A TAS of a no-rings run would probably not be as impressive as it sounds, as essentially you'd have a TAS of regular levels only with slower paths when rings are in the way. The impressive thing about no-rings is the risk involved and the challenge of avoiding them, both of which are completely trivialized in a TAS. I'm not sure how you don't just end up with a slightly slower version of existing runs. I welcome someone to do one and prove me wrong, though.
HUD/Visor talk has made this thread the most alive it's been in some time. Just go with your gut, because some people are gonna complain no matter what.
My only objection to this point is that the glitches done in OoT are both possible in the same game, whereas the glitch done in LA cannot be done in LADX and vice-versa. In other words, it's not quite the same thing to compare an improvement to a trick only doable on a different version. (If there are gameplay differences besides text in OoT that come to light in the two runs you mention, please correct me, as the submission text for SL's JPN-version run itself does not seem to suggest that any relevant version differences exist otherwise).
You are open to your opinion but I thought I would address your criticisms.
First is 8 minutes considered long now a days? The average movie on this site is 25:42 long which is over 3 times longer than this run. I agree that it doesn't have the most interesting visuals on earth but there is some variety and a high level of enemies to avoid which adds some interest.
You say that this would only be published because it is so hard to play in real time even though it is not entertaining, yet a few moments later you comment that you are sure that is is fun to watch for some people. Also they do not allow any game to have a pass, as can be seen by my submission history, but they do allow audience response to factor in and as you can see it has been generally positive.
Finally... I am sorry that you believe this run would lower the quality of the site so much.
Apologies for not responding sooner. I appreciate your reasoning and it's nice to see a thoughtful defense of the run.
Seeing as the run was ultimately published, it's clear the game offers entertainment value for a considerable amount of viewers. This alone to me suggests it deserves publication, simply because it would be hypocritical of me to oppose publication of a TAS that most people enjoy when my stance has (mostly) consistently been "if the game choice is good and the TAS is well-done, publish it."
I still do not entirely understand why so many people found this game entertaining. I had never heard of it before it was on the bench, so maybe this game was part an internet fad I missed, or something discussed and shared by the community here (and I do not have much time to participate as of late, as you can see by my delayed response). Whatever the case, while I do think some standards should exist, I am pleased to see the judges here recognizing popularity as a real factor in publication. (I recognize the judges often do this already, but there have been times they did not and I think such instances have been regrettable.)
To answer your counterpoints...
-Eight minutes is short, but quickness should not be a justification for a game. As a rule, I think of entertainment value more in "how often does something eventful happen?" This is mostly subjective and personal. For me, very little of the run is eventful, which is why I did not enjoy it. If anything, a shorter run has a harder burden to carry... I know watching a four hour run of a JRPG that most of the game will be dialogue, so it only needs entertain some of the time to justify its publication (boss fight strategies, item/stat management, and route planning are places that can impress, while dialogue and cutscenes are static and so ought not be too harshly criticized). If a game is an NES-generation sidescroller, it has a higher burden of entertainment, because the gameplay depth is flat. This is why so many "run right on every level" games are rejected, I think.
-As mentioned above, viewer opinion does and should matter in publication judging. This is evident by the game's publication, and once the decision is made, debate is likely neither necessary nor pertinent. Again, objectively, if you sat a casual gamer friend in front of this run, I think odds are good they'd be bored after the first two minutes, which to me is a bad sign (not that all runs should be entertaining two minutes in, but hopefully they entertain at some point at the 25% mark!). What I did not expect in my criticism was that most voters would enjoy this run. I am not so vain as to think my opinion matters more than the majority, so I am left with only suspicions that perhaps the value of this game is tied more to the community that pushed for the TAS and publication than to the game itself.
-I do not think it is the worst run on the site nor do I think it harms the site in its publication. My statement regarding standards was not meant specifically to critique this run or you; my concern was that TASvideos is too willing to accept unentertaining games for publication because of elements of gameplay that are only the result of poor programming, inadequate game testing, and design decisions (bad controls are generally caused by some combination of those and are the most common culprit here). I do think this concern is still one worth weighing in the judging process, and I do not think a game deserves publication simply because it is hard to play--entertainment should be the primary factor. That said, there may be a community value here that I overlooked, or perhaps I am simply in the minority when I say that difficult gameplay alone does not make for good game choice.
These are of course merely my opinions. Everyone's post is always just that--opinions. I welcome criticism of them and do not lose sleep over the outcome nor do I mean any personal harm or negativity towards those with differing views. I speak only for myself; if I am so far off the mark that the community as a whole disagrees with me, the problem likely lies with me, not the community.
