Difference between revisions of "Talk:Portal Glitch Prevention"

From Valve Developer Community
Jump to: navigation, search
m (Merge: .)
 
(5 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown)
Line 20: Line 20:
 
::::::::::::That was the intention. As I said originally, "Reading further I see there are several other basic features, such as stacking props, that are listed. Maybe they should be separated into a different article labelled "design considerations" or something, rather than calling them "glitches"? Or the article should just be renamed? What do you think?" [[User:Thelonesoldier|Thelonesoldier]] 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 
::::::::::::That was the intention. As I said originally, "Reading further I see there are several other basic features, such as stacking props, that are listed. Maybe they should be separated into a different article labelled "design considerations" or something, rather than calling them "glitches"? Or the article should just be renamed? What do you think?" [[User:Thelonesoldier|Thelonesoldier]] 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
 
There is no need to argue semantics, nor to edit the wiki for semantic issues, as most modern philological theories do not bound the meaning of a word to it's definition.  Article does look better divided though.  But keep this in mind for future edits:  the above discussion is sophmoric, it's conclusions fallacious, and the fact that it occurred hilarious. [[User:Mrhappy|-Mr. Happy]] 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 
There is no need to argue semantics, nor to edit the wiki for semantic issues, as most modern philological theories do not bound the meaning of a word to it's definition.  Article does look better divided though.  But keep this in mind for future edits:  the above discussion is sophmoric, it's conclusions fallacious, and the fact that it occurred hilarious. [[User:Mrhappy|-Mr. Happy]] 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
:Touche my friend. --[[User:Msleeper|Msleeper]] 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
::Mmm, yes, shallow and pedantic. [[User:Thelonesoldier|Thelonesoldier]] 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)
 +
 +
== Formatting ==
 +
 +
I switched from '''Bolded''' headings to ====level 4==== subheadings, but I'm not sure I like the way it looks. Any comments? [[User:Thelonesoldier|Thelonesoldier]] 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)
 +
 +
==Merge==
 +
Convince me otherwise. I think my reasoning is obvious. [[User:Pinsplash|Pinsplash]] ([[User talk:Pinsplash|talk]]) 04:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)
 +
 +
Bumping this once. [[User:Pinsplash|Pinsplash]] ''([[User talk:Pinsplash|talk]])'' 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 01:35, 9 August 2018

Glitch prevention

Fling is a basic element of gameplay, not a glitch. Also, most surfaces in Portal are portal-able concrete, and most hallways in the campaign have portalable surface on the walls and ceiling. Plus with the wording infinite loop I thought they were presenting the possibility of the player getting stuck in an infinite loop, which is absurd, but thinking about it now it's probably referencing using that as an alternate way to build up acceleration for a fling. Still, you can hardly call basic gameplay concepts glitches in the same vein as portal bumping and like. I understand it's important to keep fling in mind when designing a puzzle, but again it's hard to think of it as a glitch or expect mappers to put metal on every ceiling or something. Not to mention many of the campaign missions have ways to circumvent the "intended" solution, and many of these are featured in the challenges and Advanced maps.

Reading further I see there are several other basic features, such as stacking props, that are listed. Maybe they should be separated into a different article labelled "design considerations" or something, rather than calling them "glitches"? Or the article should just be renamed? What do you think? Thelonesoldier 17:48, 27 December 2010 (UTC)

