surf dtoid with 
Rising (10+)
People you follow
Wavedashing and l-canceling would only be patched out because noobs complain about it, not because it wasn't intended or not discovered by the developers.
Kara throws too.
Kara throws too.
All patches should put forward the patch information at least three days around the time the patch is put out. I'm fine with a subtle patch to a game like Mortal Kombat, but they should at least tell us what they did within a bit of time.
You left out the best example of an ascended glitch, combos from Street fighter 2. Still patching is necessary for online balance but if a glitch balances things out then devs should leave it alone. Similary if a glitch is popular enough such as the "spycrab" Team Fortress 2 then it should be kept. Another thing to remember is that things that were once over powered become balanced as the meta game changes.
Overall, devs should think carefully about patches and be prepared to listen to the community.
Overall, devs should think carefully about patches and be prepared to listen to the community.
This sort of thing happened all the time back when Unreal Tournament first came out: first you'd get a patch, then another patch, then another patch to undo the previous patch. I heard similar rumblings about Kingdom Under Fire: Circle of Doom (a game I do not recommend), namely that the patch essentially ruined the in-depth crafting system.
I'd say opting out of patches is definitely the way to go, and it'd be nice if doing so didn't completely prevent you from playing online. We have the technology to only pair gamers with others that have the same version.
That said, I'd really prefer to see more devs holding back their games until they can work out the bugs so that we don't wind up with games being shoved out half-finished and patched later just to get people's money sooner.
Yes, I know that's already happening, but I don't want to see it widespread.
I'd say opting out of patches is definitely the way to go, and it'd be nice if doing so didn't completely prevent you from playing online. We have the technology to only pair gamers with others that have the same version.
That said, I'd really prefer to see more devs holding back their games until they can work out the bugs so that we don't wind up with games being shoved out half-finished and patched later just to get people's money sooner.
Yes, I know that's already happening, but I don't want to see it widespread.
There are three types of glitches: the fun ones that extend the game (Glitching out of the map on Subway in Gears of War for those epic 4 on 4 battlefield matches.) The game cheating abusing ones( Kara throws, the invisible MvC3 glitch, handcuff glitch from SF2, the entirety of mw2) and the mindless ones that make no sense (Anthropormorphic civilians in RDR.) All of these have their different shades of colour, but wether to be patched is up to the developers and the fans.
there should be a site or forum for us to see what exactly was changed or "fixed" in our games. it might be a little bit of a headache to track down the sites for each and every game i play on a regular basis, but at least the information would be out there.
point is, the information NEEDS to be put out there if changes or "fixes" are made. how many of us use a certain loadout in cod that could render us useless if something were to change and we don't know to change our gaming style/habit.
point is, the information NEEDS to be put out there if changes or "fixes" are made. how many of us use a certain loadout in cod that could render us useless if something were to change and we don't know to change our gaming style/habit.
I think it's a good thing. We have a tendency to view games as these artistic creations, where the "1st Edition" must be preserved in it's original state. However, we can't be ignorant to the technical and interactive nature of a game. A painting or book doesn't have a functional element that can later be discovered to be broken. Games do.
Besides, the only gamers that are concerned enough with preserving a v1.0 of a game are savvy enough to know how to revert back to it.
Besides, the only gamers that are concerned enough with preserving a v1.0 of a game are savvy enough to know how to revert back to it.
Before anyone says anything, Sentinel should never be patched. If you can't beat him, you just suck at fighters.
Or Haggar. If you dare nerf Haggar, I will go on a killing spree.
Or Haggar. If you dare nerf Haggar, I will go on a killing spree.
I think when Boon talks about 'fixing' he's referring more to balance issues than anything else. That whole quote's been taken out of context by pretty much everyone. Fighting games need balance, and metagaming by using glitches breaks that balance.
I'll say one thing, you use L-cancelling and wave-dashing as reasons to not patch. That is a doomed argument. Would people argue that snaking should've been kept in Mario Kart?
I'll say one thing, you use L-cancelling and wave-dashing as reasons to not patch. That is a doomed argument. Would people argue that snaking should've been kept in Mario Kart?
