What is your view on video game cheating?

[Skynstein]

Cheating is wrong only in competitive environment but even when playing against others there are cheats that make the games more fun... Rareware games like Goldeneye 007 and Diddy Kong Racing usually had those. In DKR there was a cheat that made every balloon give a maxed out item, which was particularly useful in multiplayer because in the "battle" levels the items could only be upgraded to second stage (never third), and this cheat allowed you to bypass this restriction, which introduced a whole new level of strategy. Shields would last forever and the missiles you got were the 10x pack instead of the homing ones. The AI could destroy you with the 10x missile pack in seconds!

[Time the Crestfallen]

I think it depends on the type of 'cheating' being done. Using Dark Souls as an example, I have no problem with (and indulged in myself) save-editing, because making PVP builds is tedious and time-consuming. Giving yourself infinite health, stamina or increased speed meanwhile, is scummy and people who do that annoy me a lot.

[shadowofchaos]

Giving yourself infinite health, stamina or increased speed meanwhile, is scummy and people who do that annoy me a lot.

And what's wrong with screwing around with a game in that regard to have fun?

Oh no, I used a code to max out my stats so I can see if the game breaks if I beat a scripted "I'm supposed to lose" fight via infinite health.

Regardless of their skill or lack thereof, you're pretty insecure of your own if you say it's scummy when they just do it for fun.

If it's bragging about their skill while using cheats like what eclipse stated earlier, that's a different case.

Edited October 20, 2016 by shadowofchaos

[Nym]

I think like everyone said: Solo? Go ahead, do whatever you want.

With others people that is not a co-op game: Don't do that, it's not nice

[Lord Raven]

And what's wrong with screwing around with a game in that regard to have fun?

Oh no, I used a code to max out my stats so I can see if the game breaks if I beat a scripted "I'm supposed to lose" fight via infinite health.

Regardless of their skill or lack thereof, you're pretty insecure of your own if you say it's scummy when they just do it for fun.

If it's bragging about their skill while using cheats like what eclipse stated earlier, that's a different case.

He was talking about Person vs Person builds in particular...

[shadowofchaos]

He was talking about Person vs Person builds in particular...

My bad. I thought he was talking about things in general. The way I took his post is two separate contexts.

Apologies.

...though curiosity's sake, how does one have infinite HP via save editing? By design, that shouldn't be possible since you're not writing to an address live.

Edited October 20, 2016 by shadowofchaos

[Refa]

Cheating on video games is like cheating on your wife...only worse.

Wait, I think I've already made posts in this thread before. Still true, though!

[Irysa]

Rather than a school test analogy, I think Bal's line of reasoning (which I broadly agree with) would carry more weight with a more fundamental question rather than his chosen analogy; is there anything that a person can do to themselves that only affects themselves that is "bad"?

Rather, is the moral worth of an action purely determined by how it affects others? Taken to the extreme, would it be moral to commit self harm as long as nobody else ever knows or is affected by it? How about extreme substance abuse?

Obviously a deflection would be to state there is no physical harm on one's person via cheating so the example is absurd. However, I would argue that we don't simply judge harm in terms of its material/physical effects when talking about others, we care about the immaterial effects such as hurt feelings. I believe you can "harm" yourself in immaterial ways in the same way you can harm others in immaterial ways, and I think there's a reasonable case to be made for whether cheating/hacking your way through a game on your first playthrough "harms" you in the sense that it malforms your experience of the work, and would be an example of undue indulgence (I want x and I don't want to work for it).

Edited October 20, 2016 by Irysa

[Time the Crestfallen]

...though curiosity's sake, how does one have infinite HP via save editing? By design, that shouldn't be possible since you're not writing to an address live.

You don't, it's a completely different kind of cheating. I'm fine with save editing, because that's basically just skipping over the tediousness of building a character. I hate when people give themselves infinite health in PVP or used hacked in items because that defeats the purpose of PVP to begin with.

And then you get stuff like this, which is just infuriating:

https://www.reddit.com/r/darksouls3/comments/4gzcgx/warning_cheaters_can_now_get_you_softbanned_and/

[Lord Raven]

However, I would argue that we don't simply judge harm in terms of its material/physical effects when talking about others, we care about the immaterial effects such as hurt feelings. I believe you can "harm" yourself in immaterial ways in the same way you can harm others in immaterial ways, and I think there's a reasonable case to be made for whether cheating/hacking your way through a game on your first playthrough "harms" you in the sense that it malforms your experience of the work, and would be an example of undue indulgence (I want x and I don't want to work for it).

