295: Sometimes, I'm a Cheater

[Gamegeneral]

I think my favorite cheats were one of the following

BoloPatch for Just Cause 2: Just the grappling hook editor alone should have been a feature. This was something that made the game tons more fun at a tradeoff for a little difficulty decrease (Unless you were using the other features of the trainer).

Ragdoll mode in Minority Report: MR was an okay game. But I discovered a glitch within a cheat that essentially made me cry with laughter every time I used it. When Ragdoll mode was active, a single button press would collapse Jon Anderton into a pile of limbs until he stopped moving, where he would get back up. Fun by itself. Then you combine this with a flaw in the game's combat system, where a ragdolling hit would negate gravity on the model for a split second if the target was in the air. Thus was born Ragdoll surfing. I would run, jump, and ragdoll, and careen through the air like a human cartwheel gone loose. Too much fun.

Half-Life 2 Demo Console shenanigans: I was fairly young when HL2 came out, and I had neither a great computer, nor a source of income. So I downloaded the demo. I love it. I played through it a ton of times. Then, one day I caught G4's Cheat!, with a segment on half-life 2. I immediately ran to their website, tried out some of their codes (Gravity, impulse 101, etc) and a whole new game started for me. With a little more research, I had found out how to spawn NPCs with a single keypress, light people on fire ("ent_fire !picker ignite" is still my favorite source command) and spawn massive armies while AI was disabled so they could fight it out when they came back.

Those three are the most memorable examples of "Cheating" in my mind, and they are so because they vastly improved the game I was playing. I still run back to HL2 (Now that I own The Orange box) and rebind everything for maximum shenanigans.

 

[silvain]

I was under the impression that cheating was removed from the current generation for the addition of achievements, and if that were true, we got the wrong end of the deal.

I don't cheat often, but I love cheating. There are many games, especially RPGs, where the game length outlasts the gameplay ideas. I killed loads of enemies in Fallout 3. I learned how to fight; my tactics no longer change, and neither does the enemy behavior. Therefore, I'm basically now wasting my time fighting as I'm doing nothing new and no surprise. So it's time to cheat. Same with JRPGs, like FF7 and the like. I learned what the game had to teach, and now I'm tired of regurgitating it.

 

[Dastardly]

snip

Definitely right on. Cheating, while sometimes secretly destructive to our own gaming experiences, can also be constructive. It lets you play the parts of the game you really want, without forcing you through the other bits. It lets you enjoy the game your way.

(Oh, and about multiplayer cheating, that's a definite "don't" for me, too. I didn't even see a need to include that in the article. When you cheat in multiplayer, you're doing something destructive to another player's game experience. That's never a constructive thing. Oh, and if it's by mutual consent, it's not "cheating" anymore.

The dangers of single-player cheating are that you can inadvertently cheat yourself out of some growth, but for some it's an acceptable risk. I think cheating others is never acceptable.)

 

[Dastardly]

I was under the impression that cheating was removed from the current generation for the addition of achievements, and if that were true, we got the wrong end of the deal.

I don't cheat often, but I love cheating. There are many games, especially RPGs, where the game length outlasts the gameplay ideas. I killed loads of enemies in Fallout 3. I learned how to fight; my tactics no longer change, and neither does the enemy behavior. Therefore, I'm basically now wasting my time fighting as I'm doing nothing new and no surprise. So it's time to cheat. Same with JRPGs, like FF7 and the like. I learned what the game had to teach, and now I'm tired of regurgitating it.

Very good points, there. In addition to teaching us about ourselves, how/why we cheat should also teach a lesson to developers about what they need to add/remove/fix going forward. Removing cheating, you remove that reflective process.

Achievements are nice and all, but they don't have to come at the expense of cheats. It's not too hard for games to disable achievements when the player enables a cheat of one sort or another. As mentioned in the article, Rock Band disabled saving (and thus high scores) when using the "unlock everything" code. Fair trade, and it allowed for both paths to coexist in the same game.

(Regarding FO:3, I think you've hit on exactly why these games need to include so many weapons. Combat gets very same-y in these especially, as it ends up "Point, click, run backwards" most of the time. Unfortunately, shooters now have a lot of weapons... that effectively work the same way with different animations. Half-Life is a great example of a game in which different weapons feel different, and ammo is quite limited, so combat changes itself up a little bit more as you're forced to cycle through your weapons.

