I believe that in some cases, segmenting a run will allow you to include tricks that would prove impossible for a single segment run.
I'm sure very difficult tricks can be done in a SS run, it's just that doing more than a few ridiculous tricks would probably be impossible.
That being said, I would imagine I could do a SS run with the flagpole glitch, but then I wouldn't be able to pull off the walljump only because of how nervous I'd be and I wouldn't want to risk doing it. The run would still be a 5:00 run with the flagpole glitch and no walljump I believe.
A segmented run basically eliminates risk.
Super Mario Bros. console speedrunner
- Andrew Gardikis
Nothing is as boring as either watching the player to stare a wall or the same cut scene you've seen over and over again.
The average speedrun viewer (such as myself) has not seen the cutscenes over and over. When I watched the HL:OF speedrun I had seen the cutscenes exactly once: When I played the game. Seeing them again would have been much nicer than that awful flickering.
If the game is easy and/or has an autosave option, that is most correct. So yes, it is likely a casual player has seen the cut scene a few times, tops. I was thinking more along the lines of Far Cry (as a game, the run is awesome, but the game has long save point distances so repetition is inevitable, at least if you suck at it, like me) or Mega Man 7's intro (which is unskippable, and everyone who has played the game has seen it at least a few times). I did expressly say that's just my opinion, though, just like I said I don't really mind a few seconds of flickering in a great run.
Warp wrote:
And why whine here at TASvideos, of all places?
At least it's more on topic than most of the other threads in this group.
Debatable, but that does not matter. What I meant was it's about as useful as whining to your friends about what a judged ruled in a game you just watched. It doesn't change the outcome, although I don't deny that it might make you feel better. Thus the question about usefulness. Well, this is the off-topic forum, but I'm sure you know where I'm getting at.
´The Quake done Quick speedruns are the quintessential example of this: They are polished to almost perfection, showing almost superhuman skills from the players. True playing skills. A single-segment Quake run would simply hinder the player and forbid him from even trying the craziest stunts. Thus we wouldn't see as much playing skill in a single-segment run.
I hate when they so fast in those runs, makes me miss all the story! I also hate to watch the Quake runs because of the all the mountain size pixels. Honestly, the graphics suck ass. They should record FEAR at full settings. Also they should be more entertaining, in general, during waiting periods. Just because I don't like it.
They use grenade timers, btw.
Lucid Faia wrote:
There's not a single, solitary trick in the history of video games that is as difficult as playing through the entire game in one sitting. You're comparing the ultimate test of endurance and improvisation to resetting until you get lucky. Give me a break.
I made a SS run while back and I think it was a lot easier and a lot less annoying than any of my previous runs even if the whole latter half of the run was random. Also the good thing about SS runs is that you can just ignore all the mistakes ;)
´The Quake done Quick speedruns are the quintessential example of this: They are polished to almost perfection, showing almost superhuman skills from the players. True playing skills. A single-segment Quake run would simply hinder the player and forbid him from even trying the craziest stunts. Thus we wouldn't see as much playing skill in a single-segment run.
I hate when they so fast in those runs, makes me miss all the story! I also hate to watch the Quake runs because of the all the mountain size pixels. Honestly, the graphics suck ass. They should record FEAR at full settings. Also they should be more entertaining, in general, during waiting periods. Just because I don't like it.
I honestly don't understand what is it that you are trying to say with that sarcasm. Or is it just random fun poking?
I honestly don't understand what is it that you are trying to say with that sarcasm. Or is it just random fun poking?
Maybe you should try to look for the gameplay in other runs instead of calling them utter crap because of the waiting antics or graphics. Missing out on the story? Play the game goddamnit if you really care about it, you shouldn't be watching a speedrun of the game if you want to see the story. Also forcing runners to do something 'funny' during waits is just stupid, I'd rather watch spinning around furiously for 5 minutes than some regular "let's put a radio in to the toilet" kinda funny antics.
Tmont wrote:
Yeah, if you want your run to suck. winky
Obviously, I wasn't being serious here but the thing is that in a bit more complex games you can just forget about those 0.2 second mistakes and move on.
TASvideos forums' rules of healthy communication!
Rule #1: Don't take offense at whatever Saturn says.
Rule #2: Don't take offense at whatever Warp says.
Of course, inviting a crowd to rebut a random person's ramblings is very cool.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Maybe you should try to look for the gameplay in other runs instead of calling them utter crap because of the waiting antics or graphics.
Maybe you missed my point? I was talking about entertainment. Speedruns are made for entertainment.
