i'd like to mention the fact that a lot of the glitched speedruns are actually much more skill intensive than the regular routed ones,zelda oot is quite the show for this,since all the tricks are pretty difficult,culminating in the 1-frame warps that are used normally by the players.Any dumbass can beat the game regularly,while the tricks are hard and unforgiving,some of them requiring limited resources and each mistake being one unit of the resource less.
~~
Viewers complain anyway regardless of the execution of the run they're watching,it's similar to when you play on a fighting games and there are always a few people complaining about cheap characters,moves or tatics.If it's so braindead to do this or that,why don't they do it instead?They can't,they only know how to complain.I think if we cater to this individuals,then tasvideos will fail.Their mindset is a failing one.
Dunning and Kruger proposed that, for a given skill, incompetent people will:[4]
fail to recognize their own lack of skill
fail to recognize the extent of their inadequacy
fail to accurately gauge skill in others
recognize and acknowledge their own lack of skill only after they are exposed to training for that skill
how can you show extreme skill to the unskilled?only by education
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
grassini, you are kinda using extreme idiots to undermine what the actual majority of sane people thinks and prefers :D
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
i don't think the dunning kruger works by extreme idiocy only,i'm quite sure the author works with a scale of knowledge in which everybody is suffering at some point of the learning curve from these effects,until they start to show the other effects too and less of the "incompetence related" effects.
i also believe the situation in which people are unfamiliar with speedrunning tricks or the tools used in tasing is a quite common form of "idiocy" of the gamer public,i have shitloads of gamer friends who consider themselves hardcore or at the very least non casual and still get baffled by things like clipping/damage boosting/tricks that call 2 actions at the same time for unexpected results.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
The point is, ignorance is the most common reaction after incompetence, extreme idiots don't try and see themselves proven incompetent, they just keep complaining. And it doesn't mean we should stop caring about what matters for us, neither does it mean idiots have ever been an important factor in our decisions. The community develops its own rules based on all the sane users' preferences, with only a few rules to prevent some idiotic accusations, those rules reflect common sense anyway.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
i'd like to mention the fact that a lot of the glitched speedruns are actually much more skill intensive than the regular routed ones
I sometimes get the feeling that there is a demand by the larger public for certain types of run (usually glitchless, and runs that use the route intended by the game developers), but we don't accept and publish them because of technicalities. And sometimes I feel this in fact goes contrary to what the main motivation for this site existing is. I think this site exists primarily to entertain and impress, but that might not always be achieved.
(Again, I'm not saying we should just accept and publish anything and everything. I'm just trying to generate some discussion and throw some visions about possible future directions and run categories.)
I think the site is an archive to every game's fastest possible completion with no tradeoffs made,with a secondary goal of entertainment.It's why we implemented the Vault section in the first place and why we got more runs from games that might not look as interesting to the general audience,but had a community behind it.(i'll never forget how the megaman battle chip challenge run was once rejected because of that)
i have to admit i'm not a fan of a lot the vault content but that's why it's here,so other people who are not me can find their favorite obscure games fastest completions.
TAS i'm interested:
megaman series: mmbn1 all chips, mmx3 any% psx glitched
fighting games with speed goals in general
I think the site is an archive to every game's fastest possible completion with no tradeoffs made,with a secondary goal of entertainment.
But the site exists, and keeps thriving, because people get interested.
How do you keep people interested? Certainly not by making runs increasingly boring.
But the site exists, and keeps thriving, because people get interested.
How do you keep people interested? Certainly not by making runs increasingly boring.
Are you being hypothetical because of that SGDQ thing that will most likely apply to one game and then would very quickly peter out once the novelty is gone? I mean, shoot, remember when ACE runs appeared once a week? Hardly ruined the site then.
This whole topic feels like a major overreaction to Youtube comments, tbh.
effort on the first draft means less effort on any draft thereafter
- some loser
Are you being hypothetical because of that SGDQ thing that will most likely apply to one game and then would very quickly peter out once the novelty is gone? I mean, shoot, remember when ACE runs appeared once a week? Hardly ruined the site then.
This whole topic feels like a major overreaction to Youtube comments, tbh.
