So apparently in the post I finally submitted after multiple revisions, I forgot my key point. Oops.CriticKitten said:snip
CriticKitten said:Why does it matter if one football team pays off the refs to win a game, and another one just wins it through skilled play? They're both winning, right? Or suppose we're playing Chess. I could move my rook to take your bishop, or I could deck you over the head with a 2x4 and then move my pieces to surround your King while you're unconscious. It's all the same, right?
Oh, but wait, we're comparing optional content to cheating, and that's totally different. *nod* So a more apt comparison would be to say that me going to a car dealership, and after rigorous deliberation, deciding not to buy a car....is roughly the same as going to a car dealership and stealing the car, because after all, either way I didn't pay the dealership for it, right? I skipped out on his payment, so it's basically the same.
Or perhaps you'd prefer this one: two students are submitting a thesis for their college degrees. The former works hard to include as much information as possible, but skips the optional portions of the thesis paper. The latter copies entire paragraphs from the internet without proper citations or references provided. You're asserting that these two works be treated identically.
I can keep going all day if I need to. There are literally no limits to the number of counterexamples that can be provided that prove this argument dead wrong.
Enough with the shitty analogies. They only serve to muddy the waters, and the original point is a pretty simple one.CriticKitten said:Your analogy doesn't work here, because he's not just using glitches, he's using them to skip a huge portion of the content (over 90% of it). A more apt analogy would be to say that there's a 100m dash, and then there's the "run 5 meters, then teleport to the last 5 meters of the 100m" dash.
Would you realistically try to argue that the second racer actually completed the 100m dash? Or would you do as I've suggested and say that he didn't actually perform a 100m dash at all, and keep him relegated to his own category? I think it's hard to argue that my stance is somehow less sensible than what you're proposing, sorry.
The irony of this comment is enough to choke on.CriticKitten said:I love how this "speedrun community" likes to pretend it doesn't care about opinions like mine, but feels it's essential to get defensive and have the last word on the subject anyways.
Wow. You guys are still going at this?CriticKitten said:No worries.Techno Squidgy said:So apparently in the post I finally submitted after multiple revisions, I forgot my key point. Oops.
Yeah, that's....pretty much what I've been saying. xDSpeedrun OoT and Vanilla OoT are not the same game.
In Vanilla OoT beating the game is completing the adventure, acquiring the items, saving the princess and serving Ganondorf his own smug arse.
In Speedrun OoT beating the game is getting from the point where you first have control, to the point where you no longer have control, in the fastest time possible. Speedruns are creating your own fun in the confines of the game engine.
What I've taken issue with are all of the folks in this thread insisting that I have to treat his Speedrun OoT at approximately an equal level to a Vanilla OoT run, when it's obviously not. It honestly sounds like we have the same opinion and are merely expressing it differently.
They're perfectly apt analogies, actually. The player in question skipped a vast majority of the game's content. Ergo it's not reasonable to act as if he completed it all. And all of the analogies I've made are a testament to that fact. That's all I'm saying.IceForce said:Enough with the shitty analogies. They only serve to muddy the waters, and the original point is a pretty simple one.
It really shows the massive disconnect between gamers and actual athletics.
In none of those cases would you pretend that the person is following the spirit of the sport or game. It's clear violations of the rules and those things merit penalties and forfeitures....yet, because it's a video game, it somehow deserves to have its own rules, because we want to be art and to be considered equal to sports and games like Chess with massive world-wide followings. But we also want to be special, to be able to break our own rules whenever we feel like it, to download free copies of our products and act like we've done nothing wrong, etc. We want all of the privilege and none of the responsibility. All I'm pointing out is that you don't get to be both. Gaming is growing up, and it's time for its audience to grow up with it.
But it seems that sort of thinking is just too far beyond this particular discussion or its participants. *shrug*
You haven't paid any attention to what I've said at all, clearly, so I'll repeat it one more time and hope that perhaps this time you won't creatively re-interpret what I've said into something I'm not saying. Mkay?A guy played a game from beginning to end, faster than anyone else ever has.
You don't like the way he played it? Tough.
I don't care how he played it. He's welcome to play the game however he likes, in whatever way is "fun" to him.
However, when talking about whether or not his speedrun counts as a proper completion of the game, his "fun" factor is irrelevant. What matters is whether or not he followed the actual rules of the game and completed all of the tasks he is expected to....and he clearly did not do either of those things.
