urge to update current SDA FAQ

2009-07-21 04:37:45 pm

http://speeddemosarchive.com/lang/faq_en.html

i believe this is now out-dated, and needs to be changed to adapt with the passing of time and growing mindsets of genius runners.

Do you post everything that's submitted?
"Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse. "

*this is very misleading. also it contradicts what is said here [a little further down the page]:

"You may produce your run on whichever system you prefer, but many people would rather watch runs on their original systems. If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories."

*this needs to be ammended: "If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories."

- any difference whatsoever should be considered "severe," and unfortunately i feel that in order to ensure a fair comparison of skill between runs...even one second [or whatever the smallest measure of time sda uses at the time] of difference should require a separate category for the game. verifiers can use an existing system run as well as their own opinion to decide if the play quality is good enough. i know this may call for many changes and new categories, but i rather that than someone on another system being punished and gaining or losing a few seconds simply because of playing on a different machine. -

[further down]
What types of games do you accept runs on?
"For manually timed runs, if the only difference is in loading times, those will be factored out to ensure fair comparison between runs on different systems."

- currently this rule is not enforced with all the games that need it. why is sshplur sufffering with parasite eve because one system progressively loads everything faster than another. writing the rule is nice, but enforcing it is important. in this situation it is impossible to factor out the load times, due to the progressive nature of it. so why are there not separate categories per system? this is why i wrote about "Severe" differences and how it should be changed to "any" difference.

Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?
"We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game."

- this line should be struck from the faq as it is evident that each game needs to be taken into consideration separately. giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.

Why do you allow glitches but disallow cheat codes and tricks like crooked cartridge?
"Using glitches is simply trying to use whatever is within the rules of the game to your advantage. When you use a cheat device or outside alteration, then you're breaking the game's rules. As for cheat codes and debug codes, they differ from glitches in being intentionally programmed, so they are naturally outside the rules of the game as defined by the designers. "

- this explanation should be struck from the faq, as it is not the reason at all. trying to define things like glitches and cheating is going to cause future problems, and instead it should be noted that certain things would be considered in one category, and certain things would not. do not explain why. just say "i will decide it depending on if i like the idea of it or not." this is the reasoning listed above for why the "4 minute zelda glitch" is not allowed, because "radix doesn't like it." i find this reasoning credible, and much better.

May I pause while recording? What if the telephone rings or I need to go to the bathroom?

"If the pausing is beneficial for your speedrun (e.g., speeding up boss fights in Mega Man), it is recommended to do so. However, don't try to manipulate the timer. We will switch to manual timing in that case, and you would only be hurting your time."

- it has come to the point where this rule needs to be applied if even ONCE the game is paused to manipulate something about the timer. in shinobi [my own run] i should be punished for pausing and skipping some of the dialogue that is usually timed on the game timer right before the final boss. i didn't purposely do it at the time, but i should still be punished for benefitting from it. this needs to be straightened out into a consistent black-and-white rule for each game that may need it, and adjusted for each game in question. i am tired of seeing things 50/50 and obsoleting other runs in the same category that did not know you were allowed to do this. in re4, pausing at certain points manipulates the game timer heavily, and i am not sure why this is not brought over to manual timing in this case. something being hard to do is not a reason not to do it, and is damaging sda.

*this is only if pausing MANIPULATES THE GAME TIMER IN ANY WAY. pausing to switch discs or waiting in a menu that does not factor into the game timer [if the game timer is what is being used to time the run] should not require punishment.

finally, i believe that the requirement to submit comments should be abolished. submitting the run itself is enough of a signal that the runner wants it posted. there is no reason to delay posting a run simply because there are no comments for it, and obviously my thinking is backed by the current comments for the super metroid run. instead of trying to find silly loop holes, why not just abolish the silly rule.

feel free to get mad at me for posting this Undecided

Thread title:

http://speeddemosarchive.com/lang/faq_en.html

i believe this is now out-dated, and needs to be changed to adapt with the passing of time and growing mindsets of genius runners.

[b][i][/i]Do you post everything that's submitted?[i][/i]
"Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse. "[/b]

*this is very misleading.  also it contradicts what is said here [a little further down the page]:

[b]"You may produce your run on whichever system you prefer, but many people would rather watch runs on their original systems. If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories."  
[/b]
        *this needs to be ammended:  "[b][i]If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories.[/i][/b]"

- any difference whatsoever should be considered "severe," and unfortunately i feel that in order to ensure a fair comparison of skill between runs...even one second [or whatever the smallest measure of time sda uses at the time] of difference should require a separate category for the game.  verifiers can use an existing system run as well as their own opinion to decide if the play quality is good enough.  i know this may call for many changes and new categories, but i rather that than someone on another system being punished and gaining or losing a few seconds simply because of playing on a different machine. -

[further down]
[i][b]What types of games do you accept runs on?[/b][/i]
[b]"For manually timed runs, if the only difference is in loading times, those will be factored out to ensure fair comparison between runs on different systems." [/b]

- currently this rule is not enforced with all the games that need it.  why is sshplur sufffering with parasite eve because one system progressively loads everything faster than another.  writing the rule is nice, but enforcing it is important.  in this situation it is impossible to factor out the load times, due to the progressive nature of it.  so why are there not separate categories per system?  this is why i wrote about "Severe" differences and how it should be changed to "any" difference.

[b][i]Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?[/i]
"We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game."[/b]

- this line should be struck from the faq as it is evident that each game needs to be taken into consideration separately.  giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.

[b][i]Why do you allow glitches but disallow cheat codes and tricks like crooked cartridge?[/i]
"Using glitches is simply trying to use whatever is within the rules of the game to your advantage. When you use a cheat device or outside alteration, then you're breaking the game's rules. As for cheat codes and debug codes, they differ from glitches in being intentionally programmed, so they are naturally outside the rules of the game as defined by the designers. "[/b]

- this explanation should be struck from the faq, as it is not the reason at all.  trying to define things like glitches and cheating is going to cause future problems, and instead it should be noted that certain things would be considered in one category, and certain things would not.  do not explain why.  just say "i will decide it depending on if i like the idea of it or not."  this is the reasoning listed above for why the "4 minute zelda glitch" is not allowed, because "radix doesn't like it."  i find this reasoning credible, and much better.

