Watched the livestream of this. It was highly entertaining, and I'd say it's worth making another branch for (Remember, only any% and 100% have a category so far). Yes vote.

Here is an encode I already did of the movie. It is not in proper TAS Videos required form but if you want to watch it without loading up BizHawk then here you go. Link to video

holy shit. this is really something else! this is incredible!

voted !!

automatic no vote. i don't support any categories besides any and 100%,nice tas though,just believe it doesn't belong here.

automatic no vote. i don't support any categories besides any and 100%,nice tas though,just believe it doesn't belong here.

Did you find this movie entertaining?

I'm a broken record.

The category is too arbitrary and doesn't differ much from the current existing any%. On top of that, much of the game play is sub-optimal.

Welp, I suppose it's never too early to kick off a multi-page argument. What's the point of this category on this site? I'm sure it's an impressive technical achievement, but is "no doors" really non-arbitrary enough as a category* to publish here? Let's look back at the judgement of this Super Metroid TAS: "...but here on TASVideos we can only publish the categories that we deem interesting and entertaining enough..." What does this have over any other interesting (yet ultimately arbitrary) OoT category? Aside from "less doors", I mean. *Emphasized strictly to avoid meaningless discussions where people miss the point of what "arbitrary" means in regards to publication categories. Let's also look back at this more relevant TAS, where a lot of the audience feedback was indeed "I thought this was really entertaining, but not worth being published due to the category". So should the audience feedback even play into whether or not the category is publish-worthy? I can already guess that a lot of the people watching are simply going to vote yes because it's OoT, and taking that into account, I already know it's going to be passed around like a blunt at a greasy college party regardless of whether or not it's accepted by the site. So is there a benefit to publication? I gave the video a quick skim and as far as I could tell it's just the same stuff as the any% but done in different places, so judging purely from my quick skim of the encode I don't see this as unique/interesting enough to be published alongside the current runs. I'm refraining from voting, but I'd personally rather see a much more varied category be published than something that appears to just be 10 extra minutes of avoiding doors using the exact same methods. In terms of this site, I'm against publication. However, in terms of the TAS itself: I'm glad it exists, just as I'm glad the Super Metroid "100% Map Completion" run exists. I could never fault someone for putting effort into any piece of work. Something like this could lead to even greater TASes down the line, whether it be from tricks adapted to an any% or 100% category or the author using their experience to tackle another run. I don't intend to stifle the creation of any TAS. Not at all. I'd just rather not see this site (and only this site) become saturated with brand new categories that won't ever have any competition.

Wasn't the most optimized TAS, but was definitely entertaining. Yes vote.

automatic no vote. i don't support any categories besides any and 100%,nice tas though,just believe it doesn't belong here.

Did you find this movie entertaining?

I'm a broken record.

This seems pedantic. I mean you're technically correct, but what he is supposed to vote in this case if it feels the category is not appropriate for the site? A yes vote would not be appropriate, right?

This seems pedantic. I mean you're technically correct, but what he is supposed to vote in this case if it feels the category is not appropriate for the site? A yes vote would not be appropriate, right?

Voting no (or any other vote, for that matter) because you disagree with site policies is not the way to change site policies. You aren't contributing to the site, you're not even contributing to the discussion; you're just adding noise to the polling system. The judges will simply ignore your opinion anyway, because you aren't participating according to the site guidelines, so what exactly do you think you're accomplishing? Also, you know how it says "Vote after watching!" right above the poll? Any guess as to whether or not grassini actually did that?

Really entertaining and fun!

This seems pedantic. I mean you're technically correct, but what he is supposed to vote in this case if it feels the category is not appropriate for the site? A yes vote would not be appropriate, right?

Voting no (or any other vote, for that matter) because you disagree with site policies is not the way to change site policies. You aren't contributing to the site, you're not even contributing to the discussion; you're just adding noise to the polling system. The judges will simply ignore your opinion anyway, because you aren't participating according to the site guidelines, so what exactly do you think you're accomplishing? Also, you know how it says "Vote after watching!" right above the poll? Any guess as to whether or not grassini actually did that?

I mean in general. If you feel the goal is too arbitrary choice, what you vote? If the movie is not optimal, but entertaining, what you vote? It is not "Yes", right?

I mean in general. If you feel the goal is too arbitrary choice, what you vote? If the movie is not optimal, but entertaining, what you vote? It is not "Yes", right?

Voting is solely based on how entertaining the movie is. Category arguing can happy in the thread, and is a separate thing. You are not voting on whether or not the movie should be published.

I mean in general. If you feel the goal is too arbitrary choice, what you vote? If the movie is not optimal, but entertaining, what you vote? It is not "Yes", right?

Usually when that happens with me, I don't vote at all. I just post my opinion in the thread. It makes it easier for the judges to gauge the audience reaction that way.

I have questions. I don't speedrun the Zeldas, nor do I pretend to, but I don't see the purpose of the bombchus that you set on the ground (there are two three of them, one of which visibly runs down the wall) when trying to Ganondoor. What precisely do they accomplish? Chu #3 when Ganondooring, why the delay?

I watched this live-streamed and I personally found this entertaining enough! I thought it added enough variety compared to any% to keep me interested. You did stuff like having to enter the well, dampe's grave, and even having to acquire the master sword. But, I can also see where some people are coming from. It is just any% altered and yes, it is pretty arbitrary too. So I guess it's truly up to the judges whether or not this should be published. But I do stand by my yes vote, so good luck TaylorTot!