Changing the animations and stats on a weapon doesn't necessarily change the player's input or experience. And bland, repetitive combat is a game-killer... without cheats!)

 

[silvain]

I was under the impression that cheating was removed from the current generation for the addition of achievements, and if that were true, we got the wrong end of the deal.

I don't cheat often, but I love cheating. There are many games, especially RPGs, where the game length outlasts the gameplay ideas. I killed loads of enemies in Fallout 3. I learned how to fight; my tactics no longer change, and neither does the enemy behavior. Therefore, I'm basically now wasting my time fighting as I'm doing nothing new and no surprise. So it's time to cheat. Same with JRPGs, like FF7 and the like. I learned what the game had to teach, and now I'm tired of regurgitating it.

Very good points, there. In addition to teaching us about ourselves, how/why we cheat should also teach a lesson to developers about what they need to add/remove/fix going forward. Removing cheating, you remove that reflective process.

Achievements are nice and all, but they don't have to come at the expense of cheats. It's not too hard for games to disable achievements when the player enables a cheat of one sort or another. As mentioned in the article, Rock Band disabled saving (and thus high scores) when using the "unlock everything" code. Fair trade, and it allowed for both paths to coexist in the same game.

(Regarding FO:3, I think you've hit on exactly why these games need to include so many weapons. Combat gets very same-y in these especially, as it ends up "Point, click, run backwards" most of the time. Unfortunately, shooters now have a lot of weapons... that effectively work the same way with different animations. Half-Life is a great example of a game in which different weapons feel different, and ammo is quite limited, so combat changes itself up a little bit more as you're forced to cycle through your weapons.

Changing the animations and stats on a weapon doesn't necessarily change the player's input or experience. And bland, repetitive combat is a game-killer... without cheats!)

Thank you

Yeah, Fallout 3 needed either less combat, better AI (and varied AI between enemy types), or very different feeling weapons to make it engaging throughout.

The achievements killing cheats point, I should clarify, is for products like the code breaker, gameshark, and action replay, where you're not enabling cheats in-game; you're modifying registers directly so the game doesn't know it's being cheated. Therefore, there'd be no good way to ensure achievements are disabled when the devices are used.

 

[timeadept]

I remember getting fed up with Civ IV at times, i didn't want to deal with diplomacy, all i wanted to do was raise an army and conquer the world. The thing is, when i was completely ignoring diplomacy, there were unanswered threats that piled up in my in box that eventually ended up with me VS the world. So i ended up discovering the world editing tools... If anyone threatened me i would send an army of Barbarian Modern armor to destroy them, this had amusing side effects too. Like mechanized infantry spawning from barbarian camps... made out of logs... in the 16th century. It was kind of hard to play the game right after i started doing this. Though i did learn a valuable lesson. NEVER listen to a friend who tells you to give nukes to barbarians just to see what happens. That was another good laugh though.

 

[Skratt]

Well said. I wish everyone felt the same way. I always pride myself on getting through a game without cheating, but sometimes you just have to if for only to ensure you continue moving forward and having fun.

And there is always the "watch stuff get blown up with my super powers" cheating fun.

 

[Dastardly]

Well said. I wish everyone felt the same way. I always pride myself on getting through a game without cheating, but sometimes you just have to if for only to ensure you continue moving forward and having fun.

And there is always the "watch stuff get blown up with my super powers" cheating fun.

Definitely! I think, for me, the key is to wait until after I've beaten the game the "legit" way. Otherwise, that kind of power is intoxicating, even in the imaginary world of a video game!

Case in point, replaying Fallout 2 recently... I got to a place where, in this open-ended world, I was thinking, "Where do I go next?" So I peeked at a walkthrough, just to remind myself. Managed to catch a glimpse of a trick to sneak basically unlimited money out of some traders... and I just couldn't "unknow" that information. Every time I saw something that I wanted, but couldn't spare the cash, I found myself wanting to travel back to that little pot-of-gold spot...

