In almost all single player PC games since their first conception there has been a cheat mode, or at least various ways to artificially increase the relative strength of the player in order to easily beat the game. These are usually activated by pressing keys in a certain sequence during gameplay, such as the phrase gabbagabbahey (name that game!) or by means of console commands such as in the Quake series. The cheats can range from the ubiquitous god mode, to spawning extra units or a providing the player an instant cash injection, or simply a written walk through of an adventure title by someone who has previously completed the game.
Now clearly cheats are originally coded into the game for developer testing and QA purposes, but of course it's never long before the codes are leaked onto public forums, either by the developers themselves or by players poking around in the code.
But, given the opportunity is there, what causes people to actually use the cheat codes? Does it matter? Does the temptation to bypass the challenge so carefully laid out by the game designers detract from the overall entertainment value?
Personally, I make every effort to avoid using cheats, at least during the first play through of a new title. A well designed and balanced game should provide the right level of challenge and not require any kind of cheat to get through it. If I have no recourse but to use them, I feel it rather cheapens the experience but is usually due to an impossibly hard level that would otherwise prevent me from seeing the rest of the content (and 'getting my money's worth). Two examples that spring to mind are the last level of Syndicate Wars and the finale of STALKER. Even then I would use the cheats sparingly. It's an odd mentality though, especially if you take an X: Beyond the Frontier sandbox scenario, where I would sooner leave the simulation running over night to generate cash from my trading empire than use a cheat to inject the same amount into my wallet instantly. The end result was exactly the same, but on the one hand it was achieved by means of something I had crafted myself and was somehow more satisfying.
Furthermore, cheating tends to perpetuate. Once I 'give up' and use a cheat it becomes easier to do it again, and I soon find myself bypassing more and more of the game's challenges. After a while the game loses its entertainment value and becomes merely an exercise in completing the content, if nothing else than to say it's finished and can be consigned to the DVD rack of doom. On the other hand, there are rare occasions when a cheat might actually extend the enjoyment of the game, such as the -savegame cheat in the original Operation Flashpoint that otherwise was limited to one save per mission (which was crazy, given how often you go splatted).
Are cheats a good thing? Or can they ruin the game? Do you or have you used them yourself? Discuss!
Wall of text endeth.
gabbagabbahey
Moderator: Forum Moderators
I agree with pretty much all your points there. I'll only use a cheat if I think I'll never play a game again because I can't get past some part, and even then it makes me feel like I've sullied my experience. However, a lot of people enjoy a game far more with the cheats, I've noticed. Particularly young players, they often seem to put the cheats in before they even try the game without, like some sort of achievement that they've 'beaten' it already by finding a way around the rules. Still, nobody horses anyone to cheat, so better to have the option there than not. Some games even have cheat modes in the menus.
Incidentally, it probably goes without saying that this only goes for single player games. Cheating in multiplayer is just crap.
Incidentally, it probably goes without saying that this only goes for single player games. Cheating in multiplayer is just crap.
-
buzzmong
- Weighted Storage Cube
- Posts: 7167
- Joined: February 26th, 2007, 17:26
- Location: Middle England, nearish Cov
Re: gabbagabbahey
It's a bit of an odd question to ask, because the cheats arn't part of the game so to speak. There's no game devised where you actually have to use cheats to progress so it's a bit of a mute point and it falls to whoever is playing the game whether they use cheats or not really.friznit wrote:Are cheats a good thing? Or can they ruin the game? Do you or have you used them yourself? Discuss!
I don't often use them now unless I'm mucking around to have fun, or if they really add to the game, such as in Jedi Knight II where I use the lightsaber "cheat" to make it behave like a proper light saber, not really a cheat as it makes the enemies sabers also act like proper sabers too, but it really adds a danger element to the fights although it does mean you carve through storm troopers like a knife through hot butter.
I normally only do it when I simply cannot pass something after giving it lots of goes. Farcry springs to mind near the very end of the game where you've got to fight loads of mutants with rocket launchers in the crater, I tried to do that about 50 times (not a lie) and ended up turning the AI off (oddly it's not a locked down cvar requiring cheat mode) in order to get past them as it was bloody impossible.
I have used cheats on HL1 to progress through the game, but that's because at the time I didn't know the level code cheats and I'd lost my save game in a format the week before, I couldn't be arsed to go through 2/3rds of it when I'd only just been through it.
I think that normally using cheats spoils the games, I can't imagine ever cheating through HL2 for example, as it's perfect in giving you the tools for the situation most of the time and the difficulty is generally spot on.
Cheating in RTS's just spoils the battle imo. Same for flight sims.
-
Grimmie
- Master of Soviet Propaganda
- Posts: 7672
- Joined: February 5th, 2005, 19:00
- Location: Birming-humm, England
- Contact:
I used to cheat in every game the first time round, and learn how to play it best through doing so.
Then I would revisit it at a later time and play through without cheating, using my newfound skills.
I sort of do the reverse now, challenging myself to complete something all the way through 'properly' only to revisit it later with 'pisstake' mode turned on.
> Black sheep wall
> Power overwhelming
> There is no cow level
Then I would revisit it at a later time and play through without cheating, using my newfound skills.
I sort of do the reverse now, challenging myself to complete something all the way through 'properly' only to revisit it later with 'pisstake' mode turned on.
> Black sheep wall
> Power overwhelming
> There is no cow level
-
Dr. kitteny berk
- Morbo
- Posts: 19676
- Joined: December 10th, 2004, 21:53
- Contact:
-
randomgazz
- Unicorn
- Posts: 303
- Joined: December 4th, 2004, 13:18
- Location: Manchester
For cheating I see the essential uses such as the disabling clipping in fallout 3 and oblivion as something required to stop me frisbee-ing the disk.
