This is a TAS of the n64 classic "The Legend of Zelda - Ocarina of Time". It is the first run (that I know of) that is under 2 hours and the first run that uses the "Reverse Bottle Adventure Glitch" which is what made this time possible. Using this glitch you can instantly update something in your inventory or quest item sub-screen.
Aims for fastest time
Uses death as shortcut
Takes damage to save time
Abuses programming errors in the game
No predefined saves
Genre: Action
Genre: Adventure
This is my first submission if I left something out of these comments let me know.
Bisqwit: Congratulations on your first TAS movie. I believe you gained a lot
of experience in the making of it. However, as many audience members have pointed
out, this movie is lacking in a few aspects we keep important. Compared to the
published movie, it does not do as good job following the guidelines,
such as "never wait for anything unless absolutely necessary", even though
it completes the game faster due to new techniques.
As you already have realized yourself, part of it is because you
did not use frame advance in the making of this movie.
As such, because this movie does not really represent well the quality we uphold
on this site, and because the votes cast on this submission are not significantly
in favor of publishing it, I am rejecting this submission.
I wish you good luck for your next TAS work, but I recommend you
gather experience from some less demanding TAS project first.
This is my first submission if I left something out of these comments let me know
How about an explanation?
I watched enough of this to see how unoptimized it is. Yes, it's faster than the previous submission but there's no smoothness to the run and botched attempts at things were left in the finished product. Voted "No", but good attempt anyway I guess.
From what I see, there are two main arguments here:
People who believe the run is publish-worthy argue that due to the fact that this is such a mammoth improvement over Guano's run it deserves to be published, regardless of the lack of optimization and polish.
People who believe the run should not be punished argue that despite the fact that this TAS is similar to Swordless Link and AKA's 1 star sm64 run in terms of innovation, it doesn't hold up to the standards set by other TAS's on this site.
The run itself is an amazing demonstration of programming errors and sequence breaks. It's not an amazing TAS. Considering that this is a site for TAS's first and foremost, I'm voting no. I really enjoyed watching this run, but the lack of optimization doesn't hold up to the stringent standards of the other speedruns posted here.
I would love to see a more optimized version of it, though >:3
The point is we'd be publishing something we know can easily be beaten and optimized. Goes against what the site is here for, does it not? Aiming for perfection I mean. With more time and care spent the run could be much more impressive.
Then you'd have to introduce arbitrary slippery slope arguments which just opens up a can of worms. Most submissions have known improvements in them, some signficant, some not so significant
moozooh wrote:
I think the point isn't that it can be improved, but the fact that it can be improved by a lot, and that the unoptimized parts are clearly visible.
Fabian wrote:
slippery slope arbitrary bla bla
I'm sorry, but your argument above doesn't make too much sense. You are arguing that this kind of thinking will introduce slippery-slope type of argumentation. However, quite ironically, it's *you* who is making a slippery-slope argument here.
Basically you are saying that since movies with known minor improvements have been published, then *any* movie (faster than the previous publication) should be published regardless of how large the known improvements are. That's exactly slippery-slope argumentation, something you wanted to avoid in the first place.
You have to understand that there's a difference between very minor, probable improvements, and major blatant deficiencies. It's a completely different thing saying "it might be possible to save a few frames at this point if I had done this instead of that" than saying "the unoptimization was glaringly obvious, you could have made it significantly faster".
Sure, the line between the two things is extremely fuzzy and very subject to debate, and nobody admits this more than me, but just because the line is fuzzy doesn't mean that the *extremes* are fuzzy too. One extreme is "probably a few frames could be improved" and the other is "this is clearly suboptimal". I don't think there's any problem in these extremes: The former is ok (unless the author cancels the submission to make the improvement) while the latter is not. Just because runs which are suboptimal by few frames are published doesn't mean that we should start publishing runs which are suboptimal by minutes. Heck, as far as I know, submissions with much less suboptimality have been rejected.
Publishing the currently-published OoT run was dubious at best, and it got some heavy critique from being suboptimal. Do we really want to repeat this mistake? People expect us to publish runs which are close to perfection. If we start publishing runs with glaringly obvious suboptimalities, that's not going to do any good for those expectations. If we publish, we will simply be saying "we don't aim for perfection, it's ok to publish any run which is faster than the previous". The latter type of thinking is ok for regular speedruns because there indeed the only thing that matter is who can complete the game faster. However, TAS publication is not a competition. We are not competing on who can make the faster run. We are trying to achieve near perfection (as close as we can get to it).
