Voted yes for the following reasons: 1) entertaining to see more of the stages improved without zipping 2) innovative new strategies 3) strict adherence to stated goals, verified by 2 other members familiar with the game's physics (namely Derakon and marzojr) To add to the discussion, I would have liked to see more of SB2 and SB3, but I also understand the necessity to not be arbitrary in goals. The aim isn't to show as much terrain as possible, so the people crying foul should also consider there are a few instances of running on top of the screen and bouncing so high on enemies that you don't see much of the level at all... If a run was made that shows those last 2 stages with stated goals like "no zipping and no ejection of more than 8 pixels in any direction", I doubt people would be appeased.

I am not sure how to vote. The Scrap Brain glitches look nothing like zipping and I accept them as legitimate, but at the same time, you are skipping most of the level. Is there no goal we could use that forces you to take "a" normal route without being too arbitrary?

two words: en, oh. NO

Normally I love glitchy runs. I really do, it's fun seeing a game break in half with mere controller input. But if this run is supposed to avoid using a specific kind of glitch, then it really should also avoid anything that is similar enough to be confused for that kind of glitch. Otherwise, the line of distinction is cutting straight in the middle of a form of glitch, declaring half of it "Okay" but the other half "Off-limits". Like so many other people here, I would be fully supportive of this run if it lost the obvious "almost-zips". But as it stands... I'm uncomfortable with this run being published. So, although I find the rest of the work excellent, I have to vote no on principle.

The Scrap Brain glitches look nothing like zipping and I accept them as legitimate, but at the same time, you are skipping most of the level. Is there no goal we could use that forces you to take "a" normal route without being too arbitrary?

In both Scrap Brain 2 and 3, the taken routes are very close to the "normal" routes -- there is a rather minor skip ahead to another point of a "normal" route. In Scrap Brain 2, Aglar would end up on the exact same spot a few seconds later had he not used the crusher to go through the floor. The Scrap Brain 3 route skips a segment about 60-80% of the length of the skipped section in Scrap Brain 2; but this segment is mostly underwater, so quite a bit slower.

I'm supporting Aglar's decisions knowing they are always reasonable, and this thread confirms that again. Ah, let's define the exact category and measure of glitch somewhere, then let's prove this isn't arbitrary (like the in-game timer is free from subjectiveness and can be a good criteria) and anyone would agree with this measure of glitch allowed in Sonic, and ONLY THEN you'll be welcome with words against the current decision. But from what I've read in the submission text, no one could suggest the measure acceptable for everybody. If you have nothing concrete to suggest (any deviation from the chosen category would water down the point of glitch allowed/disallowed), and can't do this run yourself - don't grumble towards the very optimised run.

I feel I should rephrase my post because I might have been too rude for no reason the first time. Deciding if a goal choice is good or not, and if said goal has been properly achieved, is not something I should do, nor should any other occasional viewer. The goal choice should be evaluated by the judges/admins and only them, and the execution/achievemnt too, possibly with some expert feedback such as Marzojr's post, which is indeed insightful. I don't doubt that Aglar picked a definite goal and achieved it throughout the movie, and I'm sure the judges will take the best possible decision about this. However, as a simple viewer, I don't "like" how SLZ3, SBZ2, and SBZ3 break the flow of the movie, and therefore I confirm my no vote. I would be much more pleased with a movie in which you don't glitch through the loop in SLZ3, you don't glitch through the belt in SBZ2, you don't glitch through everything in SBZ3, but hey, this is me, and this is called an opinion )

I voted yes. I enjoyed the run, and approve of the category. But I agree with the general sentiment that the ejections used in the last stages were unfortunate, and make the run less suited for showing to a non-technical audience due to the large similarities between zipping and other ejection mechanisms. Therefore, I think that a run which avoids these ejections should be able to obsolete this one. One possible goal might be "does not pass through solid objects", which could be precisely defined by setting a maximum to the position change between entering and exiting a solid area, as well as a maximum to the ratio of the length of the path taken and the shortest path entirely outside objects. The latter is to prevent the player from passing through very thin surfaces. Another possible goal might be "no ejections", defined as never going so deep into an object that you aren't pushed all the way out of it on the same frame as you enter it. This rule is simpler to explain than the one above, but I think it will be more annoying to work with, as one has to keep looking out for it (possibly having to slow down before you hit walls, for example).

