I was thinking about my
Demo category proposal and it's imaginary rules that could have been used to accept rule-breaking runs, and... this is what I think.
Any mean of adding something unique to the run might make sense to get published, as long as it does
add entertainment. The simplest example is using cheats to unlock difficulties. We can't know in advance if some decision will be supported by the audience or not though, so my Demo rules rely on that a lot.
However, there should be a limit on being arbitrary.
Guidelines advise against "No jumping except where necessary" kinda things.
Now, looking and this submission, it is the same case as (for insnance) using a game-genie code (or a code hack) to add Spring Ball to Metroid just because Metroid II has it. Arbitrary? Quite so. Does it add entertainment? Kinda. If the end result is so different from the clean version that it gets high support (like Saturn's GT code run did), it would have publication chances. But personally, I don't see why this particular feature is strictly necessary to make a game more entertaining. Sure, it reduces boring times, but that's basically all it does.
For a smoother experience, there's a tradition over here, to cut out those boring parts from an encode. We cut door and elevator transitions out of Metroid series. The author cut weapon swaps and item grabs out of
[2621] GC Resident Evil 4 "The Mercenaries: Castle" by Ubercapitalist in 13:44.33. This is perfectly fine,
this is the proper way.
So IIRC, the only reason to use this code here, is the author's motivation, or rather, lack thereof to TAS this without it. Given all of the above, as in:
- it can be done the proper way and result in a similar viewer experience without breaking the rules
- it doesn't add new entertaining content to the run, it only reduces some boring parts, so the viewer support isn't exceptional
- it is an arbitrary decision
this run would even get rejected by the acceptionist Demo rules.