But what if playing through it normally gives a personally very poor experience of the game? Then you can argue that not cheating in a single player context is harming yourself.

[Irysa]

But what if playing through it normally gives a personally very poor experience of the game? Then you can argue that not cheating in a single player context is harming yourself.

Depends what you mean by very poor experience. Like, lets say you use cheats because your save file got corrupted so you use them to get back to where you were easily or something like that. I think that's probably fine. Other similar things to do with glitches and the like would also likely be fine.

But if you mean "the game just isn't good" then you'd have to like make some kind of argument for how the game (or at least, aspect of game you are modifying) is objectively bad and literally not worth playing in its basic state and I think that can't really apply to the vast majority of titles. If you just don't like the original work and your only reason to engage with it is to be entertained, then I question how cheats are going to really improve your experience of it.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

Do you question it or do you just not see why someone could have fun hacking/modding parts of the game? It sounds like the latter to me rather than the former - and there are reasons people do it (liking core mechanics or some aesthetic aspects but not the difficulty curve etc) and it doesn't mean they're self-harming to any extent. I don't see the analogy between self-harm and cheating in a video game, especially since the thing that drives people to cheat may have something to do with just not finding certain aspects of the game fun.

I don't see how you have to argue a mechanic is objectively bad to come to this conclusion.

[Irysa]

Do you question it or do you just not see why someone could have fun hacking/modding parts of the game?

I understand perfectly. I do not understand why you would need to do that on a first playthrough unless the game is unplayably bad or severely lacking in some aspect. It's like saying you can't just watch a movie normally, you need to watch it on fast forward or just skip to the action sequences or w/e.

I don't see the analogy between self-harm and cheating in a video game, especially since the thing that drives people to cheat may have something to do with just not finding certain aspects of the game fun.

I'm not saying they are exactly equivilant, I'm using it as a stepping stone for the basis of "people can do bad things to themselves" because a common trend in the thread so far has been personal autonomy above all else, which I don't agree with.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Irysa

[ping]

But surely personal autonomy weighs more than the potential harm done by cheating in a video game?

And honestly, you can't just assume that a cheat-free experience is better per se. As a personal example, when I first played FE6, I started to use 1 savestate per chapter after some ambush spawns murdered some of my units (I think it was Rutgers gang) to save me some of the frustration of having to restart the whole chapter. I don't have the direct comparision of beating the whole game legit, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even have finished NM if it wasn't for my cheating.


Anecdotal evidence, sure, but that's enough to prove that it's possible for some people to improve their first-play experience by cheating. If you aren't one of them, that's fine, but you can't condemn cheating in general just through your personal experience.

[Augestein]

Cheating on a single player game is fine. Cheating in multiplayer is something I frown upon. It ruins the fun for other people, and stops the cheater from actually getting better.

[Lord Raven]

I understand perfectly. I do not understand why you would need to do that on a first playthrough unless the game is unplayably bad or severely lacking in some aspect. It's like saying you can't just watch a movie normally, you need to watch it on fast forward or just skip to the action sequences or w/e.

You said you understood it, but you also said you don't understand it? So from there it's like you understand it but you don't do it yourself.

I'm not saying they are exactly equivilant, I'm using it as a stepping stone for the basis of "people can do bad things to themselves" because a common trend in the thread so far has been personal autonomy above all else, which I don't agree with.

As it stands the general consensus was "as long as you're not actively making it worse for others and "the point of video games is entertainment and as long as you are entertained." You compared it to slitting your wrists, which exists for the purpose of stress relief but is also unhealthy; you're hurting yourself physically but also it's a result of already being hurt mentally.

Is cheating in video games hurting you mentally? This is your argument - the personal autonomy also applies so long as the person isn't hurting themselves mentally or physically. The latter only happens to Fox mains, the former is highly subjective. The reason you are saying they're hurting themselves mentally is by not playing video games the way you do - in which case I can argue that people are hurting (and limiting) themselves mentally by not cheating because then they can't take full advantage of the game. You're only hurting yourself if you limit yourself.

[Irysa]

But surely personal autonomy weighs more than the potential harm done by cheating in a video game?

I'm not saying I don't think personal autonomy is extremely important, and obviously when talking about the principle it is more important than whatever harm can be incurred in this situation. When I say I don't agree it is above everything else, I mean that whilst I believe it is correct for people to be allowed by the state/society/whatever to do what they want to themselves (including harm themselves), I don't believe that means it neccessarily follows that all actions that a person can do to themselves are therefore correct.

