Tony Hawk's Underground 2 - September 7, 2014

Edit history:

SDAVerification: 2014-09-07 03:30:09 pm

2014-08-22 03:06:21 pm

Game Page: http://speeddemosarchive.com/TonyHawkUnderground2.html

Tony Hawk's Underground 2 (Any %) (Single Segment) (pal) (gcn/xbox/ps2) (Easy)

Decision: Accept

Reason: Despite being significantly slower than a known better time, it's faster than the run on the site by a fair margin. I encourage somebody to submit another improvement, though.

Congratulations to 'mx.lenny94'!

Thread title:

SDAVerification

2014-08-22 03:06:35 pm

Run Information

Tony Hawk's Underground 2 (Any %) (Single Segment) (pal) (gcn/xbox/ps2) (Easy)

Verification Files

http://v.speeddemosarchive.com/thug2take2-v_HQ.mp4

Please refer to the Verification Guidelines before posting. Verifications are due by Sept. 5, 2014.

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.

Kewne

2014-08-27 01:20:39 am

A/V looks good but there are too many small mistakes for me to accept this, especially since the run is only about 15 min long. So a REJECT from me.

LLCoolDave

2014-08-27 04:35:50 am

A/V is fine, the route seems very well designed. There's a couple of minor hickups and two more noticeably costly mistakes. It's a fairly short run, but it's also tight on execution throughout so getting a near flawless run is fairly unlikely in any case. It's a rather sizeable improvement to the currently published run so this gets a weak accept from me. I've spent a lot of time playing this game years ago and the run still managed to surprise and impress me despite the mistakes.

J.Y

2014-08-28 10:30:11 am

Audio is good, but the bottom line of the screen constantly bounces up and down a bit, but that can probably be fixed.

Gameplay is good for the most part, but there are a bit too many mistakes here and there that makes the run look somewhat sloppy at certain times.
I thinking mainly of Boston (bailing on the stairs just after discovering Franklin, missing the first spine transfer in the "spine-transfer tour), New Orleans (bailing with the zombie just after the "raisng the dead" mission) and Skatetopia (struggling a lot on the tree at the top of the level).
Therefore, this runs gets a week reject from me, but I encourage the runner to keep on trying, so we can replace the old run in the future.

ktwo

2014-08-29 09:36:46 am

A/V seems fine to me. I didn't notice anything wrong with the bottom of the screen?

The gameplay is a bit tricky to judge. I'm not exactly an expert at Tony Hawk games, but it seems to me that both the route and the execution have been improved compared to the current sda-run. As such, this should be a no-brainer accept. However, there is a leaderboard for this game, where the fastest time is 8:22 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am0zn8yNN1NvdGFRLUR6azdWZUdQTEdrMWVSTUUybkE&usp=drive_web#gid=5), compared to the submitted run's ~15 minutes. It's therefore pretty obvious that there is still room for a lot of improvement. Had this been a first submission for this category, I would have recommended a reject, but considering this is a clear improvement in most aspects to the current sda-run, I'm leaning towards a

weak accept (but hopefully the runner looks at the more up-to-date strats of the fastest runs and improves this run)

P.S. The runner asks about a trick/skip on the run information page. I'm not the one making the rules and not sure I completely understand exactly how this skip works, but it doesn't seem like something that breaks the game, so I doubt it will be in a new category.

A/V seems fine to me. I didn't notice anything wrong with the bottom of the screen?

The gameplay is a bit tricky to judge. I'm not exactly an expert at Tony Hawk games, but it seems to me that both the route and the execution have been improved compared to the current sda-run. As such, this should be a no-brainer accept. However, there is a leaderboard for this game, where the fastest time is 8:22 (https://docs.google.com/spreadsheet/ccc?key=0Am0zn8yNN1NvdGFRLUR6azdWZUdQTEdrMWVSTUUybkE&usp=drive_web#gid=5), compared to the submitted run's ~15 minutes. It's therefore pretty obvious that there is still room for a lot of improvement. Had this been a first submission for this category, I would have recommended a reject, but considering this is a clear improvement in most aspects to the current sda-run, I'm leaning towards a

weak accept (but hopefully the runner looks at the more up-to-date strats of the fastest runs and improves this run)

P.S. The runner asks about a trick/skip on the run information page. I'm not the one making the rules and not sure I completely understand exactly how this skip works, but it doesn't seem like something that breaks the game, so I doubt it will be in a new category.

AlecK47

Edit history:

AlecK47: 2014-08-29 05:32:56 pm

AlecK47: 2014-08-29 05:31:17 pm

2014-08-29 03:29:41 pm

A/V good, no cheating detected. The bottom of the screen does seem to oscillate by a single pixel (the other three borders don’t), but unless you look for it it’s hard to tell. Worse has been accepted not too long ago even if this isn’t fixable, so I’d personally give it a pass.

