Sequence Breaking Taken Too Far

2008-11-03 07:59:55 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I was just wondering what other people thought about sequence breaking.

Here're my thoughts, using the original Super Metroid as an example:

You play the game through normally, collecting everything.
You then learn a trick that enables you to do something you didn't know about, so you can acquire some items earlier than intended.
You learn more tricks, ultimately enabling you to get to whole areas before you're supposed to, meaning that you can complete the game very early.
I would consider this the normal sequence of events for the game, and its hacks.

I'm just wondering when it goes too far.

As an example, if a hack is released, and somebody reaches an area through normal play, but ends up what is usually referred to as 'perma-stuck', I think this is an issue that should be fixed with an update. But, if you play a hack with the intention of trying to sequence break or get yourself perma-stuck, then I don't believe the hack creator should be required to fix it, as it's not something that you are likely to come across, especially if you have to do some of the more difficult tricks to achieve it.

So, what does everybody else think?

Thread title:

I was just wondering what other people thought about sequence breaking.

Here're my thoughts, using the original Super Metroid as an example:

You play the game through normally, collecting everything.
You then learn a trick that enables you to do something you didn't know about, so you can acquire some items earlier than intended.
You learn more tricks, ultimately enabling you to get to whole areas before you're supposed to, meaning that you can complete the game very early.
I would consider this the normal sequence of events for the game, and its hacks.

I'm just wondering when it goes too far.

As an example, if a hack is released, and somebody reaches an area through normal play, but ends up what is usually referred to as 'perma-stuck', I think this is an issue that should be fixed with an update.  But, if you play a hack with the intention of trying to sequence break or get yourself perma-stuck, then I don't believe the hack creator should be required to fix it, as it's not something that you are likely to come across, especially if you have to do some of the more difficult tricks to achieve it.

So, what does everybody else think?

Acheron

2008-11-03 08:15:06 am

Acclaimed Threshold

Constant Sorrows

I heartily endorse this kind of discussion; it's the kind of thing that can make hacks better. Maybe we should have a "social hack talk" topic or something...

Anyway, I think it's totally on the designer to playtest and ensure you can't get perma-stuck. Of course, this is nearly impossible to do on your own, but that's what beta is for. And if someone still finds a way thereafter, the hack-maker ideally would fix it, but that's a question of how much dedication to quality he or she wants to put forth.

Quietus

2008-11-03 08:19:22 am

Super Secret Area - Dead Ahead!

I was thinking more of those that you have to go ridiculously out of your way to find.

If you have to freeze an enemy, then jump off it to reach a two-block high gap, jump through the ceiling, then horizontal bomb jump to get to a place of no return, is it still considered to be an error that should be fixed? I would say not, as no normal playthrough would experience this at all.

Perma-stucks are an exception, and I'm sure that most of them are just overlooked during beta stages.

Zeku

2008-11-03 10:11:15 am

The question he's also asking is whether changing a game based on player activity is good for the players.

For a single player game, fixing design 'errors' is usually going to be an improvement, except in the case of depriving the player of having some unintended fun.

It gets complicated in a competitive game, where early developer meddling can forestall and prevent player innovation. Let's say the designers had the ability to quickly patch a somewhat early arcade game like street fighter. I don't know if it would have made the game more or less popular, but it definitely would have affected the progression of high-level play, where players are forced to contend with near-impossible scenarios.

Marvel vs Capcom 2 is a great example of a game with many useful 'endgame' characters, all of which are both unfair, and unmodified by the developers, and yet still somewhat balanced against each other. The bottom line is that I don't know if the incentive to continuously improve your own playing would still be there if your character gets 'nerfed' every time it starts dominating.

The question he's also asking is whether changing a game based on player activity is good for the players.

For a single player game, fixing design 'errors' is usually going to be an improvement, except in the case of depriving the player of having some unintended fun.

It gets complicated in a competitive game, where early developer meddling can forestall and prevent player innovation.  Let's say the designers had the ability to quickly patch a somewhat early arcade game like street fighter.  I don't know if it would have made the game more or less popular, but it definitely would have affected the progression of high-level play, where players are forced to contend with near-impossible scenarios.