[b][i]May I pause while recording? What if the telephone rings or I need to go to the bathroom?[/i]

"If the pausing is beneficial for your speedrun (e.g., speeding up boss fights in Mega Man), it is recommended to do so. However, don't try to manipulate the timer. We will switch to manual timing in that case, and you would only be hurting your time."[/b]

- it has come to the point where this rule needs to be applied if even ONCE the game is paused to manipulate something about the timer.  in shinobi [my own run] i should be punished for pausing and skipping some of the dialogue that is usually timed on the game timer right before the final boss.  i didn't purposely do it at the time, but i should still be punished for benefitting from it.  this needs to be straightened out into a consistent black-and-white rule for each game that may need it, and adjusted for each game in question.  i am tired of seeing things 50/50 and obsoleting other runs in the same category that did not know you were allowed to do this.  in re4, pausing at certain points manipulates the game timer heavily, and i am not sure why this is not brought over to manual timing in this case.  something being hard to do is not a reason not to do it, and is damaging sda.

*this is only if pausing MANIPULATES THE GAME TIMER IN ANY WAY.  pausing to switch discs or waiting in a menu that does not factor into the game timer [if the game timer is what is being used to time the run] should not require punishment.

finally, i believe that the requirement to submit comments should be abolished.  submitting the run itself is enough of a signal that the runner wants it posted.  there is no reason to delay posting a run simply because there are no comments for it, and obviously my thinking is backed by the current comments for the super metroid run.  instead of trying to find silly loop holes, why not just abolish the silly rule.

feel free to get mad at me for posting this :-\

arkarian

2009-07-21 04:59:58 pm

gamelogs.org

i agree with not requiring comments and either disagree with or don't care about all the other points.

however, i did not know that comments are required the first place— haven't some runs been posted without comments before?)

Manocheese

2009-07-21 06:02:48 pm

Yes, a cucco riding the ground.

Quote from Arkarian:

however, i did not know that comments are required the first place— haven't some runs been posted without comments before?)

Only ILs AFAIK.

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-07-21 06:30:58 pm

2009-07-21 06:25:23 pm

Ugh, we don't need another rules thread. Especially not one debating such stupid points as these.

Quote from xXIkuto:

i believe this is now out-dated, and needs to be changed to adapt with the passing of time

What has changed with time?

Quote:

Do you post everything that's submitted?
"Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse. "

*this is very misleading. also it contradicts what is said here [a little further down the page]:

"You may produce your run on whichever system you prefer, but many people would rather watch runs on their original systems. If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories."

There is no contradiction. What the rules are saying is, you may use any system you like but if the only reason you beat another run is that the loading screens are shorter on your machine then your run will be rejected. I don't see anything in the rules that is technically wrong, and more to the point, I think they are reasonably easy to understand. Perhaps the wording could be improved for greater clarity but that matters little in the grand scheme of things.

Quote:

- any difference whatsoever should be considered "severe,"

In that case, every different console will need its own category, since no two consoles have identical speeds and controllers.

Quote:

and unfortunately i feel that in order to ensure a fair comparison of skill between runs...even one second [or whatever the smallest measure of time sda uses at the time] of difference should require a separate category for the game.

All this would mean is that poor runs would stay on the site after they'd been obsoleted by vastly better ones, purely because they were done on a different console, which is a definite bad thing. And I don't really see what purpose having different categories would serve.

Quote:

i rather that than someone on another system being punished and gaining or losing a few seconds simply because of playing on a different machine. -

What difference does it make if your run is a few seconds longer or shorter due to system differences? It doesn't affect the quality of the run or people's appreciation of it, and SDA makes a point of isolating and factoring out these issues when comparing runs.

Quote:

why is sshplur sufffering with parasite eve because one system progressively loads everything faster than another. writing the rule is nice, but enforcing it is important. in this situation it is impossible to factor out the load times, due to the progressive nature of it. so why are there not separate categories per system?

Uh, when has any admin made a ruling on system categories for Parasite Eve? It's not a game I know, and I don't really follow what the issue is, but I've just done a whole-forum search and can't find anything related to system categories in any of the Parasite Eve threads.

Quote:

Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?
"We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game."

- this line should be struck from the faq as it is evident that each game needs to be taken into consideration separately. giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.

What the hell? 'It is evident' - really? Well somehow it's managed to slip past everyone except you. The majority of games don't require any special rules. How is SDA damaged by striving for universal rules? And how exactly do you propose things would work without universal rules? Would Mike just pick a new random ruleset out of his arse for every game? No, I presume you would want him to keep each game's rules as close in spirit to those of other games, making any tweaks and additions necessary to handle rules that would not make sense or simply be perverse for the game in question. Oh wait, that's exactly how things work at the moment.

Quote:

Why do you allow glitches but disallow cheat codes and tricks like crooked cartridge?
"Using glitches is simply trying to use whatever is within the rules of the game to your advantage. When you use a cheat device or outside alteration, then you're breaking the game's rules. As for cheat codes and debug codes, they differ from glitches in being intentionally programmed, so they are naturally outside the rules of the game as defined by the designers. "

- this explanation should be struck from the faq, as it is not the reason at all. trying to define things like glitches and cheating is going to cause future problems, and instead it should be noted that certain things would be considered in one category, and certain things would not. do not explain why. just say "i will decide it depending on if i like the idea of it or not." this is the reasoning listed above for why the "4 minute zelda glitch" is not allowed, because "radix doesn't like it." i find this reasoning credible, and much better.

Except that gives the impression that Mike is arbitrarily plucking rules out of his arse, which isn't true - though I admit that section of the rules is not brilliantly written and you can almost feel the writer struggling to define 'cheating' objectively and failing, I think everyone here recognises what's cheating and what isn't and it's a fairly non-controversial subject. The rewrite you suggest would lead readers to thing we had a Twin Galaxies-style admin force creating random arbitrary rules, which is outright wrong.

