There is a game I would like to add to the site, it does belong to a series, and I have contacted the moderator. This topic is more to get the general thoughts from community.

The game in question is very unstable, it is a PC game created during a brief period of time between DOS and XP, meant to run on Windows 98. Through third party applications (designed to translate video for modern machines) it can run, but can be prone to crashes.

I have completed a run, and paused timer for each crash, restarting as I loaded back in. I wasn't particularly worried about the specific time, I want it recorded for posterity. At the same time, I realize technical issues may make it non-competitive, but again, I figure if there's at least a start then maybe over time we may be able to pool thoughts on how to fix the issues for good.

Any thoughts? Is it okay to run a game that may be difficult to even get to work?

Ideally a game that can’t be reliably run is not a good game to speedrun. While I guess you can technically create whatever rules you want for the game if you become the sole moderator for it, it’s generally not accepted to pause the timer for any reason. Pausing the timer is only allowed in Segmented runs (and even then a timer isn’t traditionally used, those types of runs usually rely on in game time at save points), most games time their runs with real time which means that pausing the timer is prohibited.

Again, there’s nothing stopping you from making rules that allow for stopping the timer, but it can get messy. What if when the game crashes I take a break to calm my nerves, is that allowed? Do I need to load the game within a certain amount of time after each crash before I invalidate my run? What if the game crashes more often on my computer than yours, does that give me an unfair advantage as I get to relax while the game is rebooted? These are just a few examples of ambiguous scenarios that can be created with arbitrary rules that allow for pausing the timer. They can be worked around, but still, rules like this tend to get cluttered with a lot of arbitrary decisions.

My personal opinion is that if a game is so unstable that it can’t even be completed without crashing, then that’s not a game I’d want to play let alone try and run.

Thank you SO much for your reply, it actually gives me a new idea to help standardize runs.

Due to the fact that no other game in the series is logged as 'segmented runs' I was discounting that idea. In other games of the series, menu navigation/customization options were just part of the timed run. Due to the inherent instability of the game, the "in-mission" timer is perhaps far more effective to make things normalized.

The thing is, crashes are absolutely a hindrance if timing from start to finish in this game. In a series of 10 missions, progress is only saved if the mission is completed, and crashes only occur in-mission. So any crash is a reset of what you need to complete.

If the runs are segmented, there's no consequences for in-mission failure, and customization does not get timed, but that would likely be the most fair way to judge timing, as it would be the same for any player making an attempt, regardless of their own stability.

Crashes easily added 2+ hours to my attempt, and a heap of frustration. I normally would just move on, but it's sort of my own personal goal to complete every game in the series, and have them added to the archive.

Thank you so much for your input, hopefully we can work it out!