I appreciate your perspective, and am mostly on the same page. I certainly don't use codes, but glitches are a different issue.
It depends on what you consider a glitch -- and sometimes it's impossible to know what is or isn't a glitch
Are we obligated to play games in the way the designers intended? How do we even know what they intended (I'd argue we almost never do)? If they intended one thing but executed another, which one should we follow?
We aren't obligated to play games the way designers intended, but that's how I prefer to do it on a first playthrough. I'd argue that with most games it's actually fairly clear what isn't intended. Bomb Jumping with the Goron Mask in Zelda Majora's Mask is a really clever way of sequence breaking without exploiting any glitches, and just creatively using the mechanics given to you, but you can obviously tell they didn't mean for you to be able to do it. You can try to justify it all you like that it's 100% legit, but it's not really how you're supposed to play the game.
It's a glitch alright. The programmers did not intend for the vertical height of the Goron pound to be used as a jump, so they made sure that it couldn't be used with momentum and didn't add any movement itself. They neglected to block the effects of certain influences like bombs, making it an oversight glitch. If they had realized this then they would have locked his position relative to the ground so that the animation plays out like he was against a wall or in a corner or they would have just had your character take damage and not played the animation at all.
Donkey Kong Country v1.0 has a cool glitch that doesn't impact progression: turn Winky or Expresso into Rambi in certain stages. It's the only way to have known how Rambi interacts with Zingers before DKC2, the effect is temporary (only until the end of the level), and it doesn't really give you an advantage. That kind of glitching should be totally OK.
Even as kids these things were an illegitimate wins, at least in our house. Never had a Game Genie until recently, and it isn't used for loading codes .
Oh, Game Genie is a totally different issue -- I didn't know anyone as a kid who thought that wasn't cheating. But stuff like the 30-man code in Contra? The attitude was, if it's present in the game, it's there to be used.
I didn't know anyone who felt otherwise about it. And magazines of the time certainly didn't characterize the codes they published as cheats. If anything, using codes and other exploits (like the power cycling trick in Atari 2600 Space Invaders to allow for two shots) was considered clever, as though you were outsmarting the designers or accessing hidden knowledge they thought you weren't clever enough to suss out.
Again, when I was a kid, there wasn't this almost fundamentalist attitude toward games that's taken over nowadays -- where people treated them like religious texts to be revered and obeyed, or macho rituals of passage to prove your manhood by doing things in the most hardcore way possible. This was a war between the player and the developer, and almost any advantage you could get was considered fair game (invincibility codes were a bridge too far, though).
Of course the more you put into any game, the more you get out of it, and that's how I play now: trying to get the most out of each game I play, without crutches. But I sometimes miss those more lighthearted days.
We just didn't use codes like that if we wanted to beat it fairly. Guides too were considered illegitimate, only to be used as a last resort. We bought the Secret of Evermore guide in order to find one thing, and same with the Mario RPG guide.
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
Magazines did use the word "cheat" though in describing codes, at least during the NES era. I can't speak for the days of the 2600. Even NP's "Classified Information" denoted that something was not supposed to be known.
Techniques are used in speed runs to finish games faster. What I was saying is if I never beat it, used these tricks to beat it, would I have beaten the game?
Warps in Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3? I prefer playing all the way through but I wouldn't say that you haven't beaten the game just because you warped. Then again, if you did the Stage Select cheat in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 The Arcade Game to jump straight to the last level, I don't think it should count.
Warp Zones are part of the game, though.
You haven't "completed the game 100%" if you use them, but if you use them and beat the last boss then you "beat the game", at some level.
Stage Select codes are different, though, since those are almost always "developer cheats" that weren't removed after the game was completed.
(the vast majority of controller-input-codes fall into that category -- i.e. cheats for play-testers to use that you wouldn't dare risk removing from the final product because you don't want to have to retest the entire game to make sure you didn't destablize it)
Techniques are used in speed runs to finish games faster. What I was saying is if I never beat it, used these tricks to beat it, would I have beaten the game?
Warps in Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3? I prefer playing all the way through but I wouldn't say that you haven't beaten the game just because you warped. Then again, if you did the Stage Select cheat in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 The Arcade Game to jump straight to the last level, I don't think it should count.
Warp Zones are part of the game, though.
You haven't "completed the game 100%" if you use them, but if you use them and beat the last boss then you "beat the game", at some level.
Stage Select codes are different, though, since those are almost always "developer cheats" that weren't removed after the game was completed.
