44,429
edits
Talk:Sequence break: Difference between revisions
no edit summary
(Response) Tag: Mobile edit |
No edit summary |
||
| (8 intermediate revisions by 3 users not shown) | |||
| Line 23: | Line 23: | ||
::::This is a message from [[User:Lord Breadbug|Lord Breadbug]], “I await you on the Bread Isle,” 08:07, August 31, 2021 (EDT) | ::::This is a message from [[User:Lord Breadbug|Lord Breadbug]], “I await you on the Bread Isle,” 08:07, August 31, 2021 (EDT) | ||
:::::Alright, it makes sense that all notable sequence breaks to get collectible items should be documented. But only the notable ones: the ones that achieve something significant (the Decorative Goo clip), or the ones that skip several tasks. This is because if you try to document every small sequence break, it becomes very hard to define what is or isn't a sequence break. Does taking a roundabout route to collect a fruit count as a sequence break if it allows you to get it without building a bridge? I don't think so. (If it did, half the fruits in the Tropical Wilds would be in this article.) I was recently discussing sequence breaks in ''Pikmin'' with speedrunners of the game, and it turns out that it's possible to get almost all the ship parts with just Red Pikmin, mainly because of the [[Glitches in Pikmin#Object nudging|object nudging glitch]]. Most of these, while they could technically be described as sequence breaks because they allow you to skip Yellow Pikmin and Blue Pikmin, would not be useful to document. There needs to be some vague notability standard before a sequence break is documented here. — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 21:58, September 2, 2021 (EDT) | |||
::::::I feel like all sequence breaks should be documented, but not all of them deserve a section. Tremendous Sniffer without bomb rocks can be included in a "Minor breaks" section, under a single bullet point, and be described in one or two sentences. It's still there, documented, but it's not taking up an entire section, since it's not as important as something like Early Winged Pikmin. I think it's best to document too much rather than too little – as long as it "breaks" any intended sequence, it's a sequence break, and it's not like minor, debatable breaks are useless. They're useful for people who want to know every little sequence break out there, and in games, quite a few important sequence breaks stemmed from very minor discoveries. | |||
::::::As for the path mistakes article having duplicate information, it's really hard to decide. I feel like the "correct" thing to do would be to document each glitch location and results in the path mistakes article. Then document the ways a user can ''exploit'' that mistake in this article. Finally, each article would also cross-reference the other for the complete picture. But that would suck, since people would have to hop back and forth between articles just to understand everything. Usually, it's preferred to stick to one article instead of spreading the same info over two articles, as to avoid copy-paste and forgotten update problems, but in cases like this, we can't just leave the user experience to suffer! An alternative approach would be similar to what was said above: use the path mistakes article to document silly mistakes, like Pikmin getting stuck against a wall, and then include a "See more" section or something that points to this article. In this article, we would document ''other'' path mistakes that are more important, given a much more detailed description, and given an explanation of how they can be exploited for sequence breaking. This way the path mistakes article would still teach readers ''all'' known path mistakes (even if it has to point the reader to a different page to do so), but the sequence break article can still have everything it needs to be useful and practical in and of itself. — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 11:11, September 5, 2021 (EDT) | |||
==Multiple Methods== | |||
I was trying to document some information on the Early Shower Room skip in Pikmin 2 and found that there are actually three different methods of preforming it (a faulty piece of collision that you can climb, a death plane warp, and a wollywog bounce). I was curious as to just how skips like this one that have multiple methods should be documented. I presume that we should write down every method, but what if they each have their own advantages and disadvantages? Both the wollywog bounce and death plane warp require the Napsack while the collision doesn’t, but the death plane warp is by far the easiest method. Should the section recommend one over the others or simply document all three and leave it up to the reader as to which they choose? Going to withhold on documenting any skips like this until we can reach a consensus. — This is a message from [[User:Lord Breadbug|Lord Breadbug]], “I await you on the Bread Isle,” 19:57, October 5, 2021 (EDT) | |||
