Actually, Fox was top tier in SSBM. Apparently you are unaware of the great tier list debacles. Two top players of equal skill would only ever pick either Fox, Falco, Marth, Sheik, or Peach to do battle, usually. Some top players were excellent with other characters, but if they fought someone with equal skill, a fast character like Fox with ranged attacks and hard-hitting smash moves was almost impossible to beat. Now, in Brawl, Metaknight has taken that position. Also, in Smash 64, the official top tiers were Kirby, Ness, and Pikachu. Ness makes me happy, but I'm sad that he's bad in Melee and Brawl. I still play him and Lucas anyways though. Fanboyism for the win!
Apparently you are unaware of theretardedtier listflamewars.
Fix'd
True enough.
Also, I just remembered a funny story about TIE Fighter. I remember asking my dad for the X-Wing Lego set, and not knowing what I was talking about, he wound up buying the X-Wing Collection, which had X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance. I tried playing them all, got the farthest in X-Wing Alliance (which wasn't very far at all), but was ultimately confused and unable to play most of it. But from what I saw of both, they looked like fun. I probably still have the discs in my basement...Somewhere.
Also, I just remembered a funny story about TIE Fighter. I remember asking my dad for the X-Wing Lego set, and not knowing what I was talking about, he wound up buying the X-Wing Collection, which had X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance. I tried playing them all, got the farthest in X-Wing Alliance (which wasn't very far at all), but was ultimately confused and unable to play most of it. But from what I saw of both, they looked like fun. I probably still have the discs in my basement...Somewhere.
That is because they are difficult and complicated games for real gamers. You need a serious joystick in order to even have a chance of playing them comfortably.
Also, I just remembered a funny story about TIE Fighter. I remember asking my dad for the X-Wing Lego set, and not knowing what I was talking about, he wound up buying the X-Wing Collection, which had X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance. I tried playing them all, got the farthest in X-Wing Alliance (which wasn't very far at all), but was ultimately confused and unable to play most of it. But from what I saw of both, they looked like fun. I probably still have the discs in my basement...Somewhere.
That is because they are difficult and complicated games for real gamers. You need a serious joystick in order to even have a chance of playing them comfortably.
Yeah. I was, and am still, a poor punk kid. I couldn't afford a joystick. Although I figured out the tractor beam mechanic in X-Wing Alliance and had fun with it...
Although I figured the tractor beam mechanic in X-Wing Alliance and had fun with it...
I must admit, one thing that always bothered me about the tractor beam mechanic in that game was that if you tractored something with far greater mass, the beam would just break. What would have been awesome would be if you could use it in that situation like a grapple, to swing fast around larger objects and such, because you can't move the object of far greater mass, but the tractor beam is obviously strong enough to hold a small fighter, or else it would be useless in the game.
IMO cheating is too narrow of a category. Somewhat better is "things that make the game not fun(for you and/or others)" but it's also completely useless because it's too broad.
If you're playing to win, just play the "I win" game. It even supports multi-player. If you're playing to prove to self and/or others that you're better at something, just beat your kids. If you're playing to have fun, just play. And remember: Internet equals anonymity, Bans can be circumvented, you're just having your fun. And if you can't find anyone to play with anymore, just...
...I heard dying in a fire is cool!
P.S. Also, I heard they have self esteems in cereal boxes now *RAGEQUIT*
IMO cheating is too narrow of a category. Somewhat better is "things that make the game not fun(for you and/or others)" but it's also completely useless because it's too broad.
If something makes the game not fun, and it's not against the rules, then that's a problem with the game.
One example of this is when you have a game that effectively ends long before it officially ends. You'll be playing Advance Wars, and your opponent will have twice as many units and cities as you do. There really is no way you can win unless your opponent gives up. If you keep playing, it could take an hour or more for your opponent to actually achieve victory if you put up a fight. The opposite of that is something like Street Fighter. Even if you have one spec of health left, and your opponent has full health, you can still come back and win it. We've all seen it happen.
