Are you, in fact, a pregnant lady who lives in the apartment next door to Superdeath's parents? - Commodore

Create an account  

 
Interesting article on cheating in games

From Wired Magazine:

http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworld...tiers_0423

Lots of interesting points made. In terms of the three groups he listed, I tend to fall in between the "die hard" and "walkthrough." I like to find out as much about a game as I can, but after my interest begins to wane, I might peek at a walkthrough/guide to see what I missed.

dathon
"A fanatic is one who can't change his mind and won't change the subject."
"It is not the fall that kills you. it's the sudden stop at the end." -- D. Adams
"Don't you hate it when your boogers freeze?" -- Calvin
"Very funny, Scotty, now beam back my clothes!!"
Reply

I can relate to all three supposed types of gamers. It really depends on the type of game, how long I've played it, etc. On some games, I may want access to a lot of technical info about character skills, combat, and such that may not be included in the manual, but I may also want to avoid any information about secret areas, plot branches, and so on. In other words, I want the DM guide but not his campaign material. A lot of times I may try to figure out everything for myself the first time through a game, but on later attempts I may look at the walkthroughs to see what all I missed.

Modifying game code is something I will only do with games that I have played a great deal. I always like to start with the official campaigns and patches and see how the game was actually designed before adding a bunch of custom content by myself or others.

If you are trying to figure out the puzzles in the game or discover secret areas on your own, then looking those things up is indeed a form of cheating. You might still do it, but you will feel like you cheated a little bit. If you look at all pseudo-knowledge as a given, then the game is all about execution. Then using a walkthrough is not cheating. That kind of viewpoint fits a lot better if you are playing Quake (where execution is the biggest aspect of game play and pseudo-knowledge makes things a bit easier) than it does if you are playing Zork (where learning things about the game is in fact the entire game and there is no skill element).
Reply

Nystul Wrote:On some games, I may want access to a lot of technical info about character skills, combat, and such that may not be included in the manual, but I may also want to avoid any information about secret areas, plot branches, and so on. In other words, I want the DM guide but not his campaign material.

Well put. It drives me nuts to play a game where the actual rules are obscure. This often happens when the game rules are never actually stated, designed, or documented, but rather just left to some programmer's implementation. Think about "25% Chance Of Crushing Blow" in D2, where there's at least a dozen different permutations of actual rules underneath that wording.

And even a game with seemingly simple execution like D2 has tons of hidden rules in the form of timings and spacings and speeds. These rules don't even really exist in the code, but only in that code's execution over time. Heck, often such rules aren't even known to the game's creator! To perform at high caliber in this type of game, a technical guide is absolutely essential. I never regard discovery of game rules as cheating.

But yeah, there's a blurred line between when game content is a rule that should be well-defined and when the game content is the puzzle for which discovery is the game's challenge. Gamers differ as to where they place their personal line. For some, "what the code allows" is the final arbiter, or not even final if a Gameshark type device is introduced.

Incidentally, this is why I pick up turn-based strategy games more naturally than most others. They tend to define the game mechanics much more deterministically and precisely. And hidden rules are why I got sick of console RPGs, which I used to love back in the NES era. Seems like in every other fight, this weapon doesn't work or this spell is unavailable or so-and-so character isn't around. Some players enjoy having to adapt to unknown rules on the fly, and consider short-cutting that discovery process to be cheating. But for me that's just a new round of trial and error.

I also love pinball, which provides the visceral real-time arcade experience with almost no hidden rules. The final arbiter is physics - as long as the ball's not in the outhole, you're still playing. There's never suddenly going to be a boss who gets healed by attacks from the left flipper. smile
Reply

T-hawk Wrote:For some, "what the code allows" is the final arbiter,
I hear Sirian plays that way. lol

*ducks*

Occhi
"Think globally, drink locally."
Reply

CLive Thompson Wrote:From :

http://www.wired.com/gaming/virtualworld...tiers_0423

Games are the perfect philosophical métier, because they're both supremely meaningless and meaningful -- they're "just" entertainment, yet they plunge such deep existential hooks into us that we'll argue over them until the sun explodes.
I take it he lurked the lounge and perhaps the DSF . . .

Occhi
"Think globally, drink locally."
Reply



Forum Jump: