My first TAS run that i decided to make a 16 star run. It sucks a whole lot compared to others, and at most points dont seem like TAS, but oh well... I get 8 stars from the first floor, and 8 stars on the bottem. Places i could improve, are the swimming in DDD. All of the bowser stages. I probably could have gotten the BLJ's better and quicker. And a few other places i probably forgot. It tooke me about 6 hours to make this. Not that long. And maybe about 1500 rerecords. I still have a few things to learn, such as backward longjumping on the first bowser stage, jumping up through the poll on BitFS, and doing the dive thing into the slanted wall. The next thing i'm going to do, is just play around with TAS, and try to get better. Wish me luck.
As i still have more to write here, I will say the places that i visited.
Bob-bombs battlefield
Princess's secret slide
Whomps Fortress
(First snow stage)
Lethal Lava Land
Hazy Maze Cave
Bowser in the Dark World
Bowser in the Fire Sea
Bowser in the Sky
I used a total of 2 BLG's. Not that many.
adelikat: Fails to beat the last 16 star run by a long shot. And of course the 16star run is long obsolete. I am rejecting this submission.
The 16 star runs were a necessary step in the natural progression of SM64 runs, because it was the least stars needed. Now we don't need any. So I don't understand why people are so in love with such a contrived and arbitrary number.
It has nothing to do with the number. It has to do with the length of the movie and the ratio of speed/freshness to slowness/repitition.
It happens that 16-star runs have had much, much better ratios than the 120 star or 1/0 star runs. Whether 16 is the perfect number, or something else would be even better remains to be seen, but the fact is that the 120 star run is way too long and repetitive, and the bowser fights make up way too large a proportion of the 0 star.
This is also why, even though 70 only makes sense with BLJs barred, people may want the author to BLJ through the stages and castle, as it adjusts increases the speed aspect of the entertainment-determining ratio.
How fleeting are all human passions compared with the massive continuity of ducks.
I only am in favor of runs with objectives that make some kind of sense, so I agree with mmbossman. 0 star makes sense, 120 stars with whatever glitches makes sense, and 70 stars completely without BLJ makes sense. Every other star number or restriction would be arbitrary.
Mm, personally I don't think 70 stars make sense either. Yes, I know it's what you're supposed to do in order to finish the game, but since when did speedrunners/TASers pay attention to that? Seeing as 0 stars is any% and 100% is... 100%, there's no 'low%' possible and I can't see a reason to start adding other categories based on arbitrary criteria like 'does not use a glitch which is interesting to watch'.
I find it pretty simple: 70 stars is the minimal amount you can get without glitches, so if the run is done under that condition, it's not arbitrary in the slightest. Obviously, that's assuming the run is actually glitchless, otherwise it is rather arbitrary.
Warp wrote:
Edit: I think I understand now: It's my avatar, isn't it? It makes me look angry.
Obviously, that's assuming the run is actually glitchless, otherwise it is rather arbitrary.
The definition of "glitch" is rather arbitrary itself. A "glitchless" run would require this definition, and it would be heavily a matter of opinion what constitutes a glitch.
The definition of "glitch" is rather arbitrary itself. A "glitchless" run would require this definition, and it would be heavily a matter of opinion what constitutes a glitch.
No... BLJ is the only glitch that needs to be banned. It is perfectly clear what counts as BLJ.
And that's precisely what I was referring to when I said 'does not use a glitch which is interesting to watch'. Why on earth should we ban interesting glitches just to make extra movies?
Don't really know if I'm the one to argue for it, since I also think two movies any% and 100% is enough. The 120 star run shows everything, and more than is shown in a 70 star run. So it might indeed not be very logical.
Either way, I was arguing against Warp saying that it's not well known what consitutes a glitch... Completing some stars might also be considered glitching, since they are obtained faster than (or in a way they weren't) meant to be. My only point was that this isn't a good argument, since there is one particular glitch which enables you to skip the levels. It is clear what this glitch is and how it works, and this would be the only thing banned.
Also, I never said I was in favor of someone actually making a 70 star run... I think some pasting of the 70 fastest stars from the 120 star run will show exactly the same. I only said before that 70 stars would be the least arbitrary number after 0 and 120 stars... and that 16 would be even more arbitrary.
Every other star number or restriction would be arbitrary.
Well there's Canonless Capless Coinless. That was different enough from the 120 star while being fairly long.
moozooh wrote:
I find it pretty simple: 70 stars is the minimal amount you can get without glitches, so if the run is done under that condition, it's not arbitrary in the slightest. Obviously, that's assuming the run is actually glitchless, otherwise it is rather arbitrary.
Correction: The only glitch that pushes any% completion from 70 to 0 is the Backwards Long Jump. It's pretty easy to define (Don't build up speed by long-jumping backwards). The game has plenty of glitches besides this though (early collection of BoB's and WF's 6th stars, MIPS stuff, going through walls in some areas like TTM, edge-hopping/seam-sliding, etc). Most of the stars would have routes very different to the 120 star though just because BLJ can be used almost everywhere.
I'm not excited for a BLJ-less 70-star run, but it would make for a movie different enough from the otehr 3 categories to warrant creation.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
I also think that the BLJ is fun to watch and speeds up the runs, but the main complaint I've seen here is that "everyone" now hates the 0 star run because it skips everything (thats the point, ldo), and 120 stars takes too long. I'm not arguing that a 70 star/no BLJ run should be made. I'm arguing that it makes a lot more sense than trying to come up with some sort of non-arbitrary rules for a new 16 star run. 16 stars was a necessary evil; there's nothing special about that number.
If someone can come up with a logical and well definable objective for a 30 or 40 star run, I'm all for it. But as it sits, it's easy to define a BLJ, which means it's an objective goal to restrict it's use. Without a BLJ, the least amount of stars you can collect to still complete the game is 70. So that's the best alternative I can think of for those in want of a new SM64 run (still not saying it should or shouldn't be made).
Personally I like more runs with certain goals instead of runs with certain limitations (although, I admit, there are a few exceptions).
The 120-stars run has a goal and no limitations. The goal is to collect all the stars in the game and then get to the end, as fast as possible. There are no limitations: Any means to achieve that goal are ok. (For example, BLJ could be used and stars could be collected in the "wrong" order, if that means the overall run will be shorter.)
"Doesn't use glitch x" is a limitation, and a rather artificial one. While it can make for a good and enjoyable movie, I agree with the notion that imposing such individual limitation is rather arbitrary and, technically speaking, doesn't make too much sense.
It's also a bit "risky": What if someone, while making the "no glitch x" run, discovers a completely different glitch which allows him to skip most of the 70 stars? What then?
