Believe me, Fusion was programmed pretty poorly; the Event++ system they use is really 'cheap', if the game was programmed well, it would allow one to take advantage of sequence breaks; instead it forces you to use a linear route so that a lot of the game didn't need to be programmed as well
They're a different category. There's Intended Sequence at one end of the spectrum, and Sequence Breaks at the other. Then there's Intended Sequence Breaks right smack dab in the middle.
i guess the term "sequence break" has obtained a narrow definition nowadays. the term by itself would group any kind of changing of the intended sequence even if it was intended by devs, but if we go by how it is used, it means only changes in sequences that are unintended by devs are SBs while the rest are just "the regular sequence". that reminds me of the "shortcuts" in the mario kart competitive sites. for them, if it is a shortcut programmed by devs, it doesn't count. for them, only glitchy shortcuts are considered "shortcuts". example: something like the tunnel in koopa troopa beach in mario kart 64 isn't a shortcut.
oh, and Fusion is probably the best programmed game in the series if it hasn't been broken yet. ZM would be a runner up but there's the acid worm skip, which is one of the few unintended skips in the game. mp1 and mp2 would be among the worst programmed games ever if we count the amount of SBs, glitches and overall weird stuff within them since the devs intended them to be pretty linear.
still, bad and good programming doesn't determine if the game is actually good or bad. OoT is probably the worst programmed game ever and a lot of people like the game. on the flipside, Other M has very good programming but it turned out pretty meh as far as the actual game goes.
i wouldn't really call many sequence breaks "bad programming". the programming itself is often fine, it's more the level design (ledges not far enough out of reach, etc). that stuff has nothing to do with programming.
er ... no it's not? if a ledge that's supposed to be out of reach is actually in reach, and it gets released that way, it has nothing to do with programming. it's because neither the level designers nor the level design testers caught it.
Releasing something you haven't fully tested or stress tested (while incredibly hard to do, especially in a 3d video game world), is bad programming.
A-HEM.
Just because they didn't catch it doesn't mean it's a good program. If windows Bluescreened segfaults in some WAAAY out there case, it's poorly programmed. It doesn't matter if they missed it or didn't try to fix it. It's bad programming.
sure, if you're talking about a sequence break that was due to a programming glitch (such a ghetto jumping). i was only referring to sbs that are possible due to level design. those have nothing to do with programming.
That falls into the spectrum of Balance Testing, which is still under the massive umbrella that is "Programming" but far less so.
But I've no recollection of any SBs that avoided programing glitches (Ghetto) but still bypassed sequence with intended mechanics. Are you talking about things like accessing the SW from the main plaza of the Chozo Ruins? (I probably got the room name wrong) If so I'll just differ you back to the first sentence of this post.