 

[Anton P. Nym]

I think there is a missed area to discuss about this topic and how there is an utter lack of cheats in modern console games.

If you look at modern games the cheat selection is weak to say the least. Take Halo, the Golden eye of the modern age, has no cheat codes at all.

And yet, staying with the same series, Halo 2 introduced "Skull" modifiers as easter eggs that served as cheat codes; from Halo 3 on the Skulls were handled just like cheat codes.

Atop that, Halo games have always had a lot of customisation available in its multiplayer settings that has steadily increased with each release... Halo: Reach's Forge game editor is virtually a console port of the editor used to create the game.

(I don't agree with your point, and think you picked a bad example.)

-- Steve

PS: die captcha die

 

[Dom Camus]

Others do what the gentleman above you was looking for--they allow you to bypass the "chores" of the game and skip straight to the parts you want. Cheats can allow for a more user-directed experience.

And that's what it's about, right? Us. The users.

Yes, yes indeed. But in talking about failings of game design I didn't just mean things like bad puzzles. Some designers have begun to realise that, as you say, it's all about what users want. People like to have all the weapons? Give them a mode where they do. And so on.

Also, I agree with your point that not every instance of walkthrough use involves a bad puzzle. However, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use them at all if I could be 100% confident that all the puzzles were fair. For example, you'll notice where I mention Machinarium above that I say it didn't require a walkthrough. That wording was carefully chosen... because I did use one for one puzzle, then regretted it because it turned out there was no need. The problem was that my trust ran out before I solved the puzzle legitimately.

 

[Dastardly]

Yes, yes indeed. But in talking about failings of game design I didn't just mean things like bad puzzles. Some designers have begun to realise that, as you say, it's all about what users want. People like to have all the weapons? Give them a mode where they do. And so on.

I'm a little confused on this one, so I apologize if I'm reading it wrong--do you mean that providing this mode is a failing, or an example of correcting a failing?

Also, I agree with your point that not every instance of walkthrough use involves a bad puzzle. However, I'm pretty sure I wouldn't use them at all if I could be 100% confident that all the puzzles were fair. For example, you'll notice where I mention Machinarium above that I say it didn't require a walkthrough. That wording was carefully chosen... because I did use one for one puzzle, then regretted it because it turned out there was no need. The problem was that my trust ran out before I solved the puzzle legitimately.

An excellent point made on player-developer interaction. Especially for a new developer, this process is a lot like "first contact" with an alien: First, you have to establish what language you'll use to communicate, then you try a few simple things out to make sure that language is working, and then you get down to business.

A lot of game designers allow certain assumptions to cause them to skip that first step. Usually, this involves either 1) assuming the player has a certain body of prior knowledge and failing to provide it in the game, or 2) assuming the player will see this puzzle/problem from the same point-of-view as the designer. In either case, it means the designer isn't properly creating the language they're attempting to use to communicate with the player.

Like all relationships, trust is about communication. If communication is spotty, trust is going to be lacking. And if the language isn't well codified (by the designer, for the player), communication will be spotty. The payoff for all this is pretty simple: It is always the responsibility of the designer of a game to teach the player the language of the game.

Provide activities that show the player the skills, props/tools/items, signals and hints, and thought processes that you'll be asking them to use. Be very careful what you assume the player will already know or understand. And, of course, don't go to the other extreme and make your game a walkthrough for itself. Show them how, let them practice, and then make them do it.

A great example of a game that did this was Myst. The puzzles were tricky, and the various parts and buttons involved weren't usually labelled. But, being based around books, the game provided you instructions spread across the various books and pages you'd find. In these "hints," you were given clues as to what the pieces of the puzzle did, as well as what result you needed, and then it was up to you to connect the dots.

But most importantly, the "people" writing those books showed you how to play! They were making charts and diagrams, which in turn suggested to you (the player) to do the same as you worked it out. Not only were you being taught the mechanical aspects of the puzzles, but you were being shown a demonstration of the process of solving the puzzles.

(Myst also had its failings, occasionally, in that there'd be an object that was important and clickable... but the art design didn't appropriately draw attention to that item, occasionally leaving the player looking at a puzzle with what seems to be a missing piece...)

