Cheating in Games

[DeadPoolX]

Why do so many gamers despise those who use cheats in their games?

I can understand the reason in multiplayer games, but this hatred also carries over to single player games as well. I've read numerous comments online regarding cheating and the majority of them insult whoever chooses to cheat.

My problem with that is: so what if someone wants to cheat? So long as it's a single player game (or at least the single player component of a game), why is it any of your business how someone else plays their game?

I'll admit that sometimes cheating can ruin a game. If you give yourself invincibility or every spell/skill in Dragon Age, that'd defeat the entire point of leveling up, which in most cases is integral to RPGs. However, given that DA is a single player game (with no option for online play at all), if someone wanted to do any of the above, I wouldn't insult them for it. It's their game and they can play however they want.

There are times when using cheats is necessary as well. Some games have clipping issues, in which your character can get stuck within a wall (or some other object). This has happened to me in more than one game and the only option was to use cheats to unstick myself. Sure, I could've loaded up a saved game, but given that many games use save points nowadays, I didn't want to replay a bunch of stuff I'd already done.

Sometimes cheating is a lot of fun, too. Take Grand Theft Auto: Vice City as an example. I've played through the entire game before and now I like screwing around with it. I'll use cheats to give myself weapons or vehicles (I can summon a tank!) or simply blow stuff up. What's wrong with that if I find it entertaining?

Once again, I'm completely against cheating in multiplayer games, but when it comes to single player games, I don't see what's wrong with cheating. Maybe I wouldn't do it (depends on the game), but who am I to tell someone else how to play?

[Rath Darkblade]

I agree. There's nothing wrong with cheating in single player games.

And I'd like to take this a step further: some games cheat at you. Take, for instance, Civilization III - I played this many years ago, and it irked me (while playing on a not-very-difficult level) that while I was still in the bronze age, my opponents were all ganging up on me with guns and tanks. Now I'm not a very bad Civ player - a little defensively-minded, perhaps - so I could not, for the life of me, think what was happening, except that the game was cheating. So, I cheated back. After all, what's the point of playing a game if you always lose? Sure, give me a challenging game, and beat me occasionally. I don't mind. But if I'm always going to be trounced, I'd rather not play.

Sometimes cheating can be fun too. I played the QfG games almost to death before I discovered I could cheat. Now, I could create any kind of character I liked - if I wanted a weakling, I could create one; if I wanted an over-muscled dolt (e.g. QfG with a fighter with 200 strength and 3 intelligence), I could do that too. Why not?

Which is why I completely agree with you, DPX. And, with apologies to Bill Hicks, I have a question to all those who find cheating SO offensive in single-player games, that they absolutely have to flame me: what business is it of yours what I do with my own copy of a single-player game? How on earth does it affect you, or any other single soul on this planet, in any way?

Let me have a chorus now... IT DOESN'T! There, take that to the bank, cash it, and go on a friggin' vacation out of my life!

[BBP]

Possibly they're the ones who spent a year on getting their timing and aim so impeccably right as to solve any dfficult level, that they get frustrated from somebody who uses cheats to bypass the same level in minutes.

Essentially a game is about fun. If a game by design is too troublesome for you to play, you're entitled to use any means to make the game more entertaining, whether that is using cheats, walkthroughs, or by getting your character killed (which, as any Litil Divil player knows, can be very satisfying) in the most gruesome way possible.

[gumby]

I guess that is why I find FPS games so approachable (in a single player environment). Most of them have a difficulty level you choose up front - if you suck so horribly, just lower the difficulty. You make it as hard as you want (thereby making it more enjoyable, I suppose)

I guess for that matter, so do some RTS games (old-school Starcraft comes to mind). I'm sure there must be others...

[DeadPoolX]

Looking back at what I wrote, I just remembered there are a couple of instances when cheating in single player is bad. Some games, like Diablo II (and even some newer games, like Borderlands), allow you to use your single player character online with others, essentially making your character both single player and multiplayer.

That means if you cheat while playing single player to give yourself the best weapons, armor and gold, you're off-balancing the multiplayer component of the game. That assumes you even go online to play, but if you do (and most people do since D2 and BL are far more entertaining with a group), you could potentially ruin it for others.

Those types of games aren't too common, however. In most cases there is a clear divide between single player and multiplayer gaming. In games where you can't cross over, I don't see a problem with cheating.

[QuestCollector]

I try my very best not to cheat at games but sometimes I find myself entering a code or searching a walkthrough. The only time I do this though is when I'm frustrated at the game and can't get by the part no matter how many times I try it.