When a modern FPS game uses its game engine at full quality, the visual experience is a lot better than if it looks like a 90's game played with the first 3D card in the market. In other words, it's more entertaining.
If the game had an option to draw completely flat-colored untextured polygons, completely ignoring any lighting, would that be ok in your opinion? Personally I would skip that kind of speedrun completely because it wouldn't make any sense.
The whole point of those videos is entertainment. If the image quality is utter crap, how is that entertaining?
Missing out on the story? Play the game goddamnit if you really care about it, you shouldn't be watching a speedrun of the game if you want to see the story.
Again, I'm talking about entertainment. The story of the game adds to its entertaining value. Ruining the story doesn't.
It doesn't matter if I have played the game or not: I still want to see an entertaining video. Some strobo flickering which ruins the cutscenes is not entertaining. It's crap.
Also forcing runners to do something 'funny' during waits is just stupid
Why? What is the point in speedrun videos if not entertainment?
I'd rather watch spinning around furiously for 5 minutes than some regular "let's put a radio in to the toilet" kinda funny antics.
If there was a 5-minute unskippable wait in a game, would you prefer the speedrunner statically looking at a plain-colored wall the whole time, or would you prefer him doing something interesting and entertaining?
If the answer is the latter, why? You don't seem to appreciate entertainment.
Maybe you should try to look for the gameplay in other runs instead of calling them utter crap because of the waiting antics or graphics.
Maybe you missed my point? I was talking about entertainment. Speedruns are made for entertainment.
When a modern FPS game uses its game engine at full quality, the visual experience is a lot better than if it looks like a 90's game played with the first 3D card in the market. In other words, it's more entertaining.
If the game had an option to draw completely flat-colored untextured polygons, completely ignoring any lighting, would that be ok in your opinion? Personally I would skip that kind of speedrun completely because it wouldn't make any sense.
The whole point of those videos is entertainment. If the image quality is utter crap, how is that entertaining?
Graphics != entertainment. While the graphics in a game should be visually appealing, there's so much else that goes into a game. Granted, from a viewers POV, graphics and audio are the only two things that really matter, since you're only watching, not playing.
IMO, a comparison that gameplay trumps graphics for FPS is Unreal Tournament, trumping the later games (I haven't played UT3 though, but I'm comparing the original with like, 2003 or 2004). The original was so much fun, and the others just felt so clunky.
Though I guess clunky controls can hamper the fun of watching a speed run, indirectly.
As I watch a speedrun, I automatically skip past any cutscene, even if it's a scene I've never seen before. I want runs to be entertaining, sure, but entertainment to me is to watch fast gameplay. Not cutscenes, not graphics, but fast and smooth gameplay. I'd take a f.e.a.r run using the lowest settings, recorded at 60 fps over a run using the highest settings with lower framerate any day.
Not only would the run most likely be faster, it would be a lot easier to see what's going on with a higher framerate.
Aside from this being your opinion, I think you can understand that entertainment is subjective, yes? Let's say I find the 'spastic random motion' and 'night vision strobing' entertaining. Then I have no problem with that run! Amazing how that works out.
SDA can't please everybody. If it can't please you, don't go there.
I hate when they so fast in those runs, makes me miss all the story! I also hate to watch the Quake runs because of the all the mountain size pixels. Honestly, the graphics suck ass. They should record FEAR at full settings. Also they should be more entertaining, in general, during waiting periods. Just because I don't like it.
One of the most entertaining SDA runs I've watched was Pikmin. This would only be entertaining to those who have played the game though. It was very well planned out and made me think a few times "how did that happen?" That run was entertaining since there wasn't really a lot of time for the player to goof off and try (and fail) to be funny. The Final Trial had some boring bits though. My opinion of a really good run is when there is enough going on that you don't have to kill time. I also liked the Luigi's Mansion Single Segment run because it had a lot going on. The Boo hunting was a little dull, but that didn't bother me too much.
I guess what I'm saying is a game without any down time (or at least very little) is a good game to run. Entertainment value isn't much of an issue if you've already got enough to look at while playing it normally.
I haven't posted much on these forums, but I'm a regular at SDA. I have to disagree with Warp--I don't think that the whole point of a speedrun is entertainment. Sure, entertainment is important (and nice for the viewer as well), but it doesn't take precedence over speed. An example from the game I'm most familiar with: In the runs for Final Fantasy 3/6 (both the TAS and my run on SDA), for at least half the game most bosses are killed with Joker Doom (an instead death attack). It's not that entertaining to watch over and over again--it would be much more entertaining and creative to find other ways to kill things--but it's the fastest, and no runner is going to sacrifice more time when it's so easy to do. Maybe this doesn't address your point, since you were talking more about graphics and cutscenes, but my point is that entertainment is not more important than speed in every case.