 

[geldonyetich]

If you're cheating in a single player game, it's not cheating, it's overcoming the developers' failure to make the game fun for you.

If you're cheating in an online game you play with other players, consider your life forfeit.

 

[Indy69]

If it wasn't for cheats I would probably still be trying to find the secret items in the Painkiller game and I played that years ago.

Great article btw.

 

[XT inc]

I think there is a missed area to discuss about this topic and how there is an utter lack of cheats in modern console games.

If you look at modern games the cheat selection is weak to say the least. Take Halo, the Golden eye of the modern age, has no cheat codes at all.

And yet, staying with the same series, Halo 2 introduced "Skull" modifiers as easter eggs that served as cheat codes; from Halo 3 on the Skulls were handled just like cheat codes.

Atop that, Halo games have always had a lot of customisation available in its multiplayer settings that has steadily increased with each release... Halo: Reach's Forge game editor is virtually a console port of the editor used to create the game.

(I don't agree with your point, and think you picked a bad example.)

I wouldn't exactly classify skulls in halo as cheats, they only offer more challenge to the game and add nothing new. The only skulls that comes remotely close to a cheat is grunt birthday,iwhbyd, and cowbell. Cheats to me, at least change whole dynamics of gameplay, sure you can edit features in multiplayer, but you can't edit the features of the game, there are no slow motion codes, or secret entertaining guns, or even traditional stuff like paintball, big head modes. All the unlocks are just armor choices that add nothing to the game, they could of at least half jokingly let you equip, say dual wielded swords in the campaign or add something unique. All you get is an aesthetic skin component for multiplayer.

Devs have taken their games way to seriously and cut out a lot of the cheat content that used to be fun and entertaining in the old games. Hell even prince of persia let you equip a teddy bear as a weapon if you unlocked it.

 

[Baneat]

Sometimes, level design was poorly considered and makes the section incongrously difficult

My example will be Bulletstorm, the entire game's "normal" difficulty (compared to other shooters such as Crysis) is the "very hard" option, but in Act 7 Chapter one there is this one room which is IWBTG difficult to clear

You know what I mean, like the Broadcast room in CoD4 veteran, where the massive spike in difficulty was unintentional.

For these areas, I tuned down the difficulty to "normal" mode so I could clear them

Thinking of more examples, Delta Crysis, when the tanks roll in that base and you must literally crouch walk with stealth mode until you find two JAWs to take out the tanks. It's just hell, especially cause you gotta 1HSK every guard and slip back into stealth mode..

and there's over 100 guards you have to do this with or they'll murder you very, very fast.

 

[Callate]

"Cheating" is what allowed me to figure out that the original Civilization was, well, cheating. ("Hmm, my nemesis civilization has as much gold as I do... What a coincidence...") I would point out that I'd already given up whole days of my life to the silly thing at that point.

And then there's "Gun", where the designers filled the rest of the game with slow-motion headshots and then decided that the final boss wearing a breastplate made him immune to same and the only way to defeat him was to blow up dynamite while he was standing on gray patches on the ground. Yes, I headed to GameFAQS, no, I'm not sorry- sometimes a little guidance is the only plausible way around stupid design decisions.

 

[Ulquiorra4sama]

Sometimes cheating can really improve the experience of an otherwise awful game. Currently playing through Saints Row 2 and i've had the cheats on since i started playing it. I'm thoroughly enjoying every bit of it.

EDIT: I should probably point out that i tried playing it once before with the cheats of and i really didn't like the game back then.

 

[Assassin Xaero]

The Sims and Grand Theft Auto were no fun without cheating...

 

[All Hail Lelouch]

I'm Very surprised that Doom's cheats were no where to be found in this article. The infamous God Mode 'IDDQD' allowed even newbies to blast demons with the best of them without any fear of dying, in the process, they learned how to coordinate themselves better. Because, if you can't die, there is no reason not to explore that black section of the map and blow up everything you find.

Cheating in Doom allowed players to plan for when they tackled the game without them. Monster placement, weapon location, secrets, all these things are important when running through Doom's Hellish Levels, and cheating is possibly the best way to prepare for it. Sometimes you must cheat in order to get the most out of your gaming experience.