Give Me a Win Button
- Thread starter Shamus Young
- Start date
Recommended Videos
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?!"
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?!"
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?Mr Companion said:
Ah, so it is. My mistake, Thought I got it in there. Though I genuinely thought it was select start?Magnatek said:
Great article and fantastic job mentioning one of the best 9.99 dollar games out there Evil Genius!Shamus Young said:
I got it off gog for 9.99 with no drm, it was like heaven/christmas came early
.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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.toapat said:
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.
you described Dawn of war (which is quite bad), not SC. every organic unit in SC explodes into gore, resources matter (which is an entire thing that keeps a game balanced), and its not a game where everyone is mentally fused together. it is a game where everything has its own will to a point. the squad system just ruins an RTS as you have to select multiple units, not willingly select them. armies dont get big in DoW either. and since you said you are a korean, your bad at rts can mean you crush everyone else you knowSon of Makuta said:
This is why I always prefer the PC version of a game over any console version (and why I still don't own a PS3 or Xbox360). With modern games (especially console ones) being less and less likely to include cheat codes, I just don't want to go through the pain of getting half-way through a game only to encounter a brick wall challenge I can't pass that completely ruins the game for me (since I can't get to most of it). At least with PC games, though most still don't come with cheats, there are usually trainers available.
I do try to avoid using cheats/trainers, and most of the time I don't end up using them at all. But if I run into a situation where I've replayed the same section ten or more times without getting through, it's good to be able to just bypass it and move on rather than having to abandon the game entirely. (Plus it makes it more likely I'd buy the sequel.) And sometimes I do just want to breeze through a game (eg. if I've played it before, or if it's only peripherally in my genre of interest).
So: I support cheat codes (in single player games). I support multiple difficulty levels (where Easy really is). Sometimes I want a challenge, sometimes I want the story. The player should be able to decide what they want at the time.
I have mixed feelings on achievements (and whether or not to disable them when cheating); maybe the best option there is to still grant the achievement, but mark it differently from ones gained without cheating -- but have it "upgrade" to the non-cheating one if the requirements are met later on without cheats being involved. (eg. a "completed mission" achievement should be marked as a cheat one if cheats were used at any time during that mission, but a normal one otherwise; if the mission is replayed later without using any cheats then it should be upgraded to a normal one. For a "killed 100 enemies" type achievement, if 80 enemies were killed with cheats off and 20 were killed with them on, then the achievement should be granted with a "cheater" flag, but when a further 20 enemies get killed without cheats it should upgrade to the non-cheater version. A non-cheater achievement should never downgrade into a cheater achievement.)
I do try to avoid using cheats/trainers, and most of the time I don't end up using them at all. But if I run into a situation where I've replayed the same section ten or more times without getting through, it's good to be able to just bypass it and move on rather than having to abandon the game entirely. (Plus it makes it more likely I'd buy the sequel.) And sometimes I do just want to breeze through a game (eg. if I've played it before, or if it's only peripherally in my genre of interest).
So: I support cheat codes (in single player games). I support multiple difficulty levels (where Easy really is). Sometimes I want a challenge, sometimes I want the story. The player should be able to decide what they want at the time.
I have mixed feelings on achievements (and whether or not to disable them when cheating); maybe the best option there is to still grant the achievement, but mark it differently from ones gained without cheating -- but have it "upgrade" to the non-cheating one if the requirements are met later on without cheats being involved. (eg. a "completed mission" achievement should be marked as a cheat one if cheats were used at any time during that mission, but a normal one otherwise; if the mission is replayed later without using any cheats then it should be upgraded to a normal one. For a "killed 100 enemies" type achievement, if 80 enemies were killed with cheats off and 20 were killed with them on, then the achievement should be granted with a "cheater" flag, but when a further 20 enemies get killed without cheats it should upgrade to the non-cheater version. A non-cheater achievement should never downgrade into a cheater achievement.)
I can understand the desire for more difficulty levels, if only because different people will have different levels of ability. A single difficulty means it's too difficult for some people and too easy for others. If you buy the theory that "fun" is about overcoming meaningful challenges, then there's a delicate balance of difficulty needed to achieve that for any one person.
But what you are describing of wandering through the game as a tourist is the very definition of a virtual world. There's a reason we differentiate between virtual worlds and games -- games have a challenge to overcome. Perhaps we should add some trivial way for virtual tourists to wander through the insides of our games, but it seems silly to design a game with this alternative use in mind.
If you really just want to see what cool characters and graphics there are, might I suggest joining Second Life? Though the detail isn't up to modern standards, I gaurantee you an infinite helping of new content, interesting characters, and worlds to explore.
But what you are describing of wandering through the game as a tourist is the very definition of a virtual world. There's a reason we differentiate between virtual worlds and games -- games have a challenge to overcome. Perhaps we should add some trivial way for virtual tourists to wander through the insides of our games, but it seems silly to design a game with this alternative use in mind.
If you really just want to see what cool characters and graphics there are, might I suggest joining Second Life? Though the detail isn't up to modern standards, I gaurantee you an infinite helping of new content, interesting characters, and worlds to explore.
I was very amused when playing Devil May Cry and "unlocked" easy mode, though I think having unlocked it made me vow to not play it as a point of pride.
I think all single player games need multiple difficulty settings as I myself like to play from about normal up to and including the hardest setting.
I played Bioshock on Normal and enjoyed the hell out of it. I played it on the hardest setting and said eff that, and decided not to continue playing it because I enjoyed the story so much I didn't want to soil that experience.
I think all single player games need multiple difficulty settings as I myself like to play from about normal up to and including the hardest setting.
I played Bioshock on Normal and enjoyed the hell out of it. I played it on the hardest setting and said eff that, and decided not to continue playing it because I enjoyed the story so much I didn't want to soil that experience.
I'm sorry, but...what? You go through months/years of effort and millions of dollars to develop, package and sell a well crafted game with great mechanics and pretty graphics, and you want to tell the person who buys it how they should enjoy the game?ReverseEngineered said:
Basketballs are meant for basketball courts, but if the kids want to use it as a kick ball or a dodge ball (ow!) why not?
I may not have been clear about that. I wasn't saying he can't do it, but it's not fair to condemn games for not making it easier. It would be the same as complaining that a basketball doesn't make a good tennis ball -- they were designed to be used in different ways. If he wants a world he can cruise around in and explore without any challenges getting in the way, he should be looking for virtual worlds, not games. That's not to stop him from trying to use a game this way, he just can't expect developers to start making games aimed at people who like virtual worlds.Skratt said:
Admittedly, with the ever-increasing emphasis on graphics, games like Crysis have almost become virtual worlds with a game tacked on for completeness, so maybe it's not unreasonable to expect them to drop the game part altogether.