What a strange debate that has arisen. I do not envy the judges of this site.
Essentially, the question Nach asks has no good answer. Ultimately this is a grey area, and grey areas are anathema to rule-makers. There is this idea that runs that are accepted give some precedent that could be trouble later, but this is only true if the judges do not hold runs to adequate standards. I personally think this run should be published; I also think that SMAS runs ought to be published as well, even if they are simply remakes.
There is a certain amount of entertainment value available in publishing a run of the modern, graphically-updated version of a game, and there is also value in having a run of the original version of a game on the site. Remakes are not painfully common; as long as a run well is done well and is interesting to watch, it seems reasonable to allow publications of both originals and remakes here.
Ultimately, I have to ask "why not?" There has long lingered this sense of apprehension about overly eager publication, as though allowing too many quality TASes to be published would be harmful to the site. I understand this argument, but I think the risks are over-exaggerated and the gains underrated. As long as the game choice is good and the category interesting, an optimized TAS should have a home here, I think.
It seems the best argument that can be made for publication is "it's really hard in real time." For me, this doesn't change the fact that I'm essentially watching a long and uninteresting side scroller.
I'm not sure how or when the precedent of "publish it even though it looks boring because oh man if you played it you'd see why this is so good" was established. I really think it's a bad one, simply because there's so many games out there that are hard to play and boring to watch that there's nothing special or unique about any of them. It seems almost hypocritical to say that we have standards for publishing and then give a pass to any game based on bad programming or controls.
I'm sure this is fun to watch for people who have played the game, and I don't doubt that the run is a technical achievement, but I just don't see any way I can justify voting Yes or even Meh for uneventful side-scrolling from start to finish. It's on the judges to ultimately decide if this is a standard worth maintaining.
Nicely done. This game continues to be improved every so often despite its willingness to eat up saved frames in the lagfest that is the boss fight; now, it almost looks "normal" (for a loose definition of the word).
Radiant: The final boss has six forms in a normal playthrough. In this case, screenwarping in, out, and back into the boss room duplicates the boss, which more or less breaks how the game handles the code for the fight. I don't know the exact technical reason this happens, but I suspect beating phases of the boss when there's two in the room is incrementing a value in memory tied to what phase the boss is in twice instead of once, resulting in half as many "kills" needed to make the game think the fight is over.
What is this strange new age where emulators are cross platform?
Well, if I can get it to work, I'll look into this stuff over the weekend. And thanks Kirkq for the quick and thorough update; I've tried to keep up on this game and route but there's a lot I missed.
When I suggested DRC might be faster on first visit than a trip to Forest Haven I had only considered the cost of time from making two visits to that area (and this is assuming FW isn't doable first, which we still need to confirm but probably isn't an issue). While it's hard to see how Deku Leaf saves enough time to justify two trips to FH if we can do boss key skip with Tingle Tuner, you know more than I.
At any rate, I agree with Abahbob that this is probably pointless conjecture. We'll be lucky to ever have Tingle Tuner emulated, so let's focus on what we know can be done.
Kirkq wrote:
Ballad of Gales takes about 30 seconds to play and warp. Superswimming entirely across the map takes probably around 40-45 seconds if executed optimally. Acquiring Ballad of Gales take about 1 minute 30 seconds.
Taking into account your earlier post on the time spent for superswimming:
Travel 1 grid square: 16 seconds ~600 speed
Travel 2 grid squares: 20 seconds ~800 speed
Travel 3 grid squares: 24 seconds ~1000 speed
Travel 4 grid squares: 27 seconds ~1200 speed (You can probably barely do this without re-airing, so no speed loss due to suboptimal turning. No considerations need made for an airing island.)
Travel 5 grid squares: 32 seconds ~1400 speed (requires re-air)
Travel 6 grid squares: 35 seconds ~1500 speed
Travel 7 grid squares: 38 seconds ~1600 speed
Any time Ballad did not take you to the exact destination needed, you would be looking at extra time spent to then travel to your next destination (unless there is some reason a superswim wasn't the best way to travel, and I can't think of any). For this reason, even a 45 second superswim across the map would beat a Ballad (30 seconds) + a 1-tile superswim (16 seconds). In other words, I can't see any reason Ballad would be used unless it took you DIRECTLY to the island you wanted to visit, and if that island was more than 4 grid squares away from where you already were.