It isn't calling the ability to loop infinitely to gain momentum or to stack boxes glitches as they are intended functionality but they can be used to glitch the flow of the map as the designer meant it to be. --Omnicoder 00:48, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Er, well, going with Wikipedia's defintion of a Glitch as related to video games, "a glitch is a programming error which results in behavior not intended by the programmers" and ""Glitching" is the practice of a player exploiting faults in a video game's programming", neither of which is true about fling, stacking, etc. I just think we should use a different word. Thelonesoldier 01:25, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
The flinging and/or stacking itself isn't the problem, it's the situations and scenarios that these can be used and exploited in to create glitches. To draw a parallel, there were some maps in TF2 where you could fall through a displacement and be able to shoot out from under neath it. The problem was caused by the displacements. Does that mean the displacements were the glitch? No. The situation that the player could exploit them was. The same is true here. --Msleeper 01:29, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
It literally doesn't meet the definition of a glitch. It's an unintended situation entirely the fault of the mapper, not the programmer. Thelonesoldier 01:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Well, it literally is an issue with the engine, because there is no way to avoid some or most of these problems via any sort of mapping technique. --Msleeper 01:36, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
So you're calling fling an issue with the engine, even though you have to use it to complete many of the test chambers. A programming error that shouldn't be in the game and is completely on par with Portal bumping in every way. If there's truly no way to avoid fling, which isn't true at all, why are we listing it as something to watch out for and avoid? It doesn't meet the definition of a glitch, it is not a programming error that should be corrected. If they removed fling, it would utterly break the game and make many maps uncompletable. Thelonesoldier 01:41, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I'm really trying to be civil, but it's hard not to think that you have some sort of reading comprehension issue. As I said in my first reply, "The flinging and/or stacking itself isn't the problem, it's the situations and scenarios that these can be used and exploited in to create glitches." So, no. I'm not calling flinging an issue with the engine. What I am saying is that a player can use the flinging technique to do other things which are glitches of the engine, and cannot be achieved by normal means outside of flinging. I mean, do you see the difference in what we're trying to say? Do you see the difference between "flinging is a problem" and "flinging can put the player in a position to cause other problems"? --Msleeper 01:51, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
As far as reading comprehension, do you realize I've presented a sourced definition which says what you're saying is wrong? "a glitch is a programming error which results in behavior not intended by the programmers". Flinging is not a glitch by this definition, no matter how much it is abused. I can make a simple edit to the article which should not be controversial. Thelonesoldier 02:09, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
If a single edit will some how make it not "controversial" - which I think you're the only person who sees any controversy - then... why not just make the change? I don't think a single, fingerquotes, "misuse" of the word glitch are destroying anyone's life or perception of reality, and whether or not it's a Wikipedia-definition usage of the word doesn't change the fact that anyone and everyone in the Portal mapping community (which I'm pretty sure, nay, positive that you have no experience in) calls them glitches. I personally think usage of words and language is more important than some text book derived definition of words and language, especially something in as gray area as a glitch in a game.
But seriously though, don't you think that compared to the author of the article, you might just be a little underqualified in terms of Portal specific mapping concepts? The "questionable" use of a single word really does not warrant, uh, any of this bullshit. --Msleeper 02:33, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
I see controversy because you jumped into this discussion I was having with someone else, to argue with me about it. That's controversy. If however you're saying, as it seems you are, that I should feel free to ignore any concerns you voice because they're bullshit, I won't argue. Here's this community stuff again. "Oh, lone soldier's not part of the community (isn't his name appropriate!)" It shouldn't matter, this is a wiki, not a club. I'm just doing my best to help, and I'm sure you could find better ways to help the wiki than this discussion. I'm not the most qualified mapper, but I have a pretty good general idea of what I'm doing, and I'm putting a lot more effort in than anyone else.
You know, if your community are already familiar with all the glitches/concerns, then this article is utterly useless to them. Who it can be potentially useful for are new mappers. But anyway, why have this discussion when I can be editing articles. Thelonesoldier 09:56, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
Just out of curiosity, is the entire discussion based on whether or not the strict definition of "glitch" should be taken into account, and if it is, if the [therefore] questionable parts should be moved to another article? Not taking sides, just looking for clarification, because it seems things have spun out a bit.--WinstonSmith 20:31, 28 December 2010 (UTC)
That was the intention. As I said originally, "Reading further I see there are several other basic features, such as stacking props, that are listed. Maybe they should be separated into a different article labelled "design considerations" or something, rather than calling them "glitches"? Or the article should just be renamed? What do you think?" Thelonesoldier 22:10, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

There is no need to argue semantics, nor to edit the wiki for semantic issues, as most modern philological theories do not bound the meaning of a word to it's definition. Article does look better divided though. But keep this in mind for future edits: the above discussion is sophmoric, it's conclusions fallacious, and the fact that it occurred hilarious. -Mr. Happy 19:09, 29 December 2010 (UTC)

Touche my friend. --Msleeper 22:03, 29 December 2010 (UTC)
Mmm, yes, shallow and pedantic. Thelonesoldier 03:41, 30 December 2010 (UTC)

Formatting

I switched from Bolded headings to ====level 4==== subheadings, but I'm not sure I like the way it looks. Any comments? Thelonesoldier 15:01, 4 January 2011 (UTC)

Merge

Convince me otherwise. I think my reasoning is obvious. Pinsplash (talk) 04:40, 24 July 2018 (UTC)

Bumping this once. Pinsplash (talk) 01:35, 9 August 2018 (UTC)