As for segmented and single-segment runs: I have completed runs of both types (admittedly they were RPGs, so my experience is limited in this area), and I'd say that both types take a lot of work. In an SS run, you have to be good at the entire game all at once and be able to concentrate for longer periods of time, but more perfection is expected in a segmented run. I'll stay out of the debate over which is faster, though, because I don't have enough experience with other types of games.
I haven't posted much on these forums, but I'm a regular at SDA. I have to disagree with Warp--I don't think that the whole point of a speedrun is entertainment.
Maybe we are talking about completely different conceptual categories.
When I say "entertainment" I mean that speedruns are not done as someone's payjob or because it's something which must be done. Some people make speedruns because they enjoy doing them, and some people watch speedruns because they enjoy watching them. The sole purpose of speedruns even existing is because of entertainment reasons.
Someone could argue that speedrunners create speedruns only for their own entertainment. They don't care if viewers are entertained or not. That's fine. I was just pointing out that, from a viewer's point of view, if some speedrunner wanted to make his runs more watchable and entertaining, then IMO they should take aesthetic decisions more into account.
I also had a secondary point: Some speedrunners and speedrun fans diss tool-assisted speedruns, maybe because they feel that they are somehow "stealing" viewers or something (maybe they feel that when viewers watch speedruns and TASes they will switch to the latter because the former seem imperfect in comparison). Well, my answer to that is that if they thought a bit more about their audience, for example by making more aesthetically pleasing videos, that would help a bit. They clearly care about their audience because if they didn't, they wouldn't care about TASes either. If they did speedruns 100% for themselves, without giving a damn about who watches them, then they probably wouldn't mind about other people using tool-assistance for the same thing.
(No, I'm not saying all speedrunners and speedrun fans are like that. I'm just saying that some are.)
Sure, entertainment is important (and nice for the viewer as well), but it doesn't take precedence over speed.
I never said that entertainment should be increased at the cost of speed. I just said that in situations where speed is irrelevant (unskippable interactive cutscenes, for example), the better choice is the most entertaining thing to do instead of trying to annoy the viewer.
As for segmented and single-segment runs: I have completed runs of both types (admittedly they were RPGs, so my experience is limited in this area), and I'd say that both types take a lot of work. In an SS run, you have to be good at the entire game all at once, but more perfection is expected in a segmented run. I'll stay out of the debate over which is faster, though, because I don't have enough experience with other types of games.
I just said that I like segmented speedruns more because they allow the runner to perform crazier and more awesome stunts, which he might not even attempt in a single-segment run because of its high risk. Again, this is because crazy stunts add to the entertainment value of the run, even if they only made the run 0.5 seconds faster.
When I say "entertainment" I mean that speedruns are not done as someone's payjob or because it's something which must be done. Some people make speedruns because they enjoy doing them, and some people watch speedruns because they enjoy watching them. The sole purpose of speedruns even existing is because of entertainment reasons.
True, maybe we're using different definitions of "entertainment". I guess unlike you, I find the parts with actual gameplay more entertaining in a speedrun than the cutscenes. That's what separates speedruns from regular playthroughs--the focus is more on the gameplay than the story.
Warp wrote:
I never said that entertainment should be increased at the cost of speed. I just said that in situations where speed is irrelevant (unskippable interactive cutscenes, for example), the better choice is the most entertaining thing to do instead of trying to annoy the viewer.
You're right, I got away from what you were saying. However, I can testify that after having watched a cutscene for the 100th or so time, a runner isn't always worried about doing the most entertaining thing. And yes, sometimes they may end up doing something that is really annoying to watch. The thing with speedruns is that you don't know ahead of time which attempt will be successful, and it can get tiresome doing the same thing--the most entertaining thing--every single time.
Maybe you missed my point? I was talking about entertainment. Speedruns are made for entertainment.
Speedruns are entertainment, but not made to entertain every people on the face of the earth. For example, I don't make speedruns for other people. I make them for myself and because I like to make them. Speed is entertaining for me and using every way possible to speed up the game with very few exceptions.
Warp wrote:
When a modern FPS game uses its game engine at full quality, the visual experience is a lot better than if it looks like a 90's game played with the first 3D card in the market. In other words, it's more entertaining.
