Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/SuperMeatBoy.html
Super Meat Boy (Any %) (Single Segment)
Verifier Responses
Decision: Accept
Congratulations to John De Sousa!
Super Meat Boy (Any %) (Single Segment)
Verifier Responses
Quote:
0:21 - Slight mishap with the infinite jump glitch, this shouldn't happen
0:34 - Didn't hit Bandage Girl on the earliest chance wasting a second
3:25 - Didn't hit the hole on point wasting a second
7:04 - Not sure what happened here, might be autojump glitch messing up but he shouldn't have missed bandage girl. ~2 second loss
7:12 - Missed the jump wasting a second
7:46 - Death on Brownie skip
8:11 - Missed the ledge jump losing a second
8:38 - Didn't use the fastest strat for this level wasting 2-3 seconds waiting for the platform
11:53 - Missed the jump due to light from previous bosskill
11:21 - Messed up the enemy placement losing 2-3 seconds
11:33 - Several attempts at the stage skip costing a second
11:47 - Missed the ledge jump wasting a second
17:00 - No keyless skip wasting about 5 seconds
A/V is great. No cheating detected. Compared to the SDA submission this is a huge improvement but over the old world record which is 18:30 deathless by Exo it's really not. The mistakes in this run add up quickly but aside from one death everything was still well executed. Boss stages were perfect if not for the death on Brownie skip. As I feel I'm biased on this run I will need to remain neutral.
0:34 - Didn't hit Bandage Girl on the earliest chance wasting a second
3:25 - Didn't hit the hole on point wasting a second
7:04 - Not sure what happened here, might be autojump glitch messing up but he shouldn't have missed bandage girl. ~2 second loss
7:12 - Missed the jump wasting a second
7:46 - Death on Brownie skip
8:11 - Missed the ledge jump losing a second
8:38 - Didn't use the fastest strat for this level wasting 2-3 seconds waiting for the platform
11:53 - Missed the jump due to light from previous bosskill
11:21 - Messed up the enemy placement losing 2-3 seconds
11:33 - Several attempts at the stage skip costing a second
11:47 - Missed the ledge jump wasting a second
17:00 - No keyless skip wasting about 5 seconds
A/V is great. No cheating detected. Compared to the SDA submission this is a huge improvement but over the old world record which is 18:30 deathless by Exo it's really not. The mistakes in this run add up quickly but aside from one death everything was still well executed. Boss stages were perfect if not for the death on Brownie skip. As I feel I'm biased on this run I will need to remain neutral.
Quote:
Agree with most of verifier 1's points, here's some additional comments/notes:
Early Forest: A number of clips and missed jumps adding up to 2-3 seconds. The run starts shakily but gets very strong after this.
3:25 - Lining up the walljump into the hole is equal parts muscle memory and hope, so I totally get this. Quick recovery.
7:04 - I went frame by frame here, this is actually only a 1 second loss.
7:19 - Hitting this trick saves about 5 seconds if I'm not mistaken, but I don't count it as a loss but rather a potential gain, since it's a very recent addition to the route.
8:38 - The fast strat for this level borders on IL territory, IMO.
12:58 - Lot of ledge clips in this level, which might've cost a second.
13:21 - Stupid zombies. >:|
Exo's 18:39 run is cleaner, and probably faster when adjusted for the route changes, but that's not surprising given that it's practically the gold standard for execution in any platformer speedrun. It's also likely this time will improve in the near future. That said, I think this easily meets SDA standards, and whatever mistakes it has are comparable to the ones found in the vast majority of runs hosted on the site. The runner's point about iterative improvement is one I very much agree with as well -- as speedrunners, we have incredibly high standards because we've seen glimpses of what's possible, and will refuse to submit a run or even disqualify runs because we compare them to what's theoretically possible. This is fine as a personal philosophy, but I think it hurts the site by discouraging submissions and continuing to showcase runs from 2005 long after their times have been repeatedly smashed.
