Air doesn't complete the movie quickly, rather it shows off the hack while doing entertaining glitches that keep the audience interested. I wonder if that'd work for this hack too...

I think an "any% with no major skips" would be great. That would have a clear goal, a fast run, and show off the game far more.

Okay. Some of the level design, as apparent from the run, is a little interesting. Not so interesting, however, that BLJing through the game at breakneck speed really shows off anything about the hack. The hack could possibly have potential... for a fuller run. A 151-star run, most likely. But, as a four-minute 0-star run, most of which consists of Bowser fights that are nearly identical to their nonhacked equivalents, this game just doesn't work. Gets a No from me.

Voted no, whether the hack is good or not doesn't really matter in a run this short. I see absolutely no reason why this hack should be allowed to be published, at least not from this run. There is nothing in this run that you wouldn't see in a good SM64 run.

I thought getting hit by the fire on the bowser boss was funny. Certainly better than jumping around like an idiot like every other waiting for bowser to die sequence ever. I wouldn't do it more than once in a run, though.

The TAS seemed too similar to the already published Mario64 no star run, there wasn't really anything that made it stand out. A 100% or any% run with no major skips would be a lot better though. From what little I saw in this TAS it looked like a reasonably interesting hack. Voting meh.

Very f*cking nice TAS :D I know, this is a hack, but anyway, YES VOTE! Now wait for any% and all stars run.

Having never played this hack, I'm now very interested to give it a try. This looked well played. I'd prefer an all-stars completion but this was interesting. Yes vote.

I voted meh, I was more interested to see you taking the 151 stars, this modified version appears to be quite interesting.

this gets a pretty strong yes vote from me. if many people want to see a 100% run, why not publish the any% of the hack as well? The bowser levels were really interesting to see being destroyed to pieces, especially the second one.

Okay, so there's a mixed board here. And to sum up my post that I haven't even written yet, I vote meh. I can see both sides of the story and therefor have had to choose the 'middle' option, so to speak. Now, I've looked in the past at the SM64 Hacking community and been a silent and somewhat anonymous lurker - and I also tried my hand at map-making in SM64 using google sketchup with an OBJ exporter plugin and using Frauber's (extremely impressive) OBJ Importer. I made some basic level desgins, made a couple of themed areas, but nothing substantial. As a fond mapper/modder in the DooM community (Look at my youtube videos, such as this one), I wanted to try my hand in a new scene and I can understand the difficulty of making 'good' maps for SM64 as the tools are extremely limited. While this hack seems to lack any form of substantial eyecandy I was impressed that they've learnt enough about OBJ importing / development and actual modding of the SM64 ROM (probably via Toads Tool) to create a full-story hack. and onto the TAS - this was great, honestly. Alot of people say "unoptimized" or "sloppy damage is sloppy" - but it didn't feel THAT unoptimized, and the damage was clearly intentional, so I see those as neutral points. If we worried about "OMG NOT 110% PERFECT OPTIMIZATION" I bet a good 1/3rd of TASVideos.org's movies would be rendered worthless. but they aren't. I do however agree with the most repeated comment, which ironically is about the repetition of themes from Vanilla SM64 - Snazzy BLJ -> Bowser Beatings -> Repeat x3. This isn't the authors' faults, but rather the issue that comes from making a TAS of a game of which is based off of one of the most iconic TASes on the site. Because of this extreme similarity, and the fact that I cannot credit the authors for the creation of the technology used to make the hack, it's only a meh. But it IS entertaining if you try to temporarily disregard the existence of the Vanilla SM64 any% TAS we have. thank you for your efforts, sorry if I disappoint you by choosing meh.

I dunno. It's a great tas and all, but I agree with what everyone else is saying. If you don't use a 100% run to showcase what the hack has to offer, it's just a slightly different SM64 run.

Kyman saved 2 frames by getting more speed on a blj, and he says he can even save more! Break out the flame shields!

My vote: no. While the playing is probably good, the hack itself does not seem noteworthy in any way.

I saved 3.47 seconds by eliminating the two throws in the first bowser fight, and just using one. Not sure how you guys overlooked this but anyways here it is.

om, nom, nom... blech!

That's too bad. Don't let this horrible decision discourage you guys from doing an all-star run, though. Just don't submit it here. Everyone on YouTube will still love it. :D

I disagree with the above post for many reasons. DarkKobold's decision was completely fitting and was in accordance with the audience, that gave feedback and voted based in the site's guidelines. Notice that rejecting a movie doesn't mean that most people disliked it, in many occasions we vote No to movies that we like and Yes to those we don't. The question presented is "Should this movie be published?". The site is dedicated to tool-assisted movies of a wide variety of games and publishing every category and hack of SM64 may not be the best way to represent the community's desire in general. I have nothing against complaining about a judge's decision, the gruefood forum is for this anyway, but I recommend people to refrain from attacking well estabilished guidelines with no argument as this is often misinterpreted. That said, I'll go along with most users and say that a higher completion run would show this hack's potential better and be more worthy of publication and that the authors should submit it when/if they finish it.

I love how so many of the complaints were that this is a boring hack. I agree with the decision, but i'm literally forcing myself to overlook the terrible arguments that were made throughout this discussion. Please don't rely on the TAS you are judging to decide whether you like the hack itself. You would never do that with an official title and it's bad policy to do it for a hack. Look it up before judging it. If you can't find anything, then you know it's a backwater hack that might not deserve publication.If you do, then maybe you can judge as an INFORMED viewer, and not just look at the aesthetics.

Please don't rely on the TAS you are judging to decide whether you like the hack itself. You would never do that with an official title and it's bad policy to do it for a hack.

I agree. Actually, some people do this with official titles as well, and it bothers me too. A great TAS often makes the game look awesome, but if someone makes a boring TAS of a game, that doesn't automatically mean the game is the problem. Even if it makes the game look bad, that could be entirely the fault of the goals of the TAS and/or the level of precision it was played at (and that has been the case in the past). Many TASes don't even provide enough information to get a valid "first impression" of the game (e.g. imagine you'd never played or heard of Chrono Trigger until you saw this), so it seems silly to watch one and then proclaim that the game is poorly made or easy or whatever. I have almost no idea what's in Mario 74 because I haven't played it and this TAS skips essentially all of it. What's leftover doesn't seem interesting enough to publish here, especially not after comparing against existing TASes of Mario 64, and that's all that really needed to be said in this case. EDIT: Of course the hack itself should still be under scrutiny, and the run should show significant differences from the original, but some people seem to be combining the two things and judging the hack itself based on the differences they see in a particular TAS. And for a run like this that doesn't have significant enough differences from an existing run, I don't see the need to additionally judge the hack itself at all when the TAS has already failed to differentiate itself and that's reason on its own to reject it (and I don't mean to blame the authors of this TAS for that... the only way to know how it would turn out looking was probably to go ahead and do it).