PDA

View Full Version : All video games should have an easily accessible "god" mode in them.


Cubsfan
12-20-2002, 09:49 AM
Well I typed up a long OP and hit a button by accident and deleted it so I will make this short and sweet.

I think all games should have a toggle, that is not hidden, that does not have to be unlocked, that will open up every facet of a game to its owner immediately.

I believe that I should not be denied finding out the rest of the story in a game just because I can't get past a guard or make a diffcult jump. If I paid $50 for it I should not be denied any features of the game.

I am stuck in Splinter Cell right now and am just too busy to keep trying over and over in this one level. I am a casual gamer and I enjoy the story and am too old to brag to my friends about beating a video game. I want to know the rest of the story but will not because I can't get past a guard without setting an alarm off. IMHO my $50 is not being recouped because of this. The game is great, no doubt about it, but a comsumer should not be denied every benifit of a product that they pay for.

Someone who does not want to use god mode does not have to and can enjoy the game playing the normal way.

The only exceptions to this rule I think should be for MMORPG or any online multiplayer games where one person has an advantage over another due to god modes. In single player games there is no loser if the player wants to use god mode. It should be thier choice.

So, I think that there should be an option that turns on god mode in every single player game availible. It should not be hidden and should not be "unlockable". If others can't exercise the self control neccessary to not use god mode if they don't like it then that is there problem.

Anyone else have a veiw point on this?

Waverly
12-20-2002, 10:06 AM
Yep, and those bar puzzles made from wood and iron or whatnot should come with pliers. Crossword puzzles should have the words pre filled in. The net at the local park should be lowered to 9' so I can dunk behind my back.

Whew! These debates of cosmic importance really take it out of you.

seal_cleaner
12-20-2002, 10:17 AM
My son has a Game Shark cheat device (and some other ones, not sure what they're called). He keys in all thses codes for unlimited power, or weapons, or free dental care or some other goddamn thing. Seems to take away the point, but at least he's not running a meth lab instead or something (wait......what's that smell?)

SuaSponte
12-20-2002, 10:21 AM
My god, won't anyone think of the children!!

Cubsfan
12-20-2002, 10:41 AM
Originally posted by Waverly
Yep, and those bar puzzles made from wood and iron or whatnot should come with pliers. Crossword puzzles should have the words pre filled in. The net at the local park should be lowered to 9' so I can dunk behind my back.

Whew! These debates of cosmic importance really take it out of you.

I think there is a serious difference between your pussles and basketball and the video games. None of your examples have sny sort of story to them, so if you don't win you aren't missing anything, AND you probably didn't pay $50 for them.

If I am into a story on a video game then why shouldn't I be able to see it to completion just because I am not twitchy enough to make the jump or "get the power up"?

Kendo
12-20-2002, 10:50 AM
I totally agree. For me, the game in question is Grant Theft Auto 3.

I admit freely that I don't really play the game in order to complete the levels. I just run around hitting people and stealing cars. I like it - it's fun just driving around like a freakin' maniac! (In a game setting, of course.)

But it'd be great if I could just have access to the other island that you apparently get to move to once you've completed more levels.

I mean, heck, when Doom first came out I spent at least 90% of the time in God mode with All Weapons because it was SO MUCH FUN! Back then it was easy to get into these cheat modes.

Another question though: If they put this God Button straight onto the Controller, what would it look like?

Peace out.

Ethilrist
12-20-2002, 10:51 AM
That's what I liked about Deus Ex. There were usually two or three ways to deal with any obstacle: frontal assault, tricky fighting, electronic mojo or just plain sneakiness. If something wasn't working, you could usually find some other way.

keithnmick
12-20-2002, 10:53 AM
I don't think so. Buy a movie if you don't want the challenge.

I don't doubt there's a built in cheat mode. It will surface.

hawthorne
12-20-2002, 11:12 AM
Near the sarcasm armour there's an entrance to the IMHO level.

Unless there's a theological point here that I'm missing, in which case GD it is. If satisfaction is found in becoming rather than being, does that mean "full ownership of the game" is meaningless unless one is eternal as well as omniscient? Stinkpalm
In single player games there is no loser if the player wants to use god mode.Is this true if one resists temptation? Or even if one resists temptation? How could one truly know regret?
Kendo
But it'd be great if I could just have access to the other island that you apparently get to move to once you've completed more levels. [all emphasis added]What a time for Polycarp to be offline. Are the pixels greener there? What of ennui? It can't be fully rendered on my system, but the game seems so dull without it.

Drastic
12-20-2002, 11:13 AM
I agree. Cheat modes should definitely be built into all games that a person is forced to buy.

Games that they can choose freely to purchase or not to are a different story entirely.

Waverly
12-20-2002, 11:27 AM
Ive never bought a game only to find, Doh! Im not invulnerable. You purchase any of those items, including the basketball and puzzles I mentioned, with full knowledge that they are meant to present a challenge.

To take this a bit more seriously for a moment (and only for a moment) game developers may have good reason to believe that if an element of challenge is removed from the game, it is a less satisfying experience, and therefore less marketable. I dont often see reviews exclaiming, Two in-opposable thumbs up! This game is so easy I finished it in twenty minutes.

Ethilrist
12-20-2002, 11:30 AM
Originally posted by Drastic
I agree. Cheat modes should definitely be built into all games that a person is forced to buy.
So, you'd advocate God mode for Freecell, Minesweeper and The Hearts Network?

"i PWneD YoU, dUd3! E4T kw33N of 5Pade5 D3@TH!"

Waverly
12-20-2002, 11:34 AM
I'd like to have god mode for MS Access.

"[_] 5uxxoR, 3@T |^|y q[_]3@Ry!!!!!!!!"

Epimetheus
12-20-2002, 11:40 AM
Cheat codes are a bad Idea IMO. Those built in and are easily accessible anyhow. In my gaming past, there had been countless times when I put blood, sweat and time in beating a game, and was damn proud of the accomplisment. When I would comment on it, there was undoubtedly some jerk off saying that it was no big deal, he beat it easily. (with cheat codes) :rolleyes:

I am appalled that so many people want the easy way out, because they don't have "time". This isn't just a debate about video games IMO, this is taken further.
People want to lose weight without taking the time and trouble, people want to be good at sport without the time it takes to practice, want their black belts without the 20 years to master it, the list goes on and on.
I don't know if this is an American phenomenon, but I wouldn't doubt it.
I have cheated at my share of games. I have blasted my way through doom, wolfenstien, half life, et al, by using god mode, and to tell you the truth, it took all the fun out of it. With God mode sitting in front of me, in easy reach; the slightest provocation made me type it in. Pretty soon I just said the hell with it, and played the whole game that way.

If they handed out Law degrees and Doctorates to anybody that wanted them, it would make the challenge and difficulty of getting them null. The challenge is beating the odds and acquiring them regardless of how difficult they are. The same goes for sports, video games, bodybuilding, money, etc.

If you don't have the time to dedicate to something, for fun or whatever, then DON"T do it. Don't ruin for those that are willing to actually work for it. Don't trivialize life just so you don't have to actually work at it. That is the jerky thing to do, and punishes everybody because only a few are too lazy to put in the effort.

If it is easy to get, it isn't worth having, if it is nearly impossible to get, the joy of even almost getting it is enough for me.

Thudlow Boink
12-20-2002, 11:44 AM
I believe life should have an easily accessible "god" mode.
But only for me.:D

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
12-20-2002, 12:36 PM
I don't care about God mode.

There should, however, be federal legislation requring all games to have in-level saves. :D

-- Dewey, who has been pissed off about this since Dark Forces.

Drastic
12-20-2002, 12:50 PM
So, you'd advocate God mode for Freecell, Minesweeper and The Hearts Network?
I've never actually been forced to buy Windows.

Granted, there was that bit of brinksmanship some years back where Bill Gates was going to put Windows 98 in the water supply, but he was backed down. But if the current plans for an airborne version of XP2Plus! go through, Minesweeper should have God mode.

The Hamster King
12-20-2002, 01:30 PM
Originally posted by Dewey Cheatem Undhow
I don't care about God mode.

There should, however, be federal legislation requring all games to have in-level saves. :D



I'm a senior game designer for Sony. Believe me, within the industry the save/no save and god/no god issues have been at the center of some fierce debates. It's not just developer laziness (or cussedness) that prevents all games from having an easily accesable god mode and in-level saves. Often there's a gameplay reason.

