Speed Runner Beats Ocarina of Time in Less Than 19 Minutes

[SilverStuddedSquirre]

Ugh, I can't type any more today, I want to go PLAY some video games now XD Anybody in for some Gran Tourismo 6 ?

 

[DrOswald]

I can say for sure that all objects and functions are performing as expected. What you might be able to make an argument for is that the design is not performing as expected. Maybe they forgot to put a ceiling there. But that is not a glitch or a bug. It is a design flaw.

Lets use another example to make clear what I am saying. In level 2-2 a special circumstance appears. When Yoshi is hit a flying enemy will appear to move baby Mario around, making him harder to retrieve. That enemy can be grabbed and carried to a later portion of the level, spat out, and jumped on to clear a wall and skip a large portion of the level.

In both cases you use the same mechanics to skip mechanics present in the level and the result is the same: the way the level is played is altered. The intended solution is bypassed. The only difference is that one skips an auto scroller trigger and the other skips an "unskippable" spike trap. Neither level is played as intended. But I think you have to agree that, at least in the second case, the parts all worked as intended. The unforeseen consequence of those perfectly working parts may not have been intended, but they are all working.

But that's where we apparently disagree on matters. Granted, I'm not claiming to be a programmer, but I'd imagine that a "bug" or "glitch" is, by definition, a design flaw...isn't it? Something that shouldn't be in the coding or something coded incorrectly? That's how you get things such as getting hit back through what's supposed to be a sealed doorway and end up at the final part of the game as Kid Link.

Well, no, I would not say a glitch or a bug is a design flaw. Lets make an analogy. Lets say you are building a bridge and the design calls for high quality steel. However, the steel used in creating the bridge was smelted improperly and so the bridge structural integrity is greatly reduced. That would be a glitch/bug: the design is sound but it was executed improperly. On the other hand, if the bridge had been poorly designed it might collapse despite perfect construction using properly crafted materials.

For the Yoshi's Island scenarios, I'd say that the 1-e case is an example similar to this OOT playthrough, while the 2-2 case would be similar to the Metroid example (which I said I was fine with). The difference being one is using a valid mechanic (a simple side jump to reach a platform or capturing an enemy to spit him out later) while the other is exploiting bad coding (passing through what is supposed to be a sealed door or bypassing a trigger which starts an entire process).

And there is the key right there. Passing though the door is exploiting bad coding - something in the game world did not act the way it was designed to. In the Yoshi's Island 1-e skip everything works exactly as designed - the design itself was flawed, allowing for this to happen. This is why I compare it to the Metroid skip and the 2-2 skip - all world objects are working perfectly but in both those cases major skips are possible. The Metroid skip allows you to basically skip a third of the game.

 

[DrOswald]

Literally just made this argument and this is like the third time in this post alone that I'm repeating it. I won't keep doing so forever.

It's not about your community's "rules". Exploits are cheating. By their very nature, they are ignoring the established rules of how the game works and bending them in such a way as to make the game easier to play. Just because your community accepts these exploits as "okay" for your "competition" doesn't mean they stop being exploits.

No, he is not bending any rule. He is not ignoring any established rules. Because if the rule book (the code) says you can do these things. You are making up arbitrary rules on what you think is acceptable and what is not.

I'm not sure why people refuse to understand such a simple concept as this: just because you made up your own rules for how you want to play the game doesn't mean that this instantly becomes the "correct" way to play the game.

I don't think you understand. YOU are the one making up the rules of what the "correct" way to play the game is. Cosmo follows the rules exactly as they are written.

I can make up my own rules for Monopoly and play my friends in a game of Kitty Steals Your Money Monopoly, but no one in their right mind would try and claim that my victory was remotely equal to that of a person who wins the game through the standard rule set.

Well, lets be clear. Once again, Cosmo did win the game through the standard rule set. You are the one insisting that he must adhere to additional rules for it to be legitimate.

And no one has ever claimed that getting any% WR makes you the record holder for any other category - because they are not remotely equal things.

Especially when the rules I change are designed to grant me a huge competitive advantage.

The rules do not give Cosmo or anyone else any sort of competitive advantage. Everyone uses the same rules when they play the any% category. Just because he knows the rules better does not mean it is unfair.

If you want to claim you "beat" a game, then you have to actually BEAT it, meaning that you complete all of its primary content within the rules established by the game and its devs. He did not fulfill that goal, ergo, he didn't beat the game. He beat a fraction of it. >_>

But he did complete the game by the rules established by the game and its devs. You can say he did not all you want, but he completed the game as per the rules of the game. Requiring him to beat everything is not the established rules of the game - that would be adding arbitrary additional rules. And this is done all the time to create different speed running categories. But the Any% category specifically does not add any arbitrary rules.