(the vast majority of controller-input-codes fall into that category -- i.e. cheats for play-testers to use that you wouldn't dare risk removing from the final product because you don't want to have to retest the entire game to make sure you didn't destablize it)
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
Sometimes I miss the way we approached games when we were kids -- adversarially, that is. Cheat codes, exploits, 1UP loops, turbo, slowdown,stage select, whatever: they were all fair game in the war between the player and the developer. Having one of these was like espionage in war, giving you information to help you defeat the enemy.
The ones I highlighted, my friends and I definitely considered cheating, even back-in-the-day.
Would we use codes, sometimes, just for the hell of it? Sure.
But I seriously doubt we would have considered it "a win" to use them and then "beat" the game.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
This! Exactly! I fully agree! Games, even used, did cost money. They had to last some time. Also, proving to be good enough to finish it up without help, was part of the challenge. Even unrequested advice was irritating, your position was "I can solve it on my own way". After finishing it up once, is cool to talk/read about and discover what was missed, and play it again to search any thing missed, from Easter eggs, to sub missions. But the first time you were tackling the game, no way! That was not knowledge that you wanted to have, at least in your first run, it would feel like cheating, or even more, it was like going to watch a movie, with someone that spoilers you the ending! Definitely not fun for those games!
Still today, if someone asks me why do I like, for instance, FFVI, I say "did you play it already?". If not, I'm concerned about not spoilering too much, in explaining what in my opinions are the games qualities, trying to always be as vague as possible about where and when things happens. If we talk strategy with people that already played, then it is different, of course.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
I discover today that a "Konami code" exists. (OT: I knew (and used) only one code: Capcom SF II Turbo code: DLURYBXA or was it DRULYBXA? However, the one to have up to 10 stars in game speed. If anything, the game was harder; but so much fun in player vs. player! Better than the arcade! At speed 10 stars, you could play several dozens of matches with friends in a single afternoon, and no one had to wait his/her turn for too long: three rounds (or two rounds if a challenger wasn't able to win one) were very quick, and the loser, goes out for someone else to enter to challenge the champion in charge! Fun! )
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
Is it? I only remember the TMNTII code and that's probably because it was the first I learned. Could never remember the other Konami code, so it seems clear to me that it was a monkey wrench deliberately thrown into the works.
Is it? I only remember the TMNTII code and that's probably because it was the first I learned. Could never remember the other Konami code, so it seems clear to me that it was a monkey wrench deliberately thrown into the works.
I was referring to the main, and classic, "Konami Code" (i.e. 30 lives in Contra).
They used it in numerous games, verbatim, I thought.
But the "Contra code" is easy to remember, IMO. Very catchy.
For instance, I speak about Pirates! (NES) since it is the game I defeated for this year "Can NA beat..." thread.
Some exploits are cheating:
In that game, some actions (visit a governor, for instance) trigger a random consequence (get a mission, for instance). If you save right before such action, and the outcome is not too appealing, you could reload from teh save for a better outcome. This, of course, would be cheating. This is selecting up good outcomes, without putting any skill into the game.
I'm not sure I would say that save-scumming is really "cheating". Some games, especially computer games, clearly expect you to save and reload if things don't go your way. Sometimes it's not a question of skill, and you just get screwed by the RNG no matter how well you play.
Even some console RPGs say it upfront. For example, Faery Tale Adventure (for Sega Genesis) actually tells you in the manual to save before opening a treasure chest, and reload if you don't like the random item drop you get.
Of course if RPG writers wanted to prevent save-scumming, there's a very direct solution: constant autosave, like in Wizardry or the early mainframe D&D games.
My opinion on it is pretty simple; if it was done using in-game means(unlocking some kind of super OP weapon, using warp whistles in SMB3, etc) then it counts. If you're exploiting a bug or glitch, then no, doesn't count.
So if I start up a game of Super Mario 3, use both warp whistles on world 1 to go straight to world 8, and beat it, it counts as "beaten" in my book.
If you play Super Mario 3, and use the glitch in world 7(I think?) that drops you straight into Peach's chamber, then no, you didn't beat it legit.
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
This! Exactly! I fully agree! Games, even used, did cost money. They had to last some time.
Unless, of course, you were renting them or borrowing them from someone. Then you often had to get them done as quickly as possible, or not at all. (And you were often missing things like manuals or maps that were meant to help you play more efficiently to begin with.)
Don't get me wrong, I totally get the idea of extracting every bit of enjoyment from a game, and doing everything on your own as much as possible. That's how I try to play nowadays, and I avoid walkthroughs unless I'm completely stuck and tired of wasting time.
Then you often had to get them done as quickly as possible, or not at all.