Gamers should always know what is in their patches and I have to say I advocate patching because in this market where games are rushed to release its better to have a patch after than to forever have a glitchy or even unplayable game forever.
@epic
The gears glitch is a mega bad example dude. When there's 1 guy left and he's put hinsel out the map then he needs his fingers breaking. In your example the game doesn't need "extending", there's enough time on the clock to have a full game and jumping out of the map just fucks up everybody's fun.
The gears glitch is a mega bad example dude. When there's 1 guy left and he's put hinsel out the map then he needs his fingers breaking. In your example the game doesn't need "extending", there's enough time on the clock to have a full game and jumping out of the map just fucks up everybody's fun.
Patches can be good, (Hydrophobia) or bad (MAG), I don't have a problem with them as long as it is fixing stuff that's broken and we know what's being changed.
"Should they give us the option to opt out of a patch if we don't like the changes they made?"
If we're talking about single player games, absolutely; give us a choice, or at the very least, don't require us to be connected to your network in order to play by ourselves.
But if we're talking about online play -- which is what I believe Ed Boon is referring to -- then no, there should be no option.
Sure, we have fond memories of glitches in games past, but we also didn't have competitive multiplayer games with people half-way across the world in games past. Glitches and balancing issues in online games do nothing but piss people off, and have no place in the 21st Century!
Great article!
If we're talking about single player games, absolutely; give us a choice, or at the very least, don't require us to be connected to your network in order to play by ourselves.
But if we're talking about online play -- which is what I believe Ed Boon is referring to -- then no, there should be no option.
Sure, we have fond memories of glitches in games past, but we also didn't have competitive multiplayer games with people half-way across the world in games past. Glitches and balancing issues in online games do nothing but piss people off, and have no place in the 21st Century!
Great article!
I can't believe RDR patched the dynamite into the sky glitch. aka the only thing worth doing in free roam.
Broken things that can be fixed, should be fixed. Patching shouldn't be a big factor unless the developers really skimped on QA. Certain exploits will always pop up at some point, because games are so massive now or have enough complexity that somebody is going to find something... but if its game breaking or an exploit, FIX IT, FIX IT, FIX IT! Re-balancing for fighting games is OK too in my opinion, beats the hell out of waiting for a new version of the game or never getting re-balanced at all.
I don't like the idea either, finding a glitch was always a highpoint for me. I discovered a Glitch in THPS 2 that allowed me to get stuck in the air to do an infinite combo, my friend and I would constantly exploit this glitch and it lead to many hours of endless infinite combo fun.
@flea friend:
I think you're underestimating the repercussions of allowing users to chose which version of the game they want to play. Forking code is almost universally frowned upon because each branch must be maintained on it's own.
It seems nice from a customer perspective, but it's a nightmare on the back end.
I think you're underestimating the repercussions of allowing users to chose which version of the game they want to play. Forking code is almost universally frowned upon because each branch must be maintained on it's own.
It seems nice from a customer perspective, but it's a nightmare on the back end.
But would anyone complain about fixes glitches and bugs that wipe savefiles, that render progression impossible or allow one player to severely negatively impact the playing experience of another user? It's all about developers being smart and not removing unintended "features" that resonate with the audience but patching things which have an no reason to exist; the ability to patch shouldn't be used as an excuse for a game to ship with the latter.
but back in the day, not every game had problems that needed a patch to fix. so some small glitches here and there were acceptable. QC tested the games extensively, and 1 or 2 wernt found. and wernt game breaking unless you purposefully did them.
but now, EVERY game has some form of glitch because it wasnt fully tested before release because they know they can just patch it day one. i tend to not blame this on developers though, i blame this stuff on publishers not giving developers enough time to comb through their games because they(pb) have a deadline to make to make the share holders happy.
but now, EVERY game has some form of glitch because it wasnt fully tested before release because they know they can just patch it day one. i tend to not blame this on developers though, i blame this stuff on publishers not giving developers enough time to comb through their games because they(pb) have a deadline to make to make the share holders happy.
@Flea Friend
I can see your logic but really that would be a bitch to maintain. Just look at the Android OS for an example of how bad it can get. The alterations should be reversible in the options.