It's not that I'm against "cheats" persay, but you don't get to say you beat it legitimately if you cheated, sorry. Even when I use cheats in a game, I wouldn't try and say that I totally beat it legit, I'd admit to having cheated to win and (down the road) would eventually try to win legitimately.

Feel free to keep praising him if you wish, you can have your own opinion on things after all. But please, don't insist that I have to respect it too. Because I never will.

And if you are going to say that he cheated you need to give me an actual reason why using glitches and exploits is cheating. You have failed to do so. I am not demanding you respect him, I am demanding that you not call him a cheater without reason. Because you have given no reason exploits and glitches are cheats besides the fact that some people say so. The organized competitive single player gamers of the entire world disagree with you, so at the very least some people say the opposite. Why are you right while everyone in the world wide community of experts on the subject are all wrong?

 

[DrOswald]

In baseball you're clearly not supposed to intentionally walk a guy, but what are they gonna do about it when you do? In football, you really shouldn't just put half of your defenders 50 yards back, but if there's one play left and the score is 19-14, why wouldn't you? It is a clear example of doing whatever it is you have to to win as best as you can as long as the rules allow it. This whole spirit of the game thing is irrelevant to this level or style of play.

The difference is that in both cases, what the team has decided to do falls completely within the rules of the game. There's no rule that says you can't intentionally walk a batter that's dangerous, just as there's no rule that says you can't drop your entire defense back into 50 yard coverage. So long as the pitcher is throwing the ball towards home plate in baseball and the defense has 11 players on the field in football, they can use whatever strategy they want.

What is going on in this video goes outside of the "rules" of the game. Namely: you can walk through solid walls. The only reason you can is because there's no ref to call foul.

Quite simply: it's exploitation of bad coding (a glitch, an error that should not exist) and not simply exploitation of a mechanic (a well thought strategy such as intentionally walking a batter or dropping into deep coverage to prevent the Hail Mary pass).

I think the actual problem here is that we disagree with what the rules actually are. Your camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer intended. My camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer actually wrote.

I would argue that there is absolutely no rule that says you can't clip though that door - if it is not in the rule book, it is not a rule.

 

[t850terminator]

OoT? Meh, Wind Waker FTW...
But, hmm... impressive speedrun...

 

[Darkmantle]

There is some really hardcore cheating justification going on here. I can't believe someone can look me in the face and saying that glitching through a solid object is both not cheating and totally not outside the rules of the game.

I mean it's impressive and all that he can find and repeat said bug to reach the end of the game, but it is still without a doubt an exploit and cheating to beat the game. that fact seems inarguable. Now you can argue about whether or not his accomplishment should still be respected (I think it should), but I am awestruck at the people claiming it's totally legitimate.

You know just to address one of the more common justifications for cheating in this thread, I submit a sport analogy. It's totally possible in rugby to punch someone in the nuts while the ref isn't looking. That is still cheating. You are acting outside the rules and boundaries of the game. In the same way, he CAN glitch through the wall to get to the last Ganon fight, but it's still cheating. The notion that something being possible makes it legal/not cheating is preposterous.

But I will say again, if that's the way he and his want to play, fine, whatever. If they want to play nut-punch rugby, let em, and good for him for being so good at it, but it's still cheating in the context of the game and it's rules.

 

[xX_XDMemeLord69XD_Xx]

Hi i just wanna say Cosmo is a fraud and Biinny can take WR first try if he didn't use mic. Cosmo just got better star rotation, what a fucking cheater

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

We're not talking about a multiplayer game here. Who exactly does exploiting glitches and bugs cheat?

And how can you claim what the intended spirit of the game is? And who are you to come down from on high saying the way he completed it is invalid? The goal for speedrunners is to complete a game as fast as possible using any means within the game available to them. Glitches and bugs in the game are included in that because they are a part of the game. If you want to live by some imaginary and laughable "honour code" when playing single player games then have at it. But don't belittle the achievements of others because they don't follow your imaginary set of rules.

It's obvious the devs never intended for this to be actually possible. And I'd hardly call cheating an achievement.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

Do you not discount people who use the warps in super mario for speed runs? they are skipping entire worlds of content to speed run to the end, does that not bug you? these are called any% speedruns for a reason.