For several games I owned for years (not just rented), it was not at all. Like I said, I finished probably a dozen NES/SNES games in my life. Not more. And I can perfectly live with it, no problems.
Play the game (especially a jRPG/Adveture and especially the first run) was the journey, the thrill, and the discovery, rather than beating it (for instance to buy a new expensive sword without knowing what's next, it is a risk which is part of the fun, even if you find out later that it was not really needed and you were better set up buying a better armor instead); but I understand that for others (probably the majority) play a game is about finishing it, or something else completely. We are not all the same.
Also, I'm talking here first experience on a new (for such palyer) game. Then, if we talk an extremely hard house rule variant attempt, of a game that we both defeated many times, and discuss the best strategy, of course every bit of information is welcome; but this is a completely different scenario!
I'm not sure I would say that save-scumming is really "cheating". Some games, especially computer games, clearly expect you to save and reload if things don't go your way. Sometimes it's not a question of skill, and you just get screwed by the RNG no matter how well you play.
This is exactly the reason for me to don't appreciate Skyrym (whatever the spelling) Baldur's Gate, and such huge maps quick save kind of games: try them 5 minutes, and become bored. It is all about "try, if win good, if lose, reload". Flat, no challenge, no thrill, no way to lose. No one expects the player to do a no death run, everyone plays sloppy, the few puzzles are never faced, the next enemy to face is always known (a quick search on internet solves both the issues), and anyways the temporary defeat doesn't matter, it is just about reload from where you were 20 seconds before (there is no need to face the whole dungeon again). Utterly boring, for me. But, such games are popular, so some (actually, many) must like them. Many of my friends did/do like them, a lot. No blames. It is simply not what I call entertaining and cleaver gaming. It is not really challenging, surprising, and all; it feels more like watching an already spoiled soap opera show. But I perfectly understand that others like that kind of gaming, so I'm not claiming to be right, this is just what gaming is for me.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
Now in say, a shooter, memorizing a pattern and always acting the same way through a stage isn't only ok, but it's expected in many games. Attacking a boss from a sweet spot there wouldn't be nearly as bad. And Q*Bert, playing off of patterns is 100% expected.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
Now in say, a shooter, memorizing a pattern and always acting the same way through a stage isn't only ok, but it's expected in many games. Attacking a boss from a sweet spot there wouldn't be nearly as bad. And Q*Bert, playing off of patterns is 100% expected.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
Cheat code, credits warp, etc. There are lots of speed runner glitches that take more skill than beating the game properly.
I don't think I could beat Ninja Gaiden without saving the spin slash token from earlier, but no way am I going to say that it doesn't count!
I think if it's legitimately a part of the game (like the spin slash in Ninja Gaiden, or sitting in the corner and duck slashing over and over on the final boss in Zelda II), I think it's legit. Now, if it's something like slipping through a random floor and warping to the end of the game (just a hypothetical scenario), yeah, I don't really count it. It's legit for speedruns, but not "normal" play.
While we're on the subject of cheap stuff in video games, I just want to throw out there that Shredder in the original TMNT on NES is ridiculously easy; just stand on the center platform, and keep attacking. He falls backwards each time he gets hit, and just jumps into your attack when he gets back up. If you try to run around and move too much, he'll one-shot you with his mutagen gun. Just stand in one high spot and swing away.
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
By the way, interesting conversation.
So to completely segway the topic a bit, one way they can make AI to get around this is a simple learning AI. When I say simple, it really is simpler than you would think, not sure of any fighters currently that implement one like this. I know of a air combat dog-fighting game on PCs that did, but I cant remember the name.
First you need to break up attacks in some fasion. You might say you have three attacks, Jump, standing, ducking, or better, each move has it's own variable. So in SFII, Ryu's ducking short, med, hk all have a variable, as do standing and jumping, and every other move. So you get a matrix like this:
Ducking SK 0
Ducking MK 0
Ducking HK 0
Standing SK 0
Standing MK 0
Standing HK 0
You can have these variables go up each time a move is used. Then you can have the computer block all moves 50%+(10% * Value of move). If a move is spammed say 5+ times, you might want to lower the values of the other moves. So 5 sweeps in a row would cause them to always be blocked, then you try a few jump kicks, you can sneak in another sweap after it. This is a very basic AI type, you can split the attacks up more with things like "Sweeps after jumpkicks" or "attacks on standing".
The air combat game changed it a bit so the array of variables were areas of the ship that were attacked. Keep hitting the planes directly from behind, they would start guarding their tail better.
Writing AI is fun..... till you discover your amazingly cool AI is too good and just putting random values in it to make it wonder around worked better.