Better to have the discussion now than when half of the runs are 2 seconds long and the public at large has already lost interest. It's good to be aware in advance of things that might change the nature of this hobby, and have hypothetical contingency plans if that were to happen. Even if absolutely nothing of the worst scenarios realize themselves, it doesn't hurt to have the discussion.
This has prompted me to come up with a comprehensive, for-the-record definition to refer to in later arguments (potentially).
A speedrun is a deliberate man-made playthrough of a given game from a defined start state to a defined end state in the quickest manner, delivered by the means of providing input via the accepted means, intended to entertain an audience or provide a technical reference, that satisfies the following criteria.
1. The start and the end states are consensually determined by the community (or communities) involved to be sufficiently unambiguous and replicable between competing community members. A community may introduce its specific restrictions but should still keep the rules clear and ground level for its participants.
2. The acceptable means of providing input are determined the same way as in #1.
3a. If a game can have multiple different combinations of start/end states (such as those including secondary goals or trade-offs) that the respective community appreciates and wishes to compete in (100% item collection, etc.), internally consistent categories are created. The default category is "get from the very beginning of the game (i.e. starting from clean slate) to the ending screen", as it is most generic and applicable to the largest set of games.
3b. Any minor goals or intermittent choices that prevent the quickest end state criteria satisfaction are to be forgone to at least the extent consensually deemed to be acceptable by the community members.
4. Any tricks, techniques, and strategies, as well as preparation work, are allowed except those expressly forbidden by the consensus of community members for the purposes of entertainment, longevity, and principles of fair play.
5. The success of reaching the end state as defined by the community consensus is to be determined by the state of the relevant memory address(es) or, in case that isn't feasible, inspection of the visual output and expected reaction to providing further input.
6a. If a speedrun is designed to be done by human skills in real time, the use of automation and other aides is to be reduced to the minimum consensually established by the community members. Other rules may be put in place to penalize the reliance on aides (such as segment break penalties) as deemed necessary by the respective community.
6b. If a speedrun is designed to be tool-assisted, it must have some kind of human factor involved (such as in planning, scripting, other sorts of decision-making).
Corollaries:
— An accidentally quick playthrough is not a speedrun.
— A playthrough without established and/or relatable goals is not a speedrun.
— A playtrough that repeatedly forgoes the quickest means of attaining its primary goal past the acceptable extent is not a speedrun.
— A playthrough that finishes the game in any way without completing its goal is not a speedrun (it could be considered a failed speedrun or a demonstration).
— A playthrough made using forbidden means is not a speedrun (it could be considered a cheated speedrun).
— A tool-assisted playthrough done without any human factor involved (aside from providing the description of the start/end states) is a simulation. Human factor—or rather the continued struggle against its follies—is the key to entertainment.
All this being said, just like with judicial systems, there is the letter of the law—the rigid definition that serves as a backbone for justice to be determined and served—and there's the spirit of the law that is the common understanding of what the law represents behind the technicalities. For me, a mistake-ridden playthrough that uses entertaining tricks and glitches and tries to be efficient and innovative even when it fails to be the quickest is still more of a speedrun than something that skips the entire game.
arandomgameTASer wrote:
I mean, shoot, remember when ACE runs appeared once a week? Hardly ruined the site then.
To be fair, the reason it didn't ruin the site was exactly that it didn't last long enough to cause irreversible harm.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Perhaps a better worded form of the topic title, and the question I'm posing, is "how should "speedrun" be defined?" And the point I was trying to make was to question the generally accepted definition of "get from the beginning to the end of the game as fast as possible by whatever means possible".
That simplistic definition does on the surface seem completely fine, and for like 10 years it was completely fine. However, as more and more techniques are being found that allow skipping large parts of games, and sometimes even the entire game, the sensibleness of that definition can be questioned.
That's why I asked who the target audience for tool-assisted speedruns is. Is it a small group of people who are trying to hack the games and find out technical ways to get to the end of the game (ie. most of us)? Or is it the larger audience of casual viewers? Who are we making these TASes for?
