Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
jlun2 wrote:
It doesn't skip any stages; just that the items are scattered all over the place in the final stage, so you have to walk all over the stage just to grab them all.
Right, I meant to say skipping collecting items in those stages. Wrong wording on my part.
jlun2 wrote:
I think the only other question I would like to ask is about 100% is about is it allowed for glitches that allow obtaining/beating things not as intended. The examples I can think of now is Paper Mario (obtaining stars/badges/etc out of order, but still obtaining them), and Wario Land 2 (some stage exit doors are OoB, but at the same time, you cannot "beat" other stages outside the ones you're in; see any%). It doesn't corrupt memory I think; just that for some rooms, the stage exit is out of bounds, so entering them counts as beating that stage.
Edit: Oh, and there's also that OoB trick used in Monster House GBA that allows obtaining items out of order, including beating things out of order, but I literally have no idea even how to get 100% there, so there's that.
Yes, those are allowed. There are no requirements on order of completion, just that every individual element is completed/collected in the end. And as long as each stage is individually started, completing them through unintended exits is allowed (as long as the game still follows the normal procedure afterwards for flagging the stage as completed).
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Cheats, debugging codes, and arcade continues are not allowed
This includes any input sequences such as the Konami Code, as well as immediately accessible hidden menus. Note that, if the button sequence is mentioned in the manual as a normal means of playing, such as level restart shortcuts in the Legend of Zelda or Metroid, it is usually allowed.
What about:
* Debug features that are not immediately accessible? An example is the whole debug menu in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, which is normally inaccessible but can still be accessed with memory corruption glitches.
* The bytes of the cheating/debugging code that are not executed as intended e.g. read out-of-range and (mis-)interpreted as data instead of machine code? No concrete examples yet but in theory possible.
I suppose the answers are "fobidden" to the first question and "allowed" to the second.
Mothrayas wrote:
Requiring a TASer to "see" or "acquire" a password before allowing it comes with a lot of its own issues. How do you determine when a password is "seen"? Must it be visible on screen, or be somewhere in memory? If it must be on screen, how do you determine when it is sufficiently visible on screen when e.g. the password screen fades in from black? What if in-game graphics are glitched or parts of the password are (yet) obscured? In the end, there is not really a sane and consistent way to define visibility of a password. It also contradicts many other concepts of TASing, like the idea that the user is prescient and can predict future events before seeing them, or could just know or engineer the password before seeing it.
And obviously, without a requirement to "see" or "acquire" it, it would just be plain password usage, which most definitely is against the rules.
I think there is a situation where a password can be considered clearly "acquired for usage": if the game has automatically inputted the "last acquired" password for the player, and the player just needs to confirm to use it. Therefore by the time the player confirms to use it, the password must have been undoubtedly acquired from the game itself, otherwise the usage should fail. Anyways such "only confirm to use" cases could be justified since the player doesn't even need to know the content of the password to use it.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
klmz wrote:
EDIT: Disambiguated.
MovieRules wrote:
Cheats, debugging codes, and arcade continues are not allowed
This includes any input sequences such as the Konami Code, as well as immediately accessible hidden menus. Note that, if the button sequence is mentioned in the manual as a normal means of playing, such as level restart shortcuts in the Legend of Zelda or Metroid, it is usually allowed.
What about:
* Debug features that are not immediately accessible? An example is the whole debug menu in Castlevania: Aria of Sorrow, which is normally inaccessible but can still be accessed with memory corruption glitches.
* The bytes of the cheating/debugging code that are not executed as intended e.g. read out-of-range and (mis-)interpreted as data instead of machine code? No concrete examples yet but in theory possible.
I suppose the answers are "fobidden" to the first question and "allowed" to the second.
* Debug features that are not immediately accessible and can only be accessed through glitches are allowed. See e.g. EarthBound.
* Reading machine code as data is not considered using a cheat or debug code, so it would be allowed.
klmz wrote:
Mothrayas wrote:
Requiring a TASer to "see" or "acquire" a password before allowing it comes with a lot of its own issues. How do you determine when a password is "seen"? Must it be visible on screen, or be somewhere in memory? If it must be on screen, how do you determine when it is sufficiently visible on screen when e.g. the password screen fades in from black? What if in-game graphics are glitched or parts of the password are (yet) obscured? In the end, there is not really a sane and consistent way to define visibility of a password. It also contradicts many other concepts of TASing, like the idea that the user is prescient and can predict future events before seeing them, or could just know or engineer the password before seeing it.