Those are mechanics built in to the game, intended for use by the devs. This is the difference between those who don't cheat, and those who do.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

I can tell you're new to speedrunning. Protip: the whole point is to go fast.

It took a lot of work to find the exploits necessary to achieve that time, and they are by no means easy to do, let alone do consistently and in a timely fashion. And even with glitches, there are still parts of a game you actually have to do.

I'm not disputing or belittling his skill, rather that he is being praised for, what would be under any other circumstances, cheating.

 

[008Zulu_v1legacy]

In any case, I agree with you (despite the Olympics analogy being quite off).

Yeah, not my best one. Probably should have said something like the runner cutting across the big empty space in the middle of the track instead.

 

[Arnoxthe1]

Dang, that's pretty darn good for a non-TAS speedrun.

However, I still think the best AND most entertaining speedrun I've ever seen has to be this Doom 3 Nightmare speedrun [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gW1F0ZcU_Oc]. It also helps that Doom 3 is incredibly fun to just blaze through, surprisingly enough. If you have a copy of the game, try it sometime.

BTW, that video I linked, if you want to know, the action really kicks into high gear at the 4:42 mark.

 

[Phrozenflame500]

Oh wow, a 200 post thread on Speedrunning?

Oh, it's the old "glitches don't count" argument by people who don't understand how speedrunning works. Dammit, and here I thought we were finally getting the recognition we deserve.

Either way, congrats to Cosmo. Hopefully he can get sub-VC so he can "truly" take the record, although sub-19 is pretty impressive in it's own right.

 

[The_Echo]

I'm not disputing or belittling his skill, rather that he is being praised for, what would be under any other circumstances, cheating.

Well, it's not cheating here, so don't act like it is.

This is how an Ocarina of Time any% speedrun looks. This is what people do for the run. All Ocarina of Time any% runs will follow this basic route.

A speedrun is by no means playing the game normally. If this were purported as a casual run of the game, then yes, he'd be cheating. But this is a speedrun, the purpose of which being to get from the beginning of the game to the end of the game in as fast a time as possible. That's what Cosmo did, and he did it well.

The rules do not give Cosmo or anyone else any sort of competitive advantage.

Yes, clearly being able to skip 90% of the game is not a competitive advantage. How about we compete in a game of Pokemon. You start at Pallet Town and I'll start on Victory Road with a team of Lvl 100 mons. Fair, right? Totally equal.

You have no clue what you're talking about.

Every any% run looks like this. Every OoT speedrunner doing the any% category does this route. Cosmo has no edge over the other speedrunners other than his own skill. Every runner is on equal footing in the any% category because they all follow the same basic route.

Your analogy makes no sense. You might as well be comparing a first playthrough to a world record speedrun. They don't match up, they are nowhere near the same thing.

Oh, it's the old "glitches don't count" argument by people who don't understand how speedrunning works. Dammit, and here I thought we were finally getting the recognition we deserve.

If only.

 

[Zombie_Fish]

OoT? Meh, Wind Waker FTW...
But, hmm... impressive speedrun...

Cosmo also did a 100% run of Wind Waker a while back. You can find the whole thing on his Twitch channel but it's ~35 hours long; a summary of what he's collected is here [https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DIJF8Tc2aqs].

 

[RJ 17]

In baseball you're clearly not supposed to intentionally walk a guy, but what are they gonna do about it when you do? In football, you really shouldn't just put half of your defenders 50 yards back, but if there's one play left and the score is 19-14, why wouldn't you? It is a clear example of doing whatever it is you have to to win as best as you can as long as the rules allow it. This whole spirit of the game thing is irrelevant to this level or style of play.

The difference is that in both cases, what the team has decided to do falls completely within the rules of the game. There's no rule that says you can't intentionally walk a batter that's dangerous, just as there's no rule that says you can't drop your entire defense back into 50 yard coverage. So long as the pitcher is throwing the ball towards home plate in baseball and the defense has 11 players on the field in football, they can use whatever strategy they want.

What is going on in this video goes outside of the "rules" of the game. Namely: you can walk through solid walls. The only reason you can is because there's no ref to call foul.

Quite simply: it's exploitation of bad coding (a glitch, an error that should not exist) and not simply exploitation of a mechanic (a well thought strategy such as intentionally walking a batter or dropping into deep coverage to prevent the Hail Mary pass).

I think the actual problem here is that we disagree with what the rules actually are. Your camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer intended. My camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer actually wrote.

I would argue that there is absolutely no rule that says you can't clip though that door - if it is not in the rule book, it is not a rule.

But this gets back to the other half of our conversation. You just got done explaining the difference between a glitch and a design flaw - to which I can say fair enough - however now you're saying that its fine to exploit such a glitch. In the OOT case, clipping through that wall isn't a design flaw (which the Yoshi's Island and Metroid examples are), it's an actual glitch. Just as the bridge builders intended to use high quality steel, the developers clearly intended for that wall to be solid. As I said to Revnak: the only reason you can get away with clipping through walls or exploiting any other glitch in a game is because there's no built-in ref to blow a whistle and say "You can't do that!" The design of the game wasn't flawed, for all intents and purposes that room is supposed to be sealed. However just like a bridge with bad steal, there were imperfections within the coding that allowed for Link to escape that sealed room. It's not like they forgot to make it so that the door can't be opened, allowing for someone to simply walk back through it. It's not as though there's some secret tunnel that you can crawl through to leave the boss' chamber. There's nothing wrong with the design of that room, while there is something wrong with the design of 1-E: it doesn't have a ceiling when clearly it should.

Which brings us back to my emphasis on what you're "supposed" to be able to do in games vs what you actually can do in games. You're supposed to not be able to go through that wall, but you can anyways. I'll submit that technically since there is no ceiling on 1-E that there's nothing that says you can't go up that high. I still say you're exploiting weak coding (that could have made the trigger zone extend all the way to the top of the screen), but clearly they should have put a ceiling on that level. As such it does fall under the realm of "design flaw", just like the Metroid platform. However I think we can both agree that the OOT case isn't a design flaw, but an actual glitch. And sticking consistent with the points I've been discussing so far, it's glitch abuse that I find to be unimpressive.

 

[DrOswald]

No, he is not bending any rule. He is not ignoring any established rules. Because if the rule book (the code) says you can do these things. You are making up arbitrary rules on what you think is acceptable and what is not.

This is the most nonsensical argument I've ever seen. You're literally claiming that any bug, glitch, or exploit in a video game is completely legitimate to use because "it's in the game", regardless of what the dev's intentions were. This is ludicrous to say the least. There's a reason that exploits, bugs, and glitches get fixed in more modern games via patching in the first place: because they are not supposed to be there, and using them to gain an advantage is absolutely cheating under any standard definition.

I don't think you understand. YOU are the one making up the rules of what the "correct" way to play the game is. Cosmo follows the rules exactly as they are written.

Except that I'm not. The proper way to play the game is a well established fact. It's this "speedrun community" that made up its own rules for how to play, not me.

Well, lets be clear. Once again, Cosmo did win the game through the standard rule set. You are the one insisting that he must adhere to additional rules for it to be legitimate.

No I'm not! I'm insisting that his run is not a "beat the game" run because he didn't follow the original rules established by the game itself! Why is this so hard for some people to comprehend, that the "community's rules" are not the actual rules of the bloody game?

The rules do not give Cosmo or anyone else any sort of competitive advantage.

Yes, clearly being able to skip 90% of the game is not a competitive advantage. How about we compete in a game of Pokemon. You start at Pallet Town and I'll start on Victory Road with a team of Lvl 100 mons. Fair, right? Totally equal.

But he did complete the game by the rules established by the game and its devs.

Did he complete all of the story content? No, he didn't. So he didn't complete the game's rules as established by the devs, no. Let's stop being ridiculous here for just a minute or two.

And if you are going to say that he cheated you need to give me an actual reason why using glitches and exploits is cheating. You have failed to do so. I am not demanding you respect him, I am demanding that you not call him a cheater without reason. Because you have given no reason exploits and glitches are cheats besides the fact that some people say so.

*massages temples*

So despite the fact that use of exploits are clearly labeled by a vast majority of the overall gaming community as "cheating", especially in a competitive environment, that doesn't matter, because the much smaller "speedrun community" has decided that they're a-okay.

Yeah, right, whatever. This argument's going nowhere fast. Just drop it.

But this is the point. The overall gaming community has decided that exploits and glitches are not cheating in this case.

 

[The Bandit]

The ignorance in this thread is absolutely astounding. It's truly embarrassing to see. Here's something you should keep in mind: while everyone is entitled to an opinion, not all opinions are equal. Educate yourself before you start spouting out garbage.

 

[AgedGrunt]

>Big thread on a high-profile speed run.
>Expected thread hijack by obsessive Zelda fans.
>Stayed for Cosmo.
>Find out everyone is an authority on speed-running.
>TheseAreMyRules.png
>Glitching old games that existed before patching is now cheating and shouldn't be counted.

