So I've noticed the recent lobbying over producing unbreakable Kaizo levels, it's taken that if a level is breakable, whether or not the break is easy or hard to achieve, it's a bad thing and must be fixed. I ask, why is this? If a level is unbreakable, then yes, that does reflect positively on the level designer's part, they've made a good level that takes into account every variable, nice solid level structures and designs..
But then what? Is it a bad thing that the player can skip over a section? Sure, it may cause the player to miss some material, but that's the player's fault, as is the case with skippable cutscenes. In addition, if a level is unbreakable, that makes all the TASes of it virtually the same, breaks can be what make a TAS very interesting and unique, showing off the prowess of the TASer, and in my opinion, doesn't say anything bad about the designer, it was just an oversight.
Of course, if the break was as simple as shell-jumping over a maze, there may be a problem. But even if the break requires wall-jumping and block duplication, both are taken in the same way as a bad thing. Shouldn't there be a subjective line, based on the observer, of how bad a break should be for the level designer to make a fix for it? Would it be best if the level designer were to choose which breaks to fix and which breaks to let live, or are they already obligated to fix all of them?
But then what? Is it a bad thing that the player can skip over a section? Sure, it may cause the player to miss some material, but that's the player's fault, as is the case with skippable cutscenes. In addition, if a level is unbreakable, that makes all the TASes of it virtually the same, breaks can be what make a TAS very interesting and unique, showing off the prowess of the TASer, and in my opinion, doesn't say anything bad about the designer, it was just an oversight.
Of course, if the break was as simple as shell-jumping over a maze, there may be a problem. But even if the break requires wall-jumping and block duplication, both are taken in the same way as a bad thing. Shouldn't there be a subjective line, based on the observer, of how bad a break should be for the level designer to make a fix for it? Would it be best if the level designer were to choose which breaks to fix and which breaks to let live, or are they already obligated to fix all of them?