I can see your logic but really that would be a bitch to maintain. Just look at the Android OS for an example of how bad it can get. The alterations should be reversible in the options.
Epic-KxDtoid, kara throws aren't a problem. Aside from SF2 you can completely nullify any Kara throw that isn't a command throw. There's nothing wrong with it. Only gamebreaking glitches (like the Doom missiles glitch crashing if stacking more than 20 missiles or the Zero snapback glitch.)
It doesnt really matter if people used wave dashing or not, at the end of the day they are just glitches that werent intended to be in the game in the first place : /
You make it sound like we're being punished when people find a way to play that was unintended.
Did anyone play SimCity back on the Commodore 64? Remember when you found out that F10 would refill your cash back up to $10,000 and all of a sudden you could build as many airports as you wanted because money was no longer an object?
It became much more short lived of an experience than the Super Nintendo SimCity. There you received a greater starting resource pool, but when that ran out you had to have a city that was in the black. And that required skillful spending of your resources, ensuring you had a good balance between the systems so you could be self sufficient when your start up money was gone and you spent all your loan money.
The gameplay was so much more captivating in the SNES version because the intended experience was a lot more well defined.
That experience is what the game designers want you to experience. When you're bypassing those experiences, you're deviating from the intended gameplay. But the thing is, patches are not cheap. Not cheap at all. They're quite expensive to make and deploy, so it's up to the developer to figure out if maintaining that intended experience is going to be more beneficial to their revenue than letting these bypasses reach the masses.
Hundreds of thousands of bugs remain in the games release last year. Hundreds got patched out.
Did anyone play SimCity back on the Commodore 64? Remember when you found out that F10 would refill your cash back up to $10,000 and all of a sudden you could build as many airports as you wanted because money was no longer an object?
It became much more short lived of an experience than the Super Nintendo SimCity. There you received a greater starting resource pool, but when that ran out you had to have a city that was in the black. And that required skillful spending of your resources, ensuring you had a good balance between the systems so you could be self sufficient when your start up money was gone and you spent all your loan money.
The gameplay was so much more captivating in the SNES version because the intended experience was a lot more well defined.
That experience is what the game designers want you to experience. When you're bypassing those experiences, you're deviating from the intended gameplay. But the thing is, patches are not cheap. Not cheap at all. They're quite expensive to make and deploy, so it's up to the developer to figure out if maintaining that intended experience is going to be more beneficial to their revenue than letting these bypasses reach the masses.
Hundreds of thousands of bugs remain in the games release last year. Hundreds got patched out.
It might be preferable if the developers just followed Pee-Wee Herman's example and claim that they meant to do that and leave in whatever doesn't break the game outright. If they don't want anyone seeing their mistakes, they ought to be more diligent in beta-testing,anyway.
I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed most of the not-quite-classics of yesteryear were there no bugs to exploit such as the Target:Earth invincibility glitch that could be triggered by a whole other hidden glitch (unintentionally controllable/hijacked enemy controlled by Player Two shoots Player 1 until P1 loses all power. Instead of being destroyed, the mech is no longer suceptible to damage at all) or the 'kick-jump' in GI Joe: The Atlantis Factor.
It's odd that bugs can be subject to nostalgia, but there you go.
I know that I wouldn't have enjoyed most of the not-quite-classics of yesteryear were there no bugs to exploit such as the Target:Earth invincibility glitch that could be triggered by a whole other hidden glitch (unintentionally controllable/hijacked enemy controlled by Player Two shoots Player 1 until P1 loses all power. Instead of being destroyed, the mech is no longer suceptible to damage at all) or the 'kick-jump' in GI Joe: The Atlantis Factor.
It's odd that bugs can be subject to nostalgia, but there you go.
mgs4 has never needed a patch except trophy support. and that's not a bug at all.
when a dev ain't in a rush, they can make a great product. but when i'm in a rush to the bank, i may forget to grab my wallet, than its a trip back home to get something i wouldn't have forgotten or overlooked had i taken my time.
when a dev ain't in a rush, they can make a great product. but when i'm in a rush to the bank, i may forget to grab my wallet, than its a trip back home to get something i wouldn't have forgotten or overlooked had i taken my time.