In this particular case, we have a more concrete example than usual, since Exo's run is so strong. It's the kind of run you imagine when grinding attempts at your game for months or years, only it's not just an idea, it's sitting there on youtube. That quality of play on the new route would easily beat this submission's time. The problem is, that run isn't on youtube or twitch or anywhere else. It's just an idea. And until it actually happens, it doesn't make sense to compare very strong existing runs to it, to the point of rejecting them because they aren't as good as imaginary runs.
Once you account for high quality of play (check), time is the metric that really matters. Accept!
Early Forest: A number of clips and missed jumps adding up to 2-3 seconds. The run starts shakily but gets very strong after this.
3:25 - Lining up the walljump into the hole is equal parts muscle memory and hope, so I totally get this. Quick recovery.
7:04 - I went frame by frame here, this is actually only a 1 second loss.
7:19 - Hitting this trick saves about 5 seconds if I'm not mistaken, but I don't count it as a loss but rather a potential gain, since it's a very recent addition to the route.
8:38 - The fast strat for this level borders on IL territory, IMO.
12:58 - Lot of ledge clips in this level, which might've cost a second.
13:21 - Stupid zombies. >:|
Exo's 18:39 run is cleaner, and probably faster when adjusted for the route changes, but that's not surprising given that it's practically the gold standard for execution in any platformer speedrun. It's also likely this time will improve in the near future. That said, I think this easily meets SDA standards, and whatever mistakes it has are comparable to the ones found in the vast majority of runs hosted on the site. The runner's point about iterative improvement is one I very much agree with as well -- as speedrunners, we have incredibly high standards because we've seen glimpses of what's possible, and will refuse to submit a run or even disqualify runs because we compare them to what's theoretically possible. This is fine as a personal philosophy, but I think it hurts the site by discouraging submissions and continuing to showcase runs from 2005 long after their times have been repeatedly smashed.
In this particular case, we have a more concrete example than usual, since Exo's run is so strong. It's the kind of run you imagine when grinding attempts at your game for months or years, only it's not just an idea, it's sitting there on youtube. That quality of play on the new route would easily beat this submission's time. The problem is, that run isn't on youtube or twitch or anywhere else. It's just an idea. And until it actually happens, it doesn't make sense to compare very strong existing runs to it, to the point of rejecting them because they aren't as good as imaginary runs.
Once you account for high quality of play (check), time is the metric that really matters. Accept!
Quote:
A/V good, no cheating.
It's funny to watch this run compared with Exo's, which had a silky smooth start and... well, just about everything else too. This run starts off shaky but picks up fast. New routes in Factory, Rapture and the Brownie skip account for the improvement.
There's still some time to be had, from both execution and ballsier strats, but this is still an easy accept for me.
It's funny to watch this run compared with Exo's, which had a silky smooth start and... well, just about everything else too. This run starts off shaky but picks up fast. New routes in Factory, Rapture and the Brownie skip account for the improvement.
There's still some time to be had, from both execution and ballsier strats, but this is still an easy accept for me.
Quote:
No cheating, good av, beats old run by nearly minute in a very fast and precise game. Accept!
Maybe a bit too simplistic. I can't argue with Exo's glitchless Youtube run being "better" (as admitted by the submitter himself in his notes also), but it's not the run on submission here, thus I agree with verifier 2's points.
Maybe a bit too simplistic. I can't argue with Exo's glitchless Youtube run being "better" (as admitted by the submitter himself in his notes also), but it's not the run on submission here, thus I agree with verifier 2's points.
Quote:
I completely agree with the other verifiers, however I want to add that even if it is a major improvement compared to the current SDA record, I feel like the runner should have waited to get a better run before submitting it to SDA. (The runner also adressed this in his comments) However, I feel like it is good enough for SDA standards. No cheating, A/V is good. Accept.
Decision: Accept
Congratulations to John De Sousa!
Thread title: