Gizmo wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 7:19 pm
thebruce wrote: ↑October 16th, 2018, 3:15 pm
Who determines that? The game? Do you tell the game WHY you're saving and quitting? WHY you're reloading a save game? No? Then it's subjective, it's entirely judged by yourself. The game doesn't care. It doesn't tell you you're cheating if you restore from a past save. It's objectively not cheating. You can consider it cheating for your own playthrough if you like, but it's not cheating the game
. No one has refuted that yet.
No one has to. :? It's self evident.
:? Clearly not, because there is no universal agreement, and no shared authority that explicitly defines it as cheating. You know, like "cheat codes".
Yeaaah...right. And no one cheats their diet by eating snacks...
If THEY defined their diet, then THEY are cheating THEMSELVES. If they are given a diet by someone else who enforces the rules, then yes, they are then cheating the agreed-upon diet
It doesn't matter if the game can or cannot "sense" that the player is bypassing the rules—they are still doing it; and doing it whether or they acknowledge it as such.
What makes you, who says someone is cheating by using a mechanic that is not objectively defined as such, right while someone who uses it believing it's not cheating, wrong?
If the game doesn't say it's cheating, only YOU are. By your own authority. That's textbook subjectivity.
Players used to take advantage of software's use of removable disk storage to indirectly alter the game's recorded data. They would swap between two (or more) disks as the game was using them (because they could). They did this in order duplicate items; some they shouldn't have two of. They did this to cheat the death of their PCs.
Sure, they cheated because they were using an external process to alter game data which the game itself did not provide
But perhaps you might say it wasn't cheating because the game's manner of reading data allowed
for that to occur. Okay, then it falls back into exploit territory - taking advantage of an intentended loophole for positive outcome. Perhaps devs could either find a way to thwart that exploit in a future update, or just call it out as cheating. There, cheating the game
You would have it that if the player found any means to an advantage that the designer did not anticipate, and forbid, that it is not a form of cheating—even when the behavior is done expressly to cheat.
Exploit, abuse, happens all the time. And typically if an exploit is patched, or at the very least called out, it's retroactively considered cheating. Many exploits are not
blocked. So is it cheating? Depends who you talk to - meaning, it's cheating to people who consider it cheating
- not objectively by the game.
And this is truly a shame; that they either weakly accept it, or pay the expense to design protections into their game—all because a portion of players cannot be trusted to partake of the game without cheating it.
Some would classify that as developer oversight, error, ignorance, mistake... Which means sure, the creators can denounce it as cheating; there, defined. Which is another reason I think the trend is towards achievements - much easier to positively reward actions towards a reward rather than thwart game-progressing actions and pre-emptively define "cheating" by classifying all unpredicted exploits.
Is someone who runs above the top row of blocks in Super Mario cheating? Nope. They found an exploit and are taking advantage of it. The game doesn't care. Of course
people competing will care - because now there's a shared context and a rule would be set to define certain actions as cheating. But it's not cheating the game
. Editing a save game in Super Mario to put the player in the last world and level would be objectively cheating because it's deceiving the game itself.
They should not be allowed access to any content they arrived at through cheating; but it shouldn't be a matter of enforcing this, they should police themselves, and of course feel that it was unearned—and undeserved. (But they don't, and that is their own failing.)
Who makes them feel guilty about it? Another player? Psssh, who cares about other players. They may be fine "cheating" by another player's standards. If the game
defines their action as cheating, then they are cheating the game
. Cheat codes. Breaking game mechanics with external, 3rd party methods; intentional deception of the game.
Aside: This is the main issue against respec options BTW... in that the player passes certain challenges with capable characters, only to continue on past those challenges with respeced PCs that might never have had the skills they used previously to succeed——and there are those who would [but of course] not consider that to be cheating
And it's not cheating if the game allows the player to do it without calling it out as cheating. Some players won't because they impose their own standards on the gameplay which for them would consider respeccing cheating. But if the game doesn't, then it's not.
If you don't want them hacking your game, reduce the frustration.
No. You design the game from the outset to not trust the player for anything; to repeatedly sum-total the character stats throughout the game, to count equipment instances—and their origins (if the best armor in the game is somewhere they haven't been yet, then they can't have come by it). You dynamically generate password/solutions rather than use hard coded ones. Use frequent crc checks of sensitive areas in RAM, and on-disk file storage... and enough of these that it would be like separating salt from sugar in a mixed cup of both. (Not worth the trouble to untangle.)
That's a whole lot of work, and current gaming trends very much seem to disagree. DRM felt the pressure. Gaming feels the pressure too. Encryption feels the pressure. People will always
find a way around roadblocks. The only way is to make finding the way around much more work than moving forward as intended.
You can put so much work into cutting off hacks, but it'll never succeed. You'd find much more success in making hacking not worth the time (and naturally that means it's better for everyone all around - players find more value in playing the way you intend them to, and you find more value as a dev not trying to pre-emptively thwart any and every way around your intended design)
That could be with a smorgasboard of options, difficulty tweaks, or a beneficial save mechanic.
No. That is an absurd compromise that doesn't need to be—it is their game, they can build it they intend it to be; not with option fever.
It's not one or the other. It's a balance. I'm not a fan of "option fever". There's a limit. Obviously there's a limit. A game with ZERO options is ludicrous. Options are all about balancing player satisfaction with creator vision.
The best choice is to make the game offer one intended (and well polished) experience with a few justified options, not make an attempt to have it be everything to everyone through myriad options. That's nuts, and self demeaning.
I implied nothing of the sort.
They should choose one and forget the others; one cannot please them both—and for the sake of the selected, one shouldn't try. This is not what we got with BT4, WL2, FO3&4.... or if it is, then 'we' the fanbase, were not the selected.
I don't disagree. But their target demographic is up to them to choose. If they choose a wider demographic, then the harder it'll be to find a balance for player satisfaction. The thinner the demographic, the tighter the expectations, and the less significant that balance smorgasboard will be.
You haven't addressed the difference between reloading a save game and editing a save game's data.
And I don't intend to; there is no argument here... You should instinctively know the difference, it is self evident.
"Self evident" is not objective. One person's self-evident is another person's "free country".
Cheating is not, and cannot, be arbitrary and subjective.
There is a very objective and clear difference between the act of loading a game as saved by said game, and the act of externally editing a saved game's data before loading it. And I'm flabbergasted if anyone can't understand that.