i would prefer to see a 120 run with every possible glitch than a 70 star run that you have to limit yourself to "the way it was intended to be played". With all the glitch possible, I would really prefer a 120 stars run.
Well there will be a 120 star run doing just that (well, using every timesaving glitch), no matter if there is a 70 star run or not. The question is if a 70 star run is justified as a third category.
In my opinion it is. A BLJ less 70 star run would not only require some route planning (making the end result a lot more surprising than wither of the runs currently published/being worked on), but would also have to invent a lot of new level strategies instead of BLJ raping half of them (not that BLJing is boring, but the alternative might be just as interesting).
I tend to think of BLJ as being similar in spirit to the cape in SMW -- it allows you to traverse levels very quickly, but it also means that you aren't really "playing" the levels, either. Yes, in the case of the BLJ, you need to do significant planning and it doesn't let you skip everything, but it feels that way to the viewer. I for one definitely wouldn't mind seeing a TAS that didn't use the BLJ at all. If the cost is slightly more time spent wandering around the castle, then so be it.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
Derakon wrote:
I for one definitely wouldn't mind seeing a TAS that didn't use the BLJ at all. If the cost is slightly more time spent wandering around the castle, then so be it.
I would like to see this too, it would not only provide a happy middle ground between the 0 and 120 star runs, but it would demonstrate a significantly different style of play from either run (especially considering that m_r_z is finding tons of new ways to BLJ off of just about everything in the 120 star update).
Joined: 4/25/2004
Posts: 615
Location: The Netherlands
70 stars seems pointless when a 120 star run exists. There's no added value to it. LBJ vs non-LBJ is another matter alltogether. There should be a LBJ run, like there is a fast alttp run, but there should also be a non-"warping" run, imo. It's actually games like these where I like the enumerous strats being used in each level without getting too repetative.
The main difference between 70 stars and 120 stars is that in the latter, you know pretty well exactly what the player's going to do when they enter a level. They have to get all of the stars in that level, and they're going to do them all in one shot to eliminate backtracking; the only question is what order they'll do them in. With 70 stars (or 16, etc.) you don't know which stars will be done. The player's picking only the fastest stars from each map, This does mean that Rainbow Road will not be represented at all, of course (ditto Dire Dire Docks). But it helps create more interest as the player tries to anticipate what the TASer will do.
In short, there's more route planning in a 70-star run than in a 120-star run.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I think what you mean is route planning is more important.
Saying there's more of something with less to do is kinda contradictory.
And all this interest happens once: the first time you watch.
You could even just read the thread and you know the path it will take.
I personally would find 120 stars as fast as possible more interesting than only 70.
There's more of one thing in the 70-star than in the 120-star, and yes, that's route planning. There's also less overall gameplay. And shock and horror, videos are less entertaining the second time you watch them, and if you spoil yourself on them, then they aren't as entertaining, again!
In short, your statements are true, but vacuous.
Anyway, personally what I'm looking at is "I'd like to see a BLJ-less TAS of SM64. Obviously 0-star is out, and 16-star isn't really relevant in this day and age. But having two 120-star TASes (one with BLJs and one without) seems redundant. Therefore, why not have a ''legit any%'' SM64 TAS? Fastest time to complete the game ''as it was meant to be played'' -- no BLJs, no clipping glitches, etc."
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
Okay, bad choice of words, granted. I'm sorry. :) Still, I hope at least the gist of what I was trying to say got across, even if we'd disagree endlessly on the details.
Pyrel - an open-source rewrite of the Angband roguelike game in Python.
I think a 70 stars run isn't needed, because it would be a subset of the 120 stars run, no more than that. Route planning or not, the 70 stars are collected anyway in the 120 stars run, so I'm not in favor of this one. If you want to see a 70 stars run, load the 120 stars run and skip the 50 slowest stars by hand. Done.
0 and 120 are enough, in my opinion.
I think a 70 stars run isn't needed, because it would be a subset of the 120 stars run, no more than that. Route planning or not, the 70 stars are collected anyway in the 120 stars run, so I'm not in favor of this one. If you want to see a 70 stars run, load the 120 stars run and skip the 50 slowest stars by hand. Done.
0 and 120 are enough, in my opinion.
You've missed the point here, many of the stars in the 120 run use bljs and there abused to even greater effect in the upcoming 120 star, so some of the stars will be different. Also don't forget that 20-30 stars in the 120 star run are rather boring to watch.
Joined: 11/18/2006
Posts: 2426
Location: Back where I belong
AKA wrote:
Also don't forget that 20-30 stars in the 120 star run are rather boring to watch.
Seconded. Also, getting through the other stars without using BLJs would be interesting and very different from the 120 star run (at least to me, I know that Johannes disagrees). And at least "Completes the game in the fastest time without using BLJs" is an easily definable goal.
