RJ 17 said:
DrOswald said:
I disagree, I think it's pretty easy to tell what the developer's intent was, and using that you can easily determine "the rules of the game". Judging by the fact that the moment you step into the boss room the door slams shut behind you, startles link, and is even sealed with iron bars, I think it's pretty safe to assume that the developers did not intend for you to leave that chamber without killing the boss in the proper fashion. Those are the rules. The rules aren't defined by code.
To further clarify that, the code in a game is akin to free will in reality. Sure, according to the code you can pass through that wall, but are you supposed to? In real life, you can go on a murderous rampage, but are you supposed to? The rules of society are set in the form of laws. Laws are simply words, and have absolutely no power to stop you if you make a decision to go contrary to them. Coding is just...well...coding. It can't stop you from exploiting it if you find such a flaw and decide to exploit it. Does that mean we can't see what the intention behind the coding was meant to be? No. We can see that the developers clearly didn't want you to leave that room. Just as we can see that society clearly doesn't want you to go around murdering people.
So no, I still disagree with you on the notion that it's impossible to come up with rules for a game or adhere to them because it's impossible to know what the developer's intent was. Most games have a tendency to obey the laws of physics, and unless there's a valid reason given in the game for having a character being able to pass through solid matter (i.e. they're a ghost or something) then you're not supposed to be able to pass through solid matter. I really can't see this in any way other than black and white.
Quite simply, there shouldn't be an argument over the phrase "how the game was meant to be played"...as we should all already know what that means. It means not exploiting things such as clipping glitches, trigger avoidances, or side-jump short-cuts. All of those things are neat tricks, I'll give you that, but they still all obviously go beyond the bounds of what the developers intended. What did the developers intend for 1-E? They intended the level to be pretty challenging due to a slow self-scrolling screen. What did the developers intend for Metroid? They intended that you shouldn't be able to reach that ledge and skip a massive chunk of the game. What did the developers intend for OOT? They intended that you'd beat the boss then go outside to watch the tree die. If you're trying to argue against that, it'd be like trying to argue "Well maybe the engineers MEANT to use faulty steel to build the bridge so that it could easily be destroyed." I highly doubt any developer intends to use faulty code so that you can clip through walls and skip past the game.
So yeah, I understand that people like speed runs. I understand that there's different categories of speed runs. I understand that people like these various different categories of speed runs. And I understand that not everyone is going to play by the rules of the games. All that said, however, I still won't find it to be impressive or anything other than cheating, and as such not worthy of holding a record. Does that mean I'm going to start a petition to have such records removed? Of course not. I just won't ever really give a damn about them.
In Metroid Prime there is a specific wall clip glitch that allows you to skip a puzzle. The developer knew about it but chose not to fix it. Should it be played this way?
In Super Mario RPG you can use a super star to get tons of levels and then if you kill yourself you will be able to use the star again, and again, and again. Infinite free exp. Was this developer intended? How do you know? Is this how the game should be played?
In OOT you can skip over half the deku tree dungeon by allowing an enemy to hit you as you are climbing a wall, causing you to fall far enough to break the web without solving any of the puzzles that would normally require you to do so. Is this how the game should be played?
In Yoshi's Island you can hit a certain enemy before it is on screen to prevent it growing, costing only a single egg instead of 4. Is this a glitch or working as intended? Should the game be played this way?
In Super Mario World it is possible to gain height using the cape bounce, allowing you to fly over most of the levels in the game. Should the game be played this way?
Many Zelda bosses can be killed instantly, completely bypassing the bosses intended mechanics, using the right combination of attacks. Should the game be played this way?
In LTTP you can kill Gannon without the silver arrows. Is this the way the game was meant to be played? How do you know?
In many Nes and Gameboy games you can exploit the way random numbers are generated to eliminate randomness in the game. Is this the way the game was meant to be played? If not, why were these games not programmed like other games where it is impossible to do so? How do you know the developer did not intend for the RNG to be exploitable?
Sure, there are many bugs that are clearly unintended, but there are far too many unexpected interactions that are not clear one way or the other. For example, you were saying that sequence breaks, like the dash jump break, are alright. Now you are not. Why? What changed your mind?
Did you know that Super Metroid is full of sequence breaks? There are dozens of them. Are these to be categorically banned? Answer this in your head before you move onto the next paragraph.
Did you know that many of these sequence breaks were developer intended breaks to reward players who were highly skilled at the game and explored the game to it's fullest?
Which breaks should be allowed? Which ones should not? We don't know which ones were developer intended, so how can we tell? How should the game be played? Give me clear rules that everyone will agree on. Because, according to you, there should be no argument over how the game should be played. According to you, developer intent is black and white. It should be easy for you to give me a ruleset for Super Metroid that everyone can agree is how the game should be played.
And for every mario, and every zelda, and every yoshi, and every platformer, and every RPG, and every action game, and for that matter any game ever made. I should be able to give you a list of what is possible and you should be able to come up with a clearly defined ruleset of how the game should be played and all reasonable people will agree with you. Because developer intent is obvious. It is black and white.
I am not trying to argue that the developers intended the OOT wrong warp. I am trying to argue that if we don't categorically allow everything it is impossible to create a rule set that everyone will agree on. A rule set based on how the game should be played will fracture and destroy any competitive scene built around those rules. This is why glitchless categories are so rare in speedrunning, and why the few that exist are rarely played. Because we cant put together a ruleset that everyone agrees on. Hell, it is almost impossible to get even two people to agree on a ruleset.