Consider saves. There are really two reasons why people save: Either they want to leave the game and come back later, or they want to lock in their progress in case something bad happens. As for the former, sure, let them save anywhere -- no one should have to keep playing just so they can reach a save point.

But as for the latter, it gets more complicated. If it's too easy to lock in your progress gameplay can converge on the quicksave-and-creep cycle common in first-person-shooters. Because most of the players are quicksaving their way through the levels, the difficulty level is tuned to support it, meaning lots of death and lots of retries and (IMHO) lots of boredom.

It's easy to say "well nobody is forcing you to save", but the truth is that people are weak and if you give them a tool very few individuals can resist picking it up and using it, even if it lessens the play experience.

Why does it lessen the play experience? The same reason that people gamble with real money. There's a big thrill that comes from knowing that if you screw up you'll lose something valuable. Choosing when and how the player gets to save is as much a design decision as boss design -- both are about shaping the experience.

Back to the OP. The problem isn't that Splinter Cell needs a god mode. The problem is that it's too hard. Providing a god mode would be a cheap fix for a deeper problem.

(For the record, on the game I'm working on now we're shooting for 10-15 hrs of play for a novice player to get from start to finish in the story. No god mode but the easy setting will be really easy. The challenge for expert players will come from all sorts of side missions and extra challenges. Anyone should be able to finish in 15 hrs, but finding and unlocking everything will take much longer.)

Ethilrist
12-20-2002, 01:42 PM
Originally posted by Drastic
I've never actually been forced to buy Windows.
No, you see, if you buy windows, it comes with Freecell, Minesweeper and Hearts. It wasn't "forced to buy an OS", it was "forced to buy a game".

Azael
12-20-2002, 01:48 PM
Minesweeper should have God mode. (http://www.geocities.com/TimesSquare/9448/winmine.html)

Drastic
12-20-2002, 01:52 PM
Nitpicking makes the baby Vishnu fuss.

erislover
12-20-2002, 01:53 PM
They do. It is called: "Being the programmer."

ElJeffe
12-20-2002, 02:33 PM
In addition to the (very much valid) reasons that Pochacco mentioned (senior game designer at Sony, eh? Cool. I'm just a junior game designer - how 'bout a job? :)), there is a marketing aspect to it. If there's a God mode in every game, then every game can be beaten extremely quickly. And if you can finish the game in 5 hours, why buy it? You can just as easily rent it, and see everything the game has to offer. And if fewer people are buying the game, well, then that's less money for those of us who make these things. And personally, I'm rather attached to my job. :)

I think that hidden cheats are fine for most games - they offer the opportunity to take the sissy - er, I mean easy - way out, but it's not something staring you in the face. Trust me, if there's a God mode there in the main options screen, the temptation to use it is awful, even if the game isn't ludicrously difficult.

Also, multiple difficulty levels are a great idea for many games, so that the hardcore can challenge themselves, without unnecessarily frustrating the novice. And if you throw in a little extra bonus for beating the game on "hard" (note: unlocking "Really Freakin' Hard" mode is a piss-poor bonus, in and of itself), then that makes the hardcore sect feel all the more special, while lending the game some replay value.

Non-long-winded summary: Blatant access to God-mode is bad.


Jeff

Ethilrist
12-20-2002, 02:44 PM
Shortly after Diablo II came out, my son was talking to a friend of his at karate class.

Friend: I just got this cheater program for D2. I can make any level character I want, with any magic items, all skills at max. It's so cool!
Son: And what do you ... do ... with this character?

First sign of maturity from my preteen son. A memory I shall always treasure (just like, the first book he ever read for informational sake was a player's guide to XCOM).

Buliwyf
12-20-2002, 04:10 PM
Just a thought, but I believe that things like God Mode in games are the reason that current games are nowhere near as story driven or as fun as the games I played when I was young. (Hey I turned 30 last wednesday, can I use that line legally now?) Ah the wonders of Zork and the original Ultima series. Gamers these days are in such a hurry to see what happens next they have to cheat. What ever happened to having an attention span?

Buliwyf

CyberPundit
12-20-2002, 04:56 PM
I agree completely with the OP.

Those who want a challenge, want to beat the game on their own etc can choose not to use the cheat mode. I never understand people who want to control how other people play their games. Why not give more choices so that everyone can choose their own preferred method?

Enderw24
12-20-2002, 05:25 PM
Games are so much more exciting without God mode on. I've played with it and the main thrill is being able to kill creatures in a number of wildly adverterous ways.
Jump through a wall and knife the main boss to death? Let's roll.
Want to bazooka the zombie from point blank range? Yippee ka yay mother fucker.

But come on. It makes for some wonderful giggles on the micro level, but taking the game as a whole I'd MUCH rather play without God mode. I'd much rather earn those levels. How exciting can it possibly be knowing you cannot possibly die? I get more fun out of the Smurf Adventures on my CalecoVision.

But autosaves are another issue entirely. I was playing Final Fantasy 9 and, at one point, the absolute minimum I could go between saves was 45 minutes. I timed it. Most of that time was spent watching videos that you cannot skip through.
45 minutes is too long.

Azael
12-20-2002, 05:27 PM
Ah but if you make it too easy to save, you start using the save feature as a crutch.

ElJeffe
12-20-2002, 05:42 PM
Ah but if you make it too easy to save, you start using the save feature as a crutch.


A very valid concern. The player has much less to lose when going around that Sinister Blind Corner when he can just save right before it. Knowing that if he's killed by a zombie, he may lose more than five minutes of gameplay adds some tension.

However, the sad reality of it is that a lot of us don't always have several hours to devote to each play session. Some of us frequently only have about 20-30 minutes. And for us, having to turn the game off without saving because you really need to go pick up your wife, or because the kid needs his diaper changed, is infuriating. When those are your gameplaying patterns, frequent save points are your friend.

You know what I hate? The Resident Evil style of save points, where there is a maximum number of times that you can save, ever. Not only are you hesitant to save - not in and of itself a bad thing - you can end up in a situation where the game is unbeatable, because you've run out of Magic Save Ribbons. Grrr...


Jeff

Dewey Cheatem Undhow
12-20-2002, 05:47 PM
Originally posted by Azael
Ah but if you make it too easy to save, you start using the save feature as a crutch. I know it's cliche, but no one forces you to save. If you quicksave too much, you have only yourself to blame.

If you want to bury an option somewhere on the options page that allows the player to select from no in-game saves, a limited number of saves or unliimited saves, and make the default setting no saves, fine. I don't care if you want to bury the option deep in the settings panel. Hell, I don't even care if you make the game call me a galactic pussy for choosing unlimited saves. But give me the option.

Because for all this talk of play-balancing, there's no getting around the fact that users are all different. Different people have trouble with different areas.

I recall one part of Half-Life in particular: I had to jump through a narrow window into an elevator. Simple, right? Uh-uh. I couldn't get it. I tried around twenty times without luck. Then I started looking for alternative solutions. Then I checked a a walkthrough to be sure I had to jump through this one particular window. So I went back to trying, over and over and over again, until I finally got it.

Note that I got through the Xen jumping stuff on the second try. I don't totally suck. Just for whatever reason, this particular jump was not happening for me.

If I couldn't save after I completed that jump, I'd have thrown my computer through the window. And I'd bet dollars to donuts that if Half-Life had limited save points, after that jump would not be where the designers would put a save point because none of the playtesters had serious problems with that jump.

I can understand if you want to liimit quicksaving; it's may be too easy to tap that F12 key (or whatever). I don't care if you make me exit to a menu. But for God's sake, let me save.

BlackKnight
12-20-2002, 06:16 PM
I think books should come with Cliff's Notes, unlocking every theme and message of the story. It would also provide a plot summary, in case I get tripped up on some words or a paragraph and need to get through a difficult spot. If I pay money for a book, I shouldn't be denied the full enjoyment of that book. People who want to read the book without the Notes can easily do so. I don't understand why anyone would want to control how other people read their books.

