Give Me a Win Button

[Ytmh]

I agree with the article, and I have a few observations to contribute:

1) I see nothing wrong with giving the player more options.

That's what I think cheats really are. Take for example the Sims 2; the game is probably unplayable to 80% of the people into it without the cheats (like turning off aging!) A lot of those cheats in a way make the game something else than what it is without them. That's the key.

For example if I just want to play architect or whatever, I don't want to "play the game" to get the money to do it, I just want to actually design the house RIGHT NOW. Cheats let me do that, and everybody wins since I'm still playing the game (very much) and the developers didn't really do anything other than add a little option (money cheat in this case.)

Doom was already mentioned. Here the cheats can offer an entirely different gameplay experience which while it may have "no challenge" is not just dismissible because of that. Regardless how "boring" it can get to be invincible and kill everything, I still do it every so often because damn I just need things to die once in a while. Another obvious plus of cheats is for debugging if the game allows modding. After all, I'm really into custom levels (Action Doom, GO!) and sometimes I don't really care for playing it, I just want to go look at what someone did or a specific area. IE, there are a lot of legitimate purposes for leaving those cheats in. But that's an entirely different topic altogether how so few games today are mod-friendly (Sidenote: look at what people do with SF4 on PC.)

2) There's no necessity to treat gamers like idiots.

The cheat/option thing can be summarized in a simple way: The developer intends you to play the game in X way, so he makes that way present and obvious. Someone who doesn't know better will play in that X way. However, there's no reason why he can't leave open other ways to experience the same thing but not make them obvious (this is, I think, the real reason why cheats could be a "secret.")

Contrast with the example of the Sims 2 above, where I think a lot of those cheats should've been actually in the menus (Sims 3 actually added the aging cheat to the menu!) Maybe discouraged by a little blurb. I remember in Rise of the Triad if you tried to play with infinite ammo in a netgame the game would give you a warning "That's crazy!" and if you accepted anyway it said (along with thunder effects!) "You've been warned!" That's the way to do it (though in that case it wasn't so much of a "cheat," since everyone got infinite ammo, but it warned that it can make the game very frustrating. I thought it was hilarious, tho.)

In other words, the developer should make clear how he/she intends the game to be played, but if possible not make it the ONLY option. (Another example is the excellent REZ, with the "travel" mode, though even then it had its limitations.) Take in good faith that gamers will seek out their own way to enjoy the game rather than cry out "it's been ruined!!" because they used a cheat. After all, it's like saying that the someone who is fat because they eat too much should be blaming the food makers rather than themselves for it.

3) If I see a Ferrari on the box, I want to goddamn drive it.

I will say this right now: I tend to not like having to unlock content. I don't mind it, though, when I'm actually enjoying the game and getting stuff as a bonus, but otherwise if the game locks me out of 90% of the experience because I can't sink 50+ hours into it there's only one solution in my eyes: time to cheat.

Now, this applies to racing games for example more than RPGs, for obvious reasons. However, the problem remains the same. I may want to play a game entirely because of its plot but can't because the gameplay is terrible (Rule of Rose,) or simply a chore to get through (Grinding for levels) or simply take too much time (Legend of Dragoon, anyone?) There could as well be an option to just cheat your way through these problems, since in the end what I end up doing is downloading a save and/or just getting a walkthrough anyway.

I mean, the same point as above is applicable in cases where the gameplay IS a big part of the story (it'd be a bit silly to skip gameplay in the Katamari games after all, right?) but this doesn't say anything against giving the player the option and not exactly encouraging it. After all, think of it this way: Assuming you pay X for a game, you are not just paying for the first 15 minutes in case you don't have time. Think of it like a book (as everyone apparently loves book analogies around here,) you can "cheat" in a book by going back and forth and skipping sections altogether. Sure it doesn't compare to the experience of reading it from start to end, but sometimes you just want to look at a particular chapter/thing (and maybe if you like THAT you may want to read the entire thing, who knows?) The author-intended order for reading it is implied in how the book is made and the same should be for games.

Now a couple of examples:

For example, I downloaded a save for NFS:Most Wanted just to see what kind of upgrades/etc you get and all the stuff you can do at the late stages. Likewise with MC3:dub. Both games though I played also from scratch since I thought they were pretty good, though I kept the completed saves just for the occasion where I wanted to skip ahead and have some fun driving the crazy stuff you get at the end. The fact I had to go through so much trouble to do any of this is stupid.

Contrast with Outrun 2006 for PS2. You have a "GET EVERYTHING" cheat at the very start of the game. No, it doesn't prevent you from having your own save to "earn" stuff anyway but in this case since Outrun is a goddamn arcade game I didn't WANT to "earn" anything. I just wanted to sit there and play the (AWESOME) game. This is quite literally the "I want to drive that goddamn Ferrari right now" scenario. Kudos to Sega for understanding that and including that cheat for those of us who want to only play the game.

