Roll Eyes
Lips Sealed
1 page
List results:
Search options:
Use \ before commas in usernames
Game Page: Doesn't exist yet

Stealth Bastard Deluxe (Any %) (Individual Level)

Decision: Accept

Congratulations to 'Niet the Dark Absol'!
Thread title:  
Run Information

Stealth Bastard Deluxe (Any %) (Individual Level)

Verification Files

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by Dec. 13, 2013.

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.
Edit history:
Onin: 2013-12-01 07:10:14 am
Onin: 2013-11-30 06:18:56 pm
Onin: 2013-11-30 10:10:21 am
Onin: 2013-11-30 06:34:10 am
Stealth Bastard has a worldwide scoreboard for speedrunning shown at the end of every level. It shows the runner's time on the IL, best time they ever got, and their rank. I can't tell how reliable the scoreboard really is, or how legitimate the #1 positions are, but it's a good point of reference.

I'm not sure whether this scoreboard differentiates between NG and NG+ (you unlock abilities along the game, like cloaking and teleporting, which make some levels a joke to run. This run is NG so no upgrades). Considering some of the time differences between the #1 time and the runner's time, I'd guess it doesn't?

Here's a table with level, time, best time, and ranking (for the best time):

1-1 - 9:10 (Best: 8:90. 11th place)
1-2 - 25:56 (Best: 25:36. 21st place)
1-3 - 15:68 (Best time. 73th place)
1-4 - 36:71 (Best time. 18th place)
1-5 - 59:16 (Best time. 27th place)
1-6 - 54:83 (Best time. 11th place)
1-7 - 29:42 (Best time. 8th place)
1-8 - 47:36 (Best: 46:90. 19th place)
1-9 - 50:88 (Best: 50:86. 24th place)
1-10 - 1:17:65 (Best time. 12th place)

Stage 1 looks pretty solid with the stark exception of 1-3. It takes the runner 3 tries for a camera manipulation trick, and while I can't say how difficult it is to perform, his world ranking shows that it could be improved significantly. The other levels only have milliseconds of optimization left.

2-1 - 43:68 (Best time. 9th place)
2-2 - 1:11:60 (Best: 1:10:75. 32nd place)
2-3 - 30:51 (Best: 30:40. 36th place)
2-4 - 33:05 (Best: 32:80. 17th place)
2-5 - 56:28 (Best time. 19th place)
2-6 - 1:05:39 (Best time. 13th place)
2-7 - 36:07 (Best time. 7th place)
2-8 - 27:47 (Best time. 10th place)
2-9 - 1:17:17 (Best time. 8th place)
2-10 - 1:36:71 (Best time. 9th place)

2-1 has skype sounds in it :(. 2-4 and 2-5 both seem to have slight platforming mistakes; neither loses much time, but it adds up pretty starkly when we're already talking milliseconds. 2-6 again has a small mistake using a switch too fast; while the runner corrects his error quickly it still costs a small amount of time. The rest of stage 2 looks very solid, however.

3-1 - 42:77 (Best time. 24th place)
3-2 - 1:03:31 (Best time. 17th place)
3-3 - 37:99 (Best time. 12th place)
3-4 - 37:00 (Best time. ?? place)
3-5 - 1:08:59 (Best time. 7th place)
3-6 - 53:29 (Best time. 12th place)
3-7 - 1:15:21 (Best time. 9th place)
3-8 - 32:22 (Best time. 3rd place!)
3-9 - 1:10:08 (Best time. 5th place!)
3-10 - 21:79 (Best time. 3rd place!)

Another missed jump at 3-3. Sadly 3-4 ends before the rankings show. Towards the end of this stage the runner really picks up the pace with some solid levels, but it just makes me wonder why for the rest of the levels the runner was satisfied with times that didn't even scratch the top-10. Clearly, they are capable of record runs.