Epimetheus
12-20-2002, 07:16 PM
Similarly, I think banks are too inconvienent. Going to them and pulling out money before I go to the store is a pain the the arse. I think they should have little bank cards that withdraw money directly out of my banking account. That way when I see something I want at a store, even if it isn't important to me, I can buy it without any hassle. I think it should be the law to have one of these. I mean, if people don't want to spend money on things they don't need, they can just not use their little bank card. If you impulse buy often, you only have yourself to blame.

CyberPundit
12-20-2002, 07:19 PM
Actually there are several types of books, eg. Shakespeare plays, which come with detailed notes and long introductions which discuss the major themes of the books.

Furthermore with video-games it costs almost nothing to add options which for instance allow players to play any level without finishing earlier levels. And if the cheatcodes are hidden in the software anyway it doesn't cost anything extra to just put them out into the open. And in general I don't think anyone is claiming that adding cheat codes add substantially to the costs of the videogame; they seem to be objecting to them in principle.

ElJeffe
12-20-2002, 07:23 PM
Furthermore with video-games it costs almost nothing to add options which for instance allow players to play any level without finishing earlier levels.


Well, as I mentioned earlier, it costs the developers when nobody buys games anymore because they can just rent them and finish them in a night with God-mode turned on. Trust me, you really don't want developers to stop making money, unless you want them to stop making games, as well.

Jeff

CyberPundit
12-20-2002, 07:33 PM
"Well, as I mentioned earlier, it costs the developers when nobody buys games anymore because they can just rent them and finish them in a night with God-mode turned on"
OTOH there might be casual gamers who are turned off by difficult games and don't buy them at all. For instance Stinkpalm may have been turned off by Splinter Cell and may not buy Splinter Cell 2 if it ever comes. If it had a convenient cheat mode he might have enjoyed the game more and been more eager to buy sequels.

In any case I was referring to the direct of costs of making the game. What you are referring to is demand which is a separate matter and cuts both ways.

MEBuckner
12-20-2002, 07:33 PM
Moderator's Note: Well, I'm going to use my cheat code to move this to IMHO.

Phoenix Dragon
12-20-2002, 08:14 PM
Originally posted by Pochacco
But as for the latter, it gets more complicated. If it's too easy to lock in your progress gameplay can converge on the quicksave-and-creep cycle common in first-person-shooters. Because most of the players are quicksaving their way through the levels, the difficulty level is tuned to support it, meaning lots of death and lots of retries and (IMHO) lots of boredom.

I like the way Hitman 2 did it. You can save in-game, but your difficulty level determines how many times you can save in-game per mission. Lowest level, you can save something like 5 times on a single mission. Highest, no saves (Or maybe it was one, forget). Some of the longer missions award you "bonus saves" when you complete a certain portion of the mission.

For some reason, though, I've always liked games that didn't have in-mission saves, because it's more challenging, and gives a much better sense of risk and acomplishment.

And face it, Nethack just wouldn't be the same with quicksave :)

Roadfood
12-20-2002, 08:33 PM
Originally posted by Pochacco
I'm a senior game designer for Sony. Believe me, within the industry the save/no save and god/no god issues have been at the center of some fierce debates. It's not just developer laziness (or cussedness) that prevents all games from having an easily accesable god mode and in-level saves. Often there's a gameplay reason.

It's easy to say "well nobody is forcing you to save", but the truth is that people are weak and if you give them a tool very few individuals can resist picking it up and using it, even if it lessens the play experience.
The question should be, though: who should decide what "play experience" each individual player gets?

I totally agree with the OP. My feeling is that if I pay money for something, I should be able to decide how I use it. Who the hell are you, the game author, to decide for me how I want to play the game, or what will bring me the most enjoyment for my money?

An earlier poster made an analogy to other games, puzzles, and sports equipment. But the analogy was too narrow. Imagine, if you will, that a basketball is sold with the stipulation that it may only be used in a regulation, five-man basketball game, on a full court. Somehow, the makers have magically made it so that if you try to play a one-on-one game, the ball just won't bounce. "Well," argue the makers, "We believe that in order to get the full play experience, a basketball must be used in a full five-man, two-team game. Anything else just lessens the play experience."

Pretty laughable, isn't it? So what makes video games any different? Only that by their very nature, the makers are able to force their will on the buyer, to force the buyer to play the game only in the way that the maker deems "appropriate."

You wanna talk about lost revenue? The lack of easy cheats is why I stopped buying games altogether. The last game I bought was the original Tomb Raider. I played for a while, and just lost patience; I'm not a hard-core gamer, I play to pass the time and to be amused. But I really did want to see what was in the rest of the game. So I looked around on the net and found the cheats to get all the guns. I then played the game through to the end. I enjoyed it, and felt that I got my money's worth. But without the cheats, I never would have gotten very far, I would have put the game aside in disgust, and felt that I had been cheated by buying something that I only got a fraction of the total use out of.

The bottom line is that the person who pays for the game should be able to decide how he wants to use it and what will give him the most enjoyment for his money. You don't want to cheat, you want the sense of accomplishment of beating the game straight? Great, more power to you. But why shouldn't I have the option to play the game the way I want? You'd be livid if I forced you to use the cheats, why is it ok for you to force me not to? "Because that's the way the game was meant to be played, doofus! If you don't want to play it right, don't buy it!" Yeah, re-read my basketball analogy above, then answer this question: Hypothetically, if the magic existed to make the basketball that only bounces in a full game, would that be ok? You wanna play one-on-one? Sorry, the basketballs just don't work for that, so if you don't want to play a full game, just don't buy a basketball. It sounds so stupid to say that about a basketball, but not about a video game. Why?

Epimetheus
12-20-2002, 08:53 PM
Don't like it, don't buy it. They are not forcing you to buy or like the game.

BlackKnight
12-20-2002, 08:57 PM
Originally posted by CyberPundit
Actually there are several types of books, eg. Shakespeare plays, which come with detailed notes and long introductions which discuss the major themes of the books.

I know. I own the Norton Shakespeare collection, for example. I'm not saying there shouldn't ever be such things. I just think it's silly to think that every book should have them. I leave the decision for that up to the writer, editor, and publisher. If I want complete control over a work, I will write it myself.

Nightime
12-20-2002, 09:09 PM
Roadfood:

The lack of easy cheats is why I stopped buying games altogether. The last game I bought was the original Tomb Raider. I played for a while, and just lost patience; I'm not a hard-core gamer, I play to pass the time and to be amused. But I really did want to see what was in the rest of the game. So I looked around on the net and found the cheats to get all the guns. I then played the game through to the end.

So the last game you bought did have cheats. And yet you stopped buying games. That makes it sound like you stopped buying games because there *were* cheats.

And even if that wasn't your reason, it is a good reason not to include cheats. If a game designer feels that adding cheats will cause the people who don't like cheats to stop buying games, then of course they shouldn't add cheats. The game designer wants to make money. It's pretty ridiculous to suggest that they should put cheats in if it will cause them to lose money.

Personally, I would have much less desire to play a game if I saw someone tearing through it with cheats.

Hypothetically, if the magic existed to make the basketball that only bounces in a full game, would that be ok? You wanna play one-on-one? Sorry, the basketballs just don't work for that, so if you don't want to play a full game, just don't buy a basketball. It sounds so stupid to say that about a basketball, but not about a video game. Why?

This is a faulty analogy. You are comparing a subtraction (the ability to bounce the ball) with an addition (cheats). A better analogy would be to complain that the basketball does not come with a magic spell that makes you the best basketball player in the world.

CyberPundit
12-20-2002, 09:11 PM
"I just think it's silly to think that every book should have them"
Yes because adding these things add to the per-unit printing costs of books. Adding some cheat code adds barely adds anything to the per-unit costs of producing a game. In fact they barely add to the fixed cost either especially since the game will already have the cheat codes hidden somewhere.

Besides if you get stuck in a game you can't move forward. With a book you can just skip a difficult bit. Your analogy might hold if you couldn't access later chapters unless you finish earlier chapters. In that sense one of the things we want is that games be more like books or DVD's where if you find a particular part boring you can just move forward.

ThatGuy
12-20-2002, 09:11 PM
The main problem I see is that when there is an easily accessible "god" mode it may become too tempting to use it and cheat when you are stuck. Personally I enjoy the challenge (and reward) of getting past a difficult area that I must work at, a God mode would ruin that for me. Then there is the entire issue that i find most current games too easy to begin with. Now this brings to question perhaps having "god' versions and "non god versions" but of course I don't think any game company would put out that much effort.
So you just have to ask what you want, a computer program or a game?

