this post was submitted on 21 Nov 2024
121 points (88.5% liked)

RetroGaming

19602 readers
378 users here now

Vintage gaming community.

Rules:

  1. Be kind.
  2. No spam or soliciting for money.
  3. No racism or other bigotry allowed.
  4. Obviously nothing illegal.

If you see these please report them.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS
Xylinna@lemmy.world
Tenthrow@lemmy.world
gts@lemmy.world
121
Mario 64 Speedrunning Declared "Dead" After Insane Feat From "The Greatest Speedrunner Of All Time" | Time Extension (www.timeextension.com)
submitted 1 day ago by ktec@lemmy.zip to c/retrogaming@lemmy.world
47 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

Key Points:

  • Suigi has secured all five major speedrunning categories in Super Mario 64, effectively declaring the game's speedrunning community 'dead'.
  • Suigi's dominance is so profound that his records in all 5 main categories remain largely unchallenged.

The Five Star Categories:

  • 120 star: Completes every single star in the game.
  • 70 star: Completes all normal requirements to reach the final level.
  • 16 star: Uses glitches and techniques to significantly reduce required stars.
  • 1 star: Further optimizes the 16 star run for a single star collection.
  • 0 star: Eliminates stars entirely, focusing on time.

Background Details:

  • Some of Suigi's records were set over a year ago; his 16-star record alone still leads by 6 seconds.
  • Suigi estimates it could take up to a couple of years before someone else beats his current world records.

How do you feel about the dedication and skill demonstrated in these ultra-optimized speedruns? Do such efforts bring value to gaming or are they more of an academic exercise?

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] MudMan@fedia.io 10 points 1 day ago (2 children)

Meh, debatable. QA finds the bugs, what to do with them is more a development/production call.

But I can compromise: Speedrunning is competitive QA testing. How about that?

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 7 points 1 day ago (1 children)

If a bug makes the run take longer they don't investigate it.

Actual counterexample, plenty of optimization came from random guys popping up in the community explaining something they found about the code, that was overlooked for years.

More? A huge emphasis is put on mechanically pulling the run off, which is pointless from a QA point of view, now we can maybe make an argument for TAS in that regard.

[–] MudMan@fedia.io 1 points 1 day ago (1 children)

Nah, I'd say you're mostly making my point. Optimizing getting through the game fast is absolutely part of the skillset, and random people noticing something obvious everybody had been ignoring is bread-and-butter for testers.

I mean, for testers that care and are going hard, which is where the "competitive" part comes in.

[–] dwindling7373@feddit.it 2 points 1 day ago

I'm glad you've never done QA in a bank, but in jest, sure, there's a surprising amount of overlapping.

[–] pimento64@sopuli.xyz 1 points 1 day ago

Debatable by dudes with ponytails who use the word "fallacy" 200 times a day, not by people with common sense.