So, by the definition of "beating OoT", no, he really didn't. You don't like it? Well, to use your own phrase, "tough".
To put it as simply as possible, and to return to the 100m dash example (partially because it fits but also because apparently sports analogies make you all squirm): it's fine and dandy to do your 100m dash however you want, when you're doing it for funsies. But you wouldn't seriously attempt to submit your "5m at the start and 5m at the end" run to a local college for consideration to get yourself onto the track team, would you? Of course not, because you weren't being serious. And that's all I've said here: it's cool that he's not being serious about playing the game and is having fun by setting records in a different way. But stop acting like his run was a "serious" run that deserves consideration alongside other full playthrough runs. It isn't the same thing, and there's no reason to make that comparison because it only ends detrimentally for Cosmos....so stop doing it.
I find this amusing considering I've never once insisted that anyone "conform" to my opinion. The closest I've gotten to "forcing" anything onto anyone is when I told people that there are actual dictionary definitions for the words they're using, and that they don't mean what you claim they mean.All the way through this thread, you've been defensive, condescending, and actually downright rude, towards other people's opinions that don't conform to your own.
Also, I don't think you get to claim the moral high ground here, with a post like that. *shrug*
They would disagree but they would be wrong. If it was shipped with that error, technically it is a part of the game.CriticKitten said:SNIP
No, I said the rules as written. This is the important part, as written. See, in this specific case the rules, as written, allow for these crazy things like the wrong warp. To take your 100m dash analogy you have been using constantly, it would be like if the rulebook specifically stated that teleporting 95m out of 100m was allowed. It might be an oversight, but it is certainly within the rules as written. This is important to speed runners - we follow the rules written.CriticKitten said:That's good. We've made progress then.DrOswald said:I agree with what you said that what constitutes "beating the game" does have a right and wrong answer.
Incorrect. This is like saying that running the last 5m of the 100m dash is the same as running the entire 100m because both individuals cross the finish line. Which, again, is not a logical stance to take.Seeing the victory screen (or the equivalent, all single player games have one) is beating the game, so long as the rules of the game, as written, are not violated. Which makes you wrong.
Also, exploits are most definitely breaking the rules of a game, so even if you argue that it's okay to skip nearly all of the game, you still can't argue that he's completed the game in any official capacity because his run relies on an exploit which skips vast portions of the game, and exploits are explicitly *against* the intended spirit and rules of the game.
But in the case of a single player game there is no specifically defined victory condition other than those written in the rules - the code - of the game, and I find developer intent an insufficient logical reason to change the victory condition to any other condition than those written in the rules. However, I am prepared to accept that this is a point we just are not going to see eye to eye on. If you wish to continue discussing it I would be happy to, but if you would like to set this particular issue aside in favor of more interesting discussion I would not think any less of you not will I declare a "win" over you - that would be silly. This discussion is not a competition, and treating it as such would not be conducive to a proper discussion.Whereas I consider your definition lacking on any logical level, as it is attempting to imply that you can theoretically "win" a competition with another person despite only participating in 5-10% of that competition. This doesn't make any sense to me, and I've yet to see anyone here successfully argue as to why it does.I have seen your reasons why this definition is incorrect and I find your reasons lacking on a technical and practical level.
I have not seen anyone claim that a any% OOT run is equivalent to a glitchless OOT run in this thread. However, I did not read every post so it is probably in there somewhere. What I can tell you is that you will never see a speed runner, or anyone who understands speed running, claim that it is equivalent. As you noted, that is why categories exist. All I have seen so far is the claim that he did, in fact, beat the game according to the rules as written.It's fine for him to "win" at his own version of the game, certainly. As others said, that's why categories exist. However, he has not completed the full breadth of developer-engineered requirements for "beating OoT", so it's inappropriate to hold his run up as equivalent to a full vanilla run of the game.
A common argument and the first part is obviously true, when specifically applied to single player games as it is being applied in this case. The second part is debatable, but also not actually part of the argument of why they are ok. I personally find the Any% OOT run boring and kind of stupid and I wish Cosmo would move onto something more interesting to see, but that is beyond the question of if they are morally justifiable.Well, the thing is....there is a parallel, actually, and it doesn't take much thinking to catch onto it.Second, are you being serious with that parallel between glitches and piracy?