For other games I avoid cheating as part of my serious playthroughs unless stuck, but I find that cheating in games like the GTA series can really add more to the experience.
For other games I avoid cheating as part of my serious playthroughs unless stuck, but I find that cheating in games like the GTA series can really add more to the experience.
Tell me about it, going for a fucking tour again and again around the city because the three weapons you want are sold at a different store is a pain in the ass. Of course, this strictly after everything is available.randomgazz wrote:I find that cheating in games like the GTA series can really add more to the experience.
The only time I really cheat is looking up how to do stuff on Gamefaqs. This is mostly with puzzles in point and click type games or if I forget where I'm supposed to be going in an RPG. Although sometimes if I get stuck in any type of game it could be because I'm not doing it the way the game designer(s) envisaged, ie. I'm doing it the hard way when there's an easier way I hadn't thought of. The Internet usually has a better way to do it.
I almost never use cheat codes as the above is usually enough.
I almost never use cheat codes as the above is usually enough.
I'm not sure about HL1, but impulse is quite a multifunctional thing in source.buzzmong wrote:Impulse 102...isn't that the hl1 code for gibs? I think 107 was all weapons, ammo and items iirc.
81 gives you a weapon_cubemap, 100 is flashlight toggle, 101 is all weapons/ammo/items, 102 spawns a skull, 103 is info about target, 107 displays info about the targetted texture, 200 spraypaints, 203 removes the target entity from the game. That's about all I know of, there's probably more.
-
FatherJack
- Site Owner
- Posts: 9597
- Joined: May 16th, 2005, 15:31
- Location: Coventry, UK
- Contact:
I cheat loads. Well, not always, but I'm certainly not averse to it.
I think the only FPS games I cheated at were STALKER and Far Cry, I was close enough to the end that I wanted to see it, but they had just become an annoyance rather than fun.
Well-designed and balanced games, as friz mentioned, do not require it - but not all games are. Also some games which are for easy for some people are fiendishly hard for others.
I struggle with RTS games, either getting stuck or getting bored - all I can do is find easier ones, give up or cheat. To my mind it's just getting even - those games are just unfair. The computer can see all your troops, even though it pretends it can't. While I clumsily charge into a area defended by towers the computer never does this, it stays perfectly out of range and destroys my towers one by one. Fucking always. My most-used cheats are more to combat boredom though - instant building and resource gathering - sitting around waiting before I can do anything is just dull.
It is only when there's no other alternative though - I can tell if something just needs a bit more practice, a different strategy or a few levels building up - but likewise I can tell when I will never be able to do something, or at least am not prepared to put in the hours to make it so that I could.
I think the only FPS games I cheated at were STALKER and Far Cry, I was close enough to the end that I wanted to see it, but they had just become an annoyance rather than fun.
Well-designed and balanced games, as friz mentioned, do not require it - but not all games are. Also some games which are for easy for some people are fiendishly hard for others.
I struggle with RTS games, either getting stuck or getting bored - all I can do is find easier ones, give up or cheat. To my mind it's just getting even - those games are just unfair. The computer can see all your troops, even though it pretends it can't. While I clumsily charge into a area defended by towers the computer never does this, it stays perfectly out of range and destroys my towers one by one. Fucking always. My most-used cheats are more to combat boredom though - instant building and resource gathering - sitting around waiting before I can do anything is just dull.
It is only when there's no other alternative though - I can tell if something just needs a bit more practice, a different strategy or a few levels building up - but likewise I can tell when I will never be able to do something, or at least am not prepared to put in the hours to make it so that I could.
Last edited by FatherJack on July 20th, 2009, 14:47, edited 1 time in total.
As a vague tangent related to what FJ said, I absolutely despise it when designers give the AI opponents an unfair advantage, which could be construed as cheating. It's lazy and frustrating. An opponent should be more challenging because of its AI, not because it can take more damage, is miraculously accurate, or gets free resources. It's generally pretty easy to spot too. Admittedly sometimes the computer players need different rules to make the game playable, like the player taking far more damage than the AI in shooters, but there's a tangible difference between that and just giving the other guy an immersion-breaking advantage to compensate for shoddy programming. Of course, on occasion it can seem like the computer is cheating and it isn't. Particularly in games that involve random numbers like dice rolls. One that springs to mind recently is the tournament jousting in Warcraft. Lots of people complaining that the computer NPCs cheat, when in fact it was just a game mechanic that never affects the NPC because it doesn't forget to do things.
An unavoidable obstacle is the fact that the computer has access to all data whatsoever in the game, balancing it is more or less how many of those is it allowed to use. It's pretty easy to make an AI that just stands around picking its nose or one that steamrolls you on every occasion. For example, while it is slightly cheaty, the computer knows your exact location, it's up to the developer how much can they make it pretend it doesn't. Taking into account all the factors, I'd say today's mainstream AIs in strategy games are pretty good, and well in action games I seem to notice the UT trend, which basically is the bots seem too fucking hard to beat until they're on your team.
That the NPC doesn't forget thing you mentioned though Doggers, it's an excellent point - it'd be a better experience in games if the AI would actually have a chance of forgetting non-essential things; a buff, an upgrade, some sort of research, with easier AIs doing it more often or always forget something out of a lot of things, and harder AIs doing it little to never.
That the NPC doesn't forget thing you mentioned though Doggers, it's an excellent point - it'd be a better experience in games if the AI would actually have a chance of forgetting non-essential things; a buff, an upgrade, some sort of research, with easier AIs doing it more often or always forget something out of a lot of things, and harder AIs doing it little to never.