If one of the primary aims of TASing is to attract a larger audience of casual viewers, and entertain them, then techniques that just outright skip the entire game may go contrary to that goal. It may satisfy our technical curiosity and sense of achievement, but it might not be that enticing to the larger public.
As I commented in my original post, many casual viewers don't like extreme glitches that break the game (eg. by going OOB). Of course this is an extreme view, and there are at least equally many viewers who are fine with it, and like seeing games broken like that. But should we dismiss the former group of people without even hearing them? I ask once again: Who are we making these runs for?
I'm not trying to say that we should just ban all glitches, or even major glitches, or even glitches that skip the entire game. I'm just thinking out loud, and trying to inspire some dialogue and ideas.
Perhaps a better worded form of the topic title, and the question I'm posing, is "how should "speedrun" be defined?" And the point I was trying to make was to question the generally accepted definition of "get from the beginning to the end of the game as fast as possible by whatever means possible".
So... What is wrong with moozooh's really well defined ... uhh ... definition?
Warp wrote:
That simplistic definition does on the surface seem completely fine, and for like 10 years it was completely fine. However, as more and more techniques are being found that allow skipping large parts of games, and sometimes even the entire game, the sensibleness of that definition can be questioned.
Except that the community has itself adapted to include concepts like "category" and "classification", which make these arguments easier to handle.
Warp wrote:
That's why I asked who the target audience for tool-assisted speedruns is. Is it a small group of people who are trying to hack the games and find out technical ways to get to the end of the game (ie. most of us)? Or is it the larger audience of casual viewers? Who are we making these TASes for?
Who is art made for? The artist, a particular viewer, a larger audience? You make art to make art, and other people decide whether they want to appreciate it or not. "I don't like the colour brown!" So ... don't look at art that prominently uses brown to make its point.
Warp wrote:
If one of the primary aims of TASing is to attract a larger audience of casual viewers, and entertain them, then techniques that just outright skip the entire game may go contrary to that goal. It may satisfy our technical curiosity and sense of achievement, but it might not be that enticing to the larger public.
The primary aim of the site is to host TASes that are interesting and/or entertaining, while also maintaining speed records in their respective categories. This is why we obsolete material (speed records) and don't allow known sub-optimal work (records again). It's the people that keep coming back to the site that determine the community, and it is the people who step up and try to produce something amazing that determine where the hobby is heading. If you don't like where that is going, you have three options:
1) Get off the ride.
2) Make a TAS of your own following the rules that you find most pleasing.
3) Sit back, relax, and see where things go.
Warp wrote:
As I commented in my original post, many[citation needed] casual viewers don't like extreme glitches that break the game (eg. by going OOB). Of course this is an extreme view, and there are at least equally many viewers who are fine with it, and like seeing games broken like that. But should we dismiss the former group of people without even hearing them? I ask once again: Who are we making these runs for?
Nobody is being forced to watch these movies. Further, if going out of bounds yields a faster completion time, that's what speedrunners will do in categories that allow it. If people want to be annoyed by a particular category, those people are more than welcome to avoid it.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
Who is art made for? The artist, a particular viewer, a larger audience? You make art to make art, and other people decide whether they want to appreciate it or not. "I don't like the colour brown!" So ... don't look at art that prominently uses brown to make its point.
You have to be more pragmatic than that. Do you want this hobby to grow or shrink in popularity? Do you want to appeal to the largest possible audience, or do you want to rules-lawyer?
I think this hobby should be flexible and adapt, not be rigid and set-in-stone damn the consequences. (I'm not saying there will be negative consequences if we keep going in this direction; I'm just opening up a discussion on the possibility.)
If you don't like where that is going, you have three options:
1) Get off the ride.
2) Make a TAS of your own following the rules that you find most pleasing.
3) Sit back, relax, and see where things go.
citation needed
Nobody is being forced to watch these movies.
I don't really appreciate your passive-aggressive tone. Just chill out. I'm trying to have an amicable conversation and discussion.
So... What is wrong with moozooh's really well defined ... uhh ... definition?