And obviously, without a requirement to "see" or "acquire" it, it would just be plain password usage, which most definitely is against the rules.
I think there is a situation where a password can be considered clearly "acquired for usage": if the game has automatically inputted the "last acquired" password for the player, and the player just needs to confirm to use it. Therefore by the time the player confirms to use it, the password must have been undoubtedly acquired from the game itself, otherwise the usage should fail. Anyways such "only confirm to use" cases could be justified since the player doesn't even need to know the content of the password to use it.
This was addressed in my reply to FatRatKnight in this post:
Mothrayas wrote:
Since the user never has to enter anything for the password, I don't count it as entering a password. So, I would consider this legitimate for the Vault.
Another way to look at this: when the game is reset after death, it is not in the same state as on startup: it is on startup state, but with your current progress saved (in the form of the password), and by pressing continue (without any other changes) you just load up that saved progress. In that sense, it is much like loading a savefile - it's just in the format of a password. You are technically given tools to edit your "save file", but making any such edits would count as using cheats, much like regular password entering.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
This was addressed in my reply to FatRatKnight in this post:
Oh I somehow happened to skip later posts in this thread...
Thank you for clarifications.
BTW, Wiki: MovieRules should be updated regarding all these questions.
<klmz> it reminds me of that people used to keep quoting adelikat's IRC statements in the old good days
<adelikat> no doubt
<adelikat> klmz, they still do
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
Regarding codes or passwords, I just want to add that using a such a thing to make the game harder or change the music is legal. Also, to unlock a character to play the game with, to play special levels, or play the game in some unusual way. However, most of these latter situations would be considered its own kind of branch.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
What you seem to be wanting to do with that post is to reset after beating Kraid but before you can Up+A warp, and resume the game with a password the game hasn't actually given you yet. Do I have that right?
(Question regarding my NES Metroid) - Yes, using the password generated in the TAS but instead resetting the game and using the never saw password as result. And it's not allowed. Mothrayas' explanation here.Nach wrote:
Also, to unlock a character to play the game with, to play special levels, or play the game in some unusual way.
I've asked something similar earlier: Unlocking a "powerful" character through a code is not allowed if it's a consequence (reward) of finishing the game. Here's Mothrayas' comment on my question from here:Mothrayas wrote:
In other words, using codes or passwords is acceptable but only to unlock a new difficulty or unlock new areas. It is not acceptable to use passwords for upgrading characters, unlocking new characters, or anything else other than aforementioned.
PhD in TASing 🎓 speedrun enthusiast ❤🚷🔥 white hat hacker ▓ black box tester ░ censorships and rules...
Hello, I was thinking about TASing Taz A2600 only released in USA, Atari exported the game in Europe with the name of "Asterix" and changed some things : sprites, fps (of course) and the round where difficulty stop increasing (Taz it's round 16 and Asterix it's round 6). My question is "Do I TAS the both of them because they are enough different?, do I TAS Taz(USA) because it's at 60 fps?, or do I TAS Asterix(PAL) because the TAS will be faster?
Thank you.
Joined: 8/14/2009
Posts: 4090
Location: The Netherlands
ViGadeomes wrote:
Hello, I was thinking about TASing Taz A2600 only released in USA, Atari exported the game in Europe with the name of "Asterix" and changed some things : sprites, fps (of course) and the round where difficulty stop increasing (Taz it's round 16 and Asterix it's round 6). My question is "Do I TAS the both of them because they are enough different?, do I TAS Taz(USA) because it's at 60 fps?, or do I TAS Asterix(PAL) because the TAS will be faster?
Thank you.
If Asterix (PAL) does not add any content over Taz (NTSC-U), nor anything else of value other than just being shorter (while still being slower in action due to framerate differences), then I would recommend TASing Taz. Just skipping out on content (including difficulty additions) is rarely a good reason for a version change (see also difficulty guidelines, which follow a similar concept), so it would be preferable to run the version with the most content. The fact that that version runs faster is also usually a nice bonus for gameplay/watchability.
http://www.youtube.com/Noxxa
<dwangoAC> This is a TAS (...). Not suitable for all audiences. May cause undesirable side-effects. May contain emulator abuse. Emulator may be abusive. This product contains glitches known to the state of California to cause egg defects.