Rather than being against personal autonomy, I'm advocating that people should choose not to cheat (at least the first time through, with some caveats as already discussed) with their free choice, in the same way that I advocate that people should choose not to be gluttons and become fat or that people should choose not to smoke, etc.

And honestly, you can't just assume that a cheat-free experience is better per se. As a personal example, when I first played FE6, I started to use 1 savestate per chapter after some ambush spawns murdered some of my units (I think it was Rutgers gang) to save me some of the frustration of having to restart the whole chapter. I don't have the direct comparision of beating the whole game legit, but I'm pretty sure I wouldn't even have finished NM if it wasn't for my cheating.

The question of which is the "better" experience isn't very relevant in this discussion because the "harm" incurred is not neccessarily because the game is worse with cheats therefore you got a "worse" experience (although that could be the case sometimes). The point is more that your experience is malformed. The unaltered experience has intrinsic value in itself because it is the final creative result of labors on behalf of the developers and artists that produced that media. I do not see games as merely toys or entertainment services that we engage with on our own terms for our own reasons, I see them as dialogues from the creators to their audience. Disrupting that is disrupting the dialogue, hence the movie analogy. I'll admit that many games have little to no pretenses of being anything but toys though so this argument probably doesn't apply to them.

Your example claims you wouldn't have finished the game without it, but that is because you would have chosen not to continue, not because you could not do it. If you will not do it, then I see no reason why you feel entitled to complete the game.

I'll concede that there is a gradient of how malformed one's experience is though, but I don't think that damages my position much.

You said you understood it, but you also said you don't understand it? So from there it's like you understand it but you don't do it yourself.

I understand why, as in, it can result in a more satisfying, personalised experience. I do not see why it is a neccessity for your first playthrough to be like that, and think that is an entitled attitude.

As it stands the general consensus was "as long as you're not actively making it worse for others and "the point of video games is entertainment and as long as you are entertained." You compared it to slitting your wrists, which exists for the purpose of stress relief but is also unhealthy; you're hurting yourself physically but also it's a result of already being hurt mentally.

No, I am not comparing it to slitting your wrists. The self harm example was purely to demonstrate why I do not believe that all things that a person does to themselves are good. The material vs immaterial harm was to demonstrate that we do care about immaterial harm, not just material harm. I am therefore saying that given these truths, if cheating on a first playthrough causes immaterial harm in some manner or other, it follows that it is (or at least can be argued to be) undesirable.

The reason you are saying they're hurting themselves mentally is by not playing video games the way you do - in which case I can argue that people are hurting (and limiting) themselves mentally by not cheating because then they can't take full advantage of the game. You're only hurting yourself if you limit yourself.

Whilst this point is broadly addressed in what I said earlier in the post to ping, I don't think your analogy works either because I haven't made the claim that people should never cheat/mod games, merely that you should engage with media on it's own terms the first time (or at least, if you didn't the first time, make an effort to do so on a repeat). I think this applies to all media. If you're modifying the experience afterwards, purely for yourself to entertain yourself more, then what you are doing is merely indulging in your own preferences, which I don't really see as carrying any sort of "is/ought" importance to it.

Edited October 21, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

I understand why, as in, it can result in a more satisfying, personalised experience. I do not see why it is a neccessity for your first playthrough to be like that, and think that is an entitled attitude.

Why is entitlement a bad thing in this instance? People feel entitled to a game that they bought and don't feel like the constraints of the game apply to them due to the money they dropped. Is it really wrong to be entitled over something that you personally own?

No, I am not comparing it to slitting your wrists. The self harm example was purely to demonstrate why I do not believe that all things that a person does to themselves are good. The material vs immaterial harm was to demonstrate that we do care about immaterial harm, not just material harm. I am therefore saying that given these truths, if cheating on a first playthrough causes immaterial harm in some manner or other, it follows that it is (or at least can be argued to be) undesirable.

But again, it doesn't cause everyone immaterial harm, which is why I don't understand this analogy to self-harm. It could even be an instance of self-harm to play the game without cheating through it because of irritation. This argument seems similar to telling people to be offended.

Whilst this point is broadly addressed in what I said earlier in the post to ping, I don't think your analogy works either because I haven't made the claim that people should never cheat/mod games, merely that you should engage with media on it's own terms the first time (or at least, if you didn't the first time, make an effort to do so on a repeat). I think this applies to all media. If you're modifying the experience afterwards, purely for yourself to entertain yourself more, then what you are doing is merely indulging in your own preferences, which I don't really see as carrying any sort of "is/ought" importance to it.

