It does. I've mapped out weak solutions to maps smaller than 24x24 with limited numbers of cities and no starting units. (In all of these cases, Orange could force a win).
Oh, well "approximations" don't exactly count as discrete solutions. ~_^
Weak solutions. Like the first solution to Checkers (forced draw on both sides) only mapped optimal play and did not map sub-optimal play. I was able to chart a series of moves that can not be defeated in any possible situation.
Why would you play a knowledge game like Carmen Sandiego single player with a FAQ? It would be boring as shit.
I agree, however I do see a case for other games. For example, someone might hate some JRPG, but really wan to see all the plot. They play all the parts where you talk to townsfolk and see videos, but cheat on all the combat. This was a valid thing to do before YouTube made it unnecessary.
Once I start using a FAQ/guide to get through a game I lose all interest in playing it, which is why I don't use FAQ's/guides unless I'm hopelessly stuck. More recently, I have switched to just going to youtube and watching a walkthrough.
Why would you play a knowledge game like Carmen Sandiego single player with a FAQ? It would be boring as shit.
I agree, however I do see a case for other games. For example, someone might hate some JRPG, but really wan to see all the plot. They play all the parts where you talk to townsfolk and see videos, but cheat on all the combat. This was a valid thing to do before YouTube made it unnecessary.
Their goal in playing was to see the plot. Ergo, when using the FAQ there is no breaking of the ruleset they established for themselves when they started the game. And it hurts nobody.
Games have purposes. If the purpose (to you) of a given game is entertainment, and you don't hurt anybody else's goals by doing what you do, then why does it matter whether someone else calls what you do "cheating"? It doesn't.
It's a technicality. You may not be breaking your own rules, or hurting anybody, but are you breaking the rules of the game?
Only if the game comes with a set of rules that prohibit outside assistance. Since the same companies that publish games also publish strategy guides, I find it hard to support an argument for an implied prohibition of outside help. Therefore, absent a written rule to the contrary, I say play as though wilt.
Only if the game comes with a set of rules that prohibit outside assistance. Since the same companies that publish games also publish strategy guides, I find it hard to support an argument for an implied prohibition of outside help. Therefore, absent a written rule to the contrary, I say play as though wilt.
That is interesting when the company that makes the game also publishes the strategy guide. It's even more interesting when the strategy guide contains secret rules of the game as opposed to just strategies and tactics. The company is basically giving you an incomplete instruction manual to the game and charging for it as a separate item. That's pretty unethical to sell a game with an incomplete instruction manual, if you ask me. A perfect example of this were fighting games that wouldn't tell you all the special moves in the instruction manual, and you had to get a strategy guide from somewhere. Another game that comes to mind is Ogre Battle 64. Go to the first map and 3:45pm on the 5th day of some imaginary month and go to the peasant's house and they will give you an angel unit for your army. FUCK YOU arbitrary nonsense that can't be found without the strategy guide!
I was recently thinking about how I enjoyed certain games (mostly JRPGs) more when I was younger and bought and used strategy guides to get through them. I had all the rewards and none of the confusion. I don't do that anymore, but i've pondered if I might enjoy them more that way? One thing that sticks out to me is remembering Valkyrie Profile. I don't think there's any chance at all that I would have known about the "real" ending without the strategy guide. I played through the game once normally first, and ended up thinking I had played well because I was always getting positive feedback. Despite being very suspicious at the time about where the plot was going, I just grit my teeth and saw a rather disappointing ending for my following instructions. Then I found out you're supposed to perform "poorly" for certain things, and found the real ending with a strategy guide.
American style rpgs (and first person shooters in recent memory) are a different matter. I like to solve the game "my way". In bioware or bethesda games for example, I usually come up with my own character motivation and attitude and just follow through that character to the end of the game. It's grounded in my pen and paper RPG roots, where I'll play any character, and each character is a specific individual. I'm less concerned with finding everything, and just happy to play out my decided role. Sometimes the meta-game kicks in later and I create a new role the second or third time through based on wanting to see how specific events that exist within the game play out differently. I know on dragon age I played through "honestly" the first time, but on subsequent clears I had a specific agenda and used guides and walkthroughs to optimize that path.