Quote:

- it has come to the point where this rule needs to be applied if even ONCE the game is paused to manipulate something about the timer. in shinobi [my own run] i should be punished for pausing and skipping some of the dialogue that is usually timed on the game timer right before the final boss. i didn't purposely do it at the time, but i should still be punished for benefitting from it. this needs to be straightened out into a consistent black-and-white rule for each game that may need it, and adjusted for each game in question. i am tired of seeing things 50/50 and obsoleting other runs in the same category that did not know you were allowed to do this. in re4, pausing at certain points manipulates the game timer heavily, and i am not sure why this is not brought over to manual timing in this case. something being hard to do is not a reason not to do it, and is damaging sda.

This is an example of a badly explained rule, rather than a bad rule of itself. As far as I know, the thing about timer manipulation basically means that if you can totally break the timer by constant pausing (e.g. if pausing and unpausing drops fractions of a second, and thus you can totally stop the timer by pausing every half second), then the game will be manually timed. Basically, this rule only applies if pausing changes the time currently on the timer, or messes the timer up after unpausing, NOT if it simply pauses the timer and lets certain game elements continue - that's generally kosher.

Quote:

finally, i believe that the requirement to submit comments should be abolished. submitting the run itself is enough of a signal that the runner wants it posted. there is no reason to delay posting a run simply because there are no comments for it, and obviously my thinking is backed by the current comments for the super metroid run. instead of trying to find silly loop holes, why not just abolish the silly rule.

It has nothing to do with whether the runner wants it posted, SDA requires comments because viewers want to read them. The Super Metroid comments were a last resort.

Ugh, we don't need another rules thread. Especially not one debating such stupid points as these.

[quote="xXIkuto"]i believe this is now out-dated, and needs to be changed to adapt with the passing of time[/quote]

What has changed with time?

[quote][b][i][/i]Do you post everything that's submitted?[i][/i]
"Note that it is possible for a run to be faster than the previous run in the same category and still be rejected. Perhaps the runner used a faster system, but otherwise the play quality was worse. "[/b]

*this is very misleading.  also it contradicts what is said here [a little further down the page]:

[b]"You may produce your run on whichever system you prefer, but many people would rather watch runs on their original systems. If the differences between game versions are severe, they will be counted as separate categories."  
[/b][/quote]

There is no contradiction. What the rules are saying is, you may use any system you like but if the only reason you beat another run is that the loading screens are shorter on your machine then your run will be rejected. I don't see anything in the rules that is technically wrong, and more to the point, I think they are reasonably easy to understand. Perhaps the wording could be improved for greater clarity but that matters little in the grand scheme of things.

[quote]  - any difference whatsoever should be considered "severe,"[/quote]
 
In that case, every different console will need its own category, since no two consoles have identical speeds and controllers.

[quote]and unfortunately i feel that in order to ensure a fair comparison of skill between runs...even one second [or whatever the smallest measure of time sda uses at the time] of difference should require a separate category for the game.[/quote]

All this would mean is that poor runs would stay on the site after they'd been obsoleted by vastly better ones, purely because they were done on a different console, which is a definite bad thing. And I don't really see what purpose having different categories would serve.

[quote]i rather that than someone on another system being punished and gaining or losing a few seconds simply because of playing on a different machine. -[/quote]

What difference does it make if your run is a few seconds longer or shorter due to system differences? It doesn't affect the quality of the run or people's appreciation of it, and SDA makes a point of isolating and factoring out these issues when comparing runs.

[quote]why is sshplur sufffering with parasite eve because one system progressively loads everything faster than another.  writing the rule is nice, but enforcing it is important.  in this situation it is impossible to factor out the load times, due to the progressive nature of it.  so why are there not separate categories per system?[/quote]

Uh, when has any admin made a ruling on system categories for Parasite Eve? It's not a game I know, and I don't really follow what the issue is, but I've just done a whole-forum search and can't find anything related to system categories in any of the Parasite Eve threads.

[quote][b][i]Why do you allow glitch X to be used but not glitch Y?[/i]
"We strive for a universal set of rules that apply to all games, to avoid explicitly laying out rules for every game."[/b]

- this line should be struck from the faq as it is evident that each game needs to be taken into consideration separately.  giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.[/quote]

What the hell? 'It is evident' - really? Well somehow it's managed to slip past everyone except you. The majority of games don't require any special rules. How is SDA damaged by striving for universal rules? And how exactly do you propose things would work [i]without[/i] universal rules? Would Mike just pick a new random ruleset out of his arse for every game? No, I presume you would want him to keep each game's rules as close in spirit to those of other games, making any tweaks and additions necessary to handle rules that would not make sense or simply be perverse for the game in question. Oh wait, that's exactly how things work at the moment.

[quote][b][i]Why do you allow glitches but disallow cheat codes and tricks like crooked cartridge?[/i]
"Using glitches is simply trying to use whatever is within the rules of the game to your advantage. When you use a cheat device or outside alteration, then you're breaking the game's rules. As for cheat codes and debug codes, they differ from glitches in being intentionally programmed, so they are naturally outside the rules of the game as defined by the designers. "[/b]

- this explanation should be struck from the faq, as it is not the reason at all.  trying to define things like glitches and cheating is going to cause future problems, and instead it should be noted that certain things would be considered in one category, and certain things would not.  do not explain why.  just say "i will decide it depending on if i like the idea of it or not."  this is the reasoning listed above for why the "4 minute zelda glitch" is not allowed, because "radix doesn't like it."  i find this reasoning credible, and much better.[/quote]

Except that gives the impression that Mike is arbitrarily plucking rules out of his arse, which isn't true - though I admit that section of the rules is not brilliantly written and you can almost feel the writer struggling to define 'cheating' objectively and failing, I think everyone here recognises what's cheating and what isn't and it's a fairly non-controversial subject. The rewrite you suggest would lead readers to thing we had a Twin Galaxies-style admin force creating random arbitrary rules, which is outright wrong.