4-1 - 19:42 (Best: 18:87. 4th place)
4-2 - 22:23 (Best time. 5th place!)
4-3 - 30:84 (Best: 30:62. 6th place)
4-4 - 44:28 (Best time. 11th place)
4-5 - 1:10:49 (Best: 1:10:48. 6th place)
4-6 - 2:00:54 (Best time. 16th place)
4-7 - 57:43 (Best time. 7th place)
4-8 - 35:99 (Best: 35:78. 10th place)
4-9 - 1:07:67 (Best time. 10th place)
4-10 - 38:08 (Best time. 5th place!)

A shame the runner's best 4-1 isn't recorded. With the exception of 4-6, they're all top-10 times, which furthers my questioning.

5-1 - 32:15 (Best: 31:93. 7th place)
5-2 - 31:81 (Best time. 6th place)
5-3 - 1:05:83 (Best time. 9th place)
5-4 - 22:23 (Best time. 7th place)
5-5 - 34:13 (Best time. 5th place)
5-6 - 1:12:26 (Best time. 10th place)
5-7 - 43:59 (Best: 40:84. 9th place)
5-8 - 15:46 (Best time. 19th place)
5-9 - 33:19 (Best time. 6th place)
5-10 - 1:17:70 (Best time. 1ST PLACE!)

5-3 has Skype sounds again :(. I'm not sure if pushing the block too far to the right is a mistake; it looks like it, but the end time/ranking is pretty competitive. At the very least it's a minor slip-up.
5-7 loses a massive 3 seconds on the runner's best time. I'm really not sure where, though.
Some average levels, some great levels, and a world record on the last one, pretty good stage.

6-1 - 34:76 (Best time. 4th place!)
6-2 - 40:98 (Best: 39:40. 6th place)
6-3 - 27:72 (Best: 24:94. 5th place)
6-4 - 27:95 (Best time. 12th place)
6-5 - 34:98 (Best: 33:04. 10th place)
6-6 - 26:44 (Best time. 13th place)
6-7 - 24:24 (Best: 24:19. 6th place)
6-8 - 1:04:53 (Best: 1:00:84. 7th place)
6-9 - 39:63 (Best time. 5th place)
6-10 - 44:15 (Best: 42:39. 8th place)

A very hit and miss stage. Some excellent times, and some times that are just several seconds off the runner's personal best with pretty obvious mistakes. The weakest stage so far in my eyes.


7-1 - 1:07:13 (Best: 1:06:96. 8th place)
7-2 - 36:56 (Best time. 5th place)
7-3 - 36:40 (Best time. 3rd place!)
7-4 - 33:92 (Best: 28:90. 9th place)
7-5 - 48:18 (Best time. 4th place!)
7-6 - 33:25 (Best time. 6th place)
7-7 - 1:23:66 (Best time. 8th place)
7-8 - 1:05:46 (Best: 1:02:22. 6th place)
7-9 - 1:06:08 (Best: 1:05:06. 7th place)
7-10 - 1:48:43 (Best time. 5th place)

7-4 is 5 whole seconds slower than the runner's best time for some reason. It clearly has errors, but 5 seconds' worth seems excessive. 7-7 also looks like it could benefit from some optimizations, though the time is still good. 7-8 is also 3 seconds slower than runner's best. 7-9 is one second slower due to two missed jumps. Another stage that's half immaculate, half questionable.

8-1 - 40:63 (Best time. 4th place!)
8-2 - 1:17:72 (Best: 1:16:53. 6th place)
8-3 - 1:28:40 (Best time. 4th place!)
8-4 - 24:51 (Best time. 8th place)
8-5 - 52:24 (Best time. 4th place!)
8-6 - 49:43 (Best time. 3rd place!)
8-7 - 1:14:99 (Best time. 33rd place)
8-8 - 1:28:89 (Best: 1:28:12. 12th place)
8-9 - 25:14 (Best time. 11th place)
8-10 - 1:06:78 (Best: 1:06:40. 7th place)

8-2 loses a second due to a bot seeing him. Small mistake in both 8-3 and 8-4, still good times on both. Skype sounds in 8-6. 8-7 could be more optimized but it's half a second off the #1, one of those millisecond matters. 8-8 could probably be optimized further. The rest is good.