Cubsfan
12-20-2002, 11:59 PM
I think a few of the soapbox-standers in here didn't understand the point of my OP. Some very poor and weak analogies have been made to compare to wanting god mode in video games.

I will make my own and hopefully those who didn't "get it" the first time thru the thread will understand my point now.

Imagine you are watching a movie, lets say Predator for example. You are watching it on DVD and have never seen it before. You get to the part where Arnold is covered in mud and the Predator is looking right at him. At this point (in fantasy land) you are required to hit the right sequence of buttons on your DVD remote in a small amount of time in order to see what happens to Arnold. If you fail to hit the buttons fast enough, or hit the wrong one, you are forced to go back to the last chapter and watch thru that scene again and make another crack at the button sequence. You fail again, wash, rinse repeat over and over. Now, you bought this movie (game) for the story and you want to see the rest of it but you can't because your thumbs aren't fast enough or your brain isn't fast enough, whatever. So now you have a movie (game) that you bought for the good story and you can't watch the rest of it due to your inability to complete the requirements of the DVD (game). You never get to see that Arnold gets blown to bits by the Predator and his skull is made love to by a pack of wild antelope.

Wouldn't it be great if you could set up this DVD so that you go go straight to the chapter to see what happened to Arnold? You did pay for it after all.

My point is that there are alot of good games that have good stories now adays and I should not be denied the whole story just because I suck at the game. Especially if I paid for it.

I never said that games are more fun, more satisfying, or that they even SHOULD be played using god modes. Sports games and stuff like that really doesn't make sense to have god mode, but maybe some other players wanna see the big graphic endeing when they win the big game or whatever.

I am saying that casual gamers, like myself, who want to see the story to completion should have the option.

BlackKnight
12-21-2002, 01:03 AM
If that's how movies were, and if I knew this going into it, I wouldn't have any reason to complain. If you want a movie get a movie. If you want a game, get a game. What you seem to want is more analogous to requesting that all movies allow user input because you don't always like where the plot is going. That is, it's expecting a standard that applies to one media to apply to another.

It's one thing to say, "I appreciate it when MediaX is more like MediaY." It's another thing entirely to try to make the case that MediaX should always be similar to MediaY in a particular way.

I've used god mode in StarCraft: Broodwar to defeat the final level. (I've since beat it without the code.) I sometimes like having the option. But I would never tell a programmer that his game should have one. Maybe it's just me. I hope to be a programmer someday soon. Saying that all games should have a particular feature seems to me like saying all books should have an index. Sometimes it works, sometimes it's unnecessary or even counter productive. I leave that decision up to the author of the book or program.

Epimetheus
12-21-2002, 08:53 AM
Oh please, who buys a game for the plot. If you want a plot read a book or watch a freaking movie. Games are to PLAY and be challenging. To pass the TIME. You know, the opposite of what you are wanting.

You are asking to take the color out of an orange.

The game industry caters to the majority, because that is where the money is. If the game industry thought that they would make more money YOUR way, they would do it. Unfortunately, casual gamers don't buy the most games, so they don't cater to them. If you don't like it, don't buy games, read a frickin book. Be a casual reader. Write your own books, whatever.

Just because you spend money on something, doesn't mean it has to be whatever you want. I payed 12k for my car, damnit, I want it to be a viper. Wah, wah.

Jeu_D'esprit
12-21-2002, 10:50 AM
I still haven't read a good reason why I shouldn't be able to save whenever I want to.

As for cheats well, as a member of that apparently loathsome class of casual/ not hardcore player, my question is:
Why put them in at all?

Cheats are just cheating. (Note: I'm not talking about finding that hard to reach secret door and a whole 'nother place behind it thing. I'm talking about having to put in any type of "code" to "unlock" a different mode of play)

Just follow the motion picture model. A hot new game is released, everyone picks it up and loves it- but with no cheats accessible...just straight forward play skill baby! Then after six months or so the "cheats" version comes out with all the cool extra stuff included...kind of like the extended DVD home collectors edition with 18 hrs of footage held back from the original cut.
Just like movies, some games will be released with cheats directly...the ones the company doesn't expect to be a blockbuster. They just don't tell anyone and cycle the marketing back through at the six month mark to snag all of those who wait for the "cheat' version to come out.

Just a ten minute thought on the matter. I await to be torn limb-from-limb by the gaming loyal :) .

kanicbird
12-21-2002, 11:06 AM
I really don't like the idea of god mode but would like ajustable difficulty levels. I have only seen this is vey few games but in games where there is lots of things to explore I often get into the situation where the diffuculty is too hard to continue or too easy to be interesting (mostly RTS games). Many times a RTS game will start out very easy on 'normal' level but the difficulty will be much harder at the end. ( would like to be able to switch from hard to start with then drop to 'normal' in the middle and possibly easy at the end (when I'm just trying to finnish the thing') with an occational switch to 'even a monkey can do this one' mode.

There is soo much more satifaction using the 'even a monkey can do this one' mode then using god mode.

Just my humble O

HoldenCaulfield
12-21-2002, 01:39 PM
Originally posted by Roadfood
The question should be, though: who should decide what "play experience" each individual player gets?

I totally agree with the OP. My feeling is that if I pay money for something, I should be able to decide how I use it. Who the hell are you, the game author, to decide for me how I want to play the game, or what will bring me the most enjoyment for my money?

(bolding mine)

You answered your own question. Make your opinions heard by the developers as much as you can, but accept that the creators get to decide what goes in the games; you get to decide which games to buy. That's the dynamic, and that's how it has been for a while now.

If you are paying someone to make a game for you, fire them when they don't include god mode; as far as the pre-made games go, find out if they include god mode before you buy them.

Revtim
12-21-2002, 02:14 PM
I play a lot of games, and when I come across a point that takes too many tries to get past, I'm going to cheat past it. The only "gaming experience" I'm cheating myself out of is the chance to play the same scenario over and over and over dozens of times. I'm suppose to like that?

I will never knowingly buy a game without in-game saves or without a cheat mode. I despise having to try the same goddam thing over and over.

HPL
12-23-2002, 02:15 AM
Originally posted by Epimetheus
Oh please, who buys a game for the plot. If you want a plot read a book or watch a freaking movie. Games are to PLAY and be challenging. To pass the TIME. You know, the opposite of what you are wanting.

Actually, there are games out there have very intricate and interesting plots.

Planescape Torment is one, Final Fantast Tactics is one. There are times I will buy a game for the plot, and often I am not disappointed.

And not everyone reads books, watches movies or plays games to pass the time, but rather for the experience they offer. Wether that be the experience of solving puzzles in a graphical environment or driving over a (Insert enemy group here) attack force.

Most of the time I will go without cheats, though I have reached points where I had to resort to them to continue, usually becuase of a section or boss that is too difficult to beat by other means. Or because I just frankely want to finish the game and move on to the next one.

So I'm more in the "okay with cheats" camp even though how much of them I use depends a lot on the game.
Of course, that only applies to Single player. Anyone who uses Cheats on mutiplayer should be shot.

Edward The Head
12-23-2002, 09:07 AM
There are some of us that like to play games, are not really damn good, don't have a hell of a lot of time, and do buy a lot of games. Granted I haven't bought a game in a long time now because they take to damn long even with the cheats.

I'll tell you what I really hate though and that's damn near impossible jumps or timed crap that if you don't do perfectly you die. I give up on games if I spend three f'ing hours trying to make one jump. I bought Indiana Jones a year or so ago and got through it pretty easy til I needed to push a crate under a hole in the ceiling and jump up. Easy huh? I never got through that part. I even got a cheat book to make sure I was doing it right and I was and still it wouldn't let me though. I'm a huge Indy fan and just couldn't stand it after that. Even with the cheats I didn't finish it.

I say that cheats for a lot of people make the game more fun, I wouldn't play at all if I need to start the game with a pistol and shoot 50 guys in two seconds with it. Hell it still takes me hours to play a game with cheats on.