[quote]- it has come to the point where this rule needs to be applied if even ONCE the game is paused to manipulate something about the timer.  in shinobi [my own run] i should be punished for pausing and skipping some of the dialogue that is usually timed on the game timer right before the final boss.  i didn't purposely do it at the time, but i should still be punished for benefitting from it.  this needs to be straightened out into a consistent black-and-white rule for each game that may need it, and adjusted for each game in question.  i am tired of seeing things 50/50 and obsoleting other runs in the same category that did not know you were allowed to do this.  in re4, pausing at certain points manipulates the game timer heavily, and i am not sure why this is not brought over to manual timing in this case.  something being hard to do is not a reason not to do it, and is damaging sda.[/quote]

This is an example of a badly explained rule, rather than a bad rule of itself. As far as I know, the thing about timer manipulation basically means that if you can totally break the timer by constant pausing (e.g. if pausing and unpausing drops fractions of a second, and thus you can totally stop the timer by pausing every half second), then the game will be manually timed. Basically, this rule only applies if pausing changes the time currently on the timer, or messes the timer up after unpausing, NOT if it simply pauses the timer and lets certain game elements continue - that's generally kosher.

[quote]finally, i believe that the requirement to submit comments should be abolished.  submitting the run itself is enough of a signal that the runner wants it posted.  there is no reason to delay posting a run simply because there are no comments for it, and obviously my thinking is backed by the current comments for the super metroid run.  instead of trying to find silly loop holes, why not just abolish the silly rule.[/quote]

It has nothing to do with whether the runner wants it posted, SDA requires comments because viewers want to read them. The Super Metroid comments were a last resort.

Caracarn

2009-07-21 06:45:30 pm

There doesn't necessarily need to be extremely detailed comments, but you should at least have some kind of comments. If you take the time to do the run, I think you can take 10 minutes to write a paragraph about the run, maybe thanks to people that helped/encouraged you or whatever.

I do like detailed comments though, I always read them as I'm watching the run, so I'm not always rewinding the video saying "what the heck just happened there?"

xXIkuto

2009-07-21 07:03:05 pm

Quote from ExplodingCabbage:

It has nothing to do with whether the runner wants it posted, SDA requires comments because viewers want to read them. The Super Metroid comments were a last resort.

since when is speedrunning about the viewers and entertainment?

Riskbreaker Y

2009-07-21 07:10:49 pm

berserker status

maybe because without viewers this entire website is meaningless?

regarding entertainment....it's speedDEMOSarchive. Demo being short for demonstration.

demonstration:

1: an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence: as a (1): conclusive evidence : proof (2): derivation 5 b: a showing of the merits of a product or service to a prospective consumer 2: an outward expression or display3: a show of armed force 4: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause

when i looked around the FAQ's i wasn't confused at all about the rules and such. it could be organized a little better but i don't think it needs to be drastically changed.

NoiseCrash

2009-07-21 07:24:20 pm

@_@

I've got a better idea, let's just nuke the rules/FAQ pages altogether and instead put a placeholder that says, "Hey, watch our shit and like it."

Then maybe rules threads would stop popping up every couple of days. I don't see a real need for any of the things brought up to be changed, tbh.

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2009-07-22 12:23:35 am

2009-07-21 11:51:21 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from xXIkuto:

giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.

Try spending some time at twin galaxies and then saying that again.

[edit] Geez, dude, the majority of these points are massive overreactions and don't really warrant the time it takes to think about them. I mean, are you seriously asking to be 'punished' (lol, 'punished') for skipping cutscenes in Shinobi? Yeah, uh, no. It doesn't even matter, since any other run will skip the cutscenes too.

You'd probably have a point if you said 'remove that line' (since SDA's policy is, as far as I can tell, to use the ingame timer unless it's blatantly stupid), but 'enforce that line'? Don't be ridiculous.

The only one that might warrant a change in SDA policy is comparisons across systems, but as SDA simply does not have the resources to compare each of the 10 trillion revisions of the ps/ps2 chipsets to each other for each game ever made for them, it's a lost cause regardless. Besides, being hardware agnostic as much as possible is better in principle. I wouldn't want to see separate categories for them even if someone provided us with the appropriate data.

[quote="xXIkuto"]giving a summary of what usually happens is fine, but to strive for universal rules is damaging to sda.[/quote]

Try spending some time at twin galaxies and then saying that again.

[edit] Geez, dude, the majority of these points are massive overreactions and don't really warrant the time it takes to think about them.  I mean, are you seriously asking to be 'punished' (lol, 'punished') for skipping cutscenes in Shinobi?  Yeah, uh, no.  It doesn't even matter, since any other run will skip the cutscenes too.

You'd probably have a point if you said 'remove that line' (since SDA's policy is, as far as I can tell, to use the ingame timer unless it's blatantly stupid), but 'enforce that line'?  Don't be ridiculous.

The only one that might warrant a change in SDA policy is comparisons across systems, but as SDA simply does not have the resources to compare each of the 10 trillion revisions of the ps/ps2 chipsets to each other for each game ever made for them, it's a lost cause regardless.  Besides, being hardware agnostic as much as possible is better in principle.  I wouldn't want to see separate categories for them even if someone provided us with the appropriate data.

LLCoolDave

2009-07-22 12:19:53 am

Quote from RiskBreaker Y:

maybe because without viewers this entire website is meaningless?

regarding entertainment....it's speedDEMOSarchive. Demo being short for demonstration.

demonstration:

1: an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence: as a (1): conclusive evidence : proof (2): derivation 5 b: a showing of the merits of a product or service to a prospective consumer 2: an outward expression or display3: a show of armed force 4: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause

when i looked around the FAQ's i wasn't confused at all about the rules and such. it could be organized a little better but i don't think it needs to be drastically changed.