I never said you did, but I'm saying that it shouldn't matter how someone deals with any sort of media the first time because it's something they bought to have fun and their own vehicle to have fun. Again what is wrong with indulging in your own preferences? Edited October 21, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

I don't really know how better to convey this to you other than to stress again that I don't think games are just toys or services. Do you consider a movie or a book to be a "service"? Is it neccessary that you enjoy all of your experience in your own personal way, or do you view it as a dialogue from the creator/author to you? If you think that yes, as a consumer you are entitled to enjoy every movie you pay to go see, then we have an irreconcilable difference in opinion on art. I have played many games I did not particularly enjoy in the same way I've read many books I did not particularly enjoy, and I don't think this is an especially bad or remarkable thing.

I accept that games are an interactive medium and that they often have high price tags, and I also accept that many companies market their games as mere toys/services, but I do not understand why it is such a high expectation that you engage with it on it's own terms, as determined by the creators. You say "it doesn't cause everyone immaterial harm", but the claim is that it does, not simply because you are robbing yourself of a particular experience and the ability to contextually analyse it, but because it's demonstrating and reinforcing an undesirable attitude.

[Lord Raven]

I don't understand what you mean by undesirable attitude? Is the undesirable attitude "entitlement"? Because again you haven't explained in what way entitlement is an objectively bad thing in this case.

A video game hybridizes those three things the way I view it (toys/service/art) but viewing it as a dialogue between the designer and the user is subjective unless it was fundamentally intended as such. It's kind of like customizing a plastic model kit and combining them (though this is likely more intended than hacking video games); the designer of the kit probably intends for the consumer to use it as art but also encourage people enjoy it in their own way, though in this case the artist may or may not be more restrictive on their preferred way for the audience to enjoy their work. It's still harmless to all parties.

The idea of a "malformed" experience being described as undesirable or not preferred seems to be an arbitrary standard as well. Again it seems to go back to your personal style of play.

[Irysa]

If you don't agree that self-centeredness is a negative character quality then I don't know what else you want me to say about what's negative regarding entitlement. There are a myriad of issues with insular attitudes that all relate to many problems throughout history and society. If we want to just look at games though, then a pervasive attitude of entitlement from gaming audiences severely limits what people working on higher budget games are allowed to do.

A video game hybridizes those three things the way I view it (toys/service/art) but viewing it as a dialogue between the designer and the user is subjective unless it was fundamentally intended as such.

I'd say the complete opposite, by default it is a dialogue unless it is blatantly obvious there is nothing to be conveyed. I don't really understand how you can reasonably take any other position, because presumably otherwise your argument can be applied to other forms of media too; rather than the onus being on you, the audience, to try to understand the ideas and effort behind something, it is now on the creator to convince you that there is anything to even be conveyed.

Actually I suppose that fits rather neatly into being just a further example of the problem with entitled/self centred attitudes...

It's kind of like customizing a plastic model kit and combining them (though this is likely more intended than hacking video games)

This example is ineffective because it is obviously not intended for the player to hack a game wheras customisation is encouraged by manufacturers. Rather than "more intended", it's blatantly intended.

The idea of a "malformed" experience being described as undesirable or not preferred seems to be an arbitrary standard as well. Again it seems to go back to your personal style of play.

You say it is arbitrary, but I think it's rather intuitive that the final result of a creative vision is intrinsically more valuable than someone else repackaging the same product in slightly different ways. If you disagree with this then I question what you even think to be valuable at all. Do you consider all value to be subjective?

Edited October 22, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

If you don't agree that self-centeredness is a negative character quality then I don't know what else you want me to say about what's negative regarding entitlement. There are a myriad of issues with insular attitudes that all relate to many problems throughout history and society. If we want to just look at games though, then a pervasive attitude of entitlement from gaming audiences severely limits what people working on higher budget games are allowed to do.

I don't see where you ever brought up that trait as self-centeredness, which is taking it to an extreme. It doesn't even make sense that an "insular attitude" is what you need to cheat in a game. People cheat because they want to cheat, not because they have personality flaws. This really doesn't tie into cheating at all aside from implying an attitude problem from cheating in a video game.

I'd say the complete opposite, by default it is a dialogue unless it is blatantly obvious there is nothing to be conveyed. I don't really understand how you can reasonably take any other position, because presumably otherwise your argument can be applied to other forms of media too; rather than the onus being on you, the audience, to try to understand the ideas and effort behind something, it is now on the creator to convince you that there is anything to even be conveyed.