I appreciate Aglar's attention to precise goal definitions. I really enjoyed watching the run. ...but the "glitches" stuck out like a sore thumb! I understand that they're a consequence of the exact goal definition Aglar used. I understand that what constitutes a "glitch" here is subjective. I see the "abuses programming errors" point. But what's a programming error, in the context of ejections? I think I'm going to have to submit what may just be my first ever "Meh" vote. I think what it comes down to is this: I really want this run to be a "low glitch" run, but instead it's a "no zips" run.

I have to say, I liked this run. YES VOTE

It was nice to see a TAS of this game where they actualy play through each level sort of how it was intended.

I got to say, I was unsure about the idea. Though I approved of the will to change from the other runs, to me it just looks like "no zipping" means "no dashing", which is in my opinion is a terrible choice for speedrunning a Sonic game : It's bound to be slower, and doesn't prove something counter-intuitive like "You can beat the game without dashing". So I watched the run, and I found it interesting. The sprite ejection near the end... That's a relief. I just hate those stages, so I'm not even going to argue against it. In my opinion, the most part of the run (i.e 98%) shows Sonic running at impossible places, really fast, doing strange motions. And that's fair enough for me. Yes vote

A Sonic TAS where I can hear the music for an appreciable length. Delicious.

I skipped ahead to Scrap Brain Zone 2 and 3 to see what the thread has become about and yes, I understand where people are coming from. The run exploits a quirk in the programming of the game to bypass an obstacle that should probably not be possible to bypass, thus skipping a significant portion of the level. However, I think we should look at precedence in this case. Low glitch runs on TASvideos have never been about being glitchless. The reason for a low glitch run is when a certain glitch or trick becomes so game breaking and prevalent that it is used to the detriment of all other tricks and gameplay. The Pulseman low glitch run still uses the floor sinking glitch. It was accepted because that's still a significant change in gameplay. The Super Metroid runs without the x-ray beam glitch still have multiple glitches of their own. While Scrap Brain Zone 3 looks like Sonic suddenly tripped, fell in a hole and can't get out, I don't think that those instances should be any reason for the run to be rejected. I don't want people to become so afraid of doing these kinds of runs that it's never attempted. It's already happened to Super Mario 64 and that annoys me to no end. If we want to do "only programmer intended" routes, that gets into the realm of tool assisted walkthroughs (which is something I really should get started on. I've had that idea for over a year now). As for my personal opinions on the glitches, I'm okay with them. They happen quickly and are only a small portion of the run. I look forward to many more runs which follow this same spirit. EDIT: After watching the youtube encode, I vote yes. This is what I've been waiting for: a run on Sonic that has the large amount of gameplay the older Sonic runs had without the lack of precision. My biggest complaint is that you could have probably used some of the waiting times better. Many of them feel like waiting times. I saw that you did hide some of them, though, and I have no idea how you could have done it, so I won't make too big a deal of it. I'd like to thank you for changing up the final boss fight. It's actually entertaining now.

to me it just looks like "no zipping" means "no dashing", which is in my opinion is a terrible choice for speedrunning a Sonic game : It's bound to be slower, and doesn't prove something counter-intuitive like "You can beat the game without dashing".

By "dashing", do you mean spindashing? If so, that isn't avoided due to the goal, but simply isn't possible in Sonic 1.

Maybe a ban on passing through the center of solid objects? This would allow corner boosting and other uses of sprite ejection. Still, I think Aglar will find counter examples, and I don't know if it's necessary.

By "dashing", do you mean spindashing? If so, that isn't avoided due to the goal, but simply isn't possible in Sonic 1.