BEEP FALLACY ALERT BEEP

The site is called speed demos archive because the internal replay files of the Quake Engine are called demos and have the file extension .dem There is absolutely no correlation to the word Demonstration that wasn't also part of the decision of calling Quake Replay Files Demos, and is thus entirely unrelated to this site.

[quote="RiskBreaker Y"]
maybe because without viewers this entire website is meaningless?

regarding entertainment....it's speedDEMOSarchive.  Demo being short for demonstration.

demonstration:

1: an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence: as a  (1): conclusive evidence : proof  (2): derivation 5 b: [b]a showing of the merits of a product or service to a prospective consumer[/b] 2: an outward expression or display3: a show of armed force 4: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause

when i looked around the FAQ's i wasn't confused at all about the rules and such.  it could be organized a little better but i don't think it needs to be drastically changed.
[/quote]

BEEP FALLACY ALERT BEEP

The site is called speed demos archive because the internal replay files of the Quake Engine are called demos and have the file extension .dem There is absolutely no correlation to the word Demonstration that wasn't also part of the decision of calling Quake Replay Files Demos, and is thus entirely unrelated to this site.

Sir VG

2009-07-22 12:23:52 am

Fucking Weeaboo

Quote:

finally, i believe that the requirement to submit comments should be abolished.

You don't have to do novellas like I do. Basically all you really have to give is at least the game name, system, category, name you want listed on the site, and the date it was recorded. I mean, look at North & South Lv 2 and 3. One word comments.

Riskbreaker Y

2009-07-22 12:57:55 am

berserker status

Quote from LLCoolDave:

BEEP FALLACY ALERT BEEP

The site is called speed demos archive because the internal replay files of the Quake Engine are called demos and have the file extension .dem There is absolutely no correlation to the word Demonstration that wasn't also part of the decision of calling Quake Replay Files Demos, and is thus entirely unrelated to this site.

i stand corrected, i'm new around here; forgive my ill-begotten rationales. Lips Sealed

i still say it's unnecessary to change things drastically but that's just my opinion. take it with a grain of salt.

xXIkuto

Edit history:

xXIkuto: 2009-07-22 03:41:03 am

2009-07-22 03:21:58 am

Quote from VorpalEdge:

I mean, are you seriously asking to be 'punished' (lol, 'punished') for skipping cutscenes in Shinobi? Yeah, uh, no. It doesn't even matter, since any other run will skip the cutscenes too.

i was talking about pausing as hiroku speaks to you (before you are able to hit him) and how the game timer usually times that time (being unable to hit him), but having paused the game, i messed with the game timer. not every run will do that, and i did not do it to its full potential since i didn't realize it at the time (pausing right after killing a boss, while they speak the quick "death dialogue" gives you a few seconds less on the game timer, vs just letting them speak it without pausing the game.)

pausing is not skipping cut scenes, it is where the game states "PAUSE: Resume, options" when you hit the start button.

there is also an issue with me pausing in that run to do the quick sword charge. however, should pausing change the game to be manually timed, i believe this may still be faster than actually charging the sword in real time.

i believe either this issue of manipulating the timer should be clearly stated and consistently enforced, or that it should call for separate categories in any game where pausing manipulates the timing of something in any way. pausing is not going to the menu [it happens to be in some games], my use of the word is simply freezing the game to gain time that is merely a technicality, and not from doing something more skillfully. i know the previous sentence is confusing, but i believe it can be understood.

what it comes down to is that i believe pausing should only be allowed when it concerns something like changing discs, going to the bathroom, dealing with the house being on fire, or something of that nature. and even if pausing has to do with that, it should only be allowed if it also does not affect the game timer or the timing of anything in any beneficial way, besides that of a solely mental benefit [such as pausing before a really tough part in a run to "psych yourself up"]

[quote="VorpalEdge"]
 I mean, are you seriously asking to be 'punished' (lol, 'punished') for skipping cutscenes in Shinobi?  Yeah, uh, no.  It doesn't even matter, since any other run will skip the cutscenes too.
[/quote]

i was talking about pausing as hiroku speaks to you (before you are able to hit him) and how the game timer usually times that time (being unable to hit him), but having paused the game, i messed with the game timer.  not every run will do that, and i did not do it to its full potential since i didn't realize it at the time (pausing right after killing a boss, while they speak the quick "death dialogue" gives you a few seconds less on the game timer, vs just letting them speak it without pausing the game.)

pausing is not skipping cut scenes, it is where the game states "PAUSE: Resume, options" when you hit the start button.

there is also an issue with me pausing in that run to do the quick sword charge.  however, should pausing change the game to be manually timed, i believe this may still be faster than actually charging the sword in real time.

i believe either this issue of manipulating the timer should be clearly stated and consistently enforced, or that it should call for separate categories in any game where pausing manipulates the timing of something in any way.  pausing is not going to the menu [it happens to be in some games], my use of the word is simply freezing the game to gain time that is merely a technicality, and not from doing something more skillfully.  i know the previous sentence is confusing, but i believe it can be understood.

what it comes down to is that i believe pausing should only be allowed when it concerns something like changing discs, going to the bathroom, dealing with the house being on fire, or something of that nature.  and even if pausing has to do with that, it should only be allowed if it also does not affect the game timer or the timing of anything in any beneficial way, besides that of a solely mental benefit [such as pausing before a really tough part in a run to "psych yourself up"]

VorpalEdge

2009-07-22 11:29:12 am

welcome to the machine

Quote from xXIkuto:

i was talking about pausing as hiroku speaks to you (before you are able to hit him) and how the game timer usually times that time (being unable to hit him), but having paused the game, i messed with the game timer.

