Editing Talk:Wavedash
From SmashWiki, the Super Smash Bros. wiki
Jump to navigationJump to search
The edit can be undone. Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then publish the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 35: | Line 35: | ||
:::Only the original developers can, of course. And this is exactly why wavedashing is such a debated feature: some think it was intentional, some think it was accidental. Ever heard "it's not a bug, it's a feature"? This describes the conflict of expectations between the developer and the user. | :::Only the original developers can, of course. And this is exactly why wavedashing is such a debated feature: some think it was intentional, some think it was accidental. Ever heard "it's not a bug, it's a feature"? This describes the conflict of expectations between the developer and the user. | ||
::::''(B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming.'' | ::::''(B) That's not the right definition of a glitch; a glitch is some malfunction of game programming.'' | ||
:::You are just saying the same thing, really. How do you define "malfunction"? Yeah, one thing malfunctions when it behaves differently from what it was originally intended. Even when | :::You are just saying the same thing, really. How do you define "malfunction"? Yeah, one thing malfunctions when it behaves differently from what it was originally intended. Even when you just want to hurt others, a gun does not "malfunction" when it kills people, because that was its original intention. No matter how one intended to use it, the weapon was designed to be lethal, so it might be an accident on the shooter's part, but it was not a malfunction. | ||
::::''Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements'' | ::::''Wavedashing is not a malfunction, but rather a byproduct of the use of programmed and correctly functioning elements'' | ||
:::The interaction between several "correctly functioning" individual elements can still produce incorrect function. The code to Jigglypuff's final smash was presumably supposed to be correctly functioning. The code which cancels movements due to landscape changes was also supposed to be correctly functioning. But the particular interaction between these two on a certain timing was not originally | :::The interaction between several "correctly functioning" individual elements can still produce incorrect function. The code to Jigglypuff's final smash was presumably supposed to be correctly functioning. The code which cancels movements due to landscape changes was also supposed to be correctly functioning. But the particular interaction between these two on a certain timing was not originally foresighted, and the result is now known as Gigaluff. | ||
::::''(C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment.'' | ::::''(C) Everything can be explained by the programming, but unless you're looking at the code and you find something that actual programmers couldn't, there's no basis on which you can make that judgment.'' | ||
:::As I said: the final judgement whether something is a bug or not lies on who defined the original expectations. Sometimes it's very easy to guess whether they were intended or not — applications crashing and freezing, for example, are quite "obviously" unintended. Other times it's not so intuitive — it might be counter-intuitive, even (say, a certain application might want to purposefully crash on some very rare scenarios). Judging by all the discussion that goes over it, wavedashing is an example of an unintuitive aspect, where it's not easy to know if it was intended/desired or not. --[[User:Nknk|Nknk]] ([[User talk:Nknk|talk]]) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) | :::As I said: the final judgement whether something is a bug or not lies on who defined the original expectations. Sometimes it's very easy to guess whether they were intended or not — applications crashing and freezing, for example, are quite "obviously" unintended. Other times it's not so intuitive — it might be counter-intuitive, even (say, a certain application might want to purposefully crash on some very rare scenarios). Judging by all the discussion that goes over it, wavedashing is an example of an unintuitive aspect, where it's not easy to know if it was intended/desired or not. --[[User:Nknk|Nknk]] ([[User talk:Nknk|talk]]) 07:28, 17 November 2008 (UTC) |