Thanks, but I can even name one huge thing that is "wrong" with it myself: it doesn't involve the appreciation of gameplay that, while not crucial to labeling something a speedrun, is nevertheless crucial to deriving entertainment from it. That's where the complications arise. The entire history of speedrun communities is the history of compromises between that which is objectively quickest and that which is best subjectively appreciated, which is not at all always the same thing (especially when pushed to extremes where entire games are skipped). There will inevitably be grey areas involved that have no clear resolution.
That being said, I believe this to be the exact reason Warp has started the discussion in the first place: the gameplay appreciation bit that is lacking from any clear definition adopted so far, yet the one causing the most concerns with obsoletion chains, judgment decisions, categorization, and so on.
Perhaps we shouldn't touch the definition of speedrun per se but rather establish a clearer understanding of what the community and the site's preferences are with regards to them. In other words, what are the speedruns (or their goals, etc.) we appreciate the most ("we absolutely want more of such and such"), and what are the speedruns/goals we appreciate less ("such and such will do, but not at the expense of the rest"). Because changes in that understanding influence a LOT with regards to the content policy of the site and the work of its contributors, as has been seen over the years with "boring" speedruns and the changes that the introduction of the Vault, etc., has brought.
The other question is, of course, how would we do it without involving personal bias too strongly. Reconciling fans of moderate gameplay breakage with ACE/corruption fans is not a simple task, and it's clear their mindsets are very different. Not unlike the difference between mathematicians/theoretical physicists vs. inventors/engineers. One is chiefly focused on the fundamentals and theoretical limits, the other on practical implementation and its aesthetics. And there's clearly not enough unbiased statistics (eg. a statistically significant amount of well-understood entertainment rating scores from a large set of mostly the same people) to draw any automatic conclusions. I wouldn't be surprised if this discussion with all of its potential importance will end up hanging for several more years while the will and the resources for radical changes accumulate (or are drained, in the less fortunate case).
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
So... What is wrong with moozooh's really well defined ... uhh ... definition?
Warp wrote:
It continues to amuse me that you choose to focus on the parts of my reply where I give you my opinion on the subject, yet you ignore the one question I have about a post in the thread that directly talks about the subject you seem to want a discussion about.
moozooh wrote:
The entire history of speedrun communities is the history of compromises between that which is objectively quickest and that which is best subjectively appreciated, which is not at all always the same thing (especially when pushed to extremes where entire games are skipped). There will inevitably be grey areas involved that have no clear resolution.
Of course, but art also has its share of people who will sit back and debate for years about what is or isn't art, what does or doesn't fall within particularly stringent guidelines. With TASing, we have the author(s) of the piece present their work (the movie file/input file/playback file/replay file/keypress file/button press file/emulation movie file/alternative option (post in thread)) and their justification for their work being considered a speedrun worthy of being published on the site. Each of these submissions comes with some amount of discussion, sometimes not very much discussion, sometimes a lot of discussion, and the piece of work is judged on these merits to either be a speedrun (within a particular set of established categories) or not to be a speedrun (within a particular set of established rules).
Warp wrote:
Do you want this hobby to grow or shrink in popularity?
My actions speak quite loudly as to my preference on this particular topic.
Warp wrote:
Do you want to appeal to the largest possible audience, or do you want to rules-lawyer?
There is nothing appealing in taking the current trend of a hobby and trying to force it into rigid guidelines defined by the largest audience, because there are members of that audience who do not understand what speedrunners (not TASers specifically -- speedrunners at large) do. If "the largest possible audience" gets to define how things work, think about what would happen in other areas of life if "the largest possible audience" got to define how things worked.
An intersection with a four-way light would have its state determined by the majority of cars sitting at that light, which would heavily disrupt traffic systems. A person's guilt or innocence would be determined by the court of public opinion and not objective facts. pi, one of the most important numbers in mathematics would be redefined to 3.14 or even 3 depending on how many people exist that don't care to learn the number's true definition. Appealing to the largest possible audience is not the ideal move. Appealing to the community's better judgment, when the community is ostensibly the thing that keeps the hobby alive, is the better solution in this case.
Warp wrote:
I think this hobby should be flexible and adapt, not be rigid and set-in-stone damn the consequences.
