vc response

VC SHITTER LOGIC RESPONSE:

Before beginning, this entire image is a strawman fallacy, that completely misrepresents the pro-vc argument in order to make the pro-vc argument easier to attack.  I will disregard every single text post by the "pro-vc" character as a result.  It is impossible to defend a claim that is intentionally worded to be stupid and incorrect among other things, and if I were to even try it would make me look like a moron.

"No self-respecting speedrunner..."
This is a moral high ground fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground).  You have attempted to make your argument seem more legitimate than it actually is by trying to seem more moral than your opponent.  This is a fallacy and this claim should be discarded.

"...should use an almost identical rerelease..."
I find this claim completely irrelevant.  If it truly was "almost identical" what would be the issue of speedrunners using it?  I could say the same thing in reverse and it would be equally valid.  Everyone SHOULD use VC because it is almost identical to N64.  This claim fails to support the actual argument, and can be used almost unchanged to support the opposite side.

"... just to squeeze out a few seconds over his competitors."
Why wouldn't you?  They are "competitors" after all, you said it yourself.  If something provides an advantage over who you view as a competitor you'd be stupid not to use it, and your competitor would be stupid to follow suit.

"That skill and optimization take a backseat to ~~~World Record~~~ and Twitch personality is really the greatest tragedy in this community."
What part of "using a faster version because it's faster" makes skill and optimization unimportant?  I do not understand this logical leap at all.  I agree that this is a pressing issue, but it is not caused by the use of VC at all, it's caused by something completely different.

"But nobody is stopping you from playing on VC, it will simply not be the same category as N64..."
By separating "VC" and "N64" into different categories, and then claiming that N64 is the one true category (as you do later), you are forcing people to switch from VC from N64.  People who prefer to play on VC cannot, because if they do their times will be disregarded.  To say that nobody is forcing VC runners to run on N64 is preposterous.

"...so that competition is fair..."
What about "everyone keep to your own version" is more fair than housing them all on the same leaderboard?  The only thing that would make people running on VC "not fair" would be if VC is considered cheating.  Is that what you're claiming?  People running on the fastest version to achieve the fastest time is in no way cheating.

"...and there won't be huge shifts every 2 years just because a new console came out and not because somebody found a new trick or opimization or played better."
I agree, running on N64 would prevent this.  HOWEVER, the solution is not to "separate the versions into different categories" but to completely ban all non-N64 runs.  If you actually cared about this issue, you would have banned VC entirely.  Right now, when new consoles come out there's still going to be a huge shift because a new leaderboard will be added and people will rush to fill it up for the free WR.  You present this as if you are separating categories for the good of the community, but you haven't taken the necessary steps to ensure that this will actually benefit the community.

"But why would anybody who takes this game seriously intentionally run on a version that makes his time uncomparable to the established times?"
I have two issues with this claim.  For one, this is the bandwagon fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) stating that because most established times are on N64, N64 is the best version to run.  What most people think is right is not necessarily what actually is right.  This is a fallacy and this claim should be discarded.  Secondly, this assumes that times on the N64 are incomparable to times on the VC.  I'm not saying that this is incorrect, but you never prove this.  You simply assume that this is so, and do nothing to back it up with evidence.  Again, this claim should be thrown.

"You don't even run the game yourself, so why do you care so much what [sic] the community decided..."
This is an Ad Hominem fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ad_hominem).  You have refuted the claim NOT on the grounds of the claim yourself, but by attacking the person making the claim.  Claims know no origin.  The person saying the claim has absolutely no effect on what the claim itself is.  This is a fallacy and this claim should be discarded.

"..it's not like there is not major agreement on this issue in the community."
This is the bandwagon fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argumentum_ad_populum) stating that because almost everyone in the community agrees, that the original claim is correct.  What most people think is right is not necessarily what actually is right.  This is a fallacy and this claim should be discarded.

"Wrong!  I'm going the fastest I can on the original version enjoyed by millions of children worldwide, the version that shaped 3D platforming and video gaming as a whole."
Wrong!  It is not the version that was enjoyed by millions of children, that shaped 3D platforming and video gaming as a whole.  It was the game that did this.  If SM64 was released on the PS1, it likely would have had the same effect.  It is not the N64 version that caused this at all, so this claim should be discarded.

"I don't lower myself..."
Again, this is a moral high ground fallacy (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moral_high_ground).  You have attempted to make your argument seem more legitimate than it actually is by trying to seem more moral than your opponent.  This is a fallacy and this claim should be discarded.

"...to play a cheap imitation on a different console that runs on stolen emulator software."
Incorrect.  It is not a cheap imitation, in terms of lag and resolution it actually is a better game than the N64 version.  The software is not stolen, Nintendo owns both the N64 and the VC versions, so are they stealing from themselves?

"I play the same game that millions of people have played."
People have also played the VC version.  Couldn't I also say that, by playing VC, I am playing the same game that people have played?  Sure less people have played the VC version than the N64 version, but using the fact that there are more people that played the N64 as an argument would be a bandwagon fallacy, so that aspect of this claim can be discarded.

"I speedrun the same game that hundreds of speedrunners have played before me..."
This is the same as above.  People also speedrun on the VC version.  Can't I say that, by playing VC, I am playing the same game that speedrunners before me have played?  Sure there's less VC runners than N64 runners, but using the fact that there are more N64 runners as an argument would be a bandwagon fallacy, so that aspect of this claim can be discarded.

"..and there is a straight progression and history from the very first run to the runs I do today."
It's not like the same progression doesn't also apply to VC runs.  You can trace the strategies and optimizations used in VC runs back to the earlier N64 runs too.  Just because the console has changed from the first run to runs done today doesn't mean that there ISN'T a clear progression from one to the next.


If you can't make an arguement that isn't immediately and easily debunked, I will never take the N64 > VC claim seriously.  I would like to see a response to this, but please make sure it isn't this easy to refute.