I’m not really a part of the THPS speedrunning community (just knowledgeable about the games), but I wouldn’t consider the glitch a “major skip” and would be surprised if they did. And I’m also not 100% up on the routing for this game – the most recent run I’m familiar with is chrno’s 11:08– so my comments will reflect that.

Boston: A couple ugly mistakes here and a couple routing differences, though I presume the latter is to accumulate more points in order to abuse the aforementioned glitch (if it comes down to it I can look into this further, should it affect the final decision). Weak level, but not an instant reject.

Barcelona: A few minor mistakes, but an improved route and good execution overall. Using the warp may have been faster, but it’s a matter of a second or two at most (probably less on GCN because of loading). Above average level.

Berlin: A couple minor mistakes and routing differences (glitch stuff again, is my guess). Solid level.

Sydney: Now this is obviously where the glitch pays off. Skipping the Beaverhausen goals is definitely a good thing. A couple minor mistakes but overall a strong level. No Whiplash here, but Break on Through is a classic, so no negatives on music either. Wink

New Orleans: The Equalizer, a valuable but relatively slow (and presumably forced) goal, is skipped here via the glitch. There are several minor mistakes in this level, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s outright bad. That said I wouldn’t call it good either, I’d call it average.

Skatopia: Bam’s goals are skipped via the glitch – I’m unsure how much this affects the time (I’d guess it saves at least a couple seconds under ideal cicrumstances), but Bam’s goals can be a bitch even on lower difficulties, so I couldn’t complain too much regardless. A couple minor mistakes and a couple ugly ones. That said, even the two ugly ones cost about 10 seconds combined. This is a solid level, but not spectacular.

I made an effort to judge this run by its gameplay and routing as much as possible rather than its time because of the significant difference in loading times between console and PC. Even though this run is significantly slower than the current best PC run in terms of time (however much of which is loading I am unsure), it is nevertheless a very solid run. If this is the same console runner I rejected a few months back, then kudos for the effort you’ve put in since then because it fucking shows. In comparison to that run, this is miles better in terms of both routing and gameplay. That said, I wouldn’t call this an ironclad accept. I do believe it meets SDA standards, and so I will accept it, but if somebody were to disagree with me I wouldn’t think they were an idiot unless their reasons proved them so (I didn’t call this a “weak accept” because it is ever so slightly above my standards as such).

A/V good, no cheating detected.  The bottom of the screen does seem to oscillate by a single pixel (the other three borders don’t), but unless you look for it it’s hard to tell.  Worse has been accepted not too long ago even if this isn’t fixable, so I’d personally give it a pass.

I’m not really a part of the THPS speedrunning community (just knowledgeable about the games), but I wouldn’t consider the glitch a “major skip” and would be surprised if they did.  And I’m also not 100% up on the routing for this game – the most recent run I’m familiar with is chrno’s 11:08– so my comments will reflect that.

Boston: A couple ugly mistakes here and a couple routing differences, though I presume the latter is to accumulate more points in order to abuse the aforementioned glitch (if it comes down to it I can look into this further, should it affect the final decision).  Weak level, but not an instant reject.

Barcelona: A few minor mistakes, but an improved route and good execution overall.  Using the warp may have been faster, but it’s a matter of a second or two at most (probably less on GCN because of loading).  Above average level.

Berlin: A couple minor mistakes and routing differences (glitch stuff again, is my guess).  Solid level.

Sydney:  Now this is obviously where the glitch pays off.  Skipping the Beaverhausen goals is definitely a good thing.  A couple minor mistakes but overall a strong level.  No Whiplash here, but Break on Through is a classic, so no negatives on music either. ;)

New Orleans:  The Equalizer, a valuable but relatively slow (and presumably forced) goal, is skipped here via the glitch.  There are several minor mistakes in this level, but I wouldn’t go so far as to say it’s outright bad.  That said I wouldn’t call it good either, I’d call it average.

Skatopia:  Bam’s goals are skipped via the glitch – I’m unsure how much this affects the time (I’d guess it saves at least a couple seconds under ideal cicrumstances), but Bam’s goals can be a bitch even on lower difficulties, so I couldn’t complain too much regardless.  A couple minor mistakes and a couple ugly ones.  That said, even the two ugly ones cost about 10 seconds combined.  This is a solid level, but not spectacular.

I made an effort to judge this run by its gameplay and routing as much as possible rather than its time because of the significant difference in loading times between console and PC.  Even though this run is significantly slower than the current best PC run in terms of time (however much of which is loading I am unsure), it is nevertheless a very solid run.  If this is the same console runner I rejected a few months back, then kudos for the effort you’ve put in since then because it fucking shows.  In comparison to that run, this is miles better in terms of both routing and gameplay.  That said, I wouldn’t call this an ironclad accept.  I do believe it meets SDA standards, and so I will accept it, but if somebody were to disagree with me I wouldn’t think they were an idiot unless their reasons proved them so (I didn’t call this a “weak accept” because it is ever so slightly above my standards as such).

SDAVerification

2014-09-07 03:30:15 pm

Decision posted.