And contrast, again, with Gran Turismo series. I never got a save for those or "cheated" save for the occasional money earning loophole, but they also included an arcade mode. The bad thing is obviously that you need to unlock stuff in the arcade mode, which is absurd. If it's supposed to be instant action, why do you require people to sink time into it if it's not anything to do with skill? Likewise, it's GRAN TURISMO, the other 90% of the game is an abyss in terms of timesink and "unlocking" stuff. I would say that's actually bad design, in this case.

And finally for a non-racing example, take Gradius V. A shooter, right? Well the game has finite continues at the start so you can't literally beat it unless you're magical (it's a hard game!) but you have time-unlock for the number of continues you get, eventually unlocking freeplay for just playing enough. I think this approach works fantastic for the game since you can be sure you'll beat it eventually once you can continue forever, but it tempts you to try anyway even if you know you can't (and I found myself playing much better just to see how far I could get with the limited continues.) It gives you the option and all you have to do is... just play. And since it's gradius we're talking about, playing it IS the main point. Hell, it even gives you stage select as you beat the levels (which I think is fine in this case, I don't want to die in 1 second by jumping to the last level!)

So, I think in general how you handle the cheats/content accessibility issue is dependent on the type of game and it's almost impossible to generalize what would be "best," as each game experience is different depending on the genre/developer, etc. However, I do think that the issue has yet to see real discussion and a lot of the developers are sort of "flying blind" when making decisions concerning this stuff.

It goes beyond just giving the player a "win button" or something, but actually how much "game" counts as "game," since to me when I've cheated through something to see the plot/whatever there's not much "game" to talk about, since it's more like turning the pages on a book rather than a challenge of any sorts. I don't think any of this is inherently bad, since it contributed to my enjoyment of the game beyond (or in spite) what the actual designer intended.

So yeah, that's all I wanted to point out.

 

[Dhatz]

I vote for all games with difficulty settings to have it switchable in menu instead of restarting whole thing. also they have forgotten how to do cheats after gta SA, becuse you could make a major experince with cheats giving guns to player in fighting game, and if somebody made achievements for using cheats in single player, it would help heal the (what it's now called) industry.

 

[ZippyDSMlee]

I would like deeper than normal difficulty settings a slider for AI,damages done and damages received prehaps even lower or raise random drop events as well.

As for cheats do it this way achievements must be done while conencted online and you can not cheat while online thus cheating may be the realm of offline only so they can either bring a cheat device back or devs will just more cheats into games...or a SDK so people can fix their crap.....

 

[Xaryn Mar]

@Void(null): There's a few points to be had here. Firstly, if I say, "Lord of the Rings is too wordy, I can't get through it without headaches" you can't just say, "then you shouldn't be reading Lord of the Rings, read The DaVinci Code instead" because I will miss the ideas, themes, and story of Lord of the Rings (and you can replace LotR with any given wordy literature, like Things Fall Apart or Heart of Darkness, and The DaVinci Code with any throwaway dime novel). This also contributes to the decline of modern literature, and this is what you're suggesting when you say to stop playing one game in favor of picking up another. Yes, not everyone is going to enjoy every game, but there's more to games than just the gameplay, just as there's more to novels than just the readability. (Of course this isn't a perfect analogy; you can't just make a novel more readable with the touch of a button, and some details will be lost in transition. Also, there's fewer quality works of art in video gaming than there is in prose, but you get the idea, right?)

If you tell me the Lord of the Rings is too verbose and dull, I would tell you to read the Game of Thrones series, you will get similar themes and story elements, but in a much easier to digest fashion. Personally I cannot stand Tolkien's writing style, so i do not read his work... I did not enjoy the movies for much the same reason.

This is why I would read George R Martin instead of demanding that someone rewrite a classic, adding in more action and less wordy description.

The DaVinci code and LOTR have nothing in common... they are not even the same genre so its a very poor example. If someone didn't like Tetris would you recommend Bushido Blade 2? No, of course not because they are not even remotely connection.

Now I understand your point, that it is not going to be the exact same story... but if you want to get the full Lord of the Rings experience... then you are going to have to read through the whole series of books... you will either be compelled enough by the story to do so, or you will not, and find something else to fill that niche.

Why shouldn't I be able to experience the themes and story of Grand Theft Auto IV because I can't drive a virtual car? Why can't I experience the humor of Mario and Luigi: Partners in Time if I can't coordinate all four characters at the same time at high speed? Why can't I uncover the secrets of Warcraft 3 without having to learn and master all of the strategy required?

Because a Video Game... is a GAME.