:This is a difficult problem, and one I've tried to deal with before. For example, when documenting the Formidable Oak light skip, I documented a simpler version of the trick, rather than the fast method used by speedrunners, meaning the explanation is incomplete at the moment. There are some situations where this problem is even harder. For example, the Distant Tundra sequence break currently documented only skips building the bridge, but it's possible to skip much more of the area through the Backdoor Phosbat trick. But if one sequence break supersedes another one, is it worth documenting both of them, or just one of them, or having a subsection within the more substantial one about the less substantial one? It's a difficult problem. For your Shower Room example, I'd recommend documenting the easiest method in the "How to" section, and then, if practical, documenting alternate methods in the "Notes" section, along with their different prerequisites. But it's worth discussing this more to decide how to cover sequence breaks with even more diverse alternate methods. — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 00:08, October 6, 2021 (EDT) | |||
::I think that different methods and different versions of a glitch should all be documented in their own section. Different methods have different prerequisites, difficulty, videos, etc., and most of all, different how-tos. Not just that, but it becomes much harder for the reader if we just mix and match everything in a single entry. A player is only trying to perform one specific version of one specific glitch on one specific console. They would be forced to skip every other sentence that refers to a different method/version. So in conclusion I think one section per method/version is the way to go. If it makes sense, a given glitch can be a section, and the different methods and versions can be sub-sections. — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 15:30, October 9, 2021 (EDT) | |||
:::But then we'd have a mess of overlapping sequence breaks that would make the article really long. For example, we'd have "Formidable Oak light skip (Wii U version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe easy version)", "Formidable Oak light skip (Deluxe hard version)" in one section of the article, and "Backdoor Phosbat (Wii U version)", "Backdoor Phosbat (Deluxe version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Wii U version)", "Distant Tundra bridge skip (Deluxe version)" in another, and lots of other confusing situations like that, with lots of information duplicated between them. It would be a mess. What if we separated ''Pikmin 3'' sequence breaks by [[area]]? — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 17:46, October 9, 2021 (EDT) | |||
::::The article being long isn't wrong per se. Well, I think we can also make different splits. Like using bullet points inside of the "how to" part, with each bullet point referring to one method/version. Otherwise yeah, splitting the article sounds good. I think anything sounds better than turning the paragraphs into a plate of spaghetti... — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 07:24, October 10, 2021 (EDT) | |||
:::::Now I'm confused; the splitting by area was a separate suggestion to my main one, which is that similar sequence breaks should be documented in the same section, reducing the amount of duplicated text. The idea of having different instructions inside the "how to" part is a good idea, and some sections do it already. | |||
:::::Perhaps it would be worth not using the glitch template for these situations, or developing a new template? I say this because having an organized way to show different instructions with different demonstration videos and reproducibility is difficult with the current setup. | |||
:::::Another idea: having a branching system for sequence breaks. The Day 1 Escape section already does a bit of this with its layered dot points. An example of what I mean by this: In the Distant Tundra, you can go out of bounds near the Swooping Snitchbug. The method of doing this varies by game. From this position, depending on where you go, you can push down the iron ball early or you can go all the way to the Vehemoth Phosbat arena. A branching structure could allow all these tricks to be described in 1 section, minimizing repeated text. — [[User:Soprano|'''Soprano''']]<sub>[[User talk:Soprano|''(talk)'']]</sub> 18:21, October 10, 2021 (EDT) | |||
::::::Splitting by area might not make sense, since some sequence breaks let you skip content of multiple areas. As for a new template, what fields could the template have? Every method/version can be split in so many ways: different difficulties, different game versions, different requirements, different execution times... Maybe we shouldn't even use the glitch template at all. I remember saying before I wasn't a fan of using the template in this article in the first place, but I can't remember why. I'm not sure how a branching explanation could work 1. with text, 2. inside the template. Got an example? — '''{''[[User:Espyo|Espyo]]''<sup>[[User talk:Espyo|T]]</sup>}''' 13:27, October 11, 2021 (EDT) | |||