Who_me?
12-23-2002, 11:41 AM
I don't care if they offer cheats on every game that comes out, I won't use them. I have friends that buy the cheat manual at the time they buy the game. One of them came by one day and was watching me play Final Fantasy 7. Then looked puzzled and ask me where the book was. I told him that I didn't have one, and he had the nerve to look at me like I was crazy.

And yes, I finished it, without the book. If I'm paying $50.00 for a game, I want it to be a challenge. I want it to be tough. I want to have to work at it.

Shalmanese
12-23-2002, 02:24 PM
One of the temptations of cheating is that you don't JUST use it for that one scene. Once you have discovered god mode, you go back to it again and again. I usually try to play through a game at least once all the way through without cheats and THEN whip out cheats to have some fun. IMHO, it completely ruins all the tension when you blithly walk right through a carefully scripted event without batting an eye.

One example that comes to mind would be the big 3 headed mostor thing in the pit in Half Life. That damn thing took me 3 hours to get past but if I had just turned on god and finished it in 5 mins, I would have lost a lot of valuable gameplay.

kanicbird
12-23-2002, 04:06 PM
And yes, I finished it, without the book. If I'm paying $50.00 for a game, I want it to be a challenge. I want it to be tough. I want to have to work at it.

me too but if I get stuck I want a way around it so I can continue the game

DKW
12-23-2002, 06:19 PM
Whew, lotta issues here. All of which I've tackled to some extent ever since I got my first Game Genie.

Let's start with the obvious one...

Re. challenge
Okay, there's something you all have to understand...there's a difference between real challenge and fragged-up challenge.

Swing Away Golf has a plethora of events and contests, and it'll take you years before you're close to beating them all. That's real challenge.

The Gradius games kill you off once every few seconds, and several bosses are completely impossible. That's fragged-up challenge.

Klonoa 2: Lots of ingenious, layered puzzles, tricky bosses, and hidden surprises. Real challenge.

WWF/WWE (any recent game): Opponents do attack after attack after attack after attack on you, you can do almost nothing to respond, and certain matches are completely unwinnable. Fragged-up challenge.

Myst: Start with absolutely nothing, story revealed to you in bits and pieces, lots of exploring to do, and the final choice determines everything. Real challenge.

Bard's Tale: Never have any idea what to do, ever, completely blind half the time, and some of the tougher monsters can beat you with their pinkies. Fragged-up challenge.

It goes on and on. The point is, challenge should not equal torture. And I don't feel the slightest twinge of guilt in using my Gameshark 2 or whatever else is available to change or eliminate a torturous part of any game, which as far as I'm concerned doesn't belong there in the first place.

In my expereince, games which sacrifice anything and everything for challenge, challenge, challenge, challengechallengechallengeCHALLENGECHALLENGE are the worst pieces of dreck I've ever been subjected to. Challenge is never enough. There has to be an actual game there.

Re. "Too easy"; expect everything handed to you etc.
Look, guys...it's a game. Not law school. Not an emergency rescue. Not running a household. Not serving as mayor. A game. And as such, it should be fun. And if it isn't fun, I take it upon myself to make it fun. I see games as an escape from the endless worries of day-to-day life...if it can't even succeed at that, what's the point?

Re. Getting what you pay for
Yes. Hell yes. No free rides, dammit. I'm not shelling out $45 for torture. Yes, this actually happened to me once (Graidus 2), and I've never felt more ripped off in my life. I'm mystified as to how so many of you are willing to absolve game makers of all responsibility because "you don't have to buy". Let me remind you that most places have strict return policies, and some computer stores won't even give you store credit if you open the box. If there's something I can't return, I expect to get some value out of it...that's where the Gameshark comes in.

Of course, if you're a programmer who doesn't mind the thought of alienating legions of players and preventing a lot of customers and potential customers from ever buying your works again, be my guest...

Re. Replay value
Three words...or rather, one word and two acronyms. NFL Blitz, PSX.

Without cheat codes, this is a screwy, gimmicky, broken game that's fun for maybe three days. Tops.

With codes, it opens up a world of possibilities. No first down! No punting! Same side always has possession! Hey, let's set a real touchdowns-in-a-game record. Or if you want a challenge, how about turning on super CPU players? A world of options that's just not possible playing it "straight".

And if your game has to be ridiculous, painfully, gut-wrenchingly hard to have any replay value, then as far as I've concerned, you've plain messed up. Even worse is the game that's that hard but doesn't have replay value. (I remember Mega Man for NES. Painful. Torturous. Made me want to throw heavy objects through the TV. Finished in two days.) I mean, look at Klonoa 2. And Capcom vs. SNK 2. And the entire Bemani line. Those people know what they're doing; why can't you?

Re. manhood, honor, blood, guts, sweat, etc. etc.
Good effin' lord. The fact that some people in the video game community actually care about these stupid issues says a lot.

There used to be a huge flap over players who hung onto the bar in Dance Dance Revolution, usually for the really fast songs (Max 300 and Maxx Unlimited were the most common). Some players loathed this practice and called it "bar rape". That's right, rape. An incredibly loaded term for something many players did out of necessity (hey, you try either of those songs lately?). Well, guess what, we now have a consensus, which is "Shut up and let them play."

And that's what I'm saying to all of you. Look, if you want to turn every video game session into Army boot camp, fine, but don't ruin it for the rest of us, dammit. You think codes are the work of the devil? Fine. Don't use them. I'll continue to do what is necessary to avoid turning into a screaming mass of rage, thank you.

Re. having to put of with annoying braggarts who use codes
This isn't an argument against codes. This is an argument against loudmouth jerks (many of whom play completely honestly, I might add). I have no problem with this. If I ever post mindless drivel about how I'm 1337 and everyone else suxors and crap, regardles of any extenuating circumstances, feel free to run me outta town on a rail.

Now if you're upset because someone thinks he's all that after using codes...well, get a damn life. If you can't even tolerate the existence of unusual points of view, YOU'RE the one with the problem.

Re. being able to see the whole story
Hell yes. It's one of my primary objectives of owning a game, for crying out loud. When I put good money on a game, I want everything. Period.

I'm patient, however, and I want the complete experience, so I'm happy to unlock things one item at a time. Like for the Tekken games. I'm not going enter a "get everything" code...that takes the enjoyment out of getting it all. What I will do is enter a code or two which makes it a lot easier to get everything the "correct" way. Even then, it's not a cake walk (having infinite health in Tekken Force is worth jack squat if you run out of time), so I achieve an appropriate level of challenge. Hey, that's a good thing! :)

But I'm not going to condemn anyone for "getting everything in a day". If that's what they consider fun, more power to them. I'm not going to ruin it for anyone else.

Re. Unlimited save feature as a crutch
Tell you what. When game companies stop releasing games with certain areas, enemies, or stages that are COMPLETLEY IMPOSSIBLE and which SEND YOU BACK WAY TOO FAR when you get stomped, then I'll stop using save states for that purpose. Until then, lay the hell off. I'm trying to protect what remains of my sanity here.

Think I'm kidding, right? Why don't you play, in no particular order: the Graidus series, the Bust-a-Move/Puzzle Bobble series, World Heroes 2, Aero Fighters 2, anything named "Track and Field", Xybots, and Fightingmania: Fist of the North Star. I guarantee that before it's over, you'll be begging for at least something as good as save states.

And, in summary:
* More choices are better than fewer choices.
* If you don't want cheat codes, don't use them. No one's forcing you.
* I think a lot of game are too damn hard, and I'm not stanidng for it.
* I don't want anyone forcing their views onto the games I'm going to play.
* I won't force my views onto anyone else's games.
* Games should be fun.
* Different players find different things fun.
* Ridiculous strawman arguments aren't going to dissuade anyone.

I'll be happy to defend any and all of my points. In fact, considering how strongly I feel on this issue, I almost feel a duty to.

HPL
12-23-2002, 11:50 PM
Originally posted by Shalmanese


One example that comes to mind would be the big 3 headed mostor thing in the pit in Half Life. That damn thing took me 3 hours to get past but if I had just turned on god and finished it in 5 mins, I would have lost a lot of valuable gameplay.

Half life I usually through most of it playing normally, but by the time I get the bouncing levels on Xen, on go the cheat codes just becuase I want to get the end and it's hard enough without playing like this is a 1st person, heavy-armed verion of Super Mario Bros. with Aliens.

