Donkey Kong Country 3 - September 29th, 2009

[OnyxShadow]

I didn't get a chance to verify this game, but I gotta agree that an improvement is an improvement...and this is a BIG improvement. After watching this high quality run, I can definitely say I would have accepted it. One thing is for sure, though. With all this drama around this game, there's a good chance someone else will take a shot at this sometime soon.

The key here IMO is what is required for verifying a game. One is not required to have an in-depth mastery of a game and ALL of its tricks but only to have beaten it and know what to expect. The reference to Exploding Cabbage is a good one. If you've got THAT big a problem with a run and think its SOOO easy to improve, go for it. Nobody's stopping you.

[Enhasa]

I can easily said there is some ugly accepted SS runs compared this one for example yoshis island SS and The lost level Luigi run. Both includes tons crap mistakes, but still accepted without troubles.

Those were both made before play quality verification even existed. I doubt they would pass today.

[OnyxShadow]

What about removing existing runs deemed too low quality for SDA? If we are restricting new ones based on quality, why are some of the "bad" old ones still acceptable? Do we need a system to challenge old runs that just don't meet our modern standards?

Just playing devil's advocate...

[ridd3r.]

What about removing existing runs deemed too low quality for SDA? If we are restricting new ones based on quality, why are some of the "bad" old ones still acceptable? Do we need a system to challenge old runs that just don't meet our modern standards?

Just playing devil's advocate...

Its part of the grandfather clause and is not the only issue covered by it. The other main thing I can think of is that games which used to allow scripts still do, but the use of scripts is not allowed with any new games. Also hopefully someone will see the old run which is not up to scratch and then have motivation to improve it, if they are removed those games and categories may just be forgotten.

[Eternalspirit]

What about removing existing runs deemed too low quality for SDA? If we are restricting new ones based on quality, why are some of the "bad" old ones still acceptable? Do we need a system to challenge old runs that just don't meet our modern standards?

Just playing devil's advocate...

Its part of the grandfather clause and is not the only issue covered by it. The other main thing I can think of is that games which used to allow scripts still do, but the use of scripts is not allowed with any new games. Also hopefully someone will see the old run which is not up to scratch and then have motivation to improve it, if they are removed those games and categories may just be forgotten.

That. Also, if a runner does their absolute best for a run and the only thing hindering them is lack of knowledge to improve the run, and it still gets rejected because it doesn't use every single known strategy, I think this becomes really depressing for current and prospective speed runners, to know that their best efforts may get rejected over one thing here or another. I think the verification process should just look for big mistakes in the run or other such things, things that really stick out as simply bad play quality. The verification thread is the perfect place to suggest things like how to improve this or that, and I am sure that 90% of the time, the runner would be willing to do the run again with new knowledge imparted by other users in order to make an even bigger improvement, and if not the current runner, then somebody else. I don't mind seeing runs put up that don't use every single known strategy, as long as the play quality is good. An improvement will come sooner or later.

[Enhasa]

I don't know if everyone thinks the same way, but personally I am more forgiving on execution mistakes than planning mistakes. Most people might be the opposite since execution mistakes look worse. But my rationale is: if a run is rejected because the runner doesn't know certain things they ought to, that's not so bad since the runner can just learn those things and redo it. It shouldn't be that hard. They have the ability.

But on the other hand, if a run is rejected for execution, the runner might think "this is BS, this is as good as I can play. what do these people expect, I quit." For planning rejections, the runner will realize "well, if I had tried to get some feedback before submitting this run, people could have told me about these shortcuts" and feel like the rejection is at least partially on them.


So I respect the last post but personally (not as someone involved with SDA) I really disagree.

[Eternalspirit]

I don't know if everyone thinks the same way, but personally I am more forgiving on execution mistakes than planning mistakes. Most people might be the opposite since execution mistakes look worse. But my rationale is: if a run is rejected because the runner doesn't know certain things they ought to, that's not so bad since the runner can just learn those things and redo it. It shouldn't be that hard. They have the ability.

But on the other hand, if a run is rejected for execution, the runner might think "this is BS, this is as good as I can play. what do these people expect, I quit." For planning rejections, the runner will realize "well, if I had tried to get some feedback before submitting this run, people could have told me about these shortcuts" and feel like the rejection is at least partially on them.


So I respect the last post but personally (not as someone involved with SDA) I really disagree.

I can certainly see your point. I think this is where services such as Youtube come in handy, where you can show your run to anyone who will watch, unofficial verifiers if you will, and someone here or there can tell you if you've missed one thing or another. I just think it can get really demoralizing for someone if they've submitted their best efforts, and it still isn't good enough because of some planning issues. I could understand it if better planning would lead to like over half an hour of improvements, but if it's something about a couple boss fights and a minor route change or something along those lines that might only save 4-5 minutes tops (depending on run length and whether it's segmented or not, obviously), then I'm not sure I can justify a rejection.

Thankfully, it won't be an issue here since the runner said they will redo the run. Again, though, I do see your points and for the most part I can agree with them. Only to a certain limit on forgiving the execution mistakes, though - if someone's play quality is obviously crap, I wouldn't want to watch that run, although I'm quite sure you agree that you'd only accept execution limits to a certain limit.