IMO cheating is too narrow of a category. Somewhat better is "things that make the game not fun(for you and/or others)" but it's also completely useless because it's too broad.
If something makes the game not fun, and it's not against the rules, then that's a problem with the game.
One example of this is when you have a game that effectively ends long before it officially ends. You'll be playing Advance Wars, and your opponent will have twice as many units and cities as you do. There really is no way you can win unless your opponent gives up. If you keep playing, it could take an hour or more for your opponent to actually achieve victory if you put up a fight. The opposite of that is something like Street Fighter. Even if you have one spec of health left, and your opponent has full health, you can still come back and win it. We've all seen it happen.
This is why tennis is awesome to watch until the end; why the final point is always so dramatic.
I just thought I'd respond on Eve Online. It's true that quite a lot of people (probably the majority) play Eve in that way (grinding for money). However, unlike most MMOs, where you are pretty much forced into a very specific play style, there are far better ways to play Eve. It's just that most people are doing it wrong.
I remember playing Jedi knight: jedi outcast as well as jedi acadamy, and there was also another rule in which if a person has their lightsaber off and no weapons drawn, you shouldn't touch them. If you attacked someone who had no weapon, you were considered a lamer. Man, that game was fun and I had many good times. There was a glitch in which if you had a jetpack, you could fly up, crouch, and go through the ceiling of anything except the sky (or anything that led you outside the world). I loved exploring the levels in this fashion, discovering tons of secret places. The best part was that you could attack other people, but they couldn't get you. I would sometimes hide in a specific place in a map, and randomly shoot my blaster at someone. I wouldn't try to kill anyone, I would just do it subtly so that no one figured out where it came from.
I also managed to go underneath the lava of one of the maps, from which I could force lightning everyone who came nearby. Even better was force pull if anyone didn't have it fully upgraded. I don't remember how I did it, but I think it involved a rancor.
I have so many memories of my attempts of glitching in jedi outcast and later jedi acadamy. However, every server was running that damned JK+ mod that my escape was towards lugormod, and lugor's server.
Now that I've heard more of the episode, I'd like to offer a replacement for Scott's narrow, useless definition of cheating in video games.
Cheating in a video game is accessing or modifying the game state using something other than the given input/output interface. I'm not just talking about WASD, etc. If a game offers a developer console, anything you can put into that console is acceptable. If that console has a scripting mechanism, having any script you wish bound to a key is perfectly acceptable. Additionally, any allowed modification of in-game settings is fine.
It's not just the source code that is relevant to "cheating" in a video game. You can cheat by sniffing and/or spoofing the network communications, or by accessing and/or modifying areas of RAM used by the game. You can also cheat by modifying the game's data files. A definition of cheating that doesn't include these is almost useless.
So you would not consider using "glitches" as cheating? Or setting brightness way up so you can see anyone trying to hide in "dark" corners? Using the console/config to increase viewing distance(remove fog, etc) is ok? How about using software or hardware to modify your outputs to increase rate of fire?(or just +fire;wait;-fire on mousewheel) What about using different type of controller than your opponents?(Novint Falcon, arcade stick, perfect VR, etc..)
Indeed, I wouldn't consider any of those cheating.
With regards to the first three points (glitches, brightness, viewing distance), none of those are cheating. If they interfere with the intent of the game, they should be patched, but they are 100% fine to use.
With regards to I/O, I would argue that using any form of input that the game provides is acceptable. +fire;wait;-fire on the mousewheel is clearly fine because it's being provided by an in-game tool.
Out-of-game tools are a more complex issue. Specifically, it is a question of where to draw the line with regards to circumventing the interface of the video game. I think that different controllers are fine, for one. It is a given that people will have an advantage or disadvantage in a video game because of their specific hardware. No-one would call having a fast CPU cheating - why should a better controller be?