HPL
12-24-2002, 12:10 AM
And Certain platform action games I really have no probkem with using cheats. If I play contra(or any one of the 20,000 incarnations to date), I want to finish in about an hour or so, not a week. This is considering there are no save points, just continues and if I screw up, I go all the way back to the beginning of the damn game, not just the beginning of the level.

Badtz Maru
12-24-2002, 12:17 AM
Contra? Contra was not hard. I never owned the game (it was a rental) and I got to the point where I could finish the entire game without losing a single life, and I'm not terribly good at those kinds of games.

levdrakon
12-24-2002, 09:09 PM
No, I don't think every game should have a God Mode. I do think every game should have a walkthrough for when you're stuck, and they do. I don't mind a cheat here and there tho. A little extra armor, health or ammo here & there doesn't diminish the game play for me at all. W/out it, I wouldn't last long. I still get hours & hours of fun.

I read the reviews before trying a game. If the game is really hard and not for the casual gamer, someone will say so. If I'm not sure, I rent it first. I don't want to rent a game, use God Mode to play through it in a couple days and move on. I just want to rent it to see if it's worth $50 to me. If I'm going to pay $50, it better keep me engaged for months, and most good games do, at my playing level. I've had Resident Evil for months now, and I've got months & months of play yet to go. I finally made it through Mario Sunshine, with a lot of help from walkthroughs and it was still hard as heck in places. My cost per playing hour comes out to practically free, and I had a lot of fun. A lot of fustration at times too, but geez, put the game away for awhile.

As for unlimited in-game saves, there have been a few times when I saved at the wrong time and found myself with too little health, the wrong equipment, etc. At that point I've screwed myself & had to play the whole level through from the beginning, anyway. A well designed game will have saves where you really need them, or limit the number of saves to force you to think about what you're doing more carefully. What's wrong with that? It's a game! So what if it takes you 50 tries to get past a certain point? Think how satisfying it is when you finally do?

If a game really sucks because it's impossibly hard, well you're the one that shelled out $50 for it. Buyer beware.

Ill Logik
12-24-2002, 11:28 PM
What Stinkpalm is saying makes perfect sense. It seems to me that a lot of you who are so against god modes probably don't want it because then you lose some kind of "ability" to do things others usually can't. Does beating a game without cheating really mean that much? I might be wrong, but I bet those who beat it with god mode don't feel much different. And to imply that "cheaters" just need to find a new means of entertainment is rediculous. It's a game. A GAME!! Let people get what they want out of it. If I want to blow shit up and never die, fine. If I want to waste hours and hours on the same thing, and that actually makes me feel good, fine. God mode or no god mode should not seriously affect your game playing experience, regardless of inherent human weakness when a "tool" is there to enhance their ease of use.

Urban Ranger
12-25-2002, 12:26 AM
Originally posted by Pochacco
But as for the latter, it gets more complicated. If it's too easy to lock in your progress gameplay can converge on the quicksave-and-creep cycle common in first-person-shooters. Because most of the players are quicksaving their way through the levels, the difficulty level is tuned to support it, meaning lots of death and lots of retries and (IMHO) lots of boredom.

Why would this be a matter of concern to you? It is his game, let he do whatever he wants. Why do programmers and designers have to be "smarter" than players and decide what he should do?

Originally posted by Pochacco
Why does it lessen the play experience? The same reason that people gamble with real money. There's a big thrill that comes from knowing that if you screw up you'll lose something valuable. Choosing when and how the player gets to save is as much a design decision as boss design -- both are about shaping the experience.

Again, who cares? You don't live somebody's life, let he does whatever he wants.

Shalmanese
12-25-2002, 03:46 AM
Originally posted by Ill Logik
What Stinkpalm is saying makes perfect sense. It seems to me that a lot of you who are so against god modes probably don't want it because then you lose some kind of "ability" to do things others usually can't. Does beating a game without cheating really mean that much?

yes, when your actions no longer have any meanngful consequences, you find it a lot harder to be engaged by them. I find that when I have cheats on, I just rush through the game in a half-hearted stupor. Any carefully scripted event is lost to me.

GuanoLad
12-25-2002, 06:12 AM
Then don't have cheats on. Why are people so concerned that their own gameplay will be compromised if other people get to use cheats? That makes no sense.

Here's my current situation:
I am playing the new Harry Potter game. I have about 0.1 power left. The only way for me to get power back is if I find a cauldron. I am in a section where there are no cauldrons, and have to get past these things that kill me if I come anywhere near them. I cannot use a past save, because there is only one save that is automatically saved over all the time.

I have two choices. Somehow get past these bad guys (and the next and the next and the next) with my 0.1 power left.

Or start all over again from the very very beginning.

I have no cheat mode (that I know of) to get me out of this - I am buggered. But this is an ideal situation where a cheat mode would really be useful.

HPL
12-25-2002, 06:45 AM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Contra? Contra was not hard. I never owned the game (it was a rental) and I got to the point where I could finish the entire game without losing a single life, and I'm not terribly good at those kinds of games.

I guess I just suck at platform action games. I seem to enjoy them a lot more when I can actually get through them. I don't have the time to commit to actually memorizing where every bad guy is going to appear and such.

HPL
12-25-2002, 07:11 AM
That being said, I guess it just depends on the type of game I am playing. I will not use Cheats on RPG's or most shooters unless they are horribly unbalanced. Same goes for Adventure games, Stragety, etc.

Action games (little spaceship fights twenty thousand other spaceships) I usally play for distraction, and basically just want to get through the damn thing. I liked Ninja Gaidian(and the sequel), but I also liked the fact that I could avoid being knocked into a ****ing pit everytime some little spawned creature flew out of the damn woodwork. being knocked into a stupid crevaise every 30 seconds is not my idea of a good time, being able to actually see some kind of progress is. Particulary when I want to move on to some of the other games on my list.

HPL
12-25-2002, 07:19 AM
Originally posted by levdrakon
So what if it takes you 50 tries to get past a certain point? Think how satisfying it is when you finally do?


That's assuming I make it that far. It gets really damn annoying when you make it so far and then get knocked back 5 hours. That's the kind of thing that would make a lot of people just stop playing entirely rather then spend another 5 hours just to reach the same point again.

Originally posted by levdrakon
If a game really sucks because it's impossibly hard, well you're the one that shelled out $50 for it. Buyer beware. [/B]

Ever played Black Dahlia? Good production values, interesting storyline, incredibly hard, and times, nosensical, puzzles. I liked the story, but you need a walkthrough to beat it because most of the puzzles, if not all of them, take far too much time and effort to solve (and I'm not the only one who thinks this).

DKW
12-25-2002, 04:51 PM
Again.

If you want to take on a level/boss/stage fifty times and feel an incredible sense of satisfaction when you finally beat it clean, fine. More power to you. But don't begrudge me a code that lets me past it on the first try, especially since I will reach a state of pure, unbridled rage long before even the tenth crack, much less the fiftieth.

If you want to deal with a bazillion enemies killing you every two seconds and find this fun for some reason...well, no accounting for taste. But I don't want to hear a sound when I use an invincibility code to bypass that insanity, which invariably drives me to insanity.

If you take great pride in being able to blast through entire armies of deadly enemies, where THE TINIEST MISTAKE spells INSTANT DOOM...fine. You da man. I'm not at that level, and I don't feel like spending the many years it'd take to get at that level, to say nothing of the irreparable damage my already-battered emotional state is going to take during that time.

If you relish the kind of challenge where you have to prevent an unstoppable evil force for a certain amount of time, and every second is absolute gut-wrenching horror, and it'll probably come down to the last second...well, it's your life (and sanity). Please understand that if I'm ever in this situation, the first thing I'm doing is punching in the code that makes it ridiciulously easy, trivial, and, yes, boring, which I find vastly preferable to suffering a heart attack every two minutes for whatever outrageously long period of time I have to hold out.

If you love racing games where your care has zippo traction and horsepower, you get burned constantly on nearly every course, and each and every race, test, and challenge is your worst nightmare come to life, well, hey, one man's meat. I view such experiences as aberrations on the videogaming landscape, and will take whatever measures are necessary to correct them. Win every race four seconds after it begins? Take all the challenge out? Hey, this is vastly preferable to destroying the game disk and possibly several pieces of furniture in the vicinity.