Actually I suppose that fits rather neatly into being just a further example of the problem with entitled/self centred attitudes...

You said that you are against cheating in the first playthrough, but isn't cheating in any playthrough a result of this? I don't see how you can just make an exception based on the number of playthroughs; that's an arbitrary exception to take, because even a cheated second experience is a malformed experience. At any rate, why can't video games be a toy/service/dialogue? In fact, you even said they're marketed as such and people even take it as such. You can't just say that "video games are [solely] a dialogue" as if it were a fact, based on... just something you feel?

I don't see how it fits with being self-centered. People enjoy entertainment in their own way and on their own merits. It's an entirely subjective experience, and if someone wants a "malformed" experience (which is condescending - who's to say that the experience were to happen at all if it were not malformed?) - then they have every right to do it. Furthermore, someone who feels the need to cheat is probably someone who either a) can't find meaning in the game, b) wasn't convinced by the author or c) other reasons. There's a myriad of reasons that people cheat, even on their first playthrough.

What if they cheat on their first playthrough to go through the gameplay quickly but listen to the story? Is that rejecting the VG designer's "dialogue" then?

This example is ineffective because it is obviously not intended for the player to hack a game wheras customisation is encouraged by manufacturers. Rather than "more intended", it's blatantly intended.

It's still the same idea. Your gripes seem to be with modifying the creator's art, but that's exactly what many model builders do - even if one doesn't like it and one does, are there any other differences?

Also, competitive Smash is actually completely against the creator's vision and dialogue; the creator intended for the games not to be a serious fighter but to be a party game and have done things to ensure that since Melee. They do not even try to sponsor tournaments. This technically goes against the creator's vision and yet it's a major esport that enthralls many people. It was the same idea with Project M, which was a mod that was shut down because the creators did not like it. I'm curious what your views are on a game that developed into something - without modification or cheats - that are completely contrary to how the creator intended it. This isn't cheating, but this is the whole idea of respecting the creator's vision - which these people clearly don't do if they continue to play competitive smash. Are the creators told to suck it up because they're not cheating or do we not respect their view at all in this? (This is part of the reason why I don't think it's reasonable to care about the creator's idealized view of a game - because Sakurai tried to kill competitive smash for a long ass time until basically recently, though PM is bricked).

Your whole thing stems back to "respect the creator and the creator's wishes," but there's not enough of an incentive to care.

You say it is arbitrary, but I think it's rather intuitive that the final result of a creative vision is intrinsically more valuable than someone else repackaging the same product in slightly different ways. If you disagree with this then I question what you even think to be valuable at all. Do you consider all value to be subjective?

Yes, all value is subjective. I value an author's creative work so I do not cheat or break the creator's vision especially on my first playthrough.

Other people don't share my values. Therefore, what's considered something of value to one is not considered something of value to another. Some people value games as experiences, some people value it as a disc/cart they paid 20-60 bucks for and want to do basically whatever the hell they want. Even in this thread, people who I know have quite a bit of personal values do not really care if someone doesn't have much value in playing a video game "as intended," which you can see for yourself.

I really don't know if you're trying to convince me to value my video games (which I do), or if you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong on just the initial runthrough. And I question why everything past the initial runthrough is the exception. Is this something you think everyone should strive to do?

Edited October 22, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

I don't see where you ever brought up that trait as self-centeredness, which is taking it to an extreme. It doesn't even make sense that an "insular attitude" is what you need to cheat in a game. People cheat because they want to cheat, not because they have personality flaws. This really doesn't tie into cheating at all aside from implying an attitude problem from cheating in a video game.

Entitlement is a facet of self centredness. I did not say that you need a strong insular attitude to cheat in a game, I said that if you're so unwilling to just engage with a work on it's own terms for at least one playthrough then that's at least indicative of insular thinking.

You said that you are against cheating in the first playthrough, but isn't cheating in any playthrough a result of this? I don't see how you can just make an exception based on the number of playthroughs; that's an arbitrary exception to take, because even a cheated second experience is a malformed experience. At any rate, why can't video games be a toy/service/dialogue? In fact, you even said they're marketed as such and people even take it as such. You can't just say that "video games are [solely] a dialogue" as if it were a fact, based on... just something you feel?

How is it an arbitrary exception to make? You have already engaged with it. Unless the work changes drastically, or you think you need to review things (which can be done without taking the whole thing together, as is common in critique), why would you need to look at it again in the exact same way unless you felt you needed to?