A game is a structured activity, usually undertaken for enjoyment and sometimes used as an educational tool. Games are distinct from work, which is usually carried out for remuneration, and from art, which is more concerned with the expression of ideas. However, the distinction is not clear-cut, and many games are also considered to be work (such as professional players of spectator sports/games) or art (such as jigsaw puzzles or games involving an artistic layout such as Mahjong solitaire).

Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role. According to Chris Crawford, the requirement for player interaction puts activities such as jigsaw puzzles and solitaire "games" into the category of puzzles rather than games.[1] - From Wikipedia & Chris Crawford "on Game Design"

Lets highlight the important part there.

"Key components of games are goals, rules, challenge, and interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both. Many games help develop practical skills, serve as a form of exercise, or otherwise perform an educational, simulational or psychological role."

A game involves: Goals, Rules, CHALLENGE, and Interaction. Games generally involve mental or physical stimulation, and often both.

I will have to disagree. According to Encyclopedia Britannica a game is:

game
recreation
Main
A universal form of recreation generally including any activity engaged in for diversion or amusement and often establishing a situation that involves a contest or rivalry. Card games are the games most commonly played by adults. Children?s games include a wide variety of amusements and pastimes primarily for children.

now I know it says that a game "often establishes a situation that involves contest or rivalry" but the keyword here is often. A game is something a person participates in with the intention of having fun or uses it as a diversion from reality.

 

[Mr Companion]

Two words for escapist today- Macho up.

I wont claim to be generally good at games, but I still feel that some effort of brain is healthy for gamers. On the other hand recently there have been multiple major posts claiming that we should go all soft and dull. Susan ardnt, now shamus, Where will it end? Yahzee, that is where. And if he finally turns flowery and friendly then where will our weekly dose of pessemism come from?

Anyway there is such thing as Nintendo wii, isent there? I say that all non-skilled gamers buy themselves a wii. That way everybody, especially Nintendo, will be happy.

Ps: I am neither yahzee fanboy nor elitist hardcore. I am just concerned.

 

[Xelanath]

(and a hard option that doesn't just give all the NPCs aimbots).

This would be my main qualm with many games of this generation, particularly in shooters. Two of the most notable and obvious examples being Call of Duty and Gears of War - Halo isn't so guilty due to four player co-op almost entirely offsetting any challenge in playing on Legendary.
To focus on GoW; the main noticable difference in playing on Insane is that you die more quickly and the enemy takes longer to do the same. It's not more of a challenge in any definition of the term that makes one feel that they need to be more skillful, they must simply be more patient.

 

[SilverUchiha]

Too true. I miss the days of cheat codes being useful and difficulty settings actually meaning something. Hell, I also miss the use of glictes and safer cheating devices like Gameshark and Pelican products. Action Replay ruined that whole market, at least for me it did. It's also annoying when games are full of glitches, then those glitches get fixed and are not in the American and PAL versions of the game for no reason. I think the industry, as a whole, has been stepping farther away from the "FUN" aspect of gaming and I can't seem to understand why since that what games are supposed to be for.

 

[Magnatek]

...Up up down down left right left right select start, anyone? Yeah. What's wrong with just wanting to coast through games to experience them? Nothing. If it's not your game type, then why struggle through something? Get the same experience, as long as you understand which parts are supposed to have killed you dead.

It's B A Start instead of Select Start, but I agree. If you want to cheat, who else cares? If you do, you just get another experience to share with friends and family.

 

[Lord Thodin]

I agree with just about every word typed out onto that article. Every. Damn. One.

Fuckin, CoD4 is great single player. Even better with cheat codes. But why beat the game once WITHOUT cheat codes just to do it again? It like spending all day wrestling a bull to the ground with your bare hands then when he submits you wipe your brow and take on the rocking horse. Its retarded for a gaming company to ask the players to commit to all the leaps, bounds, and hurdles to only wave in your face later "Hey 'member how that boss wiped the floor with you umpteen billion times? Wouldnt it have been nice to have this cheat code you unlocked AFTER BEATING HIM?!"

 

[Lord Thodin]

Two words for escapist today- Macho up.

I wont claim to be generally good at games, but I still feel that some effort of brain is healthy for gamers. On the other hand recently there have been multiple major posts claiming that we should go all soft and dull. Susan ardnt, now shamus, Where will it end? Yahzee, that is where. And if he finally turns flowery and friendly then where will our weekly dose of pessemism come from?

Anyway there is such thing as Nintendo wii, isent there? I say that all non-skilled gamers buy themselves a wii. That way everybody, especially Nintendo, will be happy.

Ps: I am neither yahzee fanboy nor elitist hardcore. I am just concerned.

So your implying that Mario Vs Sonic Olympics takes NO skill? You beat every challenge the first go round and let me know how easy the Wii is. Normally I'd agree with you, but it appeared to me that your above post is just bashing some people who wish to have it easier on a game they'd rather enjoy for something other than the gameplay aspect. When I was younger I bought FFX because the graphics were breath taking. Not because I cared about anything else in the game. Because it was pretty. However, I can proudly state that I have beaten just about every game I own on the hardest difficulty. Im not proclaiming elitism just that if I, a lowly gamer of Basementland, can enjoy games for simple things and complex ones why cant anyone else?

