There is no such thing as a "glitch" or an "exploit". Developer intent cannot be quantified, nor is it relevant - everything in a videogame becomes intentional upon publishing. Therefore, there is nothing wrong with abusing "glitches" or "exploits", no more than using any unbalanced tactic, move, character, item. Balancing is the developer's job. The player's job is to win at all costs, and if winning isn't fun, the game is bad.
>>740372169>Developer intent cannot be quantified, they literally say it retard
>>740372169>Can't be quantified, no relevant>Everything is intentionalMake your mind >Plyers job is to winWhat about having fun retard?
>>740372169how the fuck did you come up with this thought
>>740375898Developers make the fun, not the player>Make your mind Games are an expression of the developer, once the expression is finalized, it becomes separate from the developer>>740376263Education
Hows this different to a aimbots mindset
>>740372169ITT: butthurt hipster devs mad their "vision" is surpassed by emergent gameplay Protip: Emergent gameplay is what makes games replayable and extra fun.
>>740376589Cheats are external. "Glitches" are internal. You must use every part of the buffalo.
>>740376417I said have fun, not make. The point of a game is to have fun, there is no player "job", if it's a job it's not a game.>Detached from authorThat's not what you wrote, and it adds nothing to your point.
>>740372169you're right in a singleplayer context but in a multiplayer one this breaks down.
>>740372169you're mixing up two completely different points and sound like a retard because of it
>>740372169I don't think we gain much from eliminating glitches as a category. There are certain actions that most people agree are separate from intended game mechanics, and having that separation can be useful.Now, as to whether using glitches is "okay" or not, it depends on multiple factors like the type of game and what the glitch does, so I don't think a blanket statement can be applied.
>>740377527There is no such thing as "singleplayer". All games are player vs developer.>>740377394It's the game's job to be fun. Players can introduce infinitely many restrictions on what should and shouldn't be done, at that point the player becomes the developer - is the player paying to develop? No, the game must decide what the player should and can do. Why do I have to cook the food if the "cooked" food I bought is undercooked?>Detached from authorWhat the developer wants is irrelevant once the game is formed and released. The player is not at fault for playing the game as it is, and shouldn't be informed by made-up fanfiction. What matters is what is, not what should.
>>740377741Nothing can separate "good noble funtime tech" from "evil broken cheat-bugs" other than consensus, and players will always serve their interest. Smoke companies will never say smoking is bad for you. What happens under the formalization of this rhetoric, combined with the imbalance of the market, where one party buys and the other sells, is that as time approaches infinity, the idea of a game stopping the player from winning becomes a "glitch", and the player must be guaranteed to win, at which point "game" stops existing.