By pausing there, you are not affecting the run itself in any way. If, say, you paused and then went away for an hour or however long until the timer rolled over to 0:00 and then unpaused and won, then yeah, you would be penalized, because you defeated the point of speedrunning in order to reduce a (frankly meaningless) number. Just pausing for the duration of a speech when you can't hit him anyways, however, does not at all affect the run itself, and so nobody cares.

xXIkuto

2009-07-22 04:59:02 pm

dude, if i did not pause there, the game timer would read a higher (slower) time, vsing having paused, which gave me a better time.

you have limited understanding of the game obviously, which is why you keep saying false things...such as pausing not affecting the run

ExplodingCabbage

2009-07-22 06:00:07 pm

I think VorpalEdge understands that perfectly well.

Basically, it's a badly written section of the FAQ and a confusion of terms. In practice, what we would normally call mild 'timer manipulation' is in fact allowed; only games where the timer can be outright broken to the point that it becomes meaningless are manually timed.

VorpalEdge

2009-07-22 07:10:24 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from xXIkuto:

dude, if i did not pause there, the game timer would read a higher (slower) time, vsing having paused, which gave me a better time.

you have limited understanding of the game obviously, which is why you keep saying false things...such as pausing not affecting the run

You don't seem to be understanding everything I'm saying. tl;dr: the SDA-displayed time doesn't matter.

I'll use SDA's favorite example and cite andrewg's SMB run. Now, I don't know what time the previous run was, so let's say 5:05. Now, imagine a world in which, for whatever reason, andrewg's run was timed at 4:55. There would not be any significant difference whatsoever between that world and ours, so long as the other run was also timed at 5:00 in the other world.

Do you understand what I'm saying? The run's "time" doesn't actually mean anything by itself; its only use is as a comparison between runs. Which brings us back to your Shinobi run. So what if you mess with the ingame timer a little bit? Any other run would do the same thing, so nobody cares if you take it upon yourself to lower a meaningless number a bit when it doesn't actually change the run itself anyways. Because that's what's important: the run itself. Not the time. You can do whatever the fuck you want with the timer so long as it still retains its vital properties, (which are arguable, but I would say A: it can be used for comparison between runs, and B: manipulating it does not cost any real time or otherwise affect the viewer).

What if somebody went and copied your run exactly, except he also paused during the death speech things you were talking about. Would his run be accepted? I certainly hope not, and if it would be, I think I'll be making a topic of my own soon. >_> It's understood that every improvement should generally have a corresponding improvement in play quality and strategies. The goal here is 'best speedrun', not 'best fucks with the ingame timer the most despite having no reduction in real-time speedrun'. Again, what the timer says doesn't actually matter.

This is why I find your statement that you should be 'punished' for pausing so ridiculous. I mean, lol. 'Punishment'. Over a number that does not at all change anything about your run other than the statid. You need to stop caring about timing so much.

By the same token, extra categories for some of the system differences you listed are also ridiculous. If there's even a one second difference, we need a new category? I couldn't care less if that one second was due to, say, slightly longer loading times. If it makes a 'severe' difference (i.e. NTSC/PAL, even though you can just divide the PAL time by 5/6 to get a corresponding NTSC time, it's still a severe difference. don't ask me to define 'severe' though, because i can't), then sure, but the timing difference does not at all matter, so long as you can quantify it. Because then you can compare one run to another, and that's all the time is good for. The basis for deciding whether a difference is severe or not needs to be something else.

(and yes, I am aware that it's hard to define 'best speedrun' except in context of time. and, conversely, it's also hard to define 'best time' except in context of best speedrun. the two terms really help define each other, but they're still separate)

[quote="xXIkuto"]
dude, if i did not pause there, the game timer would read a higher (slower) time, vsing having paused, which gave me a better time.

you have limited understanding of the game obviously, which is why you keep saying false things...such as pausing not affecting the run
[/quote]

You don't seem to be understanding everything I'm saying.  tl;dr: the SDA-displayed time [i]doesn't matter[/i].

I'll use SDA's favorite example and cite andrewg's SMB run.  Now, I don't know what time the previous run was, so let's say 5:05.  Now, imagine a world in which, for whatever reason, andrewg's run was timed at 4:55.  There would not be any significant difference whatsoever between that world and ours, so long as the other run was also timed at 5:00 in the other world.

Do you understand what I'm saying?  The run's "time" doesn't actually mean anything by itself; its only use is as a comparison between runs.  Which brings us back to your Shinobi run.  So what if you mess with the ingame timer a little bit?  Any other run would do the same thing, so nobody cares if you take it upon yourself to lower a meaningless number a bit when it doesn't actually change the run itself anyways.  Because that's what's important: the run itself.  [b]Not[/b] the time.  You can do whatever the fuck you want with the timer so long as it still retains its vital properties, (which are arguable, but I would say A: it can be used for comparison between runs, and B: manipulating it does not cost any real time or otherwise affect the viewer).

What if somebody went and copied your run exactly, except he also paused during the death speech things you were talking about.  Would his run be accepted?  I certainly hope not, and if it would be, I think I'll be making a topic of my own soon.  >_>  It's understood that every improvement should generally have a corresponding improvement in play quality and strategies.  The goal here is 'best speedrun', not 'best fucks with the ingame timer the most despite having no reduction in real-time speedrun'.  Again, what the timer says doesn't actually matter.

This is why I find your statement that you should be 'punished' for pausing so ridiculous.  I mean, lol.  'Punishment'.   Over a number that does not at all change anything about your run other than the statid.  You need to stop caring about timing so much.

By the same token, extra categories for some of the system differences you listed are also ridiculous.  If there's even a one second difference, we need a new category?  I couldn't care less if that one second was due to, say, slightly longer loading times.  If it makes a 'severe' difference (i.e. NTSC/PAL, even though you can just divide the PAL time by 5/6 to get a corresponding NTSC time, it's still a severe difference.  don't ask me to define 'severe' though, because i can't), then sure, but the timing difference does not at all matter, so long as you can quantify it.  Because then you can compare one run to another, and that's all the time is good for.  The basis for deciding whether a difference is severe or not needs to be something else.

