I know you've already dismissed the other items, but you're going to be collecting sticks anyway, and perhaps there's a fairy close to the path somewhere, maybe in DC? Couldn't you then RBA your stick amount and get FW using those? Sorry for my limited understanding of RBA.
Troll 2 is the most utterly confusing movie I've ever seen. It's not just epically bad, it looks like the entire crew has been drugged, because clearly nobody there even understands what they're doing.
Maybe the problem is that you need to watch Troll 1 first to understand the backstory?
No one actually ever tested adelikat's theory. It desync'd on new PPU, which may or may NOT be more accurate. Actually, I believe I'm the only remaining person with a working NESBot. Scratch that, mine is currently in pieces. micro500, who is never around, is the only person who can test atm.
Actually, I'm starting to see slowking's point, but not in a way that will make him happy. If the VC 'version' really is just the OoT rom being emulated, then Deku stick on B should just be banned, outright. It is an emulation error. Does it matter if the emulation error is inside the Wii, which is also being emulated by dolphin?
I'll remind you, there was a Super Mario Land 2 run, as part of the first (iirc?) Dream Team Contest. It beat the game, but was determined to never work on actual hardware. That run was rejected. We strive to do the best run which, at least in theory, is playable on a console.
You pretty much nailed it here. Going into a run, basing it off a trick you 100% know will not work on a console is a far different from "might not sync when playing through an NESBot-type device."
Doesn't adelikat have a NESBot? He said he did at the time of HappyLee's run, but he didn't have the right cartridge. Or has something happened to his as well?
I hadn't seen the Super Mario Land 2 thread before. That seems different from this situation considering that glitch didn't work on any known version of this game. I'm also wondering if the currently published run on that game is possible on a console since it seems to use a similar glitch extensively.
I think it's apparent from the discussion here that there is no real analogue to this situation and no judicial precedent that has been set, unless we're missing something. The actions being performed are not foreign to the game; they are just only possible on certain versions. A submission including this glitch might have a similar response to Swordless's run currently on the workbench. If another outstanding run blurs site rules but overwhelmingly receives a positive response, how will it be dealt with?
An aspect of this conversation that feels unfair is that OoT TAS'ers could potentially be punished for the knowledge already gained about the game. There are probably many runs on this site that get into situations that would never be humanly possible on a console and, in those moments, perform glitches that aren't physically possible on the console. Imagine if the whole BA process took several frame perfect tricks to execute that no human would ever pull off? (OK, that might be a bad example as I'd be watching Cosmo stream that right now.)
I think my point is that if we have an accepted emulator and an accepted ROM for submitting runs of a game, perhaps we should be more accepting of the feats that are accomplished even if they're not possible on console. If any limits to this need to be established, maybe those should be based more on controls for entertainment reasons than anything else. I realize that this thinking may run counter to some of the site's ideals, but it's just a thought.
I'm confused. I feel like I've watched that before, but maybe it was just similar to the published run, even though it beats it by a minute. However, that video is 3 years old, so maybe I have seen it before, but I wonder why it wasn't submitted by now.
Well, then it would be a VC TAS, not an N64 TAS. Part of our whole mission statement is that the games can theoretically be played back on their respective console. We'd be going against that concept if we knew it wasn't actually possible.
Is this really the case? We may somewhat be comparing apples to oranges here, but let's go back to HappyLee's latest SMB warpless submission for a minute. While basically every previous SMB run had synced when it was played back on a NESBot, that run had one specific trick that caused a desync on the console. When people questioned whether we should not accept that submission and instead request a slightly edited one that didn't use the trick and would sync on a console, the consensus formed that it was sufficient for the run to sync on an emulator and that the property of syncing on NESBot was more of an interesting footnote than a requirement.
There are a number of obvious differences here. In SMB, we're probably looking at maybe 26 frames, while in OoT, we could be talking about many seconds or even minutes. In SMB, disallowing the glitch would cause a slight deviation that could probably be hexed in, but it would mean a major route change in OoT. In SMB, the trick was a pixel-perfect glitch that no one would have reasonably tested beforehand. On the other hand, it's clearly widely known among OoT players in which versions of the game you can use a deku stick on B and in which versions you can't. It also changes a fundamental aspect of the typical RBA route that runners use these days, enough so that it's a factor in which version people would use, while no one would ever think twice about whether they can actually use the SMB glitch on a console.
