1. Somebody defeating SMB3 in 10:45 (although I just discovered this person used save states...)
2. Somebody (maybe the same person?) defeating all worlds and levels of SMB3 in about seventy-five minutes. (probably using the same method?)
3. Somebody defeated Quake in twelve and a half minutes. Dang.
So I was thinking... why can't we do something similar with arcade games? There's plenty of games where we could do this for sure.
Here's a short version of rules I'm thinking of:
1a. Time starts when the player gains control, or when the player hits the "1P" button, and ends when the player defeats the final boss, or when the player finishes the game and terminates the recording... either of which I can use an opinion on.
1b. If the arcade game uses a timer and it moves at a constant rate, that particular timer can be used. (I.E. Neo Drift Out's timer can be used, but Super Mario Brothers 3's timer cannot... the later slows down when you use the P)
2. If nobody finishes the game, the person who goes the farthest, in number of stages, wins. If a tie exists there, the person who completes the last stage completed in the fastest time wins.
3a. After the first competition (where I will choose the game), the winner picks the next game, provided it's a different genre of the last game. (So no OutRun followed by Neo Drift Out, or something like that.)
3b. No picking games that go on forever (like Galaga, level D) or finish in a nearly constant time period. (like Pac-Man) However, considering a game finished after a certain number of levels would be allowed (like you "beat the game" in the two examples mentioned after ten levels, for instance)
4. If you choose the game, you can win that competition, but you can't choose the next game. (that means you can't choose games for two competitions in a row)
I'll discuss more technical rules later (or on request/question), but first things first... do you think this idea rules or does it suck?
Questions welcome as always.
