next »

[darkhog]

This topic would be probably more suitable for Gamasutra forums, if it would have one (gosh, I wish it would). Anyway... Do you think we should leave bugs that are "fun" (example: swing sets in gta IV) or fix them anyway? And if leaving fun bugs according to you is the way to go, what impact does it have on game's design?

What are your opinion on this?

[{VeTeR}]

IMHO: If the bugs don't collide with gameplay and don't break players immersion, you can use them as "easter eggs", that can be real fun

[Snail_Man]

It really depends.
Some bugs and glitches can be fun to leave in, I agree, but you need to seriously look at them first.
If the bug can be triggered accidentally, and can even potentially be annoying, you should take it out. If the bug was, say, that you bounce high into the air every time you hit the ground in a certain way, this could become incredibly frustrating if there was, say, a low ceiling of spikes.
If the bug allows the player to circumvent challenges in the game, you should take it out. Remember, if the player discovers something that works all the time, they won't have any incentive to ever use anything else.

[darkhog]

If the bug allows the player to circumvent challenges in the game, you should take it out.

Speaking of which, I heard a rumor that reason Kirby can fly is that programmers at HAL labs didn't know how to implement double jump.

Anyway, your post is very true, I agree with it. The thing is, we need to get difference between fun bug and outright exploit (like skip challenges one). This thread is about fun bugs.

[Snail_Man]

Reminds me of my Mini Ludum Dare 48 game, Fretz. It was one of the first games I made in Javascript, and when I tried to make a platform engine, there ended up being all these cool bugs, which I then shaped the game around

[Moth]

Gunz is a game where exploitable bugs were found, and instead of trying to get the developers to fix the exploits, everyone learned how to utilize them and they became an integral part of the meta. The result is this weird game where people fly up walls by using sword attacks and dashing to break inertia from wallkicks, and everyone liked it more that way. Without the variety the bugs brought to the table, it would have had a lot shorter of a lifespan than it did. In this case, exploits were fun bugs.

See also, Wavedashing; not a glitch technically, but may as well be considered one as it's unintended and Sakurai didn't like its effects on the meta. It was taken out in Brawl. And then put back into Brawl via Project M.

Really, no one can say whether you should leave a bug in besides yourself and your players. Since bugs can be literally anything, it can't really be said broadly what effect a bug will have on a game's design. If you or players like it and you think it adds to the game, why not leave it in? Players widely disliking the bug would be the only reason not to. There is also the consideration that bugs can break verisimilitude and make your game look cheap, but on the flip-side there could be some contexts where bugs could seem intentional and blend right in, such as surreal horror- a genre where bugs are frequently faked. I personally can't recall a time where I really enjoyed an aesthetic bug and it added to a game for me.

[Sik]

Speaking of which, I heard a rumor that reason Kirby can fly is that programmers at HAL labs didn't know how to implement double jump.

Kirby's flying is basically uncapped double jumping, and that's extremely easy to fix (just add a flag), so I imagine it was done on purpose.

[ThemsAllTook]

It depends somewhat on the aesthetic of your game and your target demographic. Some games thrive on "fun" bugs (usually through wacky physics), but my feeling is that if you discover something that's enjoyable via a bug, you're better off fixing the bug and implementing something similar intentionally so you can verify that it actually works as you expect. A bug is by definition something that's broken in your code, and I find it harder to take a game or developer seriously if they're fully aware of a problem and choose not to fix it.

[battlerager]

Fighting game combos and many now beloved mechanics in Dota started out as bugs or glitches - it really has to happen on a case by case basis.

[Sik]

Combos were found out after release though.

[Moth]

sequels leaving combos in can be considered an updated version of the game choosing to keep 'em though 

[Preece]

The larger lesson, to me, is capitalizing on what you discover as you iterate on a design. Lots of strange and unintended experiences occur during development. Some of them hold some interest, and are worth seeing how you can use them and refine them. So, you can keep interesting bugs, but perhaps a better idea is to think about why the bug is worth keeping in the first place and then put some conscious design behind it.