So to completely segway the topic a bit, one way they can make AI to get around this is a simple learning AI.
Really, I don't wish to antagonize.
What you say is smart. However, the human player is never fair.
Let's suppose there are 3 possible moves, named: Annie, Barbie, Carol. Like you propose, each consecutive time you use Annie, the chances for the Ai to block Annie raise by +10%. Actually, let's make it +25%! So, use Annie: 50% to hit. Use Annie again: 25% to hit. Use Annie again: 0% to hit. Player solution: instead of play a brainless spamming of Annie, play a brainless spamming of: Annie, Barbie, Carol, Annie, Barbie, Carol, Annie, Barbie, Carol, ... you gonna win, problem solved.
Again, what you say is absolutely correct, it can make things more complex (in a positive way) for the player. But still, I yet have to see a videogame AI challenging an "expert and skilled" human player without cheating.
It happens with DeepBlue, DeepFritz, whatever multiprocessor chess games are called, but this is because there is a lot of previous literature about chess strategy to put in the AI knowledge, and chess it is a game that suits a computer AI very well, with long pauses to analyze tons of possible developments and break with brute force the human player position, and it is a game where the number of possible moves are limited, and you play one single move per turn. And it toke a lot of years and experiments to get to the point where AIs are superior to grand masters. AFAIK, the AI doesn't imagine anything, it just analyses a bunch of data, gives a "weight" to each possible next position, and "decide" for the best.
Now, just take instead a game like Civilization for instance, which is close to chess somehow, but more than a single move per turn is allowed, and there is no way that an AI, without cheating, can be a challenge to an experienced player: an experienced player has tons of ways to exploit the AI weaknesses, no matter tons of lines of AI code, and no matter the AI actually reacting, like you propose, to the human player actions. Actually, in some strategy games, the fact that the AI reacts to the human player actions, makes it even more exploitable in some cases (e.g. keep on making silly fake attacks north, to make the true real attack south ). An human players understand that it is a decoy, an AI does?
That being said, what you say is correct, your simple solution does, in suuch scenario, makes exploit the AI at least a bit more complex to do.
Also, these are just my two cents; likely an expert programmer in artificial intelligence can be way more accurate, and maybe also say that my argument here is completely wrong: I talk only from experience of modding and programming few games.
Comments
I appreciate your perspective, and am mostly on the same page. I certainly don't use codes, but glitches are a different issue.
It depends on what you consider a glitch -- and sometimes it's impossible to know what is or isn't a glitch
Are we obligated to play games in the way the designers intended? How do we even know what they intended (I'd argue we almost never do)? If they intended one thing but executed another, which one should we follow?
We aren't obligated to play games the way designers intended, but that's how I prefer to do it on a first playthrough. I'd argue that with most games it's actually fairly clear what isn't intended. Bomb Jumping with the Goron Mask in Zelda Majora's Mask is a really clever way of sequence breaking without exploiting any glitches, and just creatively using the mechanics given to you, but you can obviously tell they didn't mean for you to be able to do it. You can try to justify it all you like that it's 100% legit, but it's not really how you're supposed to play the game.
It's a glitch alright. The programmers did not intend for the vertical height of the Goron pound to be used as a jump, so they made sure that it couldn't be used with momentum and didn't add any movement itself. They neglected to block the effects of certain influences like bombs, making it an oversight glitch. If they had realized this then they would have locked his position relative to the ground so that the animation plays out like he was against a wall or in a corner or they would have just had your character take damage and not played the animation at all.
Donkey Kong Country v1.0 has a cool glitch that doesn't impact progression: turn Winky or Expresso into Rambi in certain stages. It's the only way to have known how Rambi interacts with Zingers before DKC2, the effect is temporary (only until the end of the level), and it doesn't really give you an advantage. That kind of glitching should be totally OK.
Originally posted by: bronzeshield
Originally posted by: SoleGooseProductions
Even as kids these things were an illegitimate wins, at least in our house. Never had a Game Genie until recently, and it isn't used for loading codes .
Oh, Game Genie is a totally different issue -- I didn't know anyone as a kid who thought that wasn't cheating. But stuff like the 30-man code in Contra? The attitude was, if it's present in the game, it's there to be used.
I didn't know anyone who felt otherwise about it. And magazines of the time certainly didn't characterize the codes they published as cheats. If anything, using codes and other exploits (like the power cycling trick in Atari 2600 Space Invaders to allow for two shots) was considered clever, as though you were outsmarting the designers or accessing hidden knowledge they thought you weren't clever enough to suss out.