I did not say it was a fact that they were a dialogue. I said that the premise should be to assume they are one unless it is obvious they are not. This is a good rule of thumb, as it is an open minded approach to thinking about art.

It's still the same idea. Your gripes seem to be with modifying the creator's art, but that's exactly what many model builders do - even if one doesn't like it and one does, are there any other differences?

If you think that's all I've been saying then you haven't been reading my posts at all. Modifying is not a problem in itself, and is not even bad inherantly. Many games are explictly made with the intent for the audience to be modifying them as they will to various degrees, like with lots of options in terms of how to play or with complete mod support or whatever. It's perfectly valid for any artist to create something and then state that their intent is for everyone to experience it in their own way, but this is a message in itself.

Also, competitive Smash is actually completely against the creator's vision and dialogue; the creator intended for the games not to be a serious fighter but to be a party game and have done things to ensure that since Melee. They do not even try to sponsor tournaments. This technically goes against the creator's vision and yet it's a major esport that enthralls many people. It was the same idea with Project M, which was a mod that was shut down because the creators did not like it. I'm curious what your views are on a game that developed into something - without modification or cheats - that are completely contrary to how the creator intended it. This isn't cheating, but this is the whole idea of respecting the creator's vision - which these people clearly don't do if they continue to play competitive smash. Are the creators told to suck it up because they're not cheating or do we not respect their view at all in this? (This is part of the reason why I don't think it's reasonable to care about the creator's idealized view of a game - because Sakurai tried to kill competitive smash for a long ass time until basically recently, though PM is bricked).

I don't see what the problem is here because again I haven't said you shouldnt modify games. Rather than having to defer to the creator, I'm simply saying that you should try to understand the efforts and perspectives of the creators. You don't have to agree with them.

Yes, all value is subjective. I value an author's creative work so I do not cheat or break the creator's vision especially on my first playthrough.

This is another irreconcilable difference in opinion then. There are some things that are objectively valuable, such as sentient intelligent life. Even if someone does not personally value it, they are simply wrong.

There are many things that are not objectively valuable. However, one's enjoyment or personal investment in something does not neccessarily make one unable to recognise its value. I am not a large fan of Opera for example, but I can see it's value. Thinking things have no value beacuse you don't care about them is yet again insular.

I really don't know if you're trying to convince me to value my video games (which I do), or if you're trying to convince me that cheating is wrong on just the initial runthrough. And I question why everything past the initial runthrough is the exception. Is this something you think everyone should strive to do?

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I'm simply expressing my viewpoint. I think it's pretty futile to try to convince relativists of anything.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Irysa

[Lord Raven]

Entitlement is a facet of self centredness. I did not say that you need a strong insular attitude to cheat in a game, I said that if you're so unwilling to just engage with a work on it's own terms for at least one playthrough then that's at least indicative of insular thinking.

You don't have to be insular or entitled or self-centered to cheat in a video game. Unless you're specifically talking about an attitude towards video games, which is then not a good or a bad thing.

How is it an arbitrary exception to make? You have already engaged with it. Unless the work changes drastically, or you think you need to review things (which can be done without taking the whole thing together, as is common in critique), why would you need to look at it again in the exact same way unless you felt you needed to?

I did not say it was a fact that they were a dialogue. I said that the premise should be to assume they are one unless it is obvious they are not. This is a good rule of thumb, as it is an open minded approach to thinking about art.

It is arbitrary. Why is one playthrough the level of engagement you need to have given it a chance? Why do people leave games half-finished? Why do people avoid games at all? Then they're being insular and ignoring a "dialogue" because of their own personal taste. In fact, if someone doesn't appreciate parts of a game after 2 hours of playing, cheats to avoid those, what do you say of that?

One whole playthrough is such an arbitrary cutoff to make. You do not engage with conventional art the way you engage with video games. The closest thing is a book, and people don't "cheat" with books by modifying them to make it easier to read, the only way they "cheat" is by reading a summary and even that's just for books you read in school. Viewing a video game solely as art isn't valid; it's partially art, and partially a toy and partially a service.

If you think that's all I've been saying then you haven't been reading my posts at all. Modifying is not a problem in itself, and is not even bad inherantly. Many games are explictly made with the intent for the audience to be modifying them as they will to various degrees, like with lots of options in terms of how to play or with complete mod support or whatever. It's perfectly valid for any artist to create something and then state that their intent is for everyone to experience it in their own way, but this is a message in itself.

Yes, but again the only difference between the two is that certain ones do not want their content modified and one does. Do we call people on this? Because sending a dialogue and telling people to experience it the way that the creator wants you to do it is also a close-minded way of thinking - from the creator's side.