In my opinion, everything between the frame buffer of the video card and the input signals to the game is completely up to the user. Even if it's all handled by software, with no human interaction, it isn't cheating. However, directly modifying or accessing networking or rendering, for example, constitutes cheating.
In Tribes2, there's the Command Circuit. Normally, when you look at it, you only see the map, not the 1st/3rd person view(if not using the camera thingy). There are scripts that can put a miniature CC map onto your HUD. This possibly gives some minor advantages, like a chance to notice approaching bomber at 2km altitude, or someone hiding behind a corner but within sensor range, and other very minor things. You could even argue that you can achieve the same effect by quickly switching between CC and 1st person view, and the script just makes it easier/less annoying to do. It doesn't even necessarily give you any advantage, but IMO it's an ability that you're not expected to have.
IMO it's an ability that you're not expected to have.
Anyone who doesn't expect you to have that ability is failing at game theory. One should expect one's opponent to use every possible advantage.
In the most important sense (the game theoretic one), the Command Circuit is information that the game openly provides to you, so it is fine if you have it. However, I guess it should still be cheating if you're accessing it improperly. It seems like it's probably not done improperly in this case, but I must ask how these scripts work in order to answer the question.
An interesting issue no-one seems to have brought up yet is communication with an observer. It allows access to information one shouldn't otherwise have access to, but is it cheating?
An interesting issue no-one seems to have brought up yet is communication with an observer. It allows access to information one shouldn't otherwise have access to, but is it cheating?
This is a good one. In a game of Counter-Strike, dead players are supposed to be unable to communicate with living players. However, most servers allow dead players to observe the game. In a LAN setting, where players are in the same room, or if players are using a 3rd party voice chat system, dead observers can notify living teammates of enemy locations, and other such info.
In this specific case, I do not think this is cheating. If a server allows dead players to observe the game, then they are also permitting this behavior. There is a server variable that forces dead players to have a black screen. If they don't want players behaving in this manner, they should enable that variable.
There is a really great site that talks about playing to win in games. It make a lot of points that Rym and Scott touched on in during the show. It's worth a read. Check it out.
There is a really great site that talks about playing to win in games. It make a lot of points that Rym and Scott touched on in during the show. It's worth a read. Check it out.
He makes some good points, but he is also extremely lacking in the eloquence department. There are also many related points that he neglects to mention.
I bought the new Monkey Island game by Telltale Games, Tales of Monkey Island, on Steam. Currently only Chapter 1 of 5 is out, but it was quite entertaining.
Comments
Now, in Brawl, Metaknight has taken that position.
Also, in Smash 64, the official top tiers were Kirby, Ness, and Pikachu. Ness makes me happy, but I'm sad that he's bad in Melee and Brawl. I still play him and Lucas anyways though. Fanboyism for the win!
Also, I just remembered a funny story about TIE Fighter. I remember asking my dad for the X-Wing Lego set, and not knowing what I was talking about, he wound up buying the X-Wing Collection, which had X-Wing, TIE Fighter, and X-Wing Alliance. I tried playing them all, got the farthest in X-Wing Alliance (which wasn't very far at all), but was ultimately confused and unable to play most of it. But from what I saw of both, they looked like fun. I probably still have the discs in my basement...Somewhere.
Although I figured out the tractor beam mechanic in X-Wing Alliance and had fun with it...
If you're playing to win, just play the "I win" game. It even supports multi-player.
If you're playing to prove to self and/or others that you're better at something, just beat your kids.
If you're playing to have fun, just play. And remember: Internet equals anonymity, Bans can be circumvented, you're just having your fun.
And if you can't find anyone to play with anymore, just...
...I heard dying in a fire is cool!
P.S. Also, I heard they have self esteems in cereal boxes now
*RAGEQUIT*
One example of this is when you have a game that effectively ends long before it officially ends. You'll be playing Advance Wars, and your opponent will have twice as many units and cities as you do. There really is no way you can win unless your opponent gives up. If you keep playing, it could take an hour or more for your opponent to actually achieve victory if you put up a fight. The opposite of that is something like Street Fighter. Even if you have one spec of health left, and your opponent has full health, you can still come back and win it. We've all seen it happen.