<Masterjun> I'm just a guy arranging bits in a sequence which could potentially amuse other people looking at these bits
<adelikat> In Oregon Trail, I sacrificed my own family to save time. In Star trek, I killed helpless comrades in escape pods to save time. Here, I kill my allies to save time. I think I need help.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
I would add to what Mothrayas is saying that if the two versions have some different content, I would ask on the game forums if the audience finds the different content significant. If they do, TAS both of them.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
Joined: 3/9/2004
Posts: 4588
Location: In his lab studying psychology to find new ways to torture TASers and forumers
MESHUGGAH wrote:
Nach wrote:
Also, to unlock a character to play the game with, to play special levels, or play the game in some unusual way.
I've asked something similar earlier: Unlocking a "powerful" character through a code is not allowed if it's a consequence (reward) of finishing the game. Here's Mothrayas' comment on my question from here:Mothrayas wrote:
In other words, using codes or passwords is acceptable but only to unlock a new difficulty or unlock new areas. It is not acceptable to use passwords for upgrading characters, unlocking new characters, or anything else other than aforementioned.
If the unlock in question is only to make the difficulty easier or skip levels, it's forbidden.
Other upgrading unlocks are forbidden for a main branch. For alternate branches, unlocking some special character can be acceptable if the audience would find such a run entertaining in its own right. Although such a run is obsoleted if someone does a kind of 100% run which includes the content this unlocking would otherwise show of.
Warning: Opinions expressed by Nach or others in this post do not necessarily reflect the views, opinions, or position of Nach himself on the matter(s) being discussed therein.
If Asterix (PAL) does not add any content over Taz (NTSC-U), nor anything else of value other than just being shorter (while still being slower in action due to framerate differences), then I would recommend TASing Taz. Just skipping out on content (including difficulty additions) is rarely a good reason for a version change (see also difficulty guidelines, which follow a similar concept), so it would be preferable to run the version with the most content. The fact that that version runs faster is also usually a nice bonus for gameplay/watchability.
Ok I'll TAS the both of them and see what I do, I think the 10 rounds difference is more significant than the framerate but we'll see.
Nach wrote:
I would add to what Mothrayas is saying that if the two versions have some different content, I would ask on the game forums if the audience finds the different content significant. If they do, TAS both of them.
I'll see if it's useful because I don't find it significant :).
I made a mistake, the both of them have a max difficulty to round 16 but Asterix(PAL) is more difficult than the other but I think it's because of lower framerates so I'll only do Taz(NTSC-U).
Thank you Mothrayas and Nach.
Given that it's possible to use an easier difficulty now and get accepted, I'm thinking of obsoleting at least one of my Spongebob runs doing so. However, in the process, I discovered annoyingly that while easy/normal saves time in almost all cases, there's literally 1 minigame where it is slower by 12,000/4,000+ frames for easy/normal respectively. This means if submitting an easier mode for obsoletion is fine, I'll have to check both easy/normal just in case, which takes a lot of effort in comparison.
Before I seriously TAS it and check both easy/normal mode, would this be acceptable too, given the Spongebob run I'm talking about is in vault? I mean, I can make a run of all 3 difficulties, but if it gets rejected for using an easier difficulty, I'll be rather annoyed of the wasted work.
Given that it's possible to use an easier difficulty now and get accepted, I'm thinking of obsoleting at least one of my Spongebob runs doing so. However, in the process, I discovered annoyingly that while easy/normal saves time in almost all cases, there's literally 1 minigame where it is slower by 12,000/4,000+ frames for easy/normal respectively. This means if submitting an easier mode for obsoletion is fine, I'll have to check both easy/normal just in case, which takes a lot of effort in comparison.
Before I seriously TAS it and check both easy/normal mode, would this be acceptable too, given the Spongebob run I'm talking about is in vault? I mean, I can make a run of all 3 difficulties, but if it gets rejected for using an easier difficulty, I'll be rather annoyed of the wasted work.
Note that there is no definite rule for this, but only a guideline, so take my words more as a personal opinion.
First of all, it doesn't matter if the old run is Vault, since obsoletion takes in consideration only technical aspects of the two runs: if the new run is considered technically superior, then it will be accepted for obsoleting the old one.
In case of a submission that tries to obsolete a published movie by using a different difficulty setting, a case-by-case comparison on technical merits will be performed. To make it simply, there are basically two factors that are taken in consideration: game contents and run technical merits.
If using an easier difficulty does remove any sort of game content, like for example requiring the player to clear less stages, beat less bosses, or not spawning some kind of enemies, then it's likely to get rejected for featuring less game contents.
If using an easier difficulty does remove part of the optimization challenge, like making some tricks easier to perform or making in-game resources easier to manage, then it's likely to be rejected for featuring trivial gameplay compared to the published movie.