Does snaking from mario kart count as a glitch? It's unintentional, and I do miss it. Was part of the crowd that bashed it but I had to learn the technique to stay competitive and I hate that it was removed from mario kart wii
patches are great and any serious competitive game will need patches as getting the balancing perfect from the start is impossible and the chance that an exploit is that need patching is also high even if you test extensively people will always find new things throwing balancing off. but the downside of it all is that games are far more buggy on launch than they used to be and a lot of the problems just don't get a fix which is a shame for example battlefield bad company 2 on pc never got working voice chat while I think if they had to do everything right the first time it would have worked on launch but since devs just use a lot less people to fix launched games than they would on fixing yet to be released games it never got fixed.
The number of charming and useful glitches are far outweighed by those that hinder functionality. I would gladly wave goodbye to the donkey lady of RDR if it meant I could play Homefront online.
hey i love wave dashing, especially in Tekken games :)
but yeah, sometimes other "secret" techniques are best left alone :P
but yeah, sometimes other "secret" techniques are best left alone :P
@bbain
You actually might have heard of it. It is also (more familiarly), called Minus World, or the Minus Level. As Jonathan said, it was all the rage back in the day, trying to get there. It was basically a glitch you could use, in world 1-2, near the warp pipes, that would put you in a never-ending underwater level of 2-2.
The best part (for me), about it wasn't finding it, rather, the hyperbole and wrong rumors that came from it. My favorite was that all the baddies (sorry Qal, even your favorite), were turned into waggling plus and minus signs.
There was someone who claimed they knew the secret to beating the level, as well, but, as far as I know, there was never any proof, and all evidence would say otherwise.
As for your article Jonathan, I have no qualms about fixing bugs/glitches, what have you, on any and all multiplayer games. Just makes sense, even if they are fun bugs.
However, single-player... guess it depends on the situation. I can see where a studio might slap their collective foreheads and yell "Derp!", but, as you pointed out, sometimes, it's not game-breaking, and can lead to a lot of fun and exploration.
You actually might have heard of it. It is also (more familiarly), called Minus World, or the Minus Level. As Jonathan said, it was all the rage back in the day, trying to get there. It was basically a glitch you could use, in world 1-2, near the warp pipes, that would put you in a never-ending underwater level of 2-2.
The best part (for me), about it wasn't finding it, rather, the hyperbole and wrong rumors that came from it. My favorite was that all the baddies (sorry Qal, even your favorite), were turned into waggling plus and minus signs.
There was someone who claimed they knew the secret to beating the level, as well, but, as far as I know, there was never any proof, and all evidence would say otherwise.
As for your article Jonathan, I have no qualms about fixing bugs/glitches, what have you, on any and all multiplayer games. Just makes sense, even if they are fun bugs.
However, single-player... guess it depends on the situation. I can see where a studio might slap their collective foreheads and yell "Derp!", but, as you pointed out, sometimes, it's not game-breaking, and can lead to a lot of fun and exploration.
Not all devs have their testers in office. Some of them use ones provided by their publishers. They do not have the ability to directly supervise them, so something that a dev might see as a problem might fall through the cracks. They might not see something that needs to be patched until after the game has shipped.
It's always nice to see a smasher. Who played Melee, not Brawl. Brawl is awful in every respect.
I think the concept of patching very much relies on the attitude the patchers have in mind when applying said fixes. I think a lot of fighting game fans would agree in saying that a fighting game should only be patched if there's some awful, game-breaking glitch involved. Using a Smash example, imagine if Falco's short hop blaster put you in permanent lockdown if the laser had significantly longer stun--so if you got hit by a single laser, that would lead to a perfect infinite that's impossible to break and is guaranteed to result in 999% damage. Kind of like the IC's infinite chaingrab, but requiring absolutely zero setup.