(and yes, I am aware that it's hard to define 'best speedrun' except in context of time.  and, conversely, it's also hard to define 'best time' except in context of best speedrun.  the two terms really help define each other, but they're still separate)

xXIkuto

2009-07-22 07:22:04 pm

the thing is though, smb is MANUALLY timed (which i urge for shinobi due to my timer manipulation), while sda goes on the GAME timer for shinobi. i do not see why people seem to think the timer needs to be totally broken to suggest it become manually timed. if the game timer is not accurate due to things like pausing (which in real-time makes the run longer, and involves simply freezing the screen...vs mm9 in which it was not pausing but constant menu switching to strategically switch weapons that improved the game time. in this case it was not simply manipulation because pausing did not affect the timer, only what the person in game was doing. mm9 has the option for a manually timed run as well, so this doesn't matter either way.)

do you see what i'm saying? it crosses the line when someone pauses the game for the mere purpose of manipulating the game timer. by example i am saying when the screen simply freezes for a pause (shinobi, re4) and there is no actual improvement of time when it comes to any skill difference, but the game timer is now affected and shows a lower time than what was actually accomplished. things like this are why there is even a clause that a faster run may be rejected, because it has worse play quality. that line is wrong though, because it is NOT a faster run in the first place, it is a slower run that for some reason has not been punished for manipulating the timer and therefore causes a lot of problems crossing other rules and categories for other games and runners.

read very carefully to what i am saying. i am not calling anyone here stupid or hating them for disagreeing, but i want them to understand my point and my utter shock that any runner can say "well, it's only a few seconds, no big deal." that is highly disrespectful to SDA imo

the thing is though, smb is MANUALLY timed (which i urge for shinobi due to my timer manipulation), while sda goes on the GAME timer for shinobi.  i do not see why people seem to think the timer needs to be totally broken to suggest it become manually timed.  if the game timer is not accurate due to things like pausing (which in real-time makes the run longer, and involves simply freezing the screen...vs mm9 in which it was not pausing but constant menu switching to strategically switch weapons that improved the game time.  in this case it was not simply manipulation because pausing did not affect the timer, only what the person in game was doing.  mm9 has the option for a manually timed run as well, so this doesn't matter either way.)

do you see what i'm saying?  it crosses the line when someone pauses the game for the mere purpose of manipulating the game timer.  by example i am saying when the screen simply freezes for a pause (shinobi, re4) and there is no actual improvement of time when it comes to any skill difference, but the game timer is now affected and shows a lower time than what was actually accomplished.  things like this are why there is even a clause that a faster run may be rejected, because it has worse play quality.  that line is wrong though, because it is NOT a faster run in the first place, it is a slower run that for some reason has not been punished for manipulating the timer and therefore causes a lot of problems crossing other rules and categories for other games and runners.

read very carefully to what i am saying.  i am not calling anyone here stupid or hating them for disagreeing, but i want them to understand my point and my utter shock that any runner can say "well, it's only a few seconds, no big deal."  that is highly disrespectful to SDA imo

UltimateDarius

2009-07-22 08:38:14 pm

Back in the game!

Quote from LLCoolDave:

Quote from RiskBreaker Y:

maybe because without viewers this entire website is meaningless?

regarding entertainment....it's speedDEMOSarchive. Demo being short for demonstration.

demonstration:

1: an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence: as a (1): conclusive evidence : proof (2): derivation 5 b: a showing of the merits of a product or service to a prospective consumer 2: an outward expression or display3: a show of armed force 4: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause

when i looked around the FAQ's i wasn't confused at all about the rules and such. it could be organized a little better but i don't think it needs to be drastically changed.

BEEP FALLACY ALERT BEEP

The site is called speed demos archive because the internal replay files of the Quake Engine are called demos and have the file extension .dem There is absolutely no correlation to the word Demonstration that wasn't also part of the decision of calling Quake Replay Files Demos, and is thus entirely unrelated to this site.

Regardless of any of your "factual information," to the general public, a Demo is exactly as described by Riskbreaker: short for demonstration, and what is expected when viewing this site. Most of the time, it achieves this goal, so it sits well with me.

[quote="LLCoolDave"]
[quote="RiskBreaker Y"]
maybe because without viewers this entire website is meaningless?

regarding entertainment....it's speedDEMOSarchive.  Demo being short for demonstration.

demonstration:

1: an act, process, or means of demonstrating to the intelligence: as a  (1): conclusive evidence : proof  (2): derivation 5 b: [b]a showing of the merits of a product or service to a prospective consumer[/b] 2: an outward expression or display3: a show of armed force 4: a public display of group feelings toward a person or cause

when i looked around the FAQ's i wasn't confused at all about the rules and such.  it could be organized a little better but i don't think it needs to be drastically changed.
[/quote]

BEEP FALLACY ALERT BEEP

The site is called speed demos archive because the internal replay files of the Quake Engine are called demos and have the file extension .dem There is absolutely no correlation to the word Demonstration that wasn't also part of the decision of calling Quake Replay Files Demos, and is thus entirely unrelated to this site.
[/quote]

Regardless of any of your "factual information," to the general public, a Demo is exactly as described by Riskbreaker:  short for demonstration, and what is expected when viewing this site.  Most of the time, it achieves this goal, so it sits well with me.

VorpalEdge

Edit history:

VorpalEdge: 2009-07-22 10:59:04 pm

2009-07-22 10:17:17 pm

welcome to the machine

Quote from xXIkuto:

i am not calling anyone here stupid or hating them for disagreeing, but i want them to understand my point and my utter shock that any runner can say "well, it's only a few seconds, no big deal." that is highly disrespectful to SDA imo

What is the difference between calling a run 4:55 or 5:00?

Answer: none, because it's just what you're calling it, and does not change the run.

Sorry, dude, that's just the way things are.

xXIkuto

2009-07-23 01:03:37 am

5 seconds is the difference...and it's the game timer...which is all that's used...am i talking to a forum of crazy people?

Vugmer

2009-07-23 02:47:15 am

Cigar Man

Time every run manually in real time.

Scepheo

2009-07-23 04:43:55 am

Quote from xXIkuto:

5 seconds is the difference...and it's the game timer...which is all that's used...am i talking to a forum of crazy people?