Sure, sometimes suboptimal runs are published (for whatever reason), but that doesn't mean we should not aim for perfection.
I'm voting meh. There were a lot of good things, but there were some very obvious unoptimizations, and that odd mushroom thing at the door was simply unexcusable. In a speedrun, maybe, but a TAS? Unacceptable. Still, it was entertaining, so I'm torn. Thus, the "meh" vote.
Also
Basically you are saying that since movies with known minor improvements have been published, then *any* movie (faster than the previous publication) should be published regardless of how large the known improvements are. That's exactly slippery-slope argumentation, something you wanted to avoid in the first place.
Uh, not quite. A slippery slope argument is of the form "If we do A, it will lead to B, which will...*insert as many links as necessary*..., which will lead to C, which we all can agree is bad. It's not a very sound argument, unless you can logically support every link in the chain, and your opponent has to agree that C is, in fact, bad. Fabian is actually making the opposite of the slippery slope argument, arguing that we SHOULD go down the slope.
Lastly, please never use "argumentation" again. The word is argument.
After reading half your reply (I'll get to the other half later), I think either you or me don't understand what a slippery slope is. Unfortunately it's probably me.
Actually I read the rest now too and I don't have many objections. I'd remind you that the key is "better" not "faster" like I said earlier to moozooh, otherwise it seems we're mostly on the same page. I definitely agree we should aim for perfection, no arguments there.
I guess the thing I've been protesting is the notion that a run being suboptimal would somehow automatically place it in the rejection bin. Instead, what I feel is the right approach is to compare run A to run B, then decide which one you like best (=is better), and publish that one.
Overall I'm going to guess this run is better than Guano's, hence it should be published imo.
Edit: I'm glad to see petrie shares my confusion, makes me feel like less of an idiot.
From what I see, there are two main arguments here:
People who believe the run is publish-worthy argue that due to the fact that this is such a mammoth improvement over Guano's run it deserves to be published, regardless of the lack of optimization and polish.
People who believe the run should not be punished argue that despite the fact that this TAS is similar to Swordless Link and AKA's 1 star sm64 run in terms of innovation, it doesn't hold up to the standards set by other TAS's on this site.
The run itself is an amazing demonstration of programming errors and sequence breaks. It's not an amazing TAS. Considering that this is a site for TAS's first and foremost, I'm voting no. I really enjoyed watching this run, but the lack of optimization doesn't hold up to the stringent standards of the other speedruns posted here.
I would love to see a more optimized version of it, though >:3
I didn't watched it nor do I intend to but all I could say is that movies published with errors tend to be improved early or late since people noticing those obvious errors feel forced to improve those runs.
In opposite, rejecting it, might even discourage people to work on it due to many reasons.
Emulator Coder, Site Developer, Site Owner, Expert player
(3573)
Joined: 11/3/2004
Posts: 4754
Location: Tennessee
I agree with Fabian's point. We need to decide which one is better. The "suboptimal" play of this submission was less unentertaining than the 40 extra minutes of cutscenes, unnessary routes (now that we know they can be skipped), and of course some suboptimal playing.
This is why I vote yes and think it should obolete the published movie.
As far as TASvideos image, I think keeping Guano's movie looks worse. The bar is higher these days. Sub2hrs / big time saving glitches are expected. See a movie that is well over 40 minutes slower than what an oot fan would expect looks like we are "behind". At least this submission shows the major improvements and just needs to minor things fixed.
RE: fabian & warp
Slippery slop may be not be the best term. Subjective might work better.
Nearly all submissions are improvable/suboptimal, I can't reject everyone of them. The problem is I(We) must decide how much improvability is acceptable. This is a "gray"/subjective debate.
Also,
people complain about the mushroom incident but may I remind you the author has told us that you must do it twice for the trick or whatever to work.
Joined: 5/23/2006
Posts: 361
Location: Washington, United States
Fabian wrote:
Instead, what I feel is the right approach is to compare run A to run B, then decide which one you like best (=is better), and publish that one.