For reference, the Ballad can take you to:
Windfall Island
Southern Fairy Island
Forest Haven
Tingle Island
Greatfish Isle
Tower of the Gods
Dragon Roost Island
Outset Island
Mother & Child Isles*
Of course the Mother and Child is only useful for getting arrows (you can clip in but not out, last I checked). So that leaves a question of how often you'd need to visit one of the other 8 locations, and when they'd be 4+ islands away (before teleporting). It'd have to be 5-6 visits before Ballad might save time, I think. Given you don't have the bow (and thus cannot get Ballad) before TotG, I don't see that happening, but the route isn't in stone yet of course. Also keep in mind that some teleports from Ballad might still not be that useful, depending on why you visit an island; if for example your goal was to enter Forest Haven, unloading it and clipping in from below is probably quicker than teleporting and climbing up/ledge diving and entering (haven't tested this but seems probable).
All in all, I don't see Ballad saving time, but some testing has to be done first. A couple questions worth answering that can help:
-If you superswim into a cyclone, does the game put Link on the boat? (if not, to get Ballad you'd have to ride KoRL into a cyclone, which would cost some time)
-Is it possible to manipulate the random teleporting from cyclones? (seems likely and might be faster than actually getting Ballad)
I apologize for only asking and not testing. My Windows partition needs to be updated before I can run it, so I'm Mac-only for now.
I don't think it'd change the route any, but Tingle Tuner also allows DRC Boss Key skip without leaf (clip the left wall with a pot, then buy a Tingle Balloon to hover to the entrance). This would mean DRC could be done before going to Forest Haven, which (might?) be faster if the game locks when doing FW first, though I'm not sure on this.
I'm sure Abahbob is aware of this, but it's another use worth mentioning for those who don't know. Also, as mentioned, refilling magic, refilling hearts for more/easier zombie hovers (such as not requiring boomerang for Light Arrow skip). For a TAS, I don't see a use for tingle bombs, since regular bombs are early in the route. A TAS could manipulate Kooloh-Limpah to get the double duration hover, which might save some time in very specific areas (possibly certain rooms in TotG for example).
Sadly this is all theoretical. I don't think you'd necessarily have a robust GBA emulator to cover input for Wind Waker--you'd just need the bare bones to provide reliable input. This of course would be a point of some discussion if it was actually on the table, but it isn't, so we can have that debate if/when we get there. In the meantime, I'm still really excited about the Wind Waker TAS, because it looks to be quite amazing without Tingle Tuner anyway.
It's hard to believe Storage isn't useful, but given the clipping glitches, I guess it makes sense for a TAS. Even if boss key skip was faster (and it doesn't seem like it is any more), the versatility of not having to plan around Forest Water might well make up for the time anyway, especially since glitches continue to be found for this game and drastic route changes might end up happening every time a new trick comes into play.
Nice Light Arrow skip, by the way. I realize it's a it old, but I hadn't seen that one yet. Really is a shame Tingle Tuner support is such a distant dream...
I'm envious of those who don't know this game well enough to understand what's going on, but there are surprises here for me, too. Really wish more games could be broken to this degree.
Part of the reason no 100% TAS has happened for this game is because there are a lot of tricks for this game, most of which you'd have to have a pretty thorough knowledge of TASing MM/OoT to understand. That's a small number of people who would have the know-how needed to make even a "nearly optimal" run and route. And the Zelda TASers have notably high standards; so far, they haven't wanted to do a 100% unless it's done optimally, and that's just a heartbreaking endeavor (because invariably they'd find improvements along the way, and there are so many route options it's mind-boggling).
I'm sure an amateur effort to 100% this in a TAS would be supported but it would probably not even be "nearly optimal" simply because route planning alone is such a damn pain. That's ignoring mastery of frame-perfect tricks, etc.
Shouldnt the game version always be English unless there is some time saving bug specific to the Japanese version?
Besides what rog points out, the precedent really only ruled out runs where the only difference was faster text. Doesn't have to be a bug; for example, the Japanese version of FFX-2 lets you get an item early on that one-shots all bosses, and this item was moved to the end of the game in the US release. Not a bug, still legitimate.
Doesn't matter any more, though.
That could make the run under 2 hours probably, but no Aeris...even if you have a memory warp glitch, you can't warp across disks to avoid the Jenova at the end of disc 1...the presence of gameshark alone makes me doubt the video...
I may be mistaken, but it seems quite unlikely Aeris is removed from the game as a party member when she dies and you fight Jenova. All that should have to be avoided is the point at which she leaves your party, which is when Sephiroth gets the black materia IIRC. Skip that scene and she shouldn't be gone, even if everyone in the party seems to think so.
Also, if this were an April Fools' joke or a fake video, why even mention a gameshark at all? If you wanted to trick people, you wouldn't let them know a cheat device was involved in the first place. (And I don't actually see where a gameshark is mentioned, anyway, but I'll assume I missed that since you apparently saw it.)