Again, when I was a kid, there wasn't this almost fundamentalist attitude toward games that's taken over nowadays -- where people treated them like religious texts to be revered and obeyed, or macho rituals of passage to prove your manhood by doing things in the most hardcore way possible. This was a war between the player and the developer, and almost any advantage you could get was considered fair game (invincibility codes were a bridge too far, though).
Of course the more you put into any game, the more you get out of it, and that's how I play now: trying to get the most out of each game I play, without crutches. But I sometimes miss those more lighthearted days.
We just didn't use codes like that if we wanted to beat it fairly. Guides too were considered illegitimate, only to be used as a last resort. We bought the Secret of Evermore guide in order to find one thing, and same with the Mario RPG guide.
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
Magazines did use the word "cheat" though in describing codes, at least during the NES era. I can't speak for the days of the 2600. Even NP's "Classified Information" denoted that something was not supposed to be known.
For the record I won't do this.
Techniques are used in speed runs to finish games faster. What I was saying is if I never beat it, used these tricks to beat it, would I have beaten the game?
Warps in Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3? I prefer playing all the way through but I wouldn't say that you haven't beaten the game just because you warped. Then again, if you did the Stage Select cheat in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 The Arcade Game to jump straight to the last level, I don't think it should count.
Warp Zones are part of the game, though.
You haven't "completed the game 100%" if you use them, but if you use them and beat the last boss then you "beat the game", at some level.
Stage Select codes are different, though, since those are almost always "developer cheats" that weren't removed after the game was completed.
(the vast majority of controller-input-codes fall into that category -- i.e. cheats for play-testers to use that you wouldn't dare risk removing from the final product because you don't want to have to retest the entire game to make sure you didn't destablize it)
For the record I won't do this.
Techniques are used in speed runs to finish games faster. What I was saying is if I never beat it, used these tricks to beat it, would I have beaten the game?
Warps in Super Mario Bros 1, 2, and 3? I prefer playing all the way through but I wouldn't say that you haven't beaten the game just because you warped. Then again, if you did the Stage Select cheat in Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles 2 The Arcade Game to jump straight to the last level, I don't think it should count.
Warp Zones are part of the game, though.
You haven't "completed the game 100%" if you use them, but if you use them and beat the last boss then you "beat the game", at some level.
Stage Select codes are different, though, since those are almost always "developer cheats" that weren't removed after the game was completed.
(the vast majority of controller-input-codes fall into that category -- i.e. cheats for play-testers to use that you wouldn't dare risk removing from the final product because you don't want to have to retest the entire game to make sure you didn't destablize it)
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
Sometimes I miss the way we approached games when we were kids -- adversarially, that is. Cheat codes, exploits, 1UP loops, turbo, slowdown, stage select, whatever: they were all fair game in the war between the player and the developer. Having one of these was like espionage in war, giving you information to help you defeat the enemy.
The ones I highlighted, my friends and I definitely considered cheating, even back-in-the-day.
Would we use codes, sometimes, just for the hell of it? Sure.
But I seriously doubt we would have considered it "a win" to use them and then "beat" the game.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
This! Exactly! I fully agree! Games, even used, did cost money. They had to last some time. Also, proving to be good enough to finish it up without help, was part of the challenge. Even unrequested advice was irritating, your position was "I can solve it on my own way". After finishing it up once, is cool to talk/read about and discover what was missed, and play it again to search any thing missed, from Easter eggs, to sub missions. But the first time you were tackling the game, no way! That was not knowledge that you wanted to have, at least in your first run, it would feel like cheating, or even more, it was like going to watch a movie, with someone that spoilers you the ending! Definitely not fun for those games!
Still today, if someone asks me why do I like, for instance, FFVI, I say "did you play it already?". If not, I'm concerned about not spoilering too much, in explaining what in my opinions are the games qualities, trying to always be as vague as possible about where and when things happens. If we talk strategy with people that already played, then it is different, of course.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
I discover today that a "Konami code" exists. (OT: I knew (and used) only one code: Capcom SF II Turbo code: DLURYBXA or was it DRULYBXA? However, the one to have up to 10 stars in game speed. If anything, the game was harder; but so much fun in player vs. player! Better than the arcade! At speed 10 stars, you could play several dozens of matches with friends in a single afternoon, and no one had to wait his/her turn for too long: three rounds (or two rounds if a challenger wasn't able to win one) were very quick, and the loser, goes out for someone else to enter to challenge the champion in charge! Fun! )
Well, that particular example was a variation of "The Konami Code" and was almost certainly intended for end users as well. The last world continue cheat in Super Mario Bros is another. Using a level select cheat to continue/resume doesn't seem like cheating until you consider that the same player may not have been able to play through from the start (will "resume" with more lives).
