A Discussion of Morals and Other Things

[Exorcet]

Based on recent threads, I’ve noticed something that seems very strange to me regarding people’s ideas of what is acceptable and not acceptable. However, this has only been seen in a limited an relatively unimportant context (fair play within games). I would like to know how people can reach conclusions as strange (IMO) as I have seen, and if these feeling extend into the actual world.

To kick things off, as this is somewhat broad/vague, we can discuss what constitutes cheating, in a game or in real life.

 

[G.T.Ace]

You said:

I find cheating impossible in a single player game.

While i agree with what you tried to say, you forgot that you automatically gain an advantage for multiplayer if you cheat in the single player part of certain games (ie Gran Turismo). You can win better cars and money to upgrade them. This is why i think something like a rewind shouldnt be in any game and especially not in simulators.

 

[Exorcet]

I feel that that is not rewind's/gameshark's/cheat code's problem. It's PD'd fault for unnecessarily linking career mode and online. To a 1st order approximation with regard to progression/unlocks, there are two kinds of people. Those who care and those who don't. Obviously, I'm part of the latter. Progression is useless and serves more as a chore than enjoyment in a simulator like GT (IMO). I feel that the simulation of driving is what makes GT, so naturally what I want to do is drive, not play a silly game. Most sims that I have played are pretty much open, barring special modes, etc where limitations make sense.

However, I do not think that my opinion is fact. There are people who find the career mode fun. They should be able to do it if they want. The best answer is to separate online, arcade, and career. Online and arcade would have no unlocks or restrictions. Do whatever. Career would be as has always been. Everyone is satisfied. Unfortunately, PD does not see this or is just unwilling to do this, so it's not likely to happen. This means that you could be considered correct, that bypassing unlocks constitutes cheating. But:

There is more. If GT's online was just one race where any car could be entered, you'd be right because the fastest car would always win. However, GT is more likely to be divided in a number of ways as one would expect a racing to be. You'll have slow races, fast races, and everything in between. The "cheater" has no advantage in this system. Either someone just wants to be able to do all of online ASAP (the "cheater") or they value career mode more (the traditional player). This pretty much eliminates the conflict. If the people rallying for career mode claim it's unfair that the people who don't want to trudge through career mode get things faster, that means they don't really enjoy career mode at all. They just want unlocks, and so they'd really be part of the "cheater" group.

So even in the current model of GT, quick advancement in career can avoid being a form of cheating.

especially not in simulators

To me, progression is something that belongs in a game-game, not a sim-game. Especially when said progression is nothing like real life, which is the case in GT. Career mode is perhaps the least realistic mode of all. It's the most like a game. GT isn't "The Real start life as a college student and rise to F1 champion Simulator" and it's not trying to be. If one believes the limits of mimicking reality must have a limit, and most people do believe this, then they should be able to accept that people will have different ideas of where that limit should be. For me it stops at the race. Outside of a race, reality is irrelevant. I don't care about changing oil (except maybe in an endurance race) buying cars, repairing damage, depositing my paycheck in a bank, scheduling my next dentist appointment, writing a will to simulated family members, etc.

In short, IMO progression is not needed in a game, especially an online one, and especially especially in a simulator. The challege, the fun, the competition of a modern sim is not and cannot be derived from single player. Those things are all found online (IMO).

 

[niky]

Single-player versus online?

Given how ridiculously easy it is to make a million bucks if all you do is spam high-paying high speed races (Test Course in GT4... Daytona in GT5P...), I don't feel that newbs gain an unfair advantage from simply breezing through single player.

In fact... they don't gain a thing... they practice less than those of us who go through the races... and won't get as good.

As for multiplayer cheating... personally, as long as you don't hit anyone else, you're fine. If you gain an advantage from wall-riding or lawn-mowing, that's the developer's fault for not penalizing such behavior.

Erhm... not that I actually do that in multiplayer.

Punting? Punters should be punishable by lifetime PSN bans.

 

[Pupik]

A game, weather it be a video-based, fantasy-based, or physical-based one is a contest between opponents. After the rules are obeyed, the next logical method of beating your opponent is to use the weaknesses of the opponent, as long as it is within the rules.

That doesn't necessarily mean that ethos has been violated: There's winning and winning well/poorly; losing well and losing poorly, to make it simple.

 

[Exorcet]

A game, weather it be a video-based, fantasy-based, or physical-based one is a contest between opponents.

Unless it's single player; by definition, there is no competition in such a game, so there are no rules to break. A player can define for himself a competition against something like AI, but breaking these rules does not matter, as they only effect the lone player. There may be suggested rules in a game (like in GT), but if the player breakes these rules, who is harmed? No one. So, that means that there is no reason to enforce the rules.

This applies well outside of games. What I'm basically saying is, so long as a person does not cause harm/inconvenience to others, that person can do absolutely anything he wants. From my point of view, the people rallying against rewind either believe there are absolute rules to life, or feel the need to control other people (perhaps with themselves being enlightened and beyond control).

I want to know if these feelings of theirs only exist in the context of games, or expands to real life. If these feeling only exist in game, it's most likely a case of twisted applications of real life morals (example, work for a reward, obey the rules, don't do things improperly and thus cause yourself to lose out). These ideas may apply in real life, but not in a game. They don't seem to realize that they are breaking their own rules trying to apply them where they cannot be applies. It seems most of them do not wish to reply here, so it may be difficult to understand them.

 

[nk4e]

Single players are fun especially if there is no online support. Online cheating is a very different story.

 

[niky]

Unless it's single player; by definition, there is no competition in such a game, so there are no rules to break. A player can define for himself a competition against something like AI, but breaking these rules does not matter, as they only effect the lone player. There may be suggested rules in a game (like in GT), but if the player breakes these rules, who is harmed? No one. So, that means that there is no reason to enforce the rules.

This applies well outside of games. What I'm basically saying is, so long as a person does not cause harm/inconvenience to others, that person can do absolutely anything he wants. From my point of view, the people rallying against rewind either believe there are absolute rules to life, or feel the need to control other people (perhaps with themselves being enlightened and beyond control).

I want to know if these feelings of theirs only exist in the context of games, or expands to real life. If these feeling only exist in game, it's most likely a case of twisted applications of real life morals (example, work for a reward, obey the rules, don't do things improperly and thus cause yourself to lose out). These ideas may apply in real life, but not in a game. They don't seem to realize that they are breaking their own rules trying to apply them where they cannot be applies. It seems most of them do not wish to reply here, so it may be difficult to understand them.

I believe that they feel that "cheating" in single player mode somehow cheapens their own accomplishments in such... however meager those accomplishments are (most mass-market games are easily "beatable" on "normal" mode and require nothing but quick reflexes or boring repetition to finish on "hard").

This is possibly an issue if there's an online leaderboard for single player... such as the GT5P laptime leaderboards... but otherwise? Who cares?

Like I said in my previous post... cheating your way through a game means you won't get better at gaming, and will probably lose, and lose badly, when it comes to the multiplayer experience.

And even when you cheat on multiplayer... you don't get anything out of it. using a client-trace hack or a wall hack on CounterStrike gives you giddy schoolkid fun for a few hours, then... nothing... working your way to the top of a scoreboard through hard work makes each point or kill all the more satisfying.

Do you remember those twenty kills you got from shooting opponents through a blind door? No. Do you remember those four or five kills you got by outshooting your opponents with a measly handgun... the last one shot in the head as you fall backwards off a bridge, right before plunging to your own death? Obviously... I do.