest one game, how do YOU pick?

By first off, being fully up front and declaring, we have this much time, these many runners, and these many games. For SGDQ, look at who hasn't played at AGDQ (unless the initial reason for SGDQ has changed) and make a list. Filter the list on unplayable marathon games, and see where the list is at. If too much time, have to announce that some games aren't going to make it, especially if hooks (money games do have to be at SGDQ, never said otherwise) aren't in the list.

Just because the ideal isn't attainable (or at least what ideal I'm talking about) doesn't mean it shouldn't be strived for.

Cool Matty

Edit history:

Cool Matty: 2013-07-07 11:07:20 pm

2013-07-07 10:20:49 pm

Crawlathon WR, get down on my level.

Quote:

I see the bias as those who get multiples games over those that offer and get none.

If you just turn SGDQ into a solely "for those not good enough for AGDQ", isn't that a pretty crappy mission statement? SGDQ needs at least popular requests to bring in viewers and donations. It doesn't have to be as much as AGDQ (and it's REALLY not already!), but ffs. Imagine if SGDQ turned into a marathon where you could find runs like Skyrim 100% completion and such? If you keep letting the standard for entertainment sink without something to support it, you'll lose a LOT of viewers, and then people will stop showing up to the marathon. Not much draw for a marathon where there's no one watching, right? After all, might as well run on your own time!

Quote:

That is a good question. It's not a versus thing. SGDQ was started to give those that didn't have a chance at AGDQ a chance. Geography and game choice were two prime reasons. SGDQ gave those (disclosure: I'm one of, if not the primary beneficiary) an opportunity for a charity marathon, which is to play games for charity. I'm emphasizing playing games for charity. I feel SGDQ is losing that original intent, to give those with little chance to speedrun a game for charity to speedrun a game for charity.

So then where's the marathon for those who didn't get a chance at SGDQ?

And the marathon for those? And for those?

There's going to be a line, DW. You clearly don't like that line, but it's there. There's going to be repeats, and popular games, because if there's not, no one is going to watch it. Even the VERY FIRST SGDQ had this, so you can't claim that's solely the mission of SGDQ. What the organizers can do, is try their best to mix the two, so that we have both a successful event, AND one that gives people a second chance. Unless you've got some REAL SERIOUS claims as to why this isn't happening /right now/, I don't see where your argument still stands.

Edit: Cut half the post out because I already said my piece earlier and he's clearly not going to give two craps.

[quote]
I see the bias as those who get multiples games over those that offer and get none.[/quote]

If you just turn SGDQ into a solely "for those not good enough for AGDQ", isn't that a pretty crappy mission statement? SGDQ needs at least popular requests to bring in viewers and donations. It doesn't have to be as much as AGDQ (and it's REALLY not already!), but ffs. Imagine if SGDQ turned into a marathon where you could find runs like Skyrim 100% completion and such? If you keep letting the standard for entertainment sink without something to support it, you'll lose a LOT of viewers, and then people will stop showing up to the marathon. Not much draw for a marathon where there's no one watching, right? After all, might as well run on your own time!

[quote]
That is a good question.  It's not a versus thing.  SGDQ was started to give those that didn't have a chance at AGDQ a chance.  Geography and game choice were two prime reasons.  SGDQ gave those (disclosure: I'm one of, if not the primary beneficiary) an opportunity for a charity marathon, which is to play games for charity.  I'm emphasizing playing games for charity.  I feel SGDQ is losing that original intent, to give those with little chance to speedrun a game for charity to speedrun a game for charity.[/quote]

So then where's the marathon for those who didn't get a chance at SGDQ?

And the marathon for those? And for those?

There's going to be a line, DW. You clearly don't like that line, but it's there. There's going to be repeats, and popular games, because if there's not, no one is going to watch it. Even the VERY FIRST SGDQ had this, so you can't claim that's solely the mission of SGDQ. What the organizers can do, is try their best to mix the two, so that we have both a successful event, AND one that gives people a second chance. Unless you've got some REAL SERIOUS claims as to why this isn't happening /right now/, I don't see where your argument still stands.

Edit: Cut half the post out because I already said my piece earlier and he's clearly not going to give two craps.

hitmanatee

2013-07-07 10:37:54 pm

So it has come to this.

Zyre

2013-07-07 10:38:37 pm

The Speedrunning Teacher

Quote from Essentia:

Quote from Darkwing Duck:

I don't believe everyone who wants to go to an SDA marathon to speedrun a game for charity is there for the wrong reasons, which is what you're implying here.

I just wanted to comment on this. Honestly, if I don't have a game to run at a marathon, I'm not going to attend, and here's why: If I won't be running a game to actively bring in money to the charity, then I feel that the hundreds of dollars I'd spend on travel/hotel/food would be wasted. I would rather stay home and donate all that money directly to the charity instead (which is actually what I did during last AGDQ).

Ditto and amen to this. While I'm sad that I won't be attending this year's SGDQ, I'm glad that I can still participate by donations.

Reed

Edit history:

Reed: 2013-07-07 10:42:56 pm

2013-07-07 10:41:27 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from Cool Matty:

Not to be an ass

Yeah, you failed at that one.

I've got a self-interested question here: Is there or is there not a bias against Halo games at SDA marathons? I'm saying this considering you have a rule Mike refers to as "the Halo rule" (practice your game) which should most fairly be called "the Cody Miller rule". There's been Halo 1 and Halo: Reach runs at AGDQ, both of which were poorly received due to runner skill and category (Legendary, for a marathon run?).

Keep in mind here I consider Halo 1 and Reach pretty mediocre as speedgames, even within the series. Do Halo 2 or Halo 3 have a shot at being featured at future marathons, or has one guy ruined that possibility for the whole community?

If you want to make it more general: For games that were poorly received, how do you separate that reception as caused by runner skill, versus caused by the nature of the run?

Flip

2013-07-07 10:42:58 pm

1-Up!

Quote from Reed:

has one guy ruined that possibility for the whole community?

Short answer is definitely not. If somebody with the skills puts Halo 2 or 3 forward as an option, I'm sure it'll get a fair chance of being in a marathon.

AlecK47

2013-07-07 10:43:32 pm

Halo needs to be on legendary for grenade boosting to work right because of how much damage they deal.

Also +1 Essentia.

Reed

Edit history:

Reed: 2013-07-07 10:46:40 pm

2013-07-07 10:44:42 pm

@tiburonCS

Quote from AlecK47:

Halo needs to be on legendary for grenade boosting to work right because of how much damage they deal.

Also +1 Essentia.

This isn't true. edit: Grenade jumps do less damage on Legendary, true, but that isn't a run-breaker in Halo 2 or 3, where the Easy routes have plenty of grenade jumps. Halo 1 I'm less familiar with, but I'm fairly sure it's the same.

Romi, he didn't practice at all.

Romi

2013-07-07 10:44:47 pm

Halo 1 has so much skips though ... the guy must've been really bad. And skulls nowadays help a lot to go fast.

Poxnor

2013-07-07 10:45:45 pm

Moo! Flap! Hug!

+1 Essentia:

If I'm not there to run a game, someone else will be there to run a (different?) game and will handle the tech/donation/comment stuff I would have done there in my spare time. My usefulness is replaced my someone who can now be useful in the ways I could have been. Why spend the money to go?