Tomb Raider II - November 7, 2013

2013-11-07 12:01:01 pm

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/TombRaider2.html

Tomb Raider II (Any %) (Single Segment)

Verifier Responses

Quote:

A/V quality is perfect. No cheating detected.

The run is very good, the total time is better than every glitchless single segment speedrun I've seen on youtube.
There are only three mistakes I've recognised: 2 attempts for the curve jump in Diving area, 3 attempts for a jump in 40 Fathoms and 2 attempt for a jump in The Deck.

Accept!
Congratulations!

Quote:

Entering the water at the end of Offshore Rig looks a little funny since the water surface is vertical, however it isn't a glitch. This is a result of having done the frame-perfect jump across the basin without having to fill it up with water. Normally everything would be underwater and you'd swim through that section. But since the water wasn't loaded in the basin, the transition into the following water-filled corridor looks odd.

IMO flare cancelling is not a glitch so much a fast-movement method. In a similar vein, the runner is also doing swing-cancelling (releasing and repressing the action button to cancel the swing animation) on many of the ledge grabs, as well as a slew of other minor tricks such as short-stumbling and landing directly on top of item-pickups to skip the stumble.

All the "glitchless" runs i've seen of TR 1-5 use the tombrunner.net definition which excludes bugs that let you pass through objects or embed in walls (corner bug, flicker motion, fence bug, crack bug, item/flare wall glitch) or land in spots that Lara shouldn't be allowed to land without dying or sliding off (dive bug, slope bug). These bugs allow sequence-breaking, unlike the stumble/swing cancels.

Review:
A/V quality is fine.
The route is up to date, and the runner made good choices for a SS run of this length. This is the WR afaik.
Gameplay quality is solid. There are relatively few mistakes, and this would be a difficult run to beat.

Accept

Quote:

yup as [2nd verifier] posted, nothing more to add there IMO those are just fast movement techniques considered glichless in tombrunner community.

as for the run:
audio and video is fine.
current route with ok execution, there is some sloppiness here and there (especially in the underwater levels starting with 40 fathoms) but since it's over one and a half hours single segment I would call it acceptable and defo not easy to improve.

Accept

Decision: Accept

Congratulations to 'MMAN'!

Thread title:

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/TombRaider2.html

Tomb Raider II (Any %) (Single Segment)

[b]Verifier Responses[/b]
[quote]A/V quality is perfect. No cheating detected.

The run is very good, the total time is better than every glitchless single segment speedrun I've seen on youtube.
There are only three mistakes I've recognised: 2 attempts for the curve jump in Diving area, 3 attempts for a jump in 40 Fathoms and 2 attempt for a jump in The Deck.

Accept!
Congratulations![/quote]
[quote]Entering the water at the end of Offshore Rig looks a little funny since the water surface is vertical, however it isn't a glitch.  This is a result of having done the frame-perfect jump across the basin without having to fill it up with water.  Normally everything would be underwater and you'd swim through that section.  But since the water wasn't loaded in the basin, the transition into the following water-filled corridor looks odd.

IMO flare cancelling is not a glitch so much a fast-movement method.  In a similar vein, the runner is also doing swing-cancelling (releasing and repressing the action button to cancel the swing animation) on many of the ledge grabs, as well as a slew of other minor tricks such as short-stumbling and landing directly on top of item-pickups to skip the stumble.

All the "glitchless" runs i've seen of TR 1-5 use the tombrunner.net definition which excludes bugs that let you pass through objects or embed in walls (corner bug, flicker motion, fence bug, crack bug, item/flare wall glitch) or land in spots that Lara shouldn't be allowed to land without dying or sliding off (dive bug, slope bug).  These bugs allow sequence-breaking, unlike the stumble/swing cancels.

Review:
A/V quality is fine.
The route is up to date, and the runner made good choices for a SS run of this length.  This is the WR afaik.
Gameplay quality is solid.  There are relatively few mistakes, and this would be a difficult run to beat.

Accept[/quote]
[quote]yup as [2nd verifier] posted, nothing more to add there IMO those are just fast movement techniques considered glichless in tombrunner community.

as for the run:
audio and video is fine.
current route with ok execution, there is some sloppiness here and there (especially in the underwater levels starting with 40 fathoms) but since it's over one and a half hours single segment I would call it acceptable and defo not easy to improve.

Accept[/quote]

[b]Decision:[/b] Accept

Congratulations to 'MMAN'!

feasel

Edit history:

feasel: 2013-11-07 01:58:42 pm

2013-11-07 01:36:47 pm

difficult and stupidly random

Just wanted to point out that there was some discussion about what constitutes a glitch, and the beginning of that discussion got edited out of the thread. So that's why the mentions of Offshore Rig and flare cancelling seem to lack context.

Congrats MMAN on the awesome run! Amazing that this is over an hour faster than the segmented run from 2005 that's currently up.

moooh

2013-11-07 02:37:56 pm

Exoray

It's easier if you think in terms of what constitutes a large-skip glitch rather than try to discuss what contitutes a glitch. It's not really possible for everyone to agree on what counts as a glitch or not since trying to define what every piece of action in a game counts as is pretty arbitrary in the first place.
This is the reason why we don't have a glitchless category at SDA but instead make use of the large-skip category label, since something being a large-skip or not is way easier to agree around (and also pretty much eliminates the need for silly discussions regarding developer intention).

When writing this I notice some of the TR pages here are correctly labeled and some are not which may cause some confusion. I'll see to them getting updated so that we have a consistent naming once more.

Oh and a big congrats to MMAN for this mighty single-segment run. The early games weren't really known for being smooth so sticking with running this game for so long is a feat in itself Smiley

It's easier if you think in terms of what constitutes a large-skip glitch rather than try to discuss what contitutes a glitch. It's not really possible for everyone to agree on what counts as a glitch or not since trying to define what every piece of action in a game counts as is pretty arbitrary in the first place.
This is the reason why we don't have a glitchless category at SDA but instead make use of the large-skip category label, since something being a large-skip or not is way easier to agree around (and also pretty much eliminates the need for silly discussions regarding developer intention).

When writing this I notice some of the TR pages here are correctly labeled and some are not which may cause some confusion. I'll see to them getting updated so that we have a consistent naming once more.

Oh and a big congrats to MMAN for this mighty single-segment run. The early games weren't really known for being smooth so sticking with running this game for so long is a feat in itself :)

MMAN

Edit history:

MMAN: 2013-11-07 03:59:43 pm

2013-11-07 03:54:11 pm

Thanks!

As far as I know in Tomb Raider's case SDA uses the Tombrunner designation of glitched and glitchless, which have been fixed for a while (and pretty much fits with "large-skip glitches" anyway).

I find the third verifiers comment about the water levels slightly questionable, as, while 40 Fathoms is easily the worst part of the run, Wreck of the Maria Dora and Living Quarters were probably the best runs of those levels I've ever got, and the Deck would be up there too without the failed jump at the start (which puts it in the "pretty good" category). Though maybe that was the intent and it was just worded a little oddly.