I fail to see how the length of words is a downside.
Takes longer to read and write.
People don't read individual characters. They read (or, more precisely, see) whole words at a time. Whether the word is 4 or 10 characters long is of little matter.
English might have shorter words in average, but on the other hand you need more of them to express the same thing, so that often compensates. In other words, Finnish can sometimes be more *compact* than English.
The classical example is the finnish sentence: "Juoksentelisinkohan?" This is a rather normal sentence, ie. not at all far-fetched. A more or less accurate translation to English would be: "I wonder if I should be running around" (although it's difficult to express the original notion of the type of running, which means running here and there, randomly and without really a goal).
And btw, most words in regular Finnish sentences are not nearly that long. (Compound words can get pretty long, but it's a matter of definition whether they are single words, or if the composing words are counted separately.)
A more mundane example would be, for example "auton ovi", which means "the door of the car". Two vs. five words, and the expression is shorter.
Automatic Update is evil, It makes your computer reboot by not asking you and then you lose some job by not saving your stuff before quitting the office.
By not asking? What do you mean? The most common complaint is that it *does* ask. Constantly. Repeatedly. It's really nagging.
In general, when you have a sentence in the form "<subject> <verb> <object>", you can expand the subject so that its last word doesn't "match" with the verb, but it doesn't need to because the verb is not referring to it.
For example something like "doors is closed" is easy to construct: "That shop which sells doors is closed." (The verb refers to 'shop' and not 'doors'.) Likewise "I are here" -> "my friend and I are here", and so on.
But I think that writing it the correct way (dying) is also annoying, because it makes no sense. It's more intuitive to write "dieing".
Seeing the wrong form bothers me. It's ugly. It looks like "dieieieieieing".
How do you even pronounce "dieing"? My impression is that you would pronounce it something like [daiain'].
From a logical point of view "dying" actually makes more sense when you think about how it would be pronounced. Assuming "dy" is pronounced like [dai], then "dying" would be something like [dai'in], which is close to correct.
Warp wrote:
Wrong: "I would do it if it was possible, but it isn't."
I think this sounds best, so I would probably write like that even if it was wrong.
"Sounds best" is not always equivalent to "correct". :P
this movie has the lowest percent, and should be called a low%.
The goal of this movie is not to collect as few items as possible. The goal of this movie is to complete the game as fast as possible, completely regardless of how many items are collected. If collecting more items would make the run faster, then it would collect more items.
It's just that in this particular case it so happens that the fastest possible completion time *also* implies the lowest possible object collection, as a side effect.
Classifying this as "low%" would mean that the primary goal of this run was to collect as few items as possible, while the speed was only a secondary goal. This is not so. The number of collected items is completely irrelevant, and the primary goal is to simply complete the game as fast as possible, regardless of the means. Thus "any%".
I think Warp's phrase is too strict, because of for instance Jackie Chan's Action Kung Fu. That entire movie would have only been about 20 frames faster with taking damage... but it would be a lot less entertaining, since it loses a lot of the sense of perfection of the movie.
Does that mean there are at most 20 places where damage can be taken, and no more? That doesn't sound too bad to me.
In order to justify them not being obsoleted, a really strange and arbitrary list of allowable glitches would have to be drawn up.
It hasn't been a problem with Zelda:ALttP nor Rygar. Why should it be a problem in this case?
Sure, in those two examples the rules are, strictly speaking, also "arbitrary", but IMO not so much. They make sense and allow for two enjoyable versions of the run.
A bit less obvious:
Wrong: "I would do it if it was possible, but it isn't."
Right: "I would do it if it were possible, but it isn't."
Ok, perhaps not *wrong* per se, but quite informal at least.
I'm not so sure that would be such a great idea. The supermetroid runs are enormously popular, and basically dropping them all out would probably not be a praised move.
I still can't understand what's so wrong in having a glitched and "non-glitched" (by some proper definition of the word) version of the any% run. Other games have them too.
If you're going to start dismantling every category that could possibly have something to do with not going as fast as ab-so-fucking-lutely possible, why don't we just trash any non-glitched run, since not using that glitch is wasted frames that could be spent making the movie shorter?
Your slippery-slope argumentation was uncalled for.
And its/it's. An apostrophe should ONLY be used when you mean "it is". "It's" is NOT the possessive term, and "its" is NOT the same as "it is". "Its" is the possessive term. Basic English, people. Learn it.