Another aspect I often think about is how I enjoy competitive games the most during their earliest stages. I learn fast, and I adapt quickly, but I don't have the time or interest to master a game. When a new fighter/mmo/rts/dota/fps comes out, I typically dominate for a while. Even against players with high levels of mastery in similar games. But after a certain amount of time has passed, the game moves into a new stage of the meta-game, and I just don't have the time or interest to follow up on it. So for me, that's the time I most enjoy games. If I don't get into (or devote time to) the beta for some games, it's probably not worth playing once it comes out for me. What I enjoy most is testing my ability to learn and adapt to a game against others. But eventually, that test shifts to mastery of concepts. And part of that can come from information gleaned from the FAQs, videos, walkthroughs, and simple discussion among players. Over time, every game "evolves".
I know Scott and Rym say they don't play games they've solved. I think I feel the same way on that. In a twist on that, though, I would say I enjoy games the most when everyone is still depending on thier own intuition to "solve" it. Even very simple games are more interesting to me when there's mystery and trial and error still going on. As awesome as very high level starcraft play is to watch, I can't keep up with it once it gets to that level, partially because I can't keep up with that level of play (on the sport side) and partially because I have no interest in having so much specialized knowledge.
On yet another tangent, in pen and paper rpgs, this reminds me of a conversation on monster manuals from long ago. The first layer of that onion is whether it's right or wrong to know specifics about monsters/details in the game. In some games, gameplay works better if you don't know what your encountering or even what's possible in the game. In other games, gameplay assumes you know what you're encountering, and you are at a penalty if you don't have specific information available. Obviously this varies table to table and group to group as well, but I personally like the former more than the latter. This relates a bit to the "cheating" angle in my mind. If I know all the specifics, and use that information to my advantage, when the game is designed under the assumption that I don't have that information... I'd say that's some kind of cheating. Maybe not specifically the word "cheating" but it's bad form. On the other hand, if I go into a situation with no knowledge where knowledge is presumed, I'm not cheating, but the game just doesn't work as intended. So in some respect, whether the game is intended to be a complete-knowledge game or specifically intended to not be a complete-knowledge game matters.
This might sound like a real stretch, but I suppose one could also argue that the path to knowledge of the story of a game are part of the highest level of the mechanics of the game, and by reading a cheat guide, you're modifying that path to knowledge. (I guess that also assumes the authors of the game intend certain actions by the player.)
If I have to resort to a guide, I always feel like I’ve cheated myself. Like I wasn’t good enough to solve it (assuming it’s a genuine puzzle, not some BS hidden switch)
But then, if you pay for a game, you do want to get full value from the game, so if a quick FAQ will help you overcome the problem and allow you to experience the rest of the game, its not cheating, its ENABLING
If I have to resort to a guide, I always feel like I’ve cheated myself. Like I wasn’t good enough to solve it (assuming it’s a genuine puzzle, not some BS hidden switch)
I usually only have to do this when the thing is something that looks like an element of the BG (fuck you Super Princess Peach) or the instructions in the game are ambiguous - I've played FF games where the instructions could have referred to several places on the map, and I didn't even realize the presence of the one that it meant. Once I get enough of a tip to find what I need, I put the FAQ away. I don't want someone else to play the game for me!
If you are using a FAQ to get through the critical path of an offline singleplayer game then you're just cheating yourself (or you're playing a badly designed game). If, however, you are trying to 100% a game like Disgaea, which require a thorough understanding of many hidden systems, then a FAQ is just saving your hours and hours of guess work and trail and error.
In PVP, the quality of the game improves with the quality of the players. However the players acquire that knowledge doesn't really matter, though forums and FAQs then to lead to "net decking" which results in tons of people just aping winning strategies without understanding them which can make a game grow stale.
I think if you're willing to subject yourself to something like asynchronous online trivia games then you'd be dumb not to.
Then again, ARGs (as bad as that title is for them) like the one for Portal 2 are basically just trivia games; the questions just have to require either massive collaboration or high technical skill to be discovered and solved.