It's true that quite a lot of people (probably the majority) play Eve in that way (grinding for money).
However, unlike most MMOs, where you are pretty much forced into a very specific play style, there are far better ways to play Eve. It's just that most people are doing it wrong.
I also managed to go underneath the lava of one of the maps, from which I could force lightning everyone who came nearby. Even better was force pull if anyone didn't have it fully upgraded. I don't remember how I did it, but I think it involved a rancor.
I have so many memories of my attempts of glitching in jedi outcast and later jedi acadamy. However, every server was running that damned JK+ mod that my escape was towards lugormod, and lugor's server.
Cheating in a video game is accessing or modifying the game state using something other than the given input/output interface. I'm not just talking about WASD, etc. If a game offers a developer console, anything you can put into that console is acceptable. If that console has a scripting mechanism, having any script you wish bound to a key is perfectly acceptable. Additionally, any allowed modification of in-game settings is fine.
It's not just the source code that is relevant to "cheating" in a video game. You can cheat by sniffing and/or spoofing the network communications, or by accessing and/or modifying areas of RAM used by the game. You can also cheat by modifying the game's data files. A definition of cheating that doesn't include these is almost useless.
Or setting brightness way up so you can see anyone trying to hide in "dark" corners?
Using the console/config to increase viewing distance(remove fog, etc) is ok?
How about using software or hardware to modify your outputs to increase rate of fire?(or just +fire;wait;-fire on mousewheel)
What about using different type of controller than your opponents?(Novint Falcon, arcade stick, perfect VR, etc..)
With regards to the first three points (glitches, brightness, viewing distance), none of those are cheating. If they interfere with the intent of the game, they should be patched, but they are 100% fine to use.
With regards to I/O, I would argue that using any form of input that the game provides is acceptable. +fire;wait;-fire on the mousewheel is clearly fine because it's being provided by an in-game tool.
Out-of-game tools are a more complex issue. Specifically, it is a question of where to draw the line with regards to circumventing the interface of the video game. I think that different controllers are fine, for one. It is a given that people will have an advantage or disadvantage in a video game because of their specific hardware. No-one would call having a fast CPU cheating - why should a better controller be?
In my opinion, everything between the frame buffer of the video card and the input signals to the game is completely up to the user. Even if it's all handled by software, with no human interaction, it isn't cheating.
However, directly modifying or accessing networking or rendering, for example, constitutes cheating.
In Tribes2, there's the Command Circuit. Normally, when you look at it, you only see the map, not the 1st/3rd person view(if not using the camera thingy). There are scripts that can put a miniature CC map onto your HUD. This possibly gives some minor advantages, like a chance to notice approaching bomber at 2km altitude, or someone hiding behind a corner but within sensor range, and other very minor things.
You could even argue that you can achieve the same effect by quickly switching between CC and 1st person view, and the script just makes it easier/less annoying to do.
It doesn't even necessarily give you any advantage, but IMO it's an ability that you're not expected to have.
Would you consider that cheating?
In the most important sense (the game theoretic one), the Command Circuit is information that the game openly provides to you, so it is fine if you have it. However, I guess it should still be cheating if you're accessing it improperly. It seems like it's probably not done improperly in this case, but I must ask how these scripts work in order to answer the question.
An interesting issue no-one seems to have brought up yet is communication with an observer. It allows access to information one shouldn't otherwise have access to, but is it cheating?
In this specific case, I do not think this is cheating. If a server allows dead players to observe the game, then they are also permitting this behavior. There is a server variable that forces dead players to have a black screen. If they don't want players behaving in this manner, they should enable that variable.
...It's Willard Van Orman Quine. Duh.
(Damn imageshack, damn it to hell.)
Playing to Win