Oh wow! I didn't know that. Guess I should've played the actual game to understand better what it's all about. Okay then, I just have a yes vote, as well as my support for any "no zip" runs of Sonic 2 and 3, where spindashing is possible =)

I agree with most viewers' point that the "almost-zip" strategy used in SBZ2 and SBZ3 should be kept aside. The author has, in my view, overused the concept of "arbitrarity", as if any breaking of the technical rules standed for arbitrary and, thus, can't be considered. However it's already a big tradition at TASVideos to break some specific given rules to add entertainment on the movie. Was the skipping of the two shortcuts so arbitrary, no movie could have "speed-enterteinment tradeoffs". Sometimes I'm very crictical about an author's choice of these tradeoffs, but it's a valid concept. I repeat, I don't see any arbirarity on the author's decision to do concessions in favor of entertainment value. His rules, his freedom to break them. An, on that particular case, the vox populi indicates it should increase the entertainment value, or simply avoid frustrations by the and of the movie. Also, someone has made this pertinent observation: if this kind of overlapping, even if considered glitchless, is allowed, more of them can be found out, and, if used, will ruin the purpose of the run, which is to show what could be the programmers' indended route. I think SBZ2 and SB3 should be remade, in spite of the given tradeoffs. I'm not voting yet.

I enjoyed watching this run, way more watchable than the classic old Sonic 1 TAS where you just feel like your head is spinning around. I almost consider this as playaround. It's fun to watch, slower than what is possible with this game, yet more entertaining than the usual TAS of this game. Please, make more of these, they are the best. Obvious yes for me.

Just watched the encode. I have to agree with Aglar in this one. Anyone who's watched the zipping runs can see just how different the two situations are. Great run!

OK, so I've watched this, with a particular mind to the category selected. In response to the whole sprite ejection issue, I noticed three obvious wrong-looking ejections, in Labyrinth Zone 1, Scrap Brain 2, and Scrap Brain 3. It's interesting to note that the one in Labyrinth Zone 1 didn't lead to a sequence break (it was merely to get onto a platform faster), but I feel it should be handled the same way as the one in Scrap Brain 2, which does, as they're both clearly the same glitch. The one in Scrap Brain 3 was the only one that actually bothered me; even though it wasn't a zip, it was notably different from the other ejections I spotted, because it used a diagonal surface. In order to create a good "low-glitch" category for the game, I'd suggest banning zips, but also sprite ejections that eject Sonic out a different side of the sprite from which he entered (unless the sprite is destroyed in the process). For instance, if a sprite is entered from above, it needs to be left from above, and if it's entered from the left side, it needs to be left from the left side. That would hopefully allow the everyday use of sprite ejections that has nothing to do with sequence breaking, but ban the sequence break in Scrap Brain 3. (I think the Scrap Brain 2 sequence break still works, though, unless the conveyor belt also counts as a sprite.) (EDIT: That said, the run clearly conforms to the category listed. The debate's more about whether it's an entertaining category; I think it is, but could be improved, so have voted Yes.)

I'm voting Yes, with a clear mind.. +D And ... I would consider a 100% run of Sonic 1, and Sonic 2 ... there is so much room for entertainment in these slow bonuses too... Voting "Continue the SMD Sonic works!" .. \o\ EDIT: on a side note, I liked this run but still prefer the more glitched one, .. but this one feels so much 'real guts', I guess.. =P

This was great! Really enjoyable. This is one of my favourite games and it was nice to see a refreshing break from the zipping. I don't see what the fuss is regarding Scrap Brain 2 and 3, though - after reading the discussion I was expecting something to occur in which Sonic warped 2-3 screens or so. Well, the difference of "sprite ejection" and "zipping" is extremely clear to me now and the author sticks to his goals. If this movie gets rejected based on this premise I won't even know what to think. Yes.

In order to create a good "low-glitch" category for the game, I'd suggest banning zips, but also sprite ejections that eject Sonic out a different side of the sprite from which he entered (unless the sprite is destroyed in the process).

Yes! This is exactly what I had in mind with my proposal of respecting solidity.