Given all these things, there's still the fundamental issue here that a trick that can't be duplicated on a console would be used on an emulator run. Perhaps there's some gray area there, or maybe there's a spectrum that these two tricks are on opposite sides of. Maybe it's a judgment call as to whether we can accept runs that use these types of tricks, and that's one of the reasons why we have judges. However, the main purpose of this site is to push games to their limits and create entertaining runs. Either Ganonless route would surely do that, but perhaps the one that does it more so would be the one using the stick on B. What's the harm if the run wouldn't actually be possible on an N64, especially since it would be possible on other console versions of the game?
It would be nice if the ghost mummy boss fight could be sped up; that fight really drags on and slows down the run. Could it be manipulated? I'd tentatively vote yes based on the response to this and some other comments in this thread.
I generally agree with JXQ, but I guess I'm ok with the no backtracking rule (no death abuse or start select). Either way, I still think there's probably room for two 100% runs.
If you decide to go all-out with the glitches, and there ends up being demand or inspiration for a lower glitch full run after it's finish (which seems like it would be received favorably - compare to the recent Sonic 1 low-glitch submission), it sounds like you could do so very cleanly with just a "No Yoshi" restriction.
(We also have the small-only run to show a lot of the other parts of the game without heavy glitching in the mean time.)
This is a great post and a great solution to the problem. I really want to see the full game pushed to its limits. However, that will really leave a lot of it unexplored, and no Yoshi is a great restriction to let us see every level. I'd take a medium-ground choice like it sounds like you're leaning towards now, but I think there's plenty of room here to split the 100% into two categories. It's not like people are going to come to the site and be upset at seeing five different Super Mario World movies (less than or equal to Super Metroid). On the contrary, they'll be in awe at how entertaining yet unique each of the runs is.
I've watched the whole run to this point and found it interesting. Since you currently have spells that you're not at a high enough level to cast, have you considered going back and spending on that money on something that might be able to help you? I'm not sure if you have any useful alternatives though.
The secret exit in yi4 does trigger Iggy's castle normal exit and make a path from there, but we won't be able to walk that path any longer.
What do you mean? If we beat YI4 regularly and with the secret exit, we can't walk straight to DP1? Is there a video showing what happens? The only videos I can find with this glitch have all the levels already beaten.
Thanks for the great videos guys and the prompt reply. Valley of Bowser 4 might be my favorite level now.
I've just watched this video, http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_0XW2N3cKCI, and I now think you should do 99 exits. The comments there raise a question for me too: if you got a secret exit in, for example, Yoshi's Island 4, would that mark Iggy's Castle as complete?
Question that may be obvious: could you stun a sprite to spawn a chuck and then eat him?
Regarding the rules, I'd really like to see the run with as many non-game-ending glitches as possible, unless it involves completing some levels more than 2 or 3 times. It would be neat to see the fastest route possible for 96 exits. If it essentially removes the gameplay from a significant number of levels, perhaps there could be two categories, one with no or limited Yoshi glitches.
This movie is everything I wanted from this game. I think this speedrun is one of the best examples of tool-assisted play on this site that doesn't include noticeable glitches or luck manipulation. It's like the cursor just warps to wherever it needs to be before anyone could possibly even know it needs to be there. Yes vote.
I would definitely at least like to see a WIP of 100% SMW with this glitch before dismissing it. I don't think it will end up being much more exploitative of the game than the other recently discovered glitches.
Voted no. The Bowser levels, which make up the majority of the run, are too flat and uninteresting. You never get the feeling that Mario's ever in trouble in this run. This would be good enough for a mainstream game, but it's not interesting enough to add a hack to the site.
I can't believe you submitted this despite the fact that it could have easily destroyed everything else on this site and possibly on the Internet. Voting no due to your carelessness.
I voted meh the last time. The new glitch does enough to push it to a yes to me. I think any new viewer would find it slightly amusing, which is good enough to publish.
Also, I really enjoyed the improved boss fight and better ammo management.