Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Sorry to bring this up AGAIN, but we know that a short conclusion hasn't been reached yet. Well, i think i came to understand better the difference and came up with a sentence to show it, as a friend of mine told me "i think that what you do with games is wrong". So i told him this, and he got it:
"Speedruns are about what people can do. Tool-assited Time-attacks are about what games can do."
I think that this quickly explain the purpose of each. One emphasises the skill in people. The other focuses on praising the games in extreme situations.
I dont know if this is usefull but it (or some similar description) could be put on the why and how page.
Agree? disagree?
im just not to fond of the "emurape" term, which is how SDA users often refer back here, for obvious reasons.
but FODA, that was a very nice little statement. i agree. unfortunately, it will prolly be lost on the hordes of people who complain about tool-assisted running.
Metroid2002 has established the term "quark" referring to that weird goblin-looking thing on Star Trek who lies and cheats. Hmrff.
Oh, and I like your definition, FODA.
Joined: 8/1/2004
Posts: 2687
Location: Seattle, WA
Well, although I feel that the Why and How page, along with every other resource around here, seems to super-emphasize the difference between our timeattacks and other sites' speedruns. Sometimes it feels like we are spending too much time beating sense into people about this... Sure, if this statement can further help people understand what is up, we should use it. However, if it takes everything out ther AND this to make them understand, I would weep for that person.
and /*-, 'emurape' has been deemed by most speedrunners as a very negative term. No one really uses it, since they know all it does is initiate a big fuss over nothing.
To beat this dead horse some more: they don't like the term 'timeattack' because they think it is their term (even though I have yet to see a site use the term timeattack to mean speedrun, aside from morimoto's site). For now, the preferred nomenclature for emulated timeattacks are "tool assisted movies", "emulator movies", or "quarkers". I, for one, don't like 'quarkers' (used by the m2k2 people) because it sounds almost belittling.
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
Yes zurreco, i meant that the sentence can be used to quickly explain it alone. if one needs further explanation he has the resources, but i think the sentence says it all.
I've always thought of it as such: sites such as SDA are the Broadway of video game movies, while sites such as Bisqwit's are the Hollywood of video game movies. One requires people to nail the scenes live in front of people (or a camera), and the other gives the person as many tries as necessary to make a product they are satisfied with.
Tool-assited Time-attacks are about what games can do.
this doesn't explain why they are played as fast as possible. If the goal is to show what the game can do, then the runs should focus on exposing all the glitches and tricks instead of showing all the glitches that just happen to be there "on the way" of the fastest route. (no offense though, I'm just thinking arguments that they might bring up.)
Joined: 5/1/2004
Posts: 4096
Location: Rio, Brazil
it is implicit that both descriptions are about making the game as fast as possible. note that the first doesnt say anything about people making it fast. but its implicit.
edit: no its not implicit, it says time attack and speed run
I asked why they are played as fast as possible, I didn't say that you failed to mention that point. This is just something I spotted down at the Truth Garden. I believe they claimed that if the goal is entertainment and demonstrating what is possible in a game, then it is not necessary to go as fast as possible because it is possible for a slower movie that demonstrates more tricks to be more entertaining.
Time attack and speed run mean the same thing. If I were to play the unlockable Time Attack mode in Metroid Zero Mission on my GBA, I wouldn't be able to use savestates and slowdown and all those fancy things.
Personally, I don't care, I will not lose my free time to explain to such idiot guys what is the difference. Idiot people, are idiots and will still remain because 1 year later, there's always people that still don't understand.
Edit: Btw, I didn't mean you , but some other guys on other forums.
Tool-assited Time-attacks are about what games can do.
this doesn't explain why they are played as fast as possible. If the goal is to show what the game can do, then the runs should focus on exposing all the glitches and tricks instead of showing all the glitches that just happen to be there "on the way" of the fastest route. (no offense though, I'm just thinking arguments that they might bring up.)
I realize you are not really trying to argue with us, and that you are supportive of tool-assisted movies because they are fun and awesome ... that being said, your argument is not valid. If we make movies to showcase what games can do, then implicit in that is the understanding that we also make movies to showcase what games cannot do. One of the simplest and most impressive ways to do this is to discover what conditions are necessary to ensure a game cannot be completed any faster.