I thought it was pretty well established that the origin of the Konami code STARTED with playtest/developers and they just kept recycling it because it was easy to remember and they didn't really care that players knew about it.
Not that players were INTENDED to use it to finish the game "as designed".
More that it just remained a staple of Konami games as a way to play "super easy mode" on some of their games.
...but they changed it enough that it would be difficult to remember. It took on a life of its own and they deliberately fed into it.
Clearly they didnt, or it wouldn't be so easy to remember...
Is it? I only remember the TMNTII code and that's probably because it was the first I learned. Could never remember the other Konami code, so it seems clear to me that it was a monkey wrench deliberately thrown into the works.
Is it? I only remember the TMNTII code and that's probably because it was the first I learned. Could never remember the other Konami code, so it seems clear to me that it was a monkey wrench deliberately thrown into the works.
I was referring to the main, and classic, "Konami Code" (i.e. 30 lives in Contra).
They used it in numerous games, verbatim, I thought.
But the "Contra code" is easy to remember, IMO. Very catchy.
For instance, I speak about Pirates! (NES) since it is the game I defeated for this year "Can NA beat..." thread.
Some exploits are cheating:
In that game, some actions (visit a governor, for instance) trigger a random consequence (get a mission, for instance). If you save right before such action, and the outcome is not too appealing, you could reload from teh save for a better outcome. This, of course, would be cheating. This is selecting up good outcomes, without putting any skill into the game.
I'm not sure I would say that save-scumming is really "cheating". Some games, especially computer games, clearly expect you to save and reload if things don't go your way. Sometimes it's not a question of skill, and you just get screwed by the RNG no matter how well you play.
Even some console RPGs say it upfront. For example, Faery Tale Adventure (for Sega Genesis) actually tells you in the manual to save before opening a treasure chest, and reload if you don't like the random item drop you get.
Of course if RPG writers wanted to prevent save-scumming, there's a very direct solution: constant autosave, like in Wizardry or the early mainframe D&D games.
So if I start up a game of Super Mario 3, use both warp whistles on world 1 to go straight to world 8, and beat it, it counts as "beaten" in my book.
If you play Super Mario 3, and use the glitch in world 7(I think?) that drops you straight into Peach's chamber, then no, you didn't beat it legit.
Just my opinion.
Just a different approach to things I guess. We mostly played RPGs after the NES, so once we accomplished something or figured it out, there wasn't any undoing of that knowledge. We tried to make them last as long as possible by only figuring things out on our own.
This! Exactly! I fully agree! Games, even used, did cost money. They had to last some time.
Unless, of course, you were renting them or borrowing them from someone. Then you often had to get them done as quickly as possible, or not at all. (And you were often missing things like manuals or maps that were meant to help you play more efficiently to begin with.)
Don't get me wrong, I totally get the idea of extracting every bit of enjoyment from a game, and doing everything on your own as much as possible. That's how I try to play nowadays, and I avoid walkthroughs unless I'm completely stuck and tired of wasting time.
I usually try to play games all the way through without warps and abusing exploits that give a ton of 1ups.
Then you often had to get them done as quickly as possible, or not at all.
For several games I owned for years (not just rented), it was not at all. Like I said, I finished probably a dozen NES/SNES games in my life. Not more. And I can perfectly live with it, no problems.
Play the game (especially a jRPG/Adveture and especially the first run) was the journey, the thrill, and the discovery, rather than beating it (for instance to buy a new expensive sword without knowing what's next, it is a risk which is part of the fun, even if you find out later that it was not really needed and you were better set up buying a better armor instead); but I understand that for others (probably the majority) play a game is about finishing it, or something else completely. We are not all the same.
Also, I'm talking here first experience on a new (for such palyer) game. Then, if we talk an extremely hard house rule variant attempt, of a game that we both defeated many times, and discuss the best strategy, of course every bit of information is welcome; but this is a completely different scenario!
I'm not sure I would say that save-scumming is really "cheating". Some games, especially computer games, clearly expect you to save and reload if things don't go your way. Sometimes it's not a question of skill, and you just get screwed by the RNG no matter how well you play.