But how would you decide if there was no other OoT run already published? I think there would be more users giving negative feedback towards this run if it was the first to be submitted. Instead, what's happening is that some are saying "it's not optimal, but it utilizes more tricks than the published run, so let's publish this." Sure, a better version could be published later, but why not try and make the current movie as good as possible before submitting? I personally think that examining a movie without comparing it to any other leads to more motivation to strive for perfection (since the movie has to stand by/for itself).
Also note that, if this movie is published, it will set a standard that others will start to compare to (which is not a good thing, in my opinion).
This feels like a small and pretty stupid nitpick, especially after you said you agree with me, but my point is that ANY amount of improvability is acceptable, as long as the final result is better than what we have avaliable (note that this is not the case for a run which has no movie published though).
What I mean is I feel there is no point where a movie is too suboptimal to automatically face rejection in this case.
Yeah this is probably like 90% semantics 10% whatever so feel free to ignore.
Edit: Yeah Chef Stef totally different situation when there is no movie published imo, as covered above.
Edit again: Actually I have some comments on your post too Chef.
I agree with the "why not try making the movie as perfect as possible before publishing" when the movie is in its planning stages. I feel this distinction is very important though, and when a final movie is actually submitted, this argument falls apart in favor or "choose A or B" like I said earlier. My opinion obviously.
However, I definitely agree with you for a movie not yet submitted/being worked on/being planned/etc. Strive for perfection, but here we are in the workbench with a run that's better than the published one (note: for argument's sake) and my opinion is it should be published.
As far as TASvideos image, I think keeping Guano's movie looks worse.
P.Dot's movie is unoptimized in highly visible ways to people who aren't even familiar with the game.
Guanobowl's is unoptimized in ways that are only visible to people who are highly familiar with the game.
Even though P.Dot's is much faster, it also looks much worse.
This is why I am against publishing it and even more against it obsoleting the currently published movie.
Edit:
Adelikat: http://tasvideos.org/Moozooh/MostPopularExcuses.html#8
Fabian: http://tasvideos.org/Moozooh/MostPopularExcuses.html#9
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
Joined: 12/27/2006
Posts: 532
Location: Göteborg, Sweden
adelikat wrote:
I agree with Fabian's point. We need to decide which one is better. The "suboptimal" play of this submission was less unentertaining than the 40 extra minutes of cutscenes, unnessary routes (now that we know they can be skipped), and of course some suboptimal playing.
This is why I vote yes and think it should obolete the published movie.
As far as TASvideos image, I think keeping Guano's movie looks worse. The bar is higher these days. Sub2hrs / big time saving glitches are expected. See a movie that is well over 40 minutes slower than what an oot fan would expect looks like we are "behind". At least this submission shows the major improvements and just needs to minor things fixed.
I couldn't agree more.
My published movies
[03:45:05] <Naohiro19> Soulrivers: ...
[03:45:19] <Soulrivers> ?
[03:46:35] <Naohiro19> <Soulrivers> No! <Naohiro19> So? <Soulrivers> Yes!
[03:46:48] <Naohiro19> joke
If this movie is accepted, I can guess someone will pull forth the Super Mario Bros 2 Princess-only argument again. That submission was rejected, because although it was faster than the currently published run, it was of less impressive construction.
Politics, politics.
Ignoring politics, I think I can agree with adelikat's point in this particular case.
If this movie is accepted, I can guess someone will pull forth the Super Mario Bros 2 Princess-only argument again. That submission was rejected, because although it was faster than the currently published run, it was of less impressive construction.
Politics, politics.
Ignoring politics, I think I can agree with adelikat's point in this particular case.
Sounds completely consistent with "is the movie better or worse?" to me. Apparently that one was not better than the published one. The key is not "is it faster?", it's "is it better?" imo.
Anyway I have the avi of this now so can you guys point me to where the mistakes easily visible to people not familiar with the game are? I've watched 35 minutes so far and I'm very surprised with the quality of play. The way you guys were talking about it, I got the impression it was just horrible. I want to know where the "worst" stuff is.
P.Dot's movie is unoptimized in highly visible ways to people who aren't even familiar with the game.
Guanobowl's is unoptimized in ways that are only visible to people who are highly familiar with the game.
Even though P.Dot's is much faster, it also looks much worse.