No, it's not. I'd play Quake any day over Crysis simply because it's a better game. Thus, a lot more entertaining for me.
Warp wrote:
If the game had an option to draw completely flat-colored untextured polygons, completely ignoring any lighting, would that be ok in your opinion?
Yes, it would be. Would the Quake runs suck if the graphics were like this? No.
Warp wrote:
The whole point of those videos is entertainment. If the image quality is utter crap, how is that entertaining?
Because, graphics don't make a good game nor a good speedrun.
Warp wrote:
Again, I'm talking about entertainment. The story of the game adds to its entertaining value. Ruining the story doesn't.
Still, don't watch speedruns for the story.
Warp wrote:
It doesn't matter if I have played the game or not: I still want to see an entertaining video. Some strobo flickering which ruins the cutscenes is not entertaining. It's crap.
Another thing is that you should only watch runs of games you've actually played. There's almost no way to appreciate the run enough if you haven't. Of course it's not forbidden but atleast you shouldn't whine about it. But then if you want to watch the game being played instead of playing it, you can always watch some video walkthroughs at www.stuckgamer.com or some other site.
Warp wrote:
If there was a 5-minute unskippable wait in a game, would you prefer the speedrunner statically looking at a plain-colored wall the whole time, or would you prefer him doing something interesting and entertaining?
In the end, I wouldn't care because I would just skip over it. Then again, you have to do something very very interesting or funny to keep me interested for those 5 minutes of waiting. Or even a minute.
I like entertainment and I'm entertained when the player speeds through the game.
When a modern FPS game uses its game engine at full quality, the visual experience is a lot better than if it looks like a 90's game played with the first 3D card in the market. In other words, it's more entertaining.
No, it's not. I'd play Quake any day over Crysis simply because it's a better game. Thus, a lot more entertaining for me.
You still kinda missed Warp's point. He was saying that a certain run of a certain game is better viewed with higher image quality settings, not that a run of game A looks better than a run of game B because game A was released later.
The thread does unveil a lot of mutual misunderstanding, though, which is pretty amusing, considering that a lot of SDA residents are being lured here as if they cared about Warp or his opinion. Still can't believe they do.
[EDIT]
<LinkTetra> Warp in the SDA hate thread at TASvideos continues to entertain me.
Riiight, so it's an "SDA hate" thread now. Amazing.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Uh, I somehow think I started a flamewar. My bad.
When I was talking about segmented runs, I should have been more specific... I meant RPG segmented runs, or RPG SDA runs in general.
Getting lucky is not a skill. (Bow chica-bow-wow) Most TASes of RPG rely heavily on Luck Manipulation to even BE a 'speedrun.' Otherwise, you are at the mercy of an RNG.
Segmented runs of RPGs are just TASes with less save states. They do luck manipulation, just on a larger and rather inefficient scale.
That said, some good points in defense have been raised. There is no PSX, PC, PS2, Xbox, Dreamcast, Amiga, Colecovision, Atari 2600, Atari 7800, Commodore 64, Turbograffix 16, PS3, GC, Saturn, Sega CD, Xbox 360, Wii, Jaguar, PSP, Game Gear, Virtual Boy, 3DO, or CDi Emulator with TAS ability yet. (PHEW, and I'm sure I missed a few) Those are fine for any segmented/non-segmented run.
moozooh wrote:
Warp wrote:
Why? Because with a single-segment run the player is forced to play more carefully and cannot try the wildest tricks he is capable of, if those tricks are very dangerous and could easily cause the player to die, thus ruining the entire attempt.
The player isn't really forced, though, as there are SS runs that show very aggressive play (also applicable to 25-50 minute long score runs of arcade games). It's up to the players, their patience, and their consistency in trick performance.
I heartily agree with Moozooh. Look, a run on SDA should be the top 'athlete' of that game. An athlete is suppose to be consistently good, not just try something until he/she gets lucky and it works. An athlete has to play all 40 minutes of basketball, not save and reset every time he misses a half-court shot. Leave the full-court shots to the TASers. They do it better, and more interestingly. Show us all out skill, by playing the full game, balls to the wall. Show us why you are best at the game, not why you got 'lucky' and made 1 full court shot after 60 tries.
Sage advice from a friend of Jim: So put your tinfoil hat back in the closet, open your eyes to the truth, and realize that the government is in fact causing austismal cancer with it's 9/11 fluoride vaccinations of your water supply.