This thread is the most perfect definition of the Internet, ever.

And yes, if you can do it, it counts. The community will distinguish special/full runs.

 

[DrOswald]

In baseball you're clearly not supposed to intentionally walk a guy, but what are they gonna do about it when you do? In football, you really shouldn't just put half of your defenders 50 yards back, but if there's one play left and the score is 19-14, why wouldn't you? It is a clear example of doing whatever it is you have to to win as best as you can as long as the rules allow it. This whole spirit of the game thing is irrelevant to this level or style of play.

The difference is that in both cases, what the team has decided to do falls completely within the rules of the game. There's no rule that says you can't intentionally walk a batter that's dangerous, just as there's no rule that says you can't drop your entire defense back into 50 yard coverage. So long as the pitcher is throwing the ball towards home plate in baseball and the defense has 11 players on the field in football, they can use whatever strategy they want.

What is going on in this video goes outside of the "rules" of the game. Namely: you can walk through solid walls. The only reason you can is because there's no ref to call foul.

Quite simply: it's exploitation of bad coding (a glitch, an error that should not exist) and not simply exploitation of a mechanic (a well thought strategy such as intentionally walking a batter or dropping into deep coverage to prevent the Hail Mary pass).

I think the actual problem here is that we disagree with what the rules actually are. Your camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer intended. My camp is arguing that the rules are what the developer actually wrote.

I would argue that there is absolutely no rule that says you can't clip though that door - if it is not in the rule book, it is not a rule.

But this gets back to the other half of our conversation. You just got done explaining the difference between a glitch and a design flaw - to which I can say fair enough - however now you're saying that its fine to exploit such a glitch. In the OOT case, clipping through that wall isn't a design flaw (which the Yoshi's Island and Metroid examples are), it's an actual glitch. Just as the bridge builders intended to use high quality steel, the developers clearly intended for that wall to be solid. As I said to Revnak: the only reason you can get away with clipping through walls or exploiting any other glitch in a game is because there's no built-in ref to blow a whistle and say "You can't do that!" The design of the game wasn't flawed, for all intents and purposes that room is supposed to be sealed. However just like a bridge with bad steal, there were imperfections within the coding that allowed for Link to escape that sealed room. It's not like they forgot to make it so that the door can't be opened, allowing for someone to simply walk back through it. It's not as though there's some secret tunnel that you can crawl through to leave the boss' chamber. There's nothing wrong with the design of that room, while there is something wrong with the design of 1-E: it doesn't have a ceiling when clearly it should.

Which brings us back to my emphasis on what you're "supposed" to be able to do in games vs what you actually can do in games. You're supposed to not be able to go through that wall, but you can anyways. I'll submit that technically since there is no ceiling on 1-E that there's nothing that says you can't go up that high. I still say you're exploiting weak coding (that could have made the trigger zone extend all the way to the top of the screen), but clearly they should have put a ceiling on that level. As such it does fall under the realm of "design flaw", just like the Metroid platform. However I think we can both agree that the OOT case isn't a design flaw, but an actual glitch. And sticking consistent with the points I've been discussing so far, it's glitch abuse that I find to be unimpressive.

But where your baseball analogy breaks down is that there is an umpire. The umpire is the console, and it's judgments are always perfect interpretations of the rules as they are written. What you are arguing is closer to the idea that a given rule (lets say walking a runner) should not be allowed because it was an oversight in the creation of the rules and against the spirit of the game and the intention of the designers of baseball.

I said before that the problem is that we disagree on what the rules actually are. This is technically incorrect - we know exactly what the rules are. They are explicitly and exactly defined in the code. What we disagree on is actually what the rules should be.

And I totally get where you are coming from with your idea that the rules should be how the game was meant to be played. The problem with that idea is that you are only really looking at the cases that fall easily and obviously into one side, but there is a massive area of uncertainty. You are arguing for a competition without clearly defined rules, only general guidelines. This is because you are basing what you think the rules should be on developer intent (which you cannot possibly know) glitches vs design flaws (which are often impossible to distinguish) and the spirit of the game (which no two people will exactly agree upon). Even worse, these three guidelines are often conflicting. There are dozens, if not hundreds, of edge cases that are do not clearly fall into either side. In OOT alone. Who gets to define that line? What happens if there is a rules dispute?

From a purely practical standpoint your standard of "play the game how it should be played" is impossible to consistently define and extremely toxic to a competitive environment. I am not saying you have to find it impressive, but the reasons we allow glitches, the reason we interpret the rules as we do, are important and make for a much better and interesting competitive environment.