I don't really appreciate your passive-aggressive tone.
I don't really appreciate your "the sky is falling!" approach to change, but I work with what you give me. I don't feel the need to go into specifics because mud-slinging will solve no purpose here, but as always I invite you to talk with me in PM where I can talk more candidly.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
Because anything I say publicly gets viewed under the lens of also being a moderator, so I have to be a bit more guarded in what I say. In PMs, if I am not dealing with someone under that particular mantle, I can be less guarded with my tone.
I am still the wizard that did it.
"On my business card, I am a corporate president. In my mind, I am a game developer. But in my heart, I am a gamer." -- Satoru Iwata
<scrimpy> at least I now know where every map, energy and save room in this game is
Well... you can talk candidly without being rude, right? I mean I value your honest opinions and would love to read them as well, and I'm pretty sure this is exactly what forums are for. This is a subject that potentially concerns all community members, and clearly, closed discussion is what it needs the least.
Though it's your call, of course.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
For me, a mistake-ridden playthrough that uses entertaining tricks and glitches and tries to be efficient and innovative even when it fails to be the quickest is still more of a speedrun than something that skips the entire game.
Before I read the new posts, I'd like to say that I agree with that statement.
Re: broader audience.
The point of gaining popularity is not (ideally) about how many morons you please, but about how sane your methods are, since those are what you use to create art. Methods are related to the rules, when it comes to letting some form of art grow. For example, common sense tells us to preserve pieces of art, and, if needed, to classify and showcase them, so that more people could potentially enjoy it. Regarding TASing, this is what our policies are for: they classify, they showcase the records (since it's kinda cyber sport too), they help more people get educated and involved, they help to keep us motivated to achieve better results, the list might be quite large.
If that system is working well, the community naturally grows, because the rules are finely tuned, and they can handle big amounts of content without quality loss.
The reason this thread exists, is not the fact that someone is just paranoid and scared, but because the recent trend opens insane possibilities, and if we fail to handle the situation, the world changing before our eyes might kill some of the fun we've been having here for years.
This is the last thing I want, so a few years ago I insisted on making the unobsoletion system work: we don't want to lose content just because it was unlucky to get beaten time-wise before Moons appeared. So runs that have been beaten that way got a chance to provide enjoyment again.
Similarly, we handled the situation when all the branch names were changed retroactively before proper discussion; that lead to a serious mess, but we made it work in the end, developing the principles (or improving the existing ones) of how it should be organized and marked.
The two above examples show how it can all collapse if we're not wise enough. But if we can handle it properly, it will function for years. And they show how important policies and classification are for a form of art (that is also a cyber sport) to evolve and to survive in the changing world.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I suppose that the topic started in somewhat vague terms, so here's a much more concrete question that can be derived from it:
Currently the Vault tier is extremely strict in what's accepted there: Only one any% run of a game, and a possible 100% run, is accepted, period. Nothing else is accepted.
This means that many (perhaps most) games only have one published run, in Vault, and no more runs of it will be ever accepted (most probably).
So what happens if a run is submitted that just skips the entire game? I think that technically speaking it fulfills the requirements of vaultable any%, and thus it will replace any possibly existing run of that game. Which means that there would essentially be no speedrun of that game, for all intents and purposes.
Is that really what we want?
I think this is something that should be decided pretty soon, because it's very probable that such runs will start being submitted at some point.
Invariel wrote:
I don't really appreciate your "the sky is falling!" approach to change, but I work with what you give me.
Did you have something to contribute to the conversation, or are you just going to attack me and try to sabotage the conversation with your not-so-veiled passive-aggressive attitude? If you don't like me, that's fine. I don't mind. I have a thick skin; I can take it. But keep it to yourself. If you want to throw your vitriol towards me, send me a PM; keep it out of the public forums.
I think this is something that should be decided pretty soon, because it's very probable that such runs will start being submitted at some point.
They will be.After the next fceux release.Warp wrote:
So what happens if a run is submitted that just skips the entire game? I think that technically speaking it fulfills the requirements of vaultable any%, and thus it will replace any possibly existing run of that game. Which means that there would essentially be no speedrun of that game, for all intents and purposes.