Let's take a closer look to the example I've brought in the judgment note you mentioned. In Metal Slug games, the hardest difficulty does not result in any kind of extra game content, but just in more aggressive and sturdier enemies and bosses. However, it is still strongly preferred due to the resulting gameplay being technically superior: it brings the player to have to manage more in-game resources and coming with more complex solutions, so the movie results in featuring more varied and more impressive gameplay.
Contrarily, in Chester Cheetah having bosses with more health points does not add any extra challenge, since the bosses are prevented to move at all anyway due to their stun behaviour. Enemies found in stages move faster in the hardest difficulty, but this doesn't change much of the gameplay; sometimes, it even makes some spots of the game easier to pass through.
If you still have doubts, I could take a look myself into the specific game.
For Alantis Squarepantis, attacking with bubbles at the beginning causes lag. The enemies have 2 extra health in general in hard mode, so the "management" needed is lag. It's only several frames of lag however, so even if that wasn't done, chances are it would be completely unnoticeable. The latter part mostly skips the enemies with glitches, so except that one part with the bubble minigame easy/normal, where you hold the bubble longer there, the game is "only" harder in the sense that NPCs have more HP.
Actually, outside board-like/fighting/sport/"competition" games and "Stuart Little: The Journey Home" , I can't think of an example where hard mode would actually mean anything but higher HP and maybe less HP for you TAS-wise.
For "optimizing challenge", I recall that for the Sailor Moon run, the only difference is you have less HP on hard mode, and the only reason it was a challenge to optimize in boss fights was because I optionally decided to move around. If I did minimum amount of movement, the boss optimization becomes like easy mode.
For Spongebob Squarepants Movie, the major difference in easy mode is that you have infinite health. Due to the movement glitch however, the only use would likely be lag reduction by doing nothing during the driving scenes, since avoiding obstacles causes lag. This amounts to like...10? frames or so savings per driving stage. For all other stages it seems at a glance to have little impact.
Edit: Of course, I could just play it safe and do them in hard mode, but if it gets obsoleted because of difficulty changes it would be rather annoying.
Hello,
I have started work on a 2P TAS for Arcade Double Dragon, and am wondering if there are any restrictions on use of multiple credits?
Example: I am considering a run where I intentionally keep a character dead for certain sections of game, and use a continue to bring them back (goal being lag reduction in places where the second player isn't adding any value)
I know intentional deaths are allowed, but is a TAS considered acceptable if the fastest strategy requires using multiple credits/continues?
Hello,
I have started work on a 2P TAS for Arcade Double Dragon, and am wondering if there are any restrictions on use of multiple credits?
Example: I am considering a run where I intentionally keep a character dead for certain sections of game, and use a continue to bring them back (goal being lag reduction in places where the second player isn't adding any value)
I know intentional deaths are allowed, but is a TAS considered acceptable if the fastest strategy requires using multiple credits/continues?
[16:36:31] <Mothrayas> I have to say this argument about robot drug usage is a lot more fun than whatever else we have been doing in the past two+ hours
[16:08:10] <BenLubar> a TAS is just the limit of a segmented speedrun as the segment length approaches zero
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
Yeah the problem here is that continues are infinite for most arcade games. The case when they are limited isn't mentioned though. I feel that we need to clarify this part.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
Disclaimer: I'm not a judge.
However difficult they may be, games are theoretically designed to be possible to beat in one credit (even if very few people could accomplish it).
IMO regarding TAS playthroughs, using continues (even limited ones) is kinda like admitting "even with TAS tools we couldn't beat the game in one credit."
If there is a specific reason that a continue needs to be used to optimize progression it should be explained on a case-by-case basis.
NES Battletoads is an example of continues used by necessity, but this is only because a game bug prevents 2 players for completing all the levels together.
If there is a similar situation/reason for utilizing a credit or continue (on any system), I think it may be permissible. But again, I think it should be a case-by-case basis.
For the Double Dragon game in question. If the primary reasons are to simply reduce lag and/or easier completion of a level because only 1 character is used, I don't feel that's an adequate reason to allow a continue.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
This thread was used to formulate the rule about arcade continues:
http://tasvideos.org/forum/viewtopic.php?t=10837
Note how the rule is posted alongside cheat/code rules. And how they all have this exception saying they are not strict. If they are considered to improve the gameplay without giving the player unfair advantage, they are allowed.