In that case, yeah, a patch would probably be nice, and probably required for the game to not devolve into every single tourney consisting of Falco's trying to get that first laser shot in. But for something like the IC's infinite chaingrab, you wouldn't need to patch that at all--considering the setup it requires, the counter characters that can be employed against the ICs, and just a generally different playstyle, the threat of an infinite chaingrab is much less menacing than it sounds. In short, it's not gamebreaking.
And that should really be the measure of whether or not patches should be applied in a game--a fighting game, in any case. If it doesn't break the game, why not keep it in? It just adds another bit of flavor/spice into the mix.
It's an attitude that I wish Blizzard would adopt in their patching of Starcraft 2. IMO, Blizzard is far too patch happy for the community's own good. I can understand patching reapers with a longer build time and later nitro pack research, considering how obnoxious they were and how impossible it was for zerg to actually get situated because of constant reaper harass.
But removing mineral boosting with its almost negligible 3% mineral increase? Taking out viking flower patrol? These kinds of small exploits are things that give a game an extra, flavorful kick. Patching them out of the game is just. . .disheartening. It just makes everything more bland. Blizzard isn't patching these things because they're gamebreaking or cause huge game imbalances--they're doing it because they don't fit into their specific vision of what the game should be.
And if that's the attitude that Blizzard had when SC1 came out, then we probably would've never had walling in with depots because they would have patched that. Or they would have done away with mutalisk stacking.
Their attitude towards patching in general is just depressing.
I think the concept of patching very much relies on the attitude the patchers have in mind when applying said fixes. I think a lot of fighting game fans would agree in saying that a fighting game should only be patched if there's some awful, game-breaking glitch involved. Using a Smash example, imagine if Falco's short hop blaster put you in permanent lockdown if the laser had significantly longer stun--so if you got hit by a single laser, that would lead to a perfect infinite that's impossible to break and is guaranteed to result in 999% damage. Kind of like the IC's infinite chaingrab, but requiring absolutely zero setup.
In that case, yeah, a patch would probably be nice, and probably required for the game to not devolve into every single tourney consisting of Falco's trying to get that first laser shot in. But for something like the IC's infinite chaingrab, you wouldn't need to patch that at all--considering the setup it requires, the counter characters that can be employed against the ICs, and just a generally different playstyle, the threat of an infinite chaingrab is much less menacing than it sounds. In short, it's not gamebreaking.
And that should really be the measure of whether or not patches should be applied in a game--a fighting game, in any case. If it doesn't break the game, why not keep it in? It just adds another bit of flavor/spice into the mix.
It's an attitude that I wish Blizzard would adopt in their patching of Starcraft 2. IMO, Blizzard is far too patch happy for the community's own good. I can understand patching reapers with a longer build time and later nitro pack research, considering how obnoxious they were and how impossible it was for zerg to actually get situated because of constant reaper harass.
But removing mineral boosting with its almost negligible 3% mineral increase? Taking out viking flower patrol? These kinds of small exploits are things that give a game an extra, flavorful kick. Patching them out of the game is just. . .disheartening. It just makes everything more bland. Blizzard isn't patching these things because they're gamebreaking or cause huge game imbalances--they're doing it because they don't fit into their specific vision of what the game should be.
And if that's the attitude that Blizzard had when SC1 came out, then we probably would've never had walling in with depots because they would have patched that. Or they would have done away with mutalisk stacking.
Their attitude towards patching in general is just depressing.
What i hate is that physical media is losing its value,i can play a 20 years old cartridge or CD without any problem.Now games ships full of gamebreaking glithes , 5 years from now when the patches are not available some games will be nearly unplayable (like the install patch on bayonetta ps3). I guess that's good for the publishers so we will buy those games again as digital downloads or remakes.
Patches, fixes, sure. Although it's a toss up between a games infrastructure and exploits that can be mind bendingly outrageous, hilarious, and entertaining to no-end.
With consoles having such heavy software, compatibility issues can arise from the simplest tweaks. It's fortunate gaming is going to continue to look upward. Gaming networks, persistent connections, if not for commerce than for community. I'm glad gaming won't go back, ever. This way is better. Even if this means that at some point or another, that epic glitch weapon you have in Borderlands turns into fart bombs and saw dust.