FUCK YOU arbitrary nonsense that can't be found without the strategy guide!
I concur. Irrespective of whether or not it's cheating, fuck that noise.
This is particularly true of some games, like Valkyrie Profile. It is LITERALLY impossible to get the 'happy' ending in this game without the strategy guide.
What if, for example, there were an online version of Trivial Pursuit. Would it be cheating to use Google?
If we specifically said, at the beginning of the game, and all present agreed, "No google". Otherwise, I would say that it defaults to finding the knowledge, any way possible.
If we specifically said, at the beginning of the game, and all present agreed, "No google". Otherwise, I would say that it defaults to finding the knowledge, any way possible.
What if it were a game like 1 vs. 100 for XBox and you sat there with a laptop?
I am always on the side when it comes to cheat codes and guides to give it an effort prior to use, if the game is interesting enough to warrant you to see the next part but you do not have the skills/items required to advance the story then it is ok. Example: try to do Contra the legit way several times, if you can't do but want to see the ending then the code is fine for use.
In many cases, the game developer licenses the strategy guide. In those cases, using the guide just becomes part of the allowable rule set for the game.
Example: try to do Contra the legit way several times, if you can't do but want to see the ending then the code is fine for use.
That's actually a great example. Obviously a game genie or an emulator is cheating since it modifies the game. The Konami code is actually part of the game in Contra, and other games. The same goes for a lot of the secret characters and codes in NBA Jam like being on fire all the time or being able to dunk from anywhere on the court. They are part of the game, so are they cheating?
Contra and NBA Jam still give you the full endings and such if you win with these codes. They still count a win as a win. Compare that to Civilization 2. Civ2 has a cheat menu that is built-in, but the game clearly indicates that your game doesn't count once you have activated cheats.
So you could even argue it's not cheating to use Konami code in Contra.
If using a guide is cheating, then Twilight Princess made me cheat like crazy to get out of the fucking Water Temple. Fuck that central staircase.
Water Temple is notorious. Thing is, I actually prefer the water temple to the inside of Jabu-Jabu. Fuck carrying that bitch around all over the place.
If using a guide is cheating, then Twilight Princess made me cheat like crazy to get out of the fucking Water Temple. Fuck that central staircase.
Water Temple is notorious. Thing is, I actually prefer the water temple to the inside of Jabu-Jabu. Fuck carrying that bitch around all over the place.
The Water Temple in Ocarina of Time was annoying (what with taking the iron boots on and off), but not hard. The Twilight Princess one was freaking impossible because if you didn't turn the staircase in the right way and the right time you would screw up the entire fucking dungeon. Fuck. That. Level.
The Water Temple in Ocarina of Time was annoying (what with taking the iron boots on and off), but not hard. The Twilight Princess one was freaking impossible because if you didn't turn the staircase in the right way and the right time you would screw up the entire fucking dungeon. Fuck. That. Level.
I never had any difficulty with anything in Twilight Princess. The entire game was insanely easy. It was even easier than the easy dungeons of Ocarina of Time, such as Forest Temple.
If using a guide is cheating, then Twilight Princess made me cheat like crazy to get out of the fucking Water Temple. Fuck that central staircase.
Water Temple is notorious. Thing is, I actually prefer the water temple to the inside of Jabu-Jabu. Fuck carrying that bitch around all over the place.
Water Temple in Master Quest corrected this, there is LITERALLY only one path to take to get the boss key, once you have that the entire dungeon opens up to you to explore, that is when I told it to go fuck itself.
Water Temple in Master Quest corrected this, there is LITERALLY only one path to take to get the boss key, once you have that the entire dungeon opens up to you to explore, that is when I told it to go fuck itself.
I think I might take another run at the Master Quest. I best the whole game back on the N64, but haven't beat it since. I got about halfway through Master Quest when I got the GameCube disc.
Water Temple in Master Quest corrected this, there is LITERALLY only one path to take to get the boss key, once you have that the entire dungeon opens up to you to explore, that is when I told it to go fuck itself.