Also see how DarkKobold explicitly states that the rule about arcade continues should have exceptions on a case-by-case basis. This is in line with what I mentioned above. And to clarify, DK was a senior judge back then, and he handled the Metal Slug X submission that spawned that rule in the first place. So this can serve as a precedent ruling.
As for arcade games that have limited continues (which might somewhat contradict the whole nature of arcade machines being a way to pull money out of you), I think we need just judge them by the same principle that can justify the use of continues. If the game doesn't become easier as a result, they may be allowed.
sugarfoot wrote:
I have started work on a 2P TAS for Arcade Double Dragon, and am wondering if there are any restrictions on use of multiple credits?
Example: I am considering a run where I intentionally keep a character dead for certain sections of game, and use a continue to bring them back (goal being lag reduction in places where the second player isn't adding any value)
I know intentional deaths are allowed, but is a TAS considered acceptable if the fastest strategy requires using multiple credits/continues?
To finally answer this, such use of credits won't add any extra value to the gameplay, and it'd rely on a resource that's principally infinite. It means you'd use a cheat-like technique without introducing any restrictions that might justify it. It'd only save some lag frames. Doesn't sound exceptionally useful really, at lest not for a viewer.
So to play safe, I'd advice you to avoid any extra credits. Lives are fine though, you can trade them as needed, as long as you don't "buy" new lives.
PS: DrD2k9 appears to answer this in the exact same manner as I did now, having looked 7 years back. Nice job!
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
I am considering submitting a Good Ending TAS of Abe’s Oddysee which shows the credits at the end of the game. The goal is to rescue 50 Mudokons. What do you think? Is it worth the publication?
Enjoys speedrunning, playing and TASing Oddworld games!
Has TASed:
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee in 12.06.13 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Adventures II in 20.03.78 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus 100% in 2:08:28.4 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:05:01.65
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus in 37:18
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus in 37:15
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus 100% in 2:!5.44.12
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee any% in 13:01.3
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee any% in 12:59.95
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:04:16.27
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:04:01.07
Currently working on:
Waiting for Windows TAS Tools to work so I can TAS PC version of Exoddus.
I am considering submitting a Good Ending TAS of Abe’s Oddysee which shows the credits at the end of the game. The goal is to rescue 50 Mudokons. What do you think? Is it worth the publication?
According to GameFaqs, if you save all 99 Mudokons you also get rewarded with a movie gallery mode, which makes me more lean towards considering 99 Mudokons as the full completion requirement aganist just 50. However, I need confirmation from feos, since I don't see precedents that confirm my point of view.
Either way, wouldn't a 50 Mudokon TAS just be a mix between the any% and the 100% runs? If yes, then its movie contents would end up being completely redaundant.
Joined: 4/17/2010
Posts: 11486
Location: Lake Chargoggagoggmanchauggagoggchaubunagungamaugg
In 2014 viewer enjoyment coming from PSX Oddworld games has greatly degraded, and stopped resulting in Moons ratings the prior Oddworld TASes had.
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-PSX-Group45-RatingV-Obs.html
So anything beyond any% and 100% is very unlikely to be accepted from the series. "Max casualties" is the only sensible exception it seems.
Warning: When making decisions, I try to collect as much data as possible before actually deciding. I try to abstract away and see the principles behind real world events and people's opinions. I try to generalize them and turn into something clear and reusable. I hate depending on unpredictable and having to make lottery guesses. Any problem can be solved by systems thinking and acting.
In 2014 viewer enjoyment coming from PSX Oddworld games has greatly degraded, and stopped resulting in Moons ratings the prior Oddworld TASes had.
http://tasvideos.org/Movies-PSX-Group45-RatingV-Obs.html
So anything beyond any% and 100% is very unlikely to be accepted from the series. "Max casualties" is the only sensible exception it seems.
OK. Well there a few new improvements I can TAS for Exoddus 100% and Oddysee Maximum Casualties.
Enjoys speedrunning, playing and TASing Oddworld games!
Has TASed:
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee in 12.06.13 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Adventures II in 20.03.78 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus 100% in 2:08:28.4 (with Dooty)
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:05:01.65
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus in 37:18
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus in 37:15
Oddworld: Abe's Exoddus 100% in 2:!5.44.12
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee any% in 13:01.3
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee any% in 12:59.95
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:04:16.27
Oddworld: Abe's Oddysee 100% in 1:04:01.07
Currently working on:
Waiting for Windows TAS Tools to work so I can TAS PC version of Exoddus.