And if you don't mind getting absolutely ripped off by a video game manufacturer that really should know better...well, it's between you and your conscience. I'm far less forgiving, and nothing you say is ever going to change this.

I've asked it before, I'll ask it here. Why do you want to ruin it for the rest of us? What have we ever done to you?

kanicbird
12-25-2002, 05:22 PM
Also I never liked the idea of bosses in the games. I would much rather to have many little guys to fight at the end then this almost god-mode guy at the end.

ElwoodCuse
12-26-2002, 11:16 AM
Who buys games for plots? Lots of people. Including me. When I got Medal Gear Solid 2, the very first time I played it I used a spoiler-free walkthrough and played it on very easy. Why? Because I really really wanted to know what the story of the game was. After beating it that first time, I was then free to go back and explore the other difficulties and try and get all the dog tags (a great way to increase replay value).

I still don't understand why someone would complain about cheats being in the game. Just don't use them!

Look at Grand Theft Auto. Would this game be half as much fun if there were absolutely no cheats? How would you go around on massive killing sprees if you couldn't do codes for armor, health, and weapons? When you finish the actual game (using cheats or not), this is pretty much what's left. Having to go and buy all the weapons you want wastes time.

Great OP. This thread should be required reading for about 90% of the people that post on GameFAQs' message board.

7string
12-26-2002, 04:15 PM
Maybe it's that the people who hate cheats don't have lives, jobs, girlfriends, etc.... The only thing these people have to give them a sense of accomplishment in life is playing a game that doesn't have cheats.

If the game had cheats they (being total and complete losers in real life) don't have the will power to resist using them. That would make their life pointless. Then they'd have to join the ranks of the real. They couldn't brag to their other loser friends that they beat game/boss "X" without cheats 'cause none of their freinds would beleive them.

I have a job. I have a wife. I have hobbies. I am a casual game player. I bet that I spend more than average on games. I want cheats. Most of the people, whom exist in the real world, whom I know, feel the same way.

Put cheats in every game. If you don't want to, don't use them. If you tell me I CAN'T use them I will stop buying your games (as will a large population of people with jobs/money). The industry will take a big hit.

MaxTheVool
12-27-2002, 03:29 AM
(a) a very large number of people posting in this thread are being pretty jerkish ("you can't beat the game without cheats? You're a loser! We don't want your money polluting our industry!" "You have time to play without cheats? Get a job and a girlfriend, you loser!")

(b) after sifting out all the noise, two conclusions emerge:
(i) some intelligent, rational, articulate people don't like their games to have cheats, god-modes, and unlimited in-game saves
(ii) others do

(c) Thus, it's not surprising that the default solution most game companies implement these days is that there are cheats and god modes, but they are hidden, so that they're not constantly staring you in the face, but they're there if you want them

(d) That said, if I were developing a game (and I do, in fact, write games for a living) which had a storyline with various puzzles or levels that had to be completed to move forward, I would implement some system or other to keep players from getting completely stuck and frustrated and giving up. For instance, hints can start popping up after a certain number of repetitions. Or the difficultly level of the game can automatically scale itself. Also, it's very important that save points be placed thoughtfully and logically.

(e) Maybe when you install a game, it should be installable in two totally different modes, one of which had cheats turned on and menu-accessible, and on with no cheats at all. So if you're hardcore, you go for the second option, and they're not even there. If you're softcore, you go for the first option, and hey, presto, cheat away. Or perhaps, combining (d) and (e), cheats would show up in the menus only after you've been stuck at a particular point for a sufficient length of time (or number of tries)

SC_Wolf
12-27-2002, 11:52 AM
Originally posted by MaxTheVool
(Or perhaps, combining (d) and (e), cheats would show up in the menus only after you've been stuck at a particular point for a sufficient length of time (or number of tries)

To me that would smack of the game publishers going "Dear GOD you suck at this game, I guess we have to unlock god mode for you."

BlackKnight
12-27-2002, 01:30 PM
This thread started out not about cheats in general, but about a particular kind of cheat, "god mode". I don't think words like Maybe it's that the people who hate cheats don't have lives, jobs, girlfriends, etc.... apply to anyone who has posted in this thread. Unless I missed it, nobody complained about all cheats.

astro
12-27-2002, 02:01 PM
Originally posted by Stinkpalm
I am stuck in Splinter Cell right now and am just too busy to keep trying over and over in this one level. I am a casual gamer and I enjoy the story and am too old to brag to my friends about beating a video game. I want to know the rest of the story but will not because I can't get past a guard without setting an alarm off. IMHO my $50 is not being recouped because of this. The game is great, no doubt about it, but a comsumer should not be denied every benifit of a product that they pay for.


Not addressing the overall OP but it may help your current dilemma.

Splinter Cell (http://xbox.stationplay.com/games2/2577.html)
Well, for my fellow splinter cell gamers, the reason the alarms are goin off is because the bodies are not being hidden in that right place, COME ON, IF THE GAME IS REALISTIC, THINK REALISTIC!! You cant just hide the bodies in a corner, it's gotta be in the dark, no light at all! I came across this problem to find out it was just not the right place to hide the body!!

MaxTheVool
12-27-2002, 06:09 PM
Originally posted by SC_Wolf
To me that would smack of the game publishers going "Dear GOD you suck at this game, I guess we have to unlock god mode for you."

Pretty much, yup. Some people (such as me) are so stubborn that I would rather not finish a game than get the slightest bit of help. But plenty of people posting on this thread (based on what they've posted) would prefer to be helped along instead of being stuck somewhere forever. It's not for me, but it's a perfectly reasonable opinion.

Cubsfan
12-27-2002, 08:08 PM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
Contra? Contra was not hard. I never owned the game (it was a rental) and I got to the point where I could finish the entire game without losing a single life, and I'm not terribly good at those kinds of games.

I gotta throw up the bullshit flag on this one. I would have to see it to believe it. This is along the lines of someone saying they kicked a 70 yard field goal. I am sure it may be possible on the right day with the right conditions, but 99.9999% of the time it's not possible.

HPL
12-28-2002, 02:35 AM
I remember there was a game, "The Journeyman Project 2" where you picked up a companion early in the game who would give you hints at various times if you clicked on a certain Icon. However, you lost points everytime you used the "hint button".

Another, one of the Tex Murphy games, had two modes. Easy and Hard. Easy Mode allowed you to get hints anytime you wanted and even solve puzzles. However, there was a penalty for it, which I can't remember. The Hard mode did not allow any of this. You could switch from hard to easy, but not the other way around, IIRC.

Badtz Maru
12-28-2002, 04:10 PM
Originally posted by Stinkpalm
I gotta throw up the bullshit flag on this one. I would have to see it to believe it. This is along the lines of someone saying they kicked a 70 yard field goal. I am sure it may be possible on the right day with the right conditions, but 99.9999% of the time it's not possible.

We are talking about the first Contra for the NES, right? Side-scrolling levels alternating with pseudo-3D levels? No bullshit in that case. It was a very easy game to finish without getting hit, as all the patterns were predetermined and your character was so mobile it was easy to avoid getting hit.

It's been a while but I bet with an hour's practice I could play Contra indefinitely on one life.

Cubsfan
12-28-2002, 04:21 PM
Originally posted by Badtz Maru
We are talking about the first Contra for the NES, right? Side-scrolling levels alternating with pseudo-3D levels? No bullshit in that case. It was a very easy game to finish without getting hit, as all the patterns were predetermined and your character was so mobile it was easy to avoid getting hit.

It's been a while but I bet with an hour's practice I could play Contra indefinitely on one life.

Damn! I wish we lived near each other so we could make a bet and I could take your money because I don't think you can do it. I owned that game and was very good at it. It was one of my favorite games. I was able to beat the game fair and square in the alotted number of continues, but there is no way I could beat it on one life.

Someone back me up here, there ain't no way BM is beating Contra in one life.

Skeezix
12-29-2002, 02:08 AM
I'm thinking you and your money will soon be parted, Stinkpalm. Some folks is just plain good at some things.

There's a guy (or maybe several) out there that can crash an old PacMan arcade game, by reaching level 256 (or 257, I'd think) and forcing the machine to try and work outside of what it understands.