I think I might take another run at the Master Quest. I best the whole game back on the N64, but haven't beat it since. I got about halfway through Master Quest when I got the GameCube disc.
Its actually not that hard, the only difference is the dungeons and those are only slightly harder since the majority of the major puzzles remain intact from the first game.
Comments
Games have purposes. If the purpose (to you) of a given game is entertainment, and you don't hurt anybody else's goals by doing what you do, then why does it matter whether someone else calls what you do "cheating"? It doesn't.
American style rpgs (and first person shooters in recent memory) are a different matter. I like to solve the game "my way". In bioware or bethesda games for example, I usually come up with my own character motivation and attitude and just follow through that character to the end of the game. It's grounded in my pen and paper RPG roots, where I'll play any character, and each character is a specific individual. I'm less concerned with finding everything, and just happy to play out my decided role. Sometimes the meta-game kicks in later and I create a new role the second or third time through based on wanting to see how specific events that exist within the game play out differently. I know on dragon age I played through "honestly" the first time, but on subsequent clears I had a specific agenda and used guides and walkthroughs to optimize that path.
Another aspect I often think about is how I enjoy competitive games the most during their earliest stages. I learn fast, and I adapt quickly, but I don't have the time or interest to master a game. When a new fighter/mmo/rts/dota/fps comes out, I typically dominate for a while. Even against players with high levels of mastery in similar games. But after a certain amount of time has passed, the game moves into a new stage of the meta-game, and I just don't have the time or interest to follow up on it. So for me, that's the time I most enjoy games. If I don't get into (or devote time to) the beta for some games, it's probably not worth playing once it comes out for me. What I enjoy most is testing my ability to learn and adapt to a game against others. But eventually, that test shifts to mastery of concepts. And part of that can come from information gleaned from the FAQs, videos, walkthroughs, and simple discussion among players. Over time, every game "evolves".
I know Scott and Rym say they don't play games they've solved. I think I feel the same way on that. In a twist on that, though, I would say I enjoy games the most when everyone is still depending on thier own intuition to "solve" it. Even very simple games are more interesting to me when there's mystery and trial and error still going on. As awesome as very high level starcraft play is to watch, I can't keep up with it once it gets to that level, partially because I can't keep up with that level of play (on the sport side) and partially because I have no interest in having so much specialized knowledge.
On yet another tangent, in pen and paper rpgs, this reminds me of a conversation on monster manuals from long ago. The first layer of that onion is whether it's right or wrong to know specifics about monsters/details in the game. In some games, gameplay works better if you don't know what your encountering or even what's possible in the game. In other games, gameplay assumes you know what you're encountering, and you are at a penalty if you don't have specific information available. Obviously this varies table to table and group to group as well, but I personally like the former more than the latter. This relates a bit to the "cheating" angle in my mind. If I know all the specifics, and use that information to my advantage, when the game is designed under the assumption that I don't have that information... I'd say that's some kind of cheating. Maybe not specifically the word "cheating" but it's bad form. On the other hand, if I go into a situation with no knowledge where knowledge is presumed, I'm not cheating, but the game just doesn't work as intended. So in some respect, whether the game is intended to be a complete-knowledge game or specifically intended to not be a complete-knowledge game matters.
But then, if you pay for a game, you do want to get full value from the game, so if a quick FAQ will help you overcome the problem and allow you to experience the rest of the game, its not cheating, its ENABLING
In PVP, the quality of the game improves with the quality of the players. However the players acquire that knowledge doesn't really matter, though forums and FAQs then to lead to "net decking" which results in tons of people just aping winning strategies without understanding them which can make a game grow stale.
Then again, ARGs (as bad as that title is for them) like the one for Portal 2 are basically just trivia games; the questions just have to require either massive collaboration or high technical skill to be discovered and solved.
Contra and NBA Jam still give you the full endings and such if you win with these codes. They still count a win as a win. Compare that to Civilization 2. Civ2 has a cheat menu that is built-in, but the game clearly indicates that your game doesn't count once you have activated cheats.
So you could even argue it's not cheating to use Konami code in Contra.