Consider the two primary rationale being used for why exploits are acceptable:
1) Exploits don't harm other players or the devs in any way, and in fact, some even claim that such things improve the game.
Not true. We hold ourselves to the exact same standard we would expect anyone in any competitive environment to hold to: We must work within the rules of the game as they are written. The written rules often allow for unexpected and unintended strategies (example: the dunk in basket ball was not intended but is within the rules as written) but we always work within the written rules, as we would expect anyone else in any other style of competition to do. In the case where we feel some addition rule is required or would be beneficial, an additional rule can be written. This is usually where the alternate categories come from.2) Video games are different from other forms of competition, and therefore not subject to the same sort of restrictions regarding what "cheating" is.
Only somewhat true. Just because the arguments are applied to both situations are phrased similar does not make the situations similar, the logic behind the arguments similar, and even if the arguments were logically similar and insufficient in one case does not mean they are insufficient in the other.Sound familiar? They should, because very similar arguments are used to explain why piracy is acceptable:
A common argument, and in this case no firm conclusion can be drawn from the data at hand. However, more to the point, this argument is not at all parallel to the "exploits harm no one" argument above. In the above case, the argument is that once the product is paid for and is owned by the person, then they can do what they want with it so long as it does not negatively effect anyone else. In this case, the idea is that the product should not need paying for because we cannot prove it harms anyone. Similar wording, not similar logic at all.1) A common argument in favor of piracy is that "it doesn't harm the devs or the legit purchasers in any way", and in fact, some claim that piracy helps the industry more than it hurts.
This is another common argument, but again there is no parallel here. The nature of the sold good and the nature of the game are not explicitly tied together - even without going into if this argument is valid it has no relation to the above argument except similar wording, and that argument isn't even accepted by the speed running community anyway.2) Another common argument is that, because video games are different from other products (they're software and thus exist primarily in a digital sense), they are therefore not subject to the same sort of restrictions or rules regardless what "stealing" is.
And I am going to deny that this specific "gamer logic" is being applied in the case of speed running and accepting exploits. (and also I would like to note that I don't think most gamers subscribe to this logic.) The arguments you describe in favor of pirating games are applied by all types of software pirates to all types of piracy. They are not specific to game pirates. The arguments you describe for the use of exploits are accepted universally and denounced universally respectively, no special treatment is being made for video games at all, at least not by the speed running community.Now let me be clear, I'm not saying that exploits = piracy. That would be absurd. Cheating in a single game that you play for fun is nowhere near as morally reprehensible as breaking the law. Nor am I attempting to incite a riot through this comparison (though I'm sure that people will overreact to it anyways). For what it's worth, when it comes to exploits for the purposes of general "for funsies" sort of runs, hey, I'm cool with that. And I can even see a few potential scenarios where piracy is potentially valid, to boot. So I'm not trying to stir the pot here.
My intention in what I said is to point out that both operate under the same primary "gamer logic", that being that video games are special snowflakes and should get to operate under their own rules....but that they should also totally be considered equally valid against other forms of art, sports, literature, etc. It's as I said, gamers are eager, desperate even, to be accepted by these larger well-funded peer groups, but they don't wish to follow any of the same rules that are associated with those things.
It's unclear whether it's just a generational disconnect or a mentality thing, but it's clear that gamers as a whole tend to see their video games in a different light than everything else, and will knee-jerk react at any attempt to compare them to other arts/sports/etc (as shown in this thread rather clearly, when people laughed off perfectly valid analogies as "ridiculous" for no actual reason other than "because video games are different"). The only way for two things to be equal, mathematically/logically, is to make them comparable, which inevitably means that comparisons between your "sport"/"art"/whatever and another sport/art/whatever are going to be made. Rather than immediately dismissing such comparisons, we should be welcoming them, because it would indicate that gaming has truly grown to the point where it's worthy of being placed in the same category as those sorts of things.
But that's just my own two cents. Apparently, I'm quite insane judging by the posts here, so feel free to take it or leave it.
This is a really, really minor gripe and I'm fairly certain others have probably already mentioned it, but the language was Chinese, not JapaneseStewShearer said:Now, there are some caveats to keep in mind. For one, the version of the game being played here is the Japanese edition