Is that really what we want?
The quick answer that comes to mind first is usually "Whenever a game affords more entertaining branches, they will be in moons". But in this particular case, I'm not sure it's gonna work best, because, as it was already said quite a few times, there's no way a 2 second run with no gameplay beats the fastest gameplay-based run in any other aspect than pure time. It's faster, but it's not better. Should I repeat my Demo tier mumbling again? :D
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Joined: 10/12/2011
Posts: 6341
Location: The land down under.
Warp wrote:
Invariel wrote:
I don't really appreciate your "the sky is falling!" approach to change, but I work with what you give me.
Did you have something to contribute to the conversation, or are you just going to attack me and try to sabotage the conversation with your not-so-veiled passive-aggressive attitude? If you don't like me, that's fine. I don't mind. I have a thick skin; I can take it. But keep it to yourself. If you want to throw your vitriol towards me, send me a PM; keep it out of the public forums.
I'm sorry Warp, but you're ignoring Invariel's points and claiming that he isn't contributing, and he's instead attacking and sabotaging you. Are you trying to fool us?
You have the nerve to tell someone who has put more into the conversation than you, a user who has been posting more information than a loopy one like you. That's disgusting.
Are you going to decide to be selective on what points are being brought to the table again?
Post reasonably, respond to his posts, or really, is it because you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation?
WebNations/Sabih wrote:
+fsvgm777 never censoring anything.
Disables Comments and Ratings for the YouTube account.Something better for yourself and also others.
I'm sorry Warp, but you're ignoring Invariel's points and claiming that he isn't contributing, and "attack and sabotage" really? Really?
You have the nerve to tell someone who has put more into the conversation than you, a user who has been posting more information than a loopy one like you, that's disgusting.
Are you going to decide to be selective on what points are being brought to the table again?
Post reasonably, respond to his posts, or really, is it because you don't have anything to contribute to the conversation?
So what exactly was your contribution to this conversation, other than attacking me?
I'll tell you the same thing as him: If you want to throw your vitriol at me, send me a PM. I can take it. Just keep it out of the public forum. If you don't have anything to contribute, go somewhere else.
The quick answer that comes to mind first is usually "Whenever a game affords more entertaining branches, they will be in moons". But in this particular case, I'm not sure it's gonna work best, because, as it was already said quite a few times, there's no way a 2 second run with no gameplay beats the fastest gameplay-based run in any other aspect than pure time. It's faster, but it's not better. Should I repeat my Demo tier mumbling again? :D
I have to acknowledge that the question is difficult. If we wanted to define Vault in such a manner that runs accepted to it retain a sensible amount of gameplay, how would we do that without the rules governing this becoming overly arbitrary, complicated and ridden with complexities and endless lists of exceptions? It's not an easy question.
There is certainly value in glitches that utterly break the game and perhaps even skip the entirety of it, but it may be problematic if that's the only published version of the run. The suggested Demo tier is perfect for runs that skip the entire game, but that leaves the question of how to define a valid entry for Vault.
I have to acknowledge that the question is difficult. If we wanted to define Vault in such a manner that runs accepted to it retain a sensible amount of gameplay, how would we do that without the rules governing this becoming overly arbitrary, complicated and ridden with complexities and endless lists of exceptions? It's not an easy question.
It already has a whole bunch of exceptions, whenever the game isn't suitable, though those exceptions have also been fine tuned by staff. Yet another one won't probably make things harder.
Warp wrote:
There is certainly value in glitches that utterly break the game and perhaps even skip the entirety of it, but it may be problematic if that's the only published version of the run.
On one hand, it would have only one run if it's what it deserves in terms of entertainment (there's no chance any Mario game is doomed like that). On the other hand, we still accept both any% and full completion, "no completion at all whatsoever" is not what one would be looking for when he comes to a speedrun site.
I can put it another way. There's a difference between zero and null. Zero is a valid number, null is absence of any valid entity. So, regarding completion, we have any% (fastest completion), 100% (full completion), 0% (lowest completion), but do we want to have null% (completion is for pussies) competing with those?
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
