From Glitch City Laboratories
We don't categorize natural glitches anymore, as they all have procedures and there's no concrete way of saying "this step is a sub-glitch" or not. Also, nearly every page seemed to fall into that category.
I agree on calling it an oversight. The S.S. Anne truck shows they had thought of the ability for someone to trade Cut over, but somehow they didn't think of this example (nor did anyone else, apparently!). Sherkel (talk) 14:28, 23 February 2019 (-06)
- My counter arguments:
- Natural glitches are important, because they are on the boundary of intended behavior and unintended behavior. Of course the boundary can be blurry in some cases, but then, so is the boundary between "glitch" and "non-glitch quirk". I argue that we should use common sense to determine what is natural, just as we are already using common sense to determine what is a glitch, and accept that there might be ambiguities.
- There are many glitches that are definitely not natural. Most glitch Pokémon and their derivatives are not natural because they are not in the intended game, and must be encountered/obtained by the Old Man trick, Trainer escape, or something else. The Celebi Egg trick is not a natural glitch, because you mess up the game by making the bad clone. The fact the Gen II Daycare displays the money charged incorrectly if it's 10000? Not a natural glitch, because this only happens when a Pokémon goes up 99 levels in the Daycare, and it's impossible to naturally get a level 1 Pokémon.
- I would argue that things like soft-lock by not having enough money to enter the Safari Zone should not be classified as glitches at all, because the resulting game state is fine from a game logic perspective. ("Player should be able to proceed" counts as meta-game logic.) This glitch is more ambiguous, because the game always assumes that you can walk one step down from doors. But anyway, the real question here is not "natural glitch or not", it's "glitch or not", because this is definitely natural.
- By the way, you seem to miss the point: They did think of what happens if you enter the backyard from the east side, because when the Grunt escapes, the officer moves out of the way, even though you normally fight the Grunt after the officer already moved. This glitch only happens if, in addition to entering the backyard from the east, you have a full inventory, and you ignore the Grunt's demand to make room for the TM. (Or, I guess, you figure that the fastest way to make room is to walk through the house to get to the shop.)
- This glitch is taken from Legendary Star Blob, and they got the report from someone called おくとろん. All credits should go to them. --Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 15:46, 23 February 2019 (-06)
- While you're correct about the "boundary", I'm not sure it matters in the way you're implying it does. What in particular makes you say it should be such a big focus? The site's about everything past the boundary, regardless of how arguably close or beyond it a particular exploit or result might be.
- Sure, there are a handful of glitches that require crossing that boundary before beginning. Take any variant of the LOL glitch or Text pointer manipulation, for instance. The issue is that when it comes to procedures that need to follow another, there are a lot fewer that have their own pages. Results such as GlitchDex entries are completely separate from this. We could have a huge category for natural glitches that includes most pages that have procedures outlined, or even group all sub-glitches of a given one on the same page...but as you said, it can be nebulous which is which. The first option was an organizational mess, and the same would go for the other. I suggested a possible separate category for non-natural glitches at one point; would you be in favor of that?
- Not to worry, I understand what this is. The possibility the player has a full bag after trading Cut over isn't too much of a stretch.
- Thanks for the thoughtful response, anyhow! Editors like you are invaluable to the site. I'll add the attribution to Legendary Star Blob. Sherkel (talk) 21:23, 23 February 2019 (-06)
- To put it in other words, natural glitches are where the program actually goes wrong. Non-natural glitches are just ways to exploit an already inconsistent game state. If I want to fix all the glitches in a problem, I only need to go for the natural glitches. Same if I want to learn a lesson as a programmer. (Although to be frank, most Gen I glitches are stupid human errors from which there's no real lesson to learn.)
- I'm not sure most pages with procedures would fall under natural glitches. It seems to me that a significant portion of those procedures begin with "get a 8F", "have 255 Pokémon in your party", or something like that. Maybe my observation is biased? The "Generation I glitches" category had 314 pages, compared to the 104 on the list of natural glitches in Generation I, but as you said, some of those 314 pages are just results, others are terminologies or redirection pages, and maybe some of them are natural glitches documented after you stopped to maintain the list. Still, the list definitely saved me a lot of time in finding glitches that interest me, and I would hate to see it disappear/go out of date. --Bbbbbbbbba (talk) 02:30, 24 February 2019 (-06)
- Again, though, why is it important to know "where the program actually goes wrong"? The focus here was never reporting bugs, whether they're in the games' code or in their logic; instead, it's simply been about warping the reality of these games without external devices in whatever ways possible, some useful, some not.
- As for most not being natural glitches, maybe I'm biased too. Begs the question of what defines a "majority" here, I guess...I noticed when clearing the category that there were many that should have been there but were missing, on account of most of the wiki's work being done on a single editor's part. I can kind of see why natural glitches could be a particular area of interest...but to me, they're ultimately defined just by having less steps. I'm gonna start a forum thread about this so more people can weigh in. Sherkel (talk) 11:50, 24 February 2019 (-06)