I don't see what the problem is here because again I haven't said you shouldnt modify games. Rather than having to defer to the creator, I'm simply saying that you should try to understand the efforts and perspectives of the creators. You don't have to agree with them.

I don't think I mentioned modding outside of Project M in that paragraph. The bulk of it had to do with the creator taking a shit on its competitive scene, even though they are the most dedicated players of the game who still keep the game going through personal effort. Yet the creator doesn't appreciate this even though it is his work that people are enjoying playing to a high degree.

In the end, my point is that it should be irrelevant what they have to say. If they say "don't cheat in my game" or even "play the game this way" without saying much more, I have no inclination to care or understand their viewpoint because that's an instruction to play the game the way the creator wants me to, and not to experience it on my own terms. If they throw out a few paragraphs as a followup or something, sure it's a viewpoint that can be understood but is ultimately meaningless because why should their word be relevant to experiencing the game in your terms? Why should the way you experience be relevant at all to the creator?

Why do you have to finish a playthrough of the game to understand the efforts/perspectives of the creator? It's possible to understand that while cheating through their game.

This is another irreconcilable difference in opinion then. There are some things that are objectively valuable, such as sentient intelligent life. Even if someone does not personally value it, they are simply wrong.

There are many things that are not objectively valuable. However, one's enjoyment or personal investment in something does not neccessarily make one unable to recognise its value. I am not a large fan of Opera for example, but I can see it's value. Thinking things have no value beacuse you don't care about them is yet again insular.

And some people aren't a fan of some parts of the game they're playing, so they personally modify things, change things, or cheat things so they can beat it themselves. Does that mean that the person has automatically failed to see the value of the game itself and is therefore insulting the creator, or does that mean that the person does value video games (or that video game) but has chosen to cheat?

This isn't me trying to throw out relativism at you, this is me saying that people don't personally value their video game experiences like you do, even if they in a broader sense value video games. I don't see how what I said is in-line with the general idea of relativism, rather than just personal taste and personal opinion, but that's probably because the argument has to do with whether or not cheating in a video game is objectively considered morally wrong unless I'm misunderstanding something.

All I'm hearing is "yeah it's morally wrong, but..." from one side, and from the other side it's "nobody cares."

I'm not trying to convince you of anything because I'm simply expressing my viewpoint. I think it's pretty futile to try to convince relativists of anything.

That me was asking you to clarify what exactly your viewpoint is, because I don't quite understand if you are against cheating on the first playthrough because you wish to defer to what you assume is the creator's intent or because you want people to do something? I really just don't understand the exact thing you are arguing for, or at least the fundamental basis for your argument. Edited October 22, 2016 by Lord Raven

[Irysa]

You don't have to be insular or entitled or self-centered to cheat in a video game. Unless you're specifically talking about an attitude towards video games, which is then not a good or a bad thing.

Maybe it's not pervasive, but to act in such ways reinforces such attitudes. I disagree that it is neither a good or a bad thing, I think such attitude are always bad.

It is arbitrary. Why is one playthrough the level of engagement you need to have given it a chance? Why do people leave games half-finished? Why do people avoid games at all? Then they're being insular and ignoring a "dialogue" because of their own personal taste. In fact, if someone doesn't appreciate parts of a game after 2 hours of playing, cheats to avoid those, what do you say of that?

One whole playthrough is such an arbitrary cutoff to make. You do not engage with conventional art the way you engage with video games. The closest thing is a book, and people don't "cheat" with books by modifying them to make it easier to read, the only way they "cheat" is by reading a summary and even that's just for books you read in school. Viewing a video game solely as art isn't valid; it's partially art, and partially a toy and partially a service.

Unless a game is intended to be replayed many times as part of its experience, I don't understand what is so difficult to understand about intuiting that we don't need to play it 50 times to have been able to experience the work on it's own terms. I did not say you should only do it once, I said at least once, because if you refuse to do it even once then you're eliminating a more valuable experience and reinforcing a negative attitude.

Your attempt to equate not finishing a game or avoiding games to being insular doesn't make sense. It is reasonable to make judgements about investments of your time and money, and considering that there is an essentially infinite amount of media out there to consume, choosing to focus one's time and money to other things can be justified in many different ways, and I would not assume someone is self centered because of that. Engaging with ideas you find interesting would only be insular if you only tolerate ideas that match yours or cater to your viewpoint.

The cutoff of 2 hours would depend on the game of course.