Marvel vs Capcom 2 is a great example of a game with many useful 'endgame' characters, all of which are both unfair, and unmodified by the developers, and yet still somewhat balanced against each other.  The bottom line is that I don't know if the incentive to continuously improve your own playing would still be there if your character gets 'nerfed' every time it starts dominating.

SleepingSeaweed

2008-11-03 10:54:37 am

What a "normal" playthrough is depends a bit on what kind of hack it is. Some hacks, or many I should say, require the player to do stuff that wasn't intended to be possible in vanilla SM. Some tricks were overlooked by the game designers, some were just glitches. Now those can often be required to beat the game or find some secrets - if the hack is of the "harder" type, players might want to explore every possibility, and if that's the case you can't blame them for trying to do something unexpected.

If the hack is of the "easier" type on the other hand, you might unintentionally sequence break if it's insufficiently playtested. Or for some hacks, you don't know if you're sequence breaking or following the intended path (if there is one).

horscht(i)

2008-11-03 01:08:05 pm

defrag in progress

In my opinion it depends on the speedtricks you have to use.

If ,e.g., mockball is required, the creator should make sure that mockballing whereever and whenever does not lead to a perma-stuck.

ZephyrZx

2008-11-03 01:36:43 pm

I've always though that hacks shouldn't "require" the pass-through-walls glitch with the grapple beam, that glitch is so random, sometimes leading to a perma-stuck moment, and sometimes screwing you up if you dont use savetates

Xaggoth

2008-11-03 02:26:24 pm

Quote from ZephyrZx:

I've always though that hacks shouldn't "require" the pass-through-walls glitch with the grapple beam, that glitch is so random, sometimes leading to a perma-stuck moment, and sometimes screwing you up if you dont use savetates

As long as you are careful about the tiles surrounding the grapple blocks you can make it work reliably. You just leave some free space around floors and ceilings, and don't make them pass regular solid blocks (you can get stuck exactly in the middle). Instead use the small vertical bts.

Zhs2

2008-11-03 02:28:40 pm

Yo.

I'm in the belief that sequence breaking should never be intended by the developer; that only ruins the SBs themselves. SBs should come from the truely questioning players, who are bored/motivated enough to create them, and try to beat the game in that matter.

Also, aside from true gamebreakers, I believe that any SB made by a player, whether intentional or not, is entirely the fault of the gamer himself. Gamebreakers are just bad in general, and, yes, they should be fixed immediately. However, any true Sequence Break is never taking it too far. It's up to the player whether or not he should go back and look for items first or just break through that ceiling and continue.

SleepingSeaweed

2008-11-03 03:23:00 pm

There is no such thing as an intended SB, since they are defined by being unintended. You can get stuck very easily with the grapple beam, so it's not a good idea to deliberately place grapple blocks or enemies so you can use them to go inside solid objects or terrain.

MetroidMst

2008-11-03 03:38:34 pm

Go ahead. Stare.

I think that if a player goes way out of his way to try to get somewhere he/she should be willing to suffer perma-stuck in return as a hack will normally say what are requirements to beat the game, and if those glitches aren't in the description they deserve that. If they do find a break, more power to them. If the hack lest you get into a one scroll room with a gray door in front and a PB door closed behind, the creator should fix that.

MoogleEmperor

2008-11-03 03:42:52 pm

Personally I don't think there's any significant difference in quality between intended alternate routes and unintended sequence breaks. It's whether or not it's a decent route, not whether or not the developer thought of it beforehand. Sometimes you can't even tell the difference, anyway.
Personally I think the bigger distinction is between trick based SBs and glitch based SBs; I find glitch based ones to frequently be inferior, at least when it isn't intuitive what you can do with the glitch. I think Prime's breaks aren't nearly as good as Super's or MZM'x for this reason, because it isn't at all easy to tell what is possible and what isn't, and it's far harder to find them on your own. I prefer finding my own SBs to just following someone else's directions.
Some glitches are difficult to foolproof against, but I do think that hack makers should do their best to foolproof as much as is reasonably possible against all non glitch moves and any glitch moves that are required, either for competition or for 100%. Especially against game killers that allow you to move to a new room before realizing you're stuck.

Zhs2

2008-11-03 03:45:28 pm

Yo.