With consoles having such heavy software, compatibility issues can arise from the simplest tweaks. It's fortunate gaming is going to continue to look upward. Gaming networks, persistent connections, if not for commerce than for community. I'm glad gaming won't go back, ever. This way is better. Even if this means that at some point or another, that epic glitch weapon you have in Borderlands turns into fart bombs and saw dust.
You know, you are right. I love that slight imperfection games tend to have sometimes.
Like 20% of Pokemon game's fun was about the glitches included in them. They would make great rumors and also exploitation for personal gains.
Like 20% of Pokemon game's fun was about the glitches included in them. They would make great rumors and also exploitation for personal gains.
I don't see how the Mortal Kombat patches are against the players will, seeing as it tells you when it's looking for one when you boot up the game and lets you hit B/Circle to cancel them. Personally I'm all for patching the game so people can't just get me into an infinite and completely ruin online play.
@njsykora
i definitely would argue that snaking in mkds made the game better. it brought the competitive nature of the game to a whole new level. it made the game highly intense when you were racing other talented snakers, and i would say it put the game into the same league (adrenaline wise) as the f-zero games. mk wii is a joke by comparison.
i never could get the wave dash to work reliably in melee, so my opinion on that isn't as experience based as with kart, but i still could tell that brawl was inferior right from the start. it's really not the same game, much like the changes to kart, the latest iteration dumbed the game down and somewhat over simplified the predecessor. granted, the difference in smash isn't as striking, but we're talking about a fighting game here.
snaking and wave dashing are not bugs, they are game features. XD
oh, to get back on topic, i think that the current patch system is flawed, but necessary. without patches, hackers could (and would) ruin all the online games, so the patching has to be available. BUT, releasing games before they're finished isn't acceptable, period. i guess it's probably going to continue to be buyer beware on that front, as the industry is still having issues with quality control.
i definitely would argue that snaking in mkds made the game better. it brought the competitive nature of the game to a whole new level. it made the game highly intense when you were racing other talented snakers, and i would say it put the game into the same league (adrenaline wise) as the f-zero games. mk wii is a joke by comparison.
i never could get the wave dash to work reliably in melee, so my opinion on that isn't as experience based as with kart, but i still could tell that brawl was inferior right from the start. it's really not the same game, much like the changes to kart, the latest iteration dumbed the game down and somewhat over simplified the predecessor. granted, the difference in smash isn't as striking, but we're talking about a fighting game here.
snaking and wave dashing are not bugs, they are game features. XD
oh, to get back on topic, i think that the current patch system is flawed, but necessary. without patches, hackers could (and would) ruin all the online games, so the patching has to be available. BUT, releasing games before they're finished isn't acceptable, period. i guess it's probably going to continue to be buyer beware on that front, as the industry is still having issues with quality control.
Wave dashing didn't return because it was annoying as hell.
I feel like since it wasn't intended to be in the game, it wasn't really balanced out in the game. I don't mind it staying in Melee, but it's a pain in the ass to fight against.
I feel like since it wasn't intended to be in the game, it wasn't really balanced out in the game. I don't mind it staying in Melee, but it's a pain in the ass to fight against.
I like Brawl more than Melee because I like playing as Kirby and he's better in it. Others play to compete, I play to actually enjoy the Nintendo celebration those games are about. Can't play as my favorite character, than FORGET THAT. Melee was decent fun but I'm glad for the changes. I don't play smash brothers competitively and find it silly, personally but it seems a bit different than comparing it to the missing level. That feels like good extra unintentional extra content.
You're beginning with the false assumption that developers don't understand the significance in the history of those "bugs" that grew into treasured parts of games. If something in a game really is glitched or broken in a way that negatively affects gameplay, then yes, I want it fixed without taking the time to download a patch (because dammit those 14 seconds are of the utmost importance!). Some developers, granted, will "fix" things that aren't necessarily broken, but the gaming industry is an evolving, adapting beast that encourages those memorable little quirks, and I don't see them going anywhere. But anyone bitching about losing their cheap juggle combos as a way to even the playing field a bit more should just shut up *cough*Sentinel*cough*.
follow