I'd really appreciate if the runner could comment on the significant time differences between Double Dark's #1 time, and every other time. Is he using the NG+ upgrades? Surely, if he is, more people would use them? Are his times illegitimate? Has he discovered glitches the runner doesn't know of?

Issue #2 is the skype sounds. I've only noticed them in 3 levels, but there could be more. They're not a consistent issue, though, and are only minorly distracting.

Then, the runs themselves. Objectively speaking, the vast majority of the levels are very well executed and only have milliseconds' worth of optimization. But there are a number of levels that can get several seconds of improvements, even by the runner's own skill (as shown by their PBs). Generally, though, these are due to a single mistake, rather than (as far as I can tell) routing errors or plain bad play.

Because this is a pretty huge IL table, the majority of the levels are solid, and the weaker levels can easily be improved later, I'm going to give it an ACCEPT. But I'd really like to hear from the runner on some of these issues.
Edit history:
LotBlind: 2013-12-03 04:41:13 am
LotBlind: 2013-12-03 04:40:58 am
Going to verify this. Will edit comments here.

Scratch that, the video quality is too high for my computer to play without lagging.

vvv Eternal, it's probably good given there's just one now.
Do you need another response for this game?
Vanilla H is mai waifu
I can't open the videos.
It says that the videos are corrupted.
I opened them in VLC just fine.
Edit history:
AlecK47: 2013-12-11 01:15:28 pm
I'm halfway through this, and should finish it later today.  My web player treats the videos as audio files for some reason (I'm using a default one because apparently chrome decided to ignore the existence of VLC's plugin for some reason Huh? ), but VLC handles them fine after a download.


No cheating detected.  A/V fine except for the occasional Skype/other misc. noises (I noticed them in a couple levels beyond what Onin mentioned, but didn't keep track of which ones).  They don't ruin the experience, but it's definitely unfortunate.  For the record, muting Skype sounds is really easy: Tools -> Options -> Sounds, hit the "mute all sounds" button, save settings.

Onin summed things up really well, I think.  Some levels are great, most are good, a few are average, and a couple really beg for improvements.  Fortunately there is enough quality play here that I'd have a hard time rejecting it, but because the runner (or runners?  there were two names in the rankings) could definitely have submitted some better levels and because of the random sounds unrelated to the game, this is a much shakier accept than I would like.
It's weather time!
I finally was able to get through downloading/watching all of the files, and I pretty much have to echo Onin on this one.

A/V was fine aside from the Skype sounds (which weren't all that noticeable for me). And No cheating, of course.

Though the overall table is well enough to be accepted as far as I'm concerned, I can't help but wonder why someone would do an IL table if not with the intent of getting everything right on the first attempts; seeing as certain tricks in specific stages took multiple attempts (I'm going to assume there's a perfectly valid reason for it). The slower stages, while they don't kill the run for me, I feel could afford to be polished a little more. In the end, like I hinted, it's by no means a bad table as a whole despite some of the slower stages.

Overall: Accept.
Decision posted.
Hi - Niet here!

First off, sorry for disappearing! I got distracted by so much stuff going on...

Second, thanks so much for reviewing my submission and more importantly accepting it. It means a lot to me! I'm certainly very happy, it's really made my day to see this thread.

I suppose I should apologise for my less-than-decent performance in some of the levels. Especially 1-3... it just got so frustrating that I just had to go "that's good enough", although really it isn't. At all.

I fully intend on improving my times here. And I'll make sure Skype is muted first!!

So yeah... thanks again!

EDIT: As a side-note, I changed my online "identity" from Kolink to Niet around the time I did this playthrough. So that's why there's two names :p