Your opinion on dribbling.
Comments
-
Which isn't the same thing as not having a proper functionality. The code is the way it is, and things that happen outside what they intend are bugs, plain and simple.
0 -
@Orion Yes, but devs can claim that something is an intended mechanic when what it actually was is a bug that they liked the effect of. Bethesda does it all the time. No one is saying that the dev's opinions are worthless, just that perhaps they shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel and rather we should look to the game itself to work out whether a tactic is gamebreaking or not.
0 -
@Fibijean said:
@Orion Yes, but devs can claim that something is an intended mechanic when what it actually was is a bug that they liked the effect of. Bethesda does it all the time. No one is saying that the dev's opinions are worthless, just that perhaps they shouldn't be taken as infallible gospel and rather we should look to the game itself to work out whether a tactic is gamebreaking or not.Are people not allowed to change their minds? They're still the ones who decide what is and isn't an exploit.
0 -
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.
On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
0 -
@Fibijean said:
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
Well, the devs are the ones with control over the game, and exploits are things they didn't intend and don't want in the game. Explain why their word isn't the only word that matters when it comes to what they're making.
People who believe in "Death of the Author" strike me as the type who'd argue with God about humans being bipedal.
0 -
@Orion said:
@Fibijean said:
@Orion not when it comes to intentions, because intentions are a situational thing. You intend something in the moment. You can change your opinions after the fact, but you can't change your original intentions. So if we're going to define an exploit as something which exists outside of what the devs intended for a particular mechanic, then no, they can't change their minds.On the other hand, if we're defining it instead as existing outside of how the devs think something should work, then yeah they can change their minds about whether something is an exploit, but opinions are subjective, which brings us back to the question of whether the devs' opinions should be taken as gospel or simply another perspective to consider.
Well, the devs are the ones with control over the game, and exploits are things they didn't intend and don't want in the game. Explain why their word isn't the only word that matters when it comes to what they're making.
People who believe in "Death of the Author" strike me as the type who'd argue with God about humans being bipedal.
(Except that God by definition is actually infallible and the devs are... well, human, and therefore fundamentally flawed, so it's not quite the same thing.)
That aside, because I'm not really interested in derailing the topic by debating religion of all things... their word is, arguably, what matters when it comes to determining their intentions, as long as we're accepting that as our definition of an exploit. However, I think Wahara 's original point was not necessarily that the devs' word doesn't matter, but if their actions contradict their words, it's their actions that tell the true story. So in the case of dribbling, they choose to believe that it's not an exploit not because the devs say so but because it makes sense in the context of the devs' actions, that is, their work, the game they created. But if the devs were to say something outlandish like "decisive strike is the weakest survivor perk in the game", yes they created the perk and the game and they may have meant for it to be a weak perk, but the evidence provided by the game itself would suggest otherwise.
In the case of exploits, as I said, it comes down to how we define the term. If we accept the definition as being that an exploit is anything that is possible but that the devs didn't intend to make possible (although personally I would argue that that's the definition of a bug, which is different from an exploit) then I totally agree that the devs' intentions are all that matter in defining whether something is or isn't an exploit, and the devs are the only ones who can tell us what their intentions were. However, in general, I think it's not a good idea to take the attitude of "the devs said so, so they must be right" because there are situations in which they might not be, and it would be wise in those situations to look at the evidence presented rather than just taking their statements at face value.
1 -
I don't really care either way. Doing it has its own risks and it's just not something I care about.0
-
_ However, I think Wahara 's original point was not necessarily that the devs' word doesn't matter, but if their actions contradict their words, it's their actions that tell the true story. So in the case of dribbling, they choose to believe that it's not an exploit not because the devs say so but because it makes sense in the context of the devs' actions, that is, their work, the game they created. But if the devs were to say something outlandish like "decisive strike is the weakest survivor perk in the game", yes they created the perk and the game and they may have meant for it to be a weak perk, but the evidence provided by the game itself would suggest otherwise._
That's better. Yeah, basically that.
0