This is why I am against publishing it and even more against it obsoleting the currently published movie.
I gotta completely agree with this being my primary reason... I mean I am greatful for the AVI that was encoded [since Mupen HATES my pc], but the glaring errors.. ugh...
Guano's had a lot less, even if by this one, it's not as optimal. The question is, how long before Guano or someone else brings forth a "Best of Both Worlds" run, where these tricks are used and IT IS optimal? Can we live with people looking at this run and wondering why we're publishing something with so many glaring errors?
Guaranteed we accept this despite its sub-optimalness... there will be people pointing to stuff in the Grue Food forum and demanding they get that same kind of respect or if someone posts something new but it's painfully sub-optimal, they'll quote this as a published run as an excuse for their sub-optimal runs SHOULD be published.
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Mr. Kelly R. Flewin
Just another random gamer
----
<OmnipotentEntity> How do you people get bored in the span of 10 seconds? Worst ADD ever.
I guess the thing I've been protesting is the notion that a run being suboptimal would somehow automatically place it in the rejection bin.
Perhaps you meant that, but your posts made it sounds like you wanted submissions to be automatically accepted if they were considerably faster than the existing publication regardless of how suboptimal (according to current knowledge) they are.
Think about this: If this was the very first OoT submission (ie. the currently-published one didn't exist) and you knew all the flaws explained in this thread, would you still vote yes? I think "beats previous published movie" should in no way be an argument pro publication. The main affecting factor should be "is this close to optimal, as far as we can see?", "could it be done considerably better?"
Instead, what I feel is the right approach is to compare run A to run B, then decide which one you like best (=is better), and publish that one.
I understand the point "if we don't publish this and keep the old one, we are saying that the old one is better than this one". However, personally I think that the old one should be obsoleted with a near-perfect improvement, not a half-assed one which just relies on a newly-discovered trick to get a considerably faster playthrough.
Overall I'm going to guess this run is better than Guano's, hence it should be published imo.
I haven't seen this run nor studied the problems and virtues of both runs in detail, but from what I have read in this thread it seems that this submission suffers from sloppy play at places, and relies only on a newly-found trick to get the faster time, while the currently published run tries to avoid sloppy play (but is slower because the author didn't know about all the tricks at the time).
Warp,
That's just you being a sloppy reader. Just go back and reread those posts again and I'm sure you'll agree with that. There is just no way you could resonably interpret my posts as saying "a submission considerably faster than the existing publication should be accepted regardless of how suboptimal it is" or anything similar. What I did say was suboptimal play is not grounds for automatic rejection:
"and the fact that it can be improved is definitely not in itself a reason to reject a run in my opinion. ", which I also repeated a few times in the more recent posts.
And I have stressed many times that it's not speed ("faster") that's important. It's "better".
"Basic example: We have two movies avaliable, one is better than the other. We choose the better one."
Yet, your entire last post keeps dealing with "faster playthrough", "beats previous published movie", "relies on newly-found trick to get faster time" and shit. This is just not at all what I've been saying and if you just read my posts again I feel confident you would see that and agree with that.
Joined: 11/11/2006
Posts: 1235
Location: United Kingdom
Fabian wrote:
And I have stressed many times that it's not speed ("faster") that's important. It's "better".
"Basic example: We have two movies avaliable, one is better than the other. We choose the better one."
And herein lies a problem; 'better' is a very varied matter of opinion (especially in this case), whereas 'faster' is not.
Personally I do not agree with the publication of this movie. Although it is faster than the previous run, it can be optimized far more if attempted. If P.DOT decides to correct any mistakes made and optimize it well, I'll vote yes.
<adelikat> I am annoyed at my irc statements ending up in forums & sigs
3 things
1. Is it possible to correct something in a movie without starting over?
2. The avi doesn't play properly what codec do I need?
3. How do you skip the first owl with a deku stick?
Hold the phone, the question of whether a movie is better than an existing movie and should obsolete the existing movie is a matter of subjectivity, and up to each person to make up his own mind about?!?
Well duh di duh.
ps I like you Raiscan and hope we can remain friends despite my slightly dry response.
The other issue you guys need to consider is that there is a submission to SDA that is going to be around the time of guano's movie. Do you really want a movie closer in time to a run on SDA when a much much faster run is available?