It helps if, when you write "it's", you always read it mentally as "it is". If it doesn't make any sense, it's wrong.
Example: "The game saved it's data to the file" -> "the game saved it is data to the file". Doesn't make sense, thus wrong.
Example 2: "It's obvious this is going nowhere" -> "it is obvious this is going nowhere". Makes sense, hence correct.
Question: Is this contraction correct?
"The rest of it is not difficult." -> "The rest of it's not difficult."
IMO having four runs of the same game is not too much (although, personally, I still prefer just having wallclock timing instead of the game's internal timing, but whatever).
The "collects all items" goal makes perfect sense and makes a very entertaining run. Keeping this one should be rather obvious.
The "complete the game as fast as possible, without abusing game-breaking glitches, collection % is irrelevant" also makes a very interesting run and shouldn't be obsoleted for that precise reason. As a goal it's in the same category with "uses no warps" and "does not use death as a shortcut" runs, so it makes sense.
The "same as above, but measuring by the internal timer instead of wallclock time" version is an idea I'm personally not very fond of, but since so many people like it, I suppose it could be kept as a special case.
The "complete the game as fast as possible, whatever the means" (ie. this run) is also obviously keepworthy because it sets a record and a standard.
Personally I don't find the "primary goal: complete as few items as possible, secondary goal: complete the game as fast as possible, restriction: don't abuse the game-breaking glitches" category too logical. IMO it could be dropped.
EDIT: Btw, how about this category: "Doesn't use saves."
(OTOH, it would be good only for as long as someone doesn't discover a game-breaking glitch which doesn't rely on saving the game... :) )
IMO the damage tags could be removed completely because they are obsolete.
Not taking damage is acceptable only when it doesn't make the run slower. If taking damage makes the run faster, then it automatically becomes mandatory because not doing it is wasting frames for no good reason. (There's no such goal as "not taking damage.")
The only other situation where taking damage is acceptable is when it's inevitable.
When there's a choice of taking or not taking damage, neither of which will make the run any faster, the default for a "perfect" run is, obviously, to not to take it.
"Takes damage to save time" is completely equivalent to "this game can be completed faster by taking damage".
"Does not take any damage" is completely equivalent to "this game can not be completed faster by taking damage".
These should be rather obvious, so I don't see why the tags are necessary at all.
Hate to nitpick like a jerk, but I'm seeing this again and again. To anyone who consistently writes these wrong:
1) The progressive tense of the verb to die is dying, not "dieing". (Look it up in a dictionary if you don't believe me.) The same goes for to lie -> lying.
2) When you have a verb which ends in -uce and you want to make the equivalent noun/adjective, it usually ends in -ucible, not "-ucable". For example, it's reproduce -> reproducible (not "reproducable").
Btw, I got thinking: This run is based on resetting the (emulated) console while the game is saving, which causes the saved data to be corrupted.
However, how well does the emulator emulate the actual console (and its memory card) in this regard? If this was somehow replayed in the real console, would the reset-while-saving trick work in the same way? Would the data be corrupted in the exact same way in the real thing?
I'm thinking that the memory card (or whatever is used in the console) has a certain writing speed, etc. How well does the emulator emulate this? Does it replicate the real thing accurately?
If this glitch is based on how the *emulator* functions in this situation, doesn't it make it emulator-specific? Basing a run on an emulator glitch (which doesn't exist in the actual console) has never been acceptable.
Of course even if the emulator does something different than the console, it could still be controversial, because the exact same effect could maybe still be achieved in the console too, just not in the exact same way.
By the way, what do 6 items mean in terms of percentage? (Just curious to know how it compares to "14%", and the "10%" in that supermetroid forum where the glitch was first published.)
I think there are other games too that have a glitched and a non glitched run, but the non glitched run does use glitches, not just gamebreaking ones.
Hmm, that sounds like a good idea for a category: "Uses game-breaking glitches." This could be applied to many existing runs.
(But then, it again falls down to the question of how we define "game-breaking" glitch...)
Wouldn't it be easier to classify this as "uses warps" and the others as "uses no warps" runs? This way it's less controversial as to why this doesn't obsolete the others.
IMO there's merit in publishing videos of almost any game, assuming the run itself is almost flawless. If the run is clearly flawed and could be improved, that's a different story completely, but runs without apparent defects could be published, in my opinion.
There will always be people who have played the game and will enjoy the run of it, no matter how "boring" it might be to someone who has never seen the game. Why shouldn't we offer the run to those who really want to watch it?