Quote from SleepingSeaweed:

There is no such thing as an intended SB, since they are defined by being unintended.

Zero Mission is defined by intended sequence breaks. Don't tell me the developers never made it easy on purpose. There is such a thing as intended sequence breaks.

MoogleEmperor

Edit history:

MoogleEmperor: 2008-11-03 04:22:59 pm

2008-11-03 03:51:11 pm

It seems many people insist that the term "sequence break" only refers to the kind that wasn't intended. I see no point in making the distinction myself, since whether intended or not they serve the same function. And the intended alternate routes in Metroid games are definitely different than alternate routes in a game that's clearly nonlinear, because a "main sequence" still exists.

Anyway, though trying to avoid game breaking SBs is pretty basic, I also think it's good design to try to avoid allowing pointless SBs. If you can't do anything meaningful in an area without a certain item, you shouldn't be able to enter that area without it.

Acheron

2008-11-03 04:32:25 pm

Acclaimed Threshold

Constant Sorrows

Quote from MoogleEmperor:

Anyway, though trying to avoid game breaking SBs is pretty basic, I also think it's good design to try to avoid allowing pointless SBs. If you can't do anything meaningful in an area without a certain item, you shouldn't be able to enter that area without it.

Absolutely. Hack-makers sometimes forget this rule.

Let's say you see a cliff you need grapple to get through. You don't have grapple... you get it later and you return, though. Then you go to the next room and now you need PBs. That totally sucks.

Let this be some advice to all hack creators: don't let this happen in your hack.

SleepingSeaweed

2008-11-03 05:08:30 pm

Quote from Zhs2:

Zero Mission is defined by intended sequence breaks. Don't tell me the developers never made it easy on purpose. There is such a thing as intended sequence breaks.

And I still say if it's intended you're not actually breaking the sequence, you're just taking an alternate route. Saying a game has "intended" SBs is to me pretty much the same as saying it's a nonlinear game, i.e. has more than one intended sequence.

Quote from MoogleEmperor:

It seems many people insist that the term "sequence break" only refers to the kind that wasn't intended. I see no point in making the distinction myself, since whether intended or not they serve the same function. And the intended alternate routes in Metroid games are definitely different than alternate routes in a game that's clearly nonlinear, because a "main sequence" still exists.

Well, Super Metroid wouldn't get any worse if the developers were aware of how many paths the player can actually take. Most SBs in SM exist because the player is given so many abilities. Taking Zero Mission for example, there is a difference in the alternate routes from most nonlinear games, because unlike them the player isn't making an active choice in which route to take, instead there is one that is harder to find than the others. But they're still intended options, so I would say that makes Zero Mission a nonlinear game. If a sequence break isn't "doing something before you're intended to", how do we know what is a sequence break?

[quote="Zhs2"]
Zero Mission is defined by intended sequence breaks. Don't tell me the developers never made it easy on purpose. There is such a thing as intended sequence breaks.
[/quote]

And I still say if it's intended you're not actually breaking the sequence, you're just taking an alternate route. Saying a game has "intended" SBs is to me pretty much the same as saying it's a nonlinear game, i.e. has more than one intended sequence.

[quote="MoogleEmperor"]
It seems many people insist that the term "sequence break" only refers to the kind that wasn't intended. I see no point in making the distinction myself, since whether intended or not they serve the same function. And the intended alternate routes in Metroid games are definitely different than alternate routes in a game that's clearly nonlinear, because a "main sequence" still exists.
[/quote]

Well, Super Metroid wouldn't get any worse if the developers were aware of how many paths the player can actually take. Most SBs in SM exist because the player is given so many abilities. Taking Zero Mission for example, there is a difference in the alternate routes from most nonlinear games, because unlike them the player isn't making an active choice in which route to take, instead there is one that is harder to find than the others. But they're still intended options, so I would say that makes Zero Mission a nonlinear game. If a sequence break isn't "doing something before you're intended to", how do we know what is a sequence break?

Kejardon

2008-11-03 07:47:45 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

1. Go to General Store
2. Buy Lantern
3. Kill Morgoth

ZephyrZx

2008-11-03 07:54:26 pm

I see stuff on ZM more like shortcuts than a Sequence breaks, Shortcuts made for one and only reason, unlock the galleries.