This is exactly the reason for me to don't appreciate Skyrym (whatever the spelling) Baldur's Gate, and such huge maps quick save kind of games: try them 5 minutes, and become bored. It is all about "try, if win good, if lose, reload". Flat, no challenge, no thrill, no way to lose. No one expects the player to do a no death run, everyone plays sloppy, the few puzzles are never faced, the next enemy to face is always known (a quick search on internet solves both the issues), and anyways the temporary defeat doesn't matter, it is just about reload from where you were 20 seconds before (there is no need to face the whole dungeon again). Utterly boring, for me. But, such games are popular, so some (actually, many) must like them. Many of my friends did/do like them, a lot. No blames. It is simply not what I call entertaining and cleaver gaming. It is not really challenging, surprising, and all; it feels more like watching an already spoiled soap opera show. But I perfectly understand that others like that kind of gaming, so I'm not claiming to be right, this is just what gaming is for me.
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
Now in say, a shooter, memorizing a pattern and always acting the same way through a stage isn't only ok, but it's expected in many games. Attacking a boss from a sweet spot there wouldn't be nearly as bad. And Q*Bert, playing off of patterns is 100% expected.
People are over thinking it. If you go into options, set the game too easy, then beat the game, does it count?
Yes, you beat the game. On easy. You are allowed to tell people you have beat the game, and not be a liar. You just have to make sure you point out you're a wuss and used easy mode.
I beat TMNT in the arcade when I was 10 with three friends. We used almost an entire $20. It was awesome. That doesn't count as beating it. Beating it on 2-3 continues, sure, it counts. But you really should tell people you used continues.
Glitches are just a step above this. Generally speaking, if you've beaten the game the legit way before, using some glitches are a lot more understandable. And some "glitches" are hard to separate from techs. Like mashing a direction while firing in Metroid to get faster shots, or jumping in mid-air from a ball roll, or freezing the rio to skip ridley. All legit wins, but generally you might want to tell people if you skip a boss. That's why speedruns have categories.
In general, if it doesn't break the game, it's not too bad. Also, a personal view of my own, IF YOU FIND IT YOURSELF, it's still cheating, but not as bad. For example, Zelda 2, I discovered infinite EXP in the swamps off the birds long before I saw anyone else talk about it, so I didn't feel too bad about letting it run for a day. Not like it made THAT much of a difference. Duplicating equipment in the GoldBox games? Hell, it was hard NOT to accidently do this. Now adays I never dupe equipment, but when I was younger, sure. I felt kind of bad about it, but honestly, I felt worse killing hoards of monsters and using it to buy wands. This was 100% legit, but it was a CHEAP tactic.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
Now in say, a shooter, memorizing a pattern and always acting the same way through a stage isn't only ok, but it's expected in many games. Attacking a boss from a sweet spot there wouldn't be nearly as bad. And Q*Bert, playing off of patterns is 100% expected.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
By the way, interesting conversation.
Cheap wins that don't cheat still suck. Like spamming the same move over and over in fighters.
Blame the game, not the player. If a game has something like that then I'd just say it's a shit game.
I blame them both. Like in MK3, jump away then do a delayed jump kick, the computer will ALWAYS throw a projectile if you're in the "sweet spot", and you can switch up to a mid-air attack to counter them every time. Beating the game like this once, sure, it counts. But if that's all you do, you're not good at the game, and your wins don't mean much.
It's even easier in MKII. You can bait the computer into jumping in for roundhouse kicks like, the entire game. You can beat Kintaro with just jump kicks if your timing is tight enough
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
By the way, interesting conversation.
Awesome post, sir.
1. What's the exploit, per say?
2. I see this being a very polarizing topic.
Cheat code, credits warp, etc. There are lots of speed runner glitches that take more skill than beating the game properly.
I don't think I could beat Ninja Gaiden without saving the spin slash token from earlier, but no way am I going to say that it doesn't count!
I think if it's legitimately a part of the game (like the spin slash in Ninja Gaiden, or sitting in the corner and duck slashing over and over on the final boss in Zelda II), I think it's legit. Now, if it's something like slipping through a random floor and warping to the end of the game (just a hypothetical scenario), yeah, I don't really count it. It's legit for speedruns, but not "normal" play.
On player defense: it is not easy to set a line on where the attitude is clever and where it starts to be cheap.
On developers defense: it is not trivial to make an AI that the player cannot exploit: no matter how good the logic is, once the player understands it, it will exploit it for his own advantage: the AI does not learn from a game to the next, the player does.
Cheap on SFII: ChunLi, left screen, jump back to the left edge, then keep on upper left jumping, and strong kick mid air: perfect (almost) assured against Zangief, even if not looking at the screen.
