Hi all … once more into the fray!
It seems that with the fast pace of modern changes words keep expanding their possible meanings giving us more to have opinions on and individual interpretations. This discussion has covered a few words some might even say a boring booklet. We’ve focused a bit on cheat, fair, rules, and game code. Things keep moving along so now I’ll give my take on game and opponent.
A definition of game from a dictionary: any form of play or way of playing; amusement; recreation; sport; frolic; play.
The noun usage definition of opponent: a person who opposes; person against one in a fight, game, debate, argument, etc.; adversary.
Admittedly I’m going to what some have already called “boring” detail but since I enjoy playing a bit like a bulldog in posts like this I beg others indulgence while I enjoy this mental exercise. (You don’t have to read these posts after all.)
I’m also perfectly willing to admit we can expand the meaning of words, I guess I’m trying once more to elaborate where I’m coming from.
NT Jedi posted:
1)” Every game has either in-game options, windows_OS options or outside hacks which can provide changes during the game. When these changes alter an existing future for one opponent then the game's natural history has ended. In the case of DOM_3 using the save/reload to change an already decided future for an important battle(s) the game's natural history has ended... it's no longer a game where each opponent is battling for godhood because it's clear one opponent is controlling the future.”
2)” However there is a major difference between having a strong advantage and controlling the future! For any game the individual controlling the future will win(if he chooses) and thus the game is now within a controlled environment of the individual controlling the future.
EVERY GAME involves a risk of losing, thus if you remove the risk of losing by changing/controlling the future it's no longer a game and just a controlled environment.” (end NT Jedi posts)
NT Jedi in your opinion a game seems to require risk and therefore an uncontrolled future. Above I’ve cited the first definition of game from my dictionary. The definition seems to focus on play not risk or the need for some unknown future. While I might tend to agree that computer games are mostly simulation which might be called a “controlled environment” I still think even in the games which I so outrageously unbalance things that I doubt I will lose a skirmish that I’m still playing a game.
You also seem to think that only your opinion of the ‘natural history’ of the game exists. I think the game has whatever history I play it to including any codes, mods, or save/reloads I choose to incorporate. You simply do not define what is ‘natural’ in all of gaming: you have your perspective – your opinion.
(You also use the term opponent when speaking of gameplay vs. AI. I wouldn’t have historically considered the AI an opponent as in a ‘person’ but I will acknowledge it is probably a common usage and more modern dictionaries may broaden the definition to include artificial or automated opposition.)
NT Jedi posted:
1)”… I'm surprised you would even remotely consider providing yourself such a massive unbalanced advantage such as controlling the future via the save/reload for any game... unless you don't consider that current game a test of your skills and you are purposely controlling the environment for preparation of some other existing game or future game.”
2)” To start a game an actually consider the game a test of your skills means playing without controlling the future.”
I don’t always consider the game a test of my skills of combat. I have already mentioned my primary focus is exploring in all games not achieving (goal & success orientation) or killing (PvE or PvP). So I may as I’ve noted run through a game by literally running over the game’s combats while paying attention to other events.
As to the level that a game is a “test of my skills” that is precisely what I am controlling to some extent. Even when I start a new game with a low learning curve I’m still learning so the game is still testing my skills and improving them. That was part of the reason I brought up my experience in CAS3 (cubed): we were allowed to re-do so we could reach an acceptable skill level through practice. You yourself acknowledged this:
(NT Jedi posted: ) ” Yes reloading to perfect skills can be important and fun, controlled environments are typically used for learning and perfecting skills.”
In order to learn and perfect skills they must be tested. I simply choose how my skills are tested. I don’t have to start games over and over to learn mid and late game lessons. If I wanted to improve my mid or end game in chess I could efficiently and effectively start games from saves or from books that had got to the mid or end game stage. And just as I would study optional moves at any point in a chess game, I can save and reload to play through my options and learn better strategies more efficiently. As I’ve stated repeatedly I play the game the way I want. And I don’t consider the save/reload cheating.
NT Jedi posted:
1)” Cheat codes exist because developers use them for testing the game, the cheat codes remain for two reasons. First it would take time to remove them which can be spent improving the game elsewhere. Second hardcore cheaters will hack into the game or find a friend to hack the game and develop the cheats.”
2)” Even the developers from Rome Total War state using the save/reload to undo a decided future is cheating... as I've been saying from the beginning. Their comment is sarcasm because they know SOME gamers will cheat, it's inevitable... but it's still cheating.”
(On cheat codes)
First you speculate on why developers leave cheat codes in game. You have not surveyed them so you simply don’t know why any more than I do.
I’ve seen a few games in which singleplayer allows cheat codes but multiplayer doesn’t, if they bother to take them out of multiplayer why not singleplayer? Maybe they know some players like and use them so they accept those player’s style choices to encourage them to buy their games so they leave them in.
(On the term: cheat)
I guess one of the primary reasons I respond so negatively to the characterization of cheating is that in human games of competition and in most of life’s activities cheating is immoral, unethical, and illegal. Any secondary modern definition of cheating such as using codes, save/reloads, or other game vs. AI activities is so trivial in comparison that I personally don’t think of it as cheating. (I see nothing immoral, unethical, or illegal in using cheat codes or in saving/reloading games.)
Here are two more examples to add to my Rome Total War in which I thought the books flippant use of the term “cheat “ placed the humorous trivial meaning in proper context.
From Star Wars: Rebellion game manual, page 76: (TIP) “Save a game before you engage in a risky strategy if you are afraid of losing all your hard work. You can always reload the game and start from the earlier saved point if things don’t go your way.”
From Final Fantasy VII players manual, page 42: (General Tips) “Save often – you never know what lies around the next turn.”
These quotes at least in my opinion leave no doubt since they don’t call it cheating and that the game developer was encouraging this behavior as normal and prudent.
Finally you ignored the Neverwinter Night’s example in which the game allows the player and dungeon master to change characters through “Common Commands” not calling them cheats. Most PnP RPGs determined what was cheating in the eyes of the DM/GM and it varied radically. Obviously Neverwinter Night’s follows this tradition in not prejudging the use of these “Common Commands.”
Thanks for all your time ... even you not too bored readers. I love someone stretching my imagination.
Re: Preferences & opinions R personal.
ominions_505 ____Released: May19th___Year_82,008
Hybrid Mode