I mean in general. If you feel the goal is too arbitrary choice, what you vote? If the movie is not optimal, but entertaining, what you vote? It is not "Yes", right?

Voting is solely based on how entertaining the movie is. Category arguing can happy in the thread, and is a separate thing. You are not voting on whether or not the movie should be published.

This isn't true in usage in either direction. People vote "yes for vault" all the time. But the quest to change the question is a long and futile one.

I have questions. I don't speedrun the Zeldas, nor do I pretend to, but I don't see the purpose of the bombchus that you set on the ground (there are two three of them, one of which visibly runs down the wall) when trying to Ganondoor. What precisely do they accomplish? Chu #3 when Ganondooring, why the delay?

Regarding the third chu I used in the hover: the hard thing about doing this hover with no bombs is that I am unable to 'staircase hover', which means putting multiple bombs down by the wall and doing 2 or 3 consecutive backflips off of them to get enough height. If you are familiar with hovering in 3D zelda games, you know that doing only one hover off the ground will NOT give you enough height to stay in midair and will simply place you back onto the ground again after 'sticking' you in midair for a second or two. In this case, I am able to backflip off of the 'lip' of the ground right by the wall and then briefly 'stick' myself over the LOWER ground directly next to it. However, this still would not give me enough height to fully stick in the air without being pulled down. As I mentioned earlier, you are 'stuck' in the air for a couple of seconds, and during this brief time frame, you can backflip directly backwards (you do NOT have enough time to do 'twisty backflips' as I did during the rest of the hover) and get 1 more hover in. however, since this backflip is actually going back, it puts me next to the wall again. For whatever reason which I still do not know why, if I held down while 'stuck' in midair after this second hover, it did not put me back onto the ground (but it did if I let go of the control stick). Also, because I am near a wall, if I were to just backflip and release a chu, it would simply stick to the wall and start running up it and not actually explode. Thus, my only option in this case was to hold down to continue sticking myself in place while I waited for the explosive to ready. Only in this case would it be possible for me to get enough height to TRULY stick in midair and start the rest of the hover. Regarding those 2 chus which I seemingly wasted running down the wall: that was a very important part of the glitch which allowed me to actually get out of bounds here. The thing is, the top of the stone slab (which was what I grabbed to get out of bounds) is grabbable from inbounds. However, the only way to actually grab it from in bounds is with the use of a ground jump (read here https://www.zeldaspeedruns.com/oot/tech/ground-jump). Normally, ground jumps are stored and used on the ground (not mid-hover) with a bomb. However, the recent discovery which made this route possible was that it is possible to store a ground jump mid-hover. This is where the two chus come into play. From the desciption of 'nathanisbored's video on the subject: (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=n3uWFYZBZKU)

There is a limit of 3 explosives that can be loaded at a time. Explosions also count toward this limit, but they do not obey the limit themselves. So if you begin to pull a new explosive just before a 3rd explosion appears, it will cancel the draw and you will quick draw the chu. Combine this with an action swap from charged hookshot to chu, and you can store a ground jump.

So essentially, this is how to get a ground jump midhover: 1. Pull a chu, wait for it to almost explode and then drop it along with another chu 2. Pull out hookshot so you have it in your hand 3. On the frame before/after (can't remember exactly) they both explode, pull a third chu. The game thinks it has enough room for a third chu and STARTS TO PULL IT since the first two haven't exploded yet, but quickly realizes there is actually no room and CANCELS the chu pull. 4. Hold Hookshot and thus, you have stored a ground jump.

But the quest to change the question is a long and futile one.

Agreed...

I haven't watched the movie so I don't know if it's entertaining or different enough from other published movies, but the category is clearly arbitrary and I don't even care about watching it because of this. I don't think anybody would care about trying to beat this run except the author for the same reason. Next time. it's going to be a bingo run submission or something. While I think OoT is a good candidate for a glitch showcase movie, I don't think this is the right way to do it.

Going to have to give this one a No vote. Way too arbitrary mate, just not the sort of content we want to have on our website. Still a very cool TAS though nice job (not that I watched it)

If you don't find the movie entertaining, but you also don't find it unentertaining (that is, you find it of average quality for what it claims to do), you can always vote 'Meh'. As far as I understand it, audience commentary in the thread informs a judge's decision as much as (more than?) the vote tallies, and should help decide whether the movie is published or not. You are more than able to vote 'Yes' that you find a movie entertaining, and still argue in the thread independent of your vote for it to not be published because of reasons.

After watching this, I'll go with a meh vote. It was basically an any% that has to watch more cutscenes to work around its restriction. The way it gets this done was interesting to watch, but not enough to make it stand out among other categories. If people want to TAS one of the really obscure categories (basically everything that isn't on the ZSR leaderboards), that's fine, but it should still offer enough unique content. In that regard, something like "37 water temple keys" would have been more interesting to see, out of all the arbitrary stuff. Despite that, I'm still very happy this got made. It uses Bizhawk, doesn't rely on emulator-bugs and isn't spliced. That's how this game should be TASed! It may not be optimal everywhere, but this is OoT, if you only accept perfection from a TAS, you're never going to get anything done.