And again, it is not easy to set an edge: you do something like this against Zangief, it seems a really cheap solution, but if you can find something similar against M.Bison (Vega in Japanese version), which is way stronger and difficult to defeat, and it is like the AI cheating playing a one sided fight, it might sound clever. Finally, AI spams special moves over and over again too, so there is another element to justify the player spamming his own working attacks. At least, some attacks work well for some opponents, some other attacks work well for some other opponents. For instance, IIRC, with ChunLi, against Vega (Barlog j.), which is one of the 4 final bosses, grab the opponent mid air with perfect timing using strong punch, is pretty efficient, and can deliver a perfect with just that, but not every opponent can be defeated that way: Barlog (M.Bison j.) needs a completely different attack spam to be defeated. So, at least, there is to remember which attacks to spam against which opponent, and this can be argued to be some kind of "skill". I really think that this kind of fighting games, must be played in 2 players mode to deliver the best: the AI cannot compete an extremely skilled and experienced player. However, it is not easy to set the limit of what's cheap to do against a poor AI: in case of a contest, I think that it is mostly about agreeing on an arbitrary list of what it is cheap to do (hence forbidden) before playing.
By the way, interesting conversation.
So to completely segway the topic a bit, one way they can make AI to get around this is a simple learning AI. When I say simple, it really is simpler than you would think, not sure of any fighters currently that implement one like this. I know of a air combat dog-fighting game on PCs that did, but I cant remember the name.
First you need to break up attacks in some fasion. You might say you have three attacks, Jump, standing, ducking, or better, each move has it's own variable. So in SFII, Ryu's ducking short, med, hk all have a variable, as do standing and jumping, and every other move. So you get a matrix like this:
Ducking SK 0
Ducking MK 0
Ducking HK 0
Standing SK 0
Standing MK 0
Standing HK 0
You can have these variables go up each time a move is used. Then you can have the computer block all moves 50%+(10% * Value of move). If a move is spammed say 5+ times, you might want to lower the values of the other moves. So 5 sweeps in a row would cause them to always be blocked, then you try a few jump kicks, you can sneak in another sweap after it. This is a very basic AI type, you can split the attacks up more with things like "Sweeps after jumpkicks" or "attacks on standing".
The air combat game changed it a bit so the array of variables were areas of the ship that were attacked. Keep hitting the planes directly from behind, they would start guarding their tail better.
Writing AI is fun..... till you discover your amazingly cool AI is too good and just putting random values in it to make it wonder around worked better.
So to completely segway the topic a bit, one way they can make AI to get around this is a simple learning AI.
Really, I don't wish to antagonize.
What you say is smart. However, the human player is never fair.
Let's suppose there are 3 possible moves, named: Annie, Barbie, Carol. Like you propose, each consecutive time you use Annie, the chances for the Ai to block Annie raise by +10%. Actually, let's make it +25%! So, use Annie: 50% to hit. Use Annie again: 25% to hit. Use Annie again: 0% to hit. Player solution: instead of play a brainless spamming of Annie, play a brainless spamming of: Annie, Barbie, Carol, Annie, Barbie, Carol, Annie, Barbie, Carol, ... you gonna win, problem solved.
Again, what you say is absolutely correct, it can make things more complex (in a positive way) for the player. But still, I yet have to see a videogame AI challenging an "expert and skilled" human player without cheating.
It happens with DeepBlue, DeepFritz, whatever multiprocessor chess games are called, but this is because there is a lot of previous literature about chess strategy to put in the AI knowledge, and chess it is a game that suits a computer AI very well, with long pauses to analyze tons of possible developments and break with brute force the human player position, and it is a game where the number of possible moves are limited, and you play one single move per turn. And it toke a lot of years and experiments to get to the point where AIs are superior to grand masters. AFAIK, the AI doesn't imagine anything, it just analyses a bunch of data, gives a "weight" to each possible next position, and "decide" for the best.
Now, just take instead a game like Civilization for instance, which is close to chess somehow, but more than a single move per turn is allowed, and there is no way that an AI, without cheating, can be a challenge to an experienced player: an experienced player has tons of ways to exploit the AI weaknesses, no matter tons of lines of AI code, and no matter the AI actually reacting, like you propose, to the human player actions. Actually, in some strategy games, the fact that the AI reacts to the human player actions, makes it even more exploitable in some cases (e.g. keep on making silly fake attacks north, to make the true real attack south ). An human players understand that it is a decoy, an AI does?
That being said, what you say is correct, your simple solution does, in suuch scenario, makes exploit the AI at least a bit more complex to do.
Also, these are just my two cents; likely an expert programmer in artificial intelligence can be way more accurate, and maybe also say that my argument here is completely wrong: I talk only from experience of modding and programming few games.