From the article:
> "My run is a segmented/spliced run," Groobo said. "It always has been and it was never passed off as anything else, nor was it part of any competition or leaderboards. The Speed Demos Archive [SDA] page states that outright." Indeed, an archived version of Groobo's record-setting Speed Demos Archive submission [link to archive from 2009-11-21] does say directly that it's made up of "27 segments appended to one file."
> But simply splitting a run into segments doesn't explain away all of the problems the TAS team found. Getting Naj's Puzzler on dungeon level 9, for instance, still requires outside modification of a save file, which is specifically prohibited by longstanding [link to current rules page] Speed Demos Archive rules that "manually editing/adding/removing game files is generally not allowed." Groobo's apparent splicing of multiple game versions and differently seeded save files also seems to go against SDA rules, which say that "there obviously needs to be continuity between segments in terms of inventory, experience points or whatever is applicable for the individual game."
This doesn't really look like good reporting. First, we're comparing an archived page from 2009 to the rules as they're reported today. But the rules page from 2009-11-28, ten months after the submission, says this ( https://web.archive.org/web/20091128190935/http://speeddemos... ):
> System modification: You are not allowed to modify your system or use extra hardware such as GameSharks and Game Genies. These devices let you alter game parameters and can give you an unfair advantage. The only allowed extra hardware are modchips and boot disks used for playing imports, and official add-ons. For example, the PS2 HDD is allowed, while the HD Loader is not.
> Game modification: Removing or altering a game disc/cartridge/files while the game is running is forbidden. Examples of this are the crooked cartridge trick in The Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time and the CD streaming trick in The Legend of Zelda: Twilight Princess. If you're not sure what this rule means, think about it this way: don't mess with your system while playing the game, and don't modify the game itself at any time.
> Games that allow you to save your progress and continue later can be done using segments. You can retry segments as much as you want, in order to optimize them. Keep in mind that the purpose of segmentation is not to make life easier for you or to reduce the amount of time it takes you to produce a run. A segmented run implies a higher level of risk-taking and a lower tolerance for mistakes. Use as many segments as is optimal to achieve the fastest final time.
The continuity-between-segments requirement is not present in the 2009 rules. And not only does the prohibition on editing game files not exist, there's a clause stating it's allowed while the game isn't running. Why might the game not be running? Well, if you're doing a segmented run, you're expected to save and quit the game, restarting it later.
This raises some questions:
1. Are we allowed to set our system clock to a time in the future? The rules appear to specify that we aren't ("you are not allowed to modify your system"). But that part of the rules is heavily focused on altering the hardware, making it unclear whether the system clock is supposed to count in that category.
2. Are we allowed to change the random dungeon generation seed stored in our savefile between segments? Now the rules specify that we can! ("Removing or altering a game disc/cartridge/files while the game is running is forbidden.)
3. The summary of the modification rules says the opposite of what the rules themselves say. ("1. You are not allowed to modify your system; 2. Altering game files while the game is running is forbidden; 3. In summary, don't alter the system while the game is running, and don't alter the game at any time.") What's up with that?
4. Can two segments of a segmented run come from different savefiles?
Second, the original submission doesn't just state that it's a segmented run. It also says this:
> Once more I'm here to cut down the time almost in half and it's due to even more luck manipulation, even more glitches, and even more sexiness. The most important thing is that I manipulated Naj's Puzzler to drop from the earliest monster possible.
The implication is that there is some form of RNG manipulation in Diablo 1 that would have been allowed, but the actual form of manipulation that groobo used wasn't it. If that's true, the article should have covered what would have been allowed and why this was different. As written, this looks more like the journalist didn't bother reading what groobo said about his video.
Third, the article almost glosses over what appears to be a much more significant problem:
> Groobo's final fight against Diablo, for instance, required just 19 fireballs to take him out. While that's technically possible with perfect luck for the level 12 Sorceror seen in the footage, the TAS team found that the specific damage dealt and boss behavior only matched when they attempted the same attacks using a level 26 Sorceror.
While there isn't an explicit continuity requirement in 2009, the difference between fighting a boss at level 26 vs level 12 is large enough that I'm comfortable assuming it violated an implicit requirement. I'm also curious about whether your level is displayed on screen - which would imply that the video isn't just segmented but assembled from edited frames - or not. This finding appears to have been glossed over because it's not in the original report on the video. But the journalist should have exercised better judgment.