As for other people cheating it bothers me and doesn't bother me at times. For instance I have a PS3, same with a lot of my friends around here. Playing PS3 you can get trophies for doing certain tasks in games. All of them make it into a huge competition to see who can get the highest level and the most platinum trophies. I only have three platinum trophies but others have up to 9 because they're constantly going to gamefaqs or other help sites to get the best strategies/codes.

So it doesn't bother me if I don't know the person that's cheating and it usually does if I do.

I noticed that DPX mentioned Diablo II. That game drove me crazy with cheats online! I played the game for nearly ten years and there is this ring called an SOJ (stone of jordan) that at one time was the most valuable ring. I only found ONE in ten years. I would sometimes go into trading games with people and they would sometimes have 10-20-30 because of duplicating items. That made me so mad!!

[Rath Darkblade]

Hmm. QC, I can understand how that would make you mad. It would make me mad too.

However, I know very well that although I could (in theory) cheat in online games, I'll probably be found out very quickly - and what am I supposed to do then? I'd rather cheat in games only in single-player, off-line games, and even then if I find the game so hard that I'm not having any fun, or if I can't beat it at all (which, again, just isn't any fun).

However, I don't see any point to cheating in multi-player games (or online games). The whole point to multi-player games, as far as I'm concerned, is to play with others cooperatively and have fun. Cheating in MP games defeats the purpose of having fun, and makes other people view you negatively (to put it very mildly!)

But I'm sure I'm preaching to the choir here, so I'll stop.

[DeadPoolX]

. The whole point to multi-player games, as far as I'm concerned, is to play with others cooperatively and have fun.

Actually... it's only been within the last few years that developers have focused on co-op gaming. Sure, some games allowed co-op in the past, but the vast majority of multiplayer games (online or off) used to have "versus" modes only.

[Rath Darkblade]

Ah... ok. I was thinking of games like Diablo II, where the point is to co-operate with others. I guess you must be thinking of games like Unreal: Tournament, etc.?

[Datadog]

The only game I've had to use cheat codes to win was "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas." The controls were so clumsy, I couldn't properly shoot back during any of the missions without getting gunned to death from all angles. Then after that, I'd always have to make the long drive back to the mission from the hospital. At least performing the full health cheat code gave me a fighting chance, and I wasn't wasting all that time making the drive over and over.

But in this instance, I found that even using the cheat code was challenging. During an airplane mission, enemy fighters kept shooting me down, and I had to hurry up and keep entering the code before hitting the ground each time. I thought this was a case where using a cheat code was justified, since crashing during that mission meant I had to drive back across TWO CITIES just to try the mission over again.

[DeadPoolX]

Ah... ok. I was thinking of games like Diablo II, where the point is to co-operate with others. I guess you must be thinking of games like Unreal: Tournament, etc.?

Diablo II was somewhat unusual in the that there was co-op. On the PC, there were very few games that allowed co-op play until recently.

I don't just mean FPS games, either. RTS, third-person, driving, etc. RPGs have always catered to a "group" approach, but technological limitations kept co-op play to a minimum for years.

Probably the first RPG co-op game was Shadows of Yserbius. True, it was on TSN/INN (so you needed access to that network), but SoY was developed with group play in mind. Later RPGs that improved on this included Baldur's Gate and Icewind Dale.

I think it also depends how you define "co-op." Quake 2 let two or more players fight through the main game together. If you include team based games, where people on each team play in a cooperative way to beat the enemy, I'd say Starsiege: Tribes was the first to do this successfully.

By and large, the consoles have always been one step ahead of PCs in terms of co-op gaming. Some early NES titles included co-op play, such as Contra. Double Dragon 2, Battletoads, TMNT2 and others. In fact, one of the NES's launch titles, Ice Climber, allowed co-op play and that game was released in 1985.

[BBP]

The only game I've had to use cheat codes to win was "Grand Theft Auto: San Andreas."

Hey, is that the GTA where you can kiss your co-player, conjure up pink cars and limousines? I played that, got stuck underwater and couldn't get out. My teen cousins own it and never played without the cheats. If you have a situation like that, is that bad game design?

I just recalled Clyde's Adventures 2. In Clyde you have to get a lot of gems, and a treasure, then leave a castle. It's a bit of a puzzler. It's limited by amount of moves your character can make: you only have a limited amount of energy. If you make a few steps or jump, you lose 1 point, and if you fall a long distance, you lose 10 points.
In the second installment they had this "invention", a place with rocket shooters, so you could jump very high. High jump means long fall and a long walk back to try again. Means that without extra energy cheat you'd have to restart the level again and again every time you go left instead of right, or hold the button juuuust not long enough... It killed the installment, really. And I loved the first one.