Watch a "trick" pool/billards player sometime. They pull off stunts you just know are physically impossible, yet they'll repeat it in front of you several times, to prove there's no actual trickery involved. They really can make a cueball hop over two other balls to sink the third one into a pocket. Me, I can't sink more than three in a row on a good night.

FTR, I also once made it all the way through the old NES Contra without losing a life, in the days before I knew what U,U,D,D,L,L,R,R,A,B,B,A meant.

Or whatever it was. I think I've got the A+B buttons wrong.

Did the same with Golden Axe 2, too, for the Sega Genesis, repeatedly. Comes from having a fair bit of free time, and no cash to spring for rentals or new games.

OTOH, I could never get all the way through Warcraft 2 without cheating my ass off.

Cubsfan
12-29-2002, 03:31 AM
Originally posted by Skeezix
FTR, I also once made it all the way through the old NES Contra without losing a life, in the days before I knew what U,U,D,D,L,L,R,R,A,B,B,A meant.


Are we talking about one GAME, meaning 3 lives + earned extra lives or are we talking about one LIFE meaning you never got hit by a bullet or fell off a ledge or eaten by an alien? The former I can believe, but the later is something I would have to see to believe because the snow level alone will eat your anus for breakfast.

I wish you guys lived mear me so we could test this out.

LoN
12-29-2002, 03:50 PM
I've got a GBA and a cheat device. When there's a boss that I get stuck on, and I've tried my damndest for five or six times, I turn on a cheat code. Infinate attacks, usually, or maybe invicibility. I beat it, and turn off the cheats. I've done this for the latest Metroid game and Castlevania: Circle of the Moon. I don't see it as taking the challenge out of the game. I still try to play the game honestly. When I can't, then I cheat.

I agree that some games are played for the story. For me, that tends to be RPGs. I'm a bit iffy about cheats on them-- part of the experiance is leveling up and finding stuff, and putting in a cheat mode takes some of the fun out of it. However, its about options. Give people a God mode option. They'll play it, get tired of it, and want the challenge.

Quicksaves are okay. Sure, they can be unbalancing, but there's times when you'll quicksave and be stuck in an impossible situation... so you have to go back to the normal save points. Fair enough.

So... yea.. choices=good.

Gozu Tashoya
12-29-2002, 06:22 PM
Originally posted by Skeezix
FTR, I also once made it all the way through the old NES Contra without losing a life, in the days before I knew what U,U,D,D,L,L,R,R,A,B,B,A meant.

B,A,B,A - IIRC.

And I believe BM, as I had a friend who would have 27-28 lives left at the end of the game after using the 30-life code. He'd probably have done better if he wasn't always eating chips or what have you while playing.

And upon further reflection, I have no qualms about there being a god mode in every game, but it had better be damn hard to find (without going to GameFAQs or google or something).

Because I'd much rather pass a game without cheating, but I don't resist temptation very well, so a god mode toggle in, say, the options menu would probably get turned on quite often. However, I'm also quite lazy, so if I have to go look up the god mode, I probably wouldn't. (Hell, I'm playing through Vice City without even looking up the locations of hidden packages.)

SC_Wolf
12-29-2002, 06:55 PM
So because of your own personal lack of willpower, the rest of us should suffer? :)

Gozu Tashoya
12-29-2002, 10:41 PM
Yup. :)

Seriously, though, as long as it's a code and not an options toggle (sounds like this is what the OP wants, if I'm wrong, never mind), it sounds reasonable to me. I mean you should have to do some work, right? ;)

Skeezix
12-30-2002, 03:06 AM
Stinkpalm:
Originally posted by Skeezix:
...without losing a life...

Really. It's possible. Tain't easy, but it can be done.

As for testing it out, I haven't played the game in something like 8 or 9 years, at least. I'm willing to put money on my not repeating the trick on the first try.

As far as in game save states, the original Aliens vs Predator, after a patch was released, at least, allowed you a certain number of saves per level. These were not overwriteable*, so you had to ration yourself. And the higher level of difficulty you played, the fewer saves there were, IIRC. Also, finishing the "basic levels" at the highest difficulty level was the only way to unlock all of the "bonus levels" for that character. Don't know if the second game follows this format, and until we can afford a better 3D card (or an entire computer, more likely) I don't care all that much one way or the other.

Some folks were unhappy, but it was a nifty compromise, I thought.

*At least, not from within the game. Never tried mucking about with deleting files manually, by way of a file manager.

HPL
12-30-2002, 03:41 AM
Originally posted by Skeezix
Stinkpalm:

Don't know if the second game follows this format, and until we can afford a better 3D card (or an entire computer, more likely) I don't care all that much one way or the other.



The 2nd one allows saves and quicksaves pretty much anywhere you want, and I don't think there are any bonus levels, as the plot is pretty well tied together by the levels there(and you have to play all the levels for each character/race to see the entire plot).

Cubsfan
12-30-2002, 11:18 AM
Originally posted by Skeezix
Stinkpalm
Really. It's possible. Tain't easy, but it can be done.


Hey guys, I'm not calling you liars, I am saying that maybe you remember being better at that game than you actually were. That's what happens with old age, your memory goes POOPOO!

ShardPhoenix
12-30-2002, 12:02 PM
I think games should have a cheat mode somewhere, but it shouldn't be easily accessible. That makes it too tempting to use it as soon as things get tough, and results in a lot of people's gameplay experience being ruined.

And sure, nobody's being *forced* to use an easily accessible god-mode, but nobody is being *forced* to use overpowered weapons that are unbalanced and ruin the game. That doesn't mean that they're a good thing or should be included.

Purd Werfect
12-30-2002, 12:32 PM
I'm surprised that one's opinion regarding game cheats apparently reflects so strongly one's character and integrity. It's just not that big of a deal.

I rarely use cheats, especially the first time through a game, but I don't think using or not using cheats suggests a person's important qualities or lack thereof.

As for limited saves, they can add to a game's difficulty, but it's boring as hell to have to go through some bits over and over because you have trouble getting past one part.

And I'm all for cheats to get past jumping puzzles. I hate jumping puzzles.

HPL
12-30-2002, 11:42 PM
Originally posted by Purd Werfect
I'm surprised that one's opinion regarding game cheats apparently reflects so strongly one's character and integrity. It's just not that big of a deal.

I rarely use cheats, especially the first time through a game, but I don't think using or not using cheats suggests a person's important qualities or lack thereof.

As for limited saves, they can add to a game's difficulty, but it's boring as hell to have to go through some bits over and over because you have trouble getting past one part.

And I'm all for cheats to get past jumping puzzles. I hate jumping puzzles.

I can think of something useful. Right now I'm playing Jedi Knight 2, which has one really annoying flaw. A lot of it takes place in dimly lit areas and the only source of illumination are nightvision goggles. Unfortunatly, those require batteries, and those batteries run out really quickly. Now imagine trying to jump over pits in low/no light areas with no source of illumination.

I would not begrudge anyone who wanted to cheat for more batteries.

Skeezix
12-31-2002, 03:41 AM
Re: Jedi Knight 2
(And I'm jealous. Can't play this one without a hardware upgrade, either. Poop.)

It does seem like some games are designed with the player cheating in mind. If the difficulty ramps up way too quickly, you damn near need to cheat to get through the thing.

I'm all for a challenge, but give me half a chance to make it "honestly."

Indeed, it also seems like some folks take the whole thing way too seriously. But that's true of, well, pretty much everything. We've all got our passionate topics.

Badtz Maru
12-31-2002, 03:47 AM
I think it's funny that you are so resistant to the idea that someone could beat Contra on one life. And yes, that is one life, not one continue, etc. If I recall correctly you would end the game with 6 or 7 lives, but I haven't played the game since I was about 15.

I think you should dig the game up and give it another try. It really wasn't that hard, I beat the game without cheat codes within a couple of hours of renting it, and it wasn't long after that I had memorized the levels and could get through them all without getting hit. Seriously, if you can't avoid getting hit with little round bullets that go about 30 MPH with the ability to jump 20 feet in the air or drop prone instantly, you aren't that good at video games. Lord knows I'm not (currently struggling with Hitman 2).

Sterra
01-03-2003, 12:33 AM
I came across this (http://www.people.fas.harvard.edu/~pyang/games/index.htm) today and it reminded me of this thread.

Not only does it beat Contra without losing lives it does it very quickly.