Misread. Would need context on why those parts need to be skipped.

I would actually agree that viewing a game solely as art is an overly restrictive viewpoint, but I don't see what that has to do with this scenario, because as far as I can tell you're advocating the opposite, that people should ignore the artistic qualities entirely.

I don't think I mentioned modding outside of Project M in that paragraph. The bulk of it had to do with the creator taking a shit on its competitive scene, even though they are the most dedicated players of the game who still keep the game going through personal effort. Yet the creator doesn't appreciate this even though it is his work that people are enjoying playing to a high degree.

Again, you don't have to agree with the creator? If you understand their ideas, but you disagree with them, then I have not said that's a bad thing at all. The only thing I would say is that you attempt to understand them.

In the end, my point is that it should be irrelevant what they have to say. If they say "don't cheat in my game" or even "play the game this way" without saying much more, I have no inclination to care or understand their viewpoint because that's an instruction to play the game the way the creator wants me to, and not to experience it on my own terms. If they throw out a few paragraphs as a followup or something, sure it's a viewpoint that can be understood but is ultimately meaningless because why should their word be relevant to experiencing the game in your terms? Why should the way you experience be relevant at all to the creator?

Talking about not cheating as if it is a command from the creator is an extremely disingenous way of describing this scenario. They are not telling you to play the game in a particular way, they're presenting a work which you can engage with, but the work is presented with some manner of restrictions because restrictions are neccessary to actually cultivate possibility space. A game with no rules whatsoever cannot exist because you need rules for there to be a game. Your arguments become increasingly more hedonistic by the minute, because whilst it's perfectly acceptable to say you don't agree with the viewpoint of the creator, to say that it's completely irrelevant again presumes the game is about you or for you, and whatever's being conveyed to you only matters insofar as it makes you feel good. It can't be irrelevant because those ideas are wrapped up in the work itself. The only way you can consider them irrelevant is within an aforementioned self centred view, where things only matter if you deem they matter. Frankly, if you consider pleasure to be the highest moral good then this discussion really can't go anywhere really.

Why do you have to finish a playthrough of the game to understand the efforts/perspectives of the creator? It's possible to understand that while cheating through their game.

You'd only be able to understand them in a detached sense rather than a personal sense. Reading a summary or review of a work may give you an idea, but your own engagement with the work and what you think is being conveyed isn't always going to be the same.

And some people aren't a fan of some parts of the game they're playing, so they personally modify things, change things, or cheat things so they can beat it themselves. Does that mean that the person has automatically failed to see the value of the game itself and is therefore insulting the creator, or does that mean that the person does value video games (or that video game) but has chosen to cheat?

This isn't me trying to throw out relativism at you, this is me saying that people don't personally value their video game experiences like you do, even if they in a broader sense value video games. I don't see how what I said is in-line with the general idea of relativism, rather than just personal taste and personal opinion, but that's probably because the argument has to do with whether or not cheating in a video game is objectively considered morally wrong unless I'm misunderstanding something.

All I'm hearing is "yeah it's morally wrong, but..." from one side, and from the other side it's "nobody cares."

It is certainly possible to recognise value and still act in defiance of that value, yes. One can recognise that trying to behave pleasantly towards others is valuable, yet willfully choose to not do so because it benefits them in some manner. This is a failing of moral character. "The spirit is willing but the flesh is weak" after all.

I understand that many don't care, and I think that this is a problem in more ways than one. Many people also don't care about empiricism or consistency, and I think that is also a problem. I see your argument as relativistic because you are trying to argue that value is subjective, therefore any actions one takes should only be in accordance to what one percieves as valuable, rather than there being things that are valuable intrinsically and those who do not value them are wrong.

I have made attempts to express why I think that cheating is harmful to an individual. I'll recap the main ones since apparently you haven't picked up on any of them.

• Warping (and potentially eliminating) one's experience of a work that is intrinsically valuable. You assert that it isn't intrinsically more valuable than a slightly repackaged one because all value is subjective.
• It expresses and reinforces entitled behaviour, which is connected to self centeredness and insular attitudes. I believe these are fundamentally bad things in all aspects of human conduct. You disagree (for reasons I can't fathom)

That me was asking you to clarify what exactly your viewpoint is, because I don't quite understand if you are against cheating on the first playthrough because you wish to defer to what you assume is the creator's intent or because you want people to do something? I really just don't understand the exact thing you are arguing for, or at least the fundamental basis for your argument.

Neither. It's as simple as saying I don't think people should be douchebags.

Edited October 22, 2016 by Irysa