You seem to think nobody understands your point. Everybody does though, which you don't seem to understand.

Let's say your run is 1:00. Had it been manually timed, it would have been 1:10. Somebody comes along and improves your run by 10 minutes. In-game time: 0:50. Manually timed time: 1:00. Does it matter which one you use? No. Because it'll be beaten anyways, with the exact same time difference. So what's the point in taking the effort of timing the run manually?

ExplodingCabbage

Edit history:

ExplodingCabbage: 2009-07-23 05:39:18 am

2009-07-23 05:27:09 am

xXIkuto has touched on, if not actually spelt out, an important point: assuming that people will try to minimise the game timer if their run is being manually timed (which they will - as Smilge said on an unrelated topic, even when bowling alone you don't deliberately throw gutterballs, and similarly here you wouldn't simply ignore something that could reduce the final time just because you don't like it), then manual timing will lead to much longer real time times for many runs. For example, I reckon I spent well over a minute in the weapon upgrade menu (which is off the in-game timer) in my Hitman: Blood Money run to make virtually irrelevant upgrades to my weapons that maybe saved a second or two of in-game time over the whole run. I would much rather that the run had been manually timed so that I would have to optimise my upgrade route rather than just getting every single possible upgrade (which would have made for a smoother, and, in my opinion, more interesting video), but that isn't how SDA deals with the issue at the moment.

As such, VorpalEdge, in practice SDA follows your rule A, but strictly does not care in the least bit about your rule B.

Quote:

You can do whatever the fuck you want with the timer so long as it still retains its vital properties, (which are arguable, but I would say A: it can be used for comparison between runs, and B: manipulating it does not cost any real time or otherwise affect the viewer).

Personally, I think this is an acceptable state of affairs, and indeed most people seem to prefer it to the idea of everything being manually timed, although my personal preference would be to manually time everything.

To xXIkuto, let me try to explain - even though I think it's slightly flawed, for the reason I gave above - the argument the others are making as to why timer manipulation doesn't matter. Basically, nobody really cares what the actual final time for a run is, all they care about is that the runner has done everything in their power to minimise it. If the timer can be manipulated by pausing at the right moment to not time dialogues or cutscenes, then so be it; once the trick is known, all runners will do that, fair competition will exist between them, no (or very little) real time will be lost as a result, and the overall route required for the rest of the run will not be changed a bit as a result - as such, the viewer's ability to appreciate the run is entirely unaffected.

As an analogy, remember that Mike has to decide, when manually timing a run, what the start and end points of the run are. To some small extent, these decisions are arbitrary (e.g. do you end timing after the final hit is dealt to the final boss, or only when the final cutscene starts playing?). However, they do not have any affect on the resulting run (usually - theoretically they can! e.g. if SDA ended timing after the final cutscene, you might want to make different decisions in the run to get a shorter final cutscene). As such, it would not matter a jot if, for some arbitrary game, Mike decided to end timing at a point 5 seconds earlier or later than the runner had expected, even though this would result in the final official time being 5 seconds higher or lower. VorpalEdge and Scepheo seem to think that the difference between manual and in-game timing is basically the same thing - and in many cases it is, including the example you yourself gave - although sometimes it's more complicated than that.

xXIkuto has touched on, if not actually spelt out, an important point: assuming that people will try to minimise the game timer if their run is being manually timed (which they will - as Smilge said on an unrelated topic, even when bowling alone you don't deliberately throw gutterballs, and similarly here you wouldn't simply ignore something that could reduce the final time just because you don't like it), then manual timing will lead to much longer [i]real time[/i] times for many runs. For example, I reckon I spent well over a minute in the weapon upgrade menu (which is off the in-game timer) in my Hitman: Blood Money run to make virtually irrelevant upgrades to my weapons that [i]maybe[/i] saved a second or two of in-game time over the whole run. I would much rather that the run had been manually timed so that I would have to optimise my upgrade route rather than just getting every single possible upgrade (which would have made for a smoother, and, in my opinion, more interesting video), but that isn't how SDA deals with the issue at the moment.

As such, VorpalEdge, in practice SDA follows your rule A, but strictly does [i]not[/i] care in the least bit about your rule B.

[quote]You can do whatever the fuck you want with the timer so long as it still retains its vital properties, (which are arguable, but I would say A: it can be used for comparison between runs, and B: manipulating it does not cost any real time or otherwise affect the viewer).[/quote]

Personally, I think this is an acceptable state of affairs, and indeed most people seem to prefer it to the idea of everything being manually timed, although my personal preference would be to manually time everything.

To xXIkuto, let me try to explain - even though I think it's slightly flawed, for the reason I gave above - the argument the others are making as to why timer manipulation doesn't matter. Basically, nobody really cares what the actual final time for a run [i]is[/i], all they care about is that the runner has done everything in their power to minimise it. If the timer can be manipulated by pausing at the right moment to not time dialogues or cutscenes, then so be it; once the trick is known, all runners will do that, fair competition will exist between them, no (or very little) real time will be lost as a result, and the overall route required for the rest of the run will not be changed a bit as a result - as such, the viewer's ability to appreciate the run is entirely unaffected.

As an analogy, remember that Mike has to decide, when manually timing a run, what the start and end points of the run are. To some small extent, these decisions are arbitrary (e.g. do you end timing after the final hit is dealt to the final boss, or only when the final cutscene starts playing?). However, they do not have any affect on the resulting run (usually - theoretically they can! e.g. if SDA ended timing after the final cutscene, you might want to make different decisions in the run to get a shorter final cutscene). As such, it would not matter a jot if, for some arbitrary game, Mike decided to end timing at a point 5 seconds earlier or later than the runner had expected, even though this would result in the final official time being 5 seconds higher or lower. VorpalEdge and Scepheo seem to think that the difference between manual and in-game timing is basically the same thing - and [i]in many cases it is, including the example you yourself gave[/i] - although sometimes it's more complicated than that.