 

[BehattedWanderer]

...Up up down down left right left right select start, anyone? Yeah. What's wrong with just wanting to coast through games to experience them? Nothing. If it's not your game type, then why struggle through something? Get the same experience, as long as you understand which parts are supposed to have killed you dead.

It's B A Start instead of Select Start, but I agree. If you want to cheat, who else cares? If you do, you just get another experience to share with friends and family.

Ah, so it is. My mistake, Thought I got it in there. Though I genuinely thought it was select start?

 

[theultimateend]

Give Me a Win Button

Shamus wants his cheat codes and difficulty levels back. Oh, and a push-to-win button.

Read Full Article

Great article and fantastic job mentioning one of the best 9.99 dollar games out there Evil Genius!

I got it off gog for 9.99 with no drm, it was like heaven/christmas came early .

 

[ASnogarD]

The issue isnt that it there is no cheats or appropriate difficulty levels, I would say the issue is that the game simply isnt fun and intresting enough to compel you to try again.
I attribute this to the main stream game development scene getting bogged down in trying to push the graphics envelope but churning out the same stale, but investment safe, game styles.

Its my opinion that if a game is really fun and intresting, you will not mind retries... personally for me one such game I can recall immediately was Dues Ex.
I died countless times , often due to my poor PC being unable to cope with the eye candy of the day (try a boss fight at 5 FPS), but I just carried on and on because I enjoyed the game that much.

To me using a cheat de-values a game, spending that money to buy a game only to whiz through its content using a cheat is a waste... may as well have hired a video and watched that for roughly the same effect.

 

[Kelbear]

Yeah, I never get that far into Ninja Gaiden or Dead or Alive 4. They were mercilessly hard and I wasn't interested enough to invest the time to develop perfection in a single game. It'd be fine if I was still a kid, but I need my entertainment in small easily digested bites so that I can keep up with the rest of my life.

 

[Void(null)]

Ah, so it is. My mistake, Thought I got it in there. Though I genuinely thought it was select start?

The Konami Code [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Konami_Code]

 

[bobknowsall]

The ability to cheat with console commands is one of the reasons I love Bethesda games like Oblivion and Fallout 3. Annoying bandits in your way? "tgm" or "kill" will see them off very quickly. Has a glitched door stopped you from getting to your next objective? just type in "tcl", and walk right on through. I could go on, but there are already comprehensive cheat lists for both games.

 

[UtopiaV1]

I went to paris recently. I can honestly say WATCHING the slideshow of pics me and my gf took was better than actually BEING there, what with all those people speaking french and trying to sell us overpriced tour-de-france crap...

 

[kmc]

Like always, it seems that the arguments quickly lose focus because, in fact, there's very little to argue about. How does one person's use of cheats affect another person's non-use? Why are some people arguing, in essence, that designers should challenge players against the players's wills (in the case of the argument for not having cheats because then people use them)? Who cares if using cheats goes against the spirit of the core game--does using an available easy mode violate the spirit of the game because they created a hard mode as well? And when did we get so uptight about _playing_ a _game_? The only group saying others shouldn't be allowed to have their own type of fun are the "hardcores"--this, in games other than MMOs, where the argument begins to have some real substance. Nobody's saying that there should be a god mode for achievements or permanent progression. The option will always be to play or not to play, and right now, lots of people simply don't play. Is that what designers want, that the only people who witness their most intricate creations are the top of the top? If so, graphics should get worse as a game progresses, with an 8-bit boss fight at the end because the people who see it are increasingly the ones who aren't going to be exploring anyway.

 

[Son of Makuta]

if you arent Korean, you dont have that high of a bar to judge RTS skill against
it you dont play SC, you dont play RTSes

I tried StarCraft once a long time ago. Didn't like it much. It seemed to me like Dawn of War without all the things that make Dawn of War good (no resource farming, unit-based controls, graphics, animations, brutality, etc). Sure, it probably does have layers of deep strategy and stuff if you play it obsessively. I don't play anything obsessively, although I'm quite good at Unreal Tournament from playing it in school a lot.

And I don't think being Korean has anything to do with what I said. I said I was crap at them. The relative uber-skill level of my nationality doesn't do anything to change that. Also, StarCraft is far from being the only RTS game, and elitism isn't going to win you any friends. Personally, as I mentioned, I like Dawn of War. I started Total Annihilation the other day and liked that too. I'd like Supreme Commander: Forged Alliance (you can pause the game and keep giving orders to stuff!), but my computer doesn't have the graphical oomph necessary to run it at anything approximating a framerate.