You could either rush the game, countless of times trying to get better/faster each time or by mistake or just exploration find these shortcuts and use them to get the desired time for those achievements (a.k.a, the galleries).

Then, we have sequence breaks, sometimes completely unintended stuff (grapple beam through wall in SM for example) or just stuff that no normal person could do (like a pixel perfect wall jump into a random platform that has an unobtainable item at the moment).

i forgot what was i going for with this post... damnit xd

PD: who's morgoth? D:

Kejardon

Edit history:

Kejardon: 2008-11-03 08:06:17 pm

2008-11-03 08:03:35 pm

Embarrasing Fact: Power suit made by lowest bidder

Oh right, wrong game.

1. Go to Zebes
2. Get Morph Ball
3. Kill Mother Brain

it just doesn't have the same ring to it though

Obob1

2008-11-03 08:14:13 pm

Getting permastuck (say behind a grey door or something) due to a sequence break is really lame. If there is any possible chance somebody can get somewhere without having all the intended abilities, it should be possible to get out. Of the 10 or so hacks I've played, the only one I didn't complete was one where my sequence break (which wasn't even THAT hard to do; just required some good wall jumping) was rewarded with getting stuck in a room all of whose doors were either grey or required power bombs, when I had not yet gotten power bombs. While I could have loaded an earlier save state, I didn't bother because I didn't want to play a hack where difficult exploration is rewarded with getting permastuck.

If a room needs power bombs to get out of it, make sure it also requires having power bombs to get in. If a room requires opening a grey door to get out of it, make sure that the player has to have done whatever it takes to open the grey door. Even if a sequence break is required to get into the room otherwise, these guidelines should be followed.

Getting permastuck (say behind a grey door or something) due to a sequence break is really lame.  If there is any possible chance somebody can get somewhere without having all the intended abilities, it should be possible to get out.  Of the 10 or so hacks I've played, the only one I didn't complete was one where my sequence break (which wasn't even THAT hard to do; just required some good wall jumping) was rewarded with getting stuck in a room all of whose doors were either grey or required power bombs, when I had not yet gotten power bombs.  While I could have loaded an earlier save state, I didn't bother because I didn't want to play a hack where difficult exploration is rewarded with getting permastuck.

If a room needs power bombs to get out of it, make sure it also requires having power bombs to get in.  If a room requires opening a grey door to get out of it, make sure that the player has to have done whatever it takes to open the grey door.  Even if a sequence break is required to get into the room otherwise, these guidelines should be followed.

MetroidMst

2008-11-03 09:48:34 pm

Go ahead. Stare.

I wouldn't call "good walljumping" difficult exploration... In that situation however, if that is all that is required you should not get permastuck for that.

Gu3st

2008-11-03 10:50:57 pm

Jagger ftw

you know, there are some so called "sbing" are developer's intended to.
mock ball, wall jumping.
and the zm, has no-sbing WHAT SO EVER, because all the stuff are developer intenteded

Acheron

2008-11-04 12:38:58 am

Acclaimed Threshold

Constant Sorrows

The whole "sequence breaks" argument is silly because we can honestly never know the intent of the designers. We can form opinions and say "it appears this was the intended sequence" but how do we know? We didn't make the game. Best to leave the technical arguments alone, methinks.

devonodev

2008-11-04 01:16:41 am

Devonodev: Other D

i think that sequence breaking and glitches are good, and it adds more to a game. think of them as a extra challenge.
but a player should never be able to get perma-stuck, as this just takes all the fun out. If you are smart enough to find a sequence break, then you should be rewarded.
Developers should never try to make their own sequence breaks, because finding them feels less rewarding. e.g. In a racing game, finding a shortcut isn't nearly as cool as finding out that you can glitch your way though a wall to get outside thae game area.

MoogleEmperor

Edit history:

MoogleEmperor: 2008-11-04 01:24:01 am

2008-11-04 01:19:24 am

Isn't that pretty much saying that every game should be 100% linear except for glitches? It's not like offering alternate routes detracts from unintentional SBs in any way. I'd say it's pretty uncomplimentary to say that a developer's idea for an alternate route is unquestionably inferior to a level design fluke.