Talk:Cheating in video games
|This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Cheating in video games article.|
|WikiProject Video games||(Rated Start-class, High-importance)|
Hi there, I've been trying to help improve this article and am compiling a list of useful articles for research. Some of these are just ones suggested on the discussion about this article on the collaboration page. Feel free to add any more you think will be useful!
-Sturm55 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
From early cheating history:
- PEEK and POKE
- Jet Set Willy has already been referenced by Oscarthecat; will need to find citations but I believe it was one of the most hacked 8-bit games (mainly due to the fact that it could only be completed by cheating.)
- Magazines like Your Sinclair had pages devoted to cheating ('The Tipshop') and the covertapes included programs that were bundles of cheat codes (YS's was compiled by Phil South).
- Amiga Power also had cheat pages but in its later days it scorned upon cheating (as being ungentlemanly or something) and the cheat-page hosts were mocked.
-Marasmusine 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
Thanks, those will be alot of help with expanding the history of cheating section. -Sturm55 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
It would be neat if some of the following sections were included:
- Reasons for cheating in single player and multiplayer games. (I tried doing this but I ran out of ideas)
-some reasons for cheating are mentioned in the prevalence of cheating section, but those only apply to single-player games. You might want to add to that with some reasons for cheating in online games. This article might give you some ideas. - Sturm55 09:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
- Common hacks used in online games (Counter-Strike, Runescape, etc.)
- Fix stuff I add :)
Legality of Cheating
I think the Legality of Cheating section should contain some information about the EULA. I think the deal is, game companies cannot arrest you for cheating, they can only deny you their service if you violate the EULA, right? I don't dare contributing, because I don't know that much about the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterPhyrePhox (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).
Hot Coffee wasn't a cheat. It was only accessible through a modification of the game. -Not Diablo 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
I'm hoping to get some references in for some specific types of cheat (big-head mode, for example.) Now, whilst there are hundreds of game cheating sites with user-submitted cheats, is there a site with some editorial control over such submissions (that could therefore be used as a reliable source?) It's either that or dig out some old gaming magazines.Marasmusine 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
Is there anything on the concept of "putting a weight on the controller/keyboard" to keep a button pressed down? This might not qualify as cheating but it seems relevent 188.8.131.52 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)
Macros in World of Warcraft
The use of macros is not forbidden in World of Warcraft... they even put an interface in the game where you can create them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.108.40.206 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)
Abuse of bugs
There should be a section on being "cheap" too. For example, abusing techniques not intended for the game, such as in Street Fighter II how you can throw the opponent without giving them recovery time after hitting them with a quick jab. --Denise from the Cosby Show (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)
Using "Cheats" vs. "Cheating"
As a couple of the comments above suggest, there's a difference between using a feature designed into a program that intentionally overrides the "normal" play, and a feature that was not designed, but a bug or a weakness in the design. This probably needs to be two articles.
There are several differences between the two. The feature set of "cheats" can be documented in Wikipedia: they have reliable sources: either the original game designers, or later programmers. "Cheating" as a whole, exploiting weaknesses in design is a philosophical issue: Is it really cheating to have a character do XYZ a thousand times to raise their stats?
There's a lot of original research in the article, but whether it is "going too far" depends on what's being talked about.
- "Cheating in video games has existed for almost their entire history. The first cheat codes were put in place for play testing purposes."
Well, design defects that can be exploited are just bugs. And bugs always exist in software. So the first sentence is wrong as applied to "cheating". The second sentence, which only applies to "cheats", is wrong in different ways. There's a lot of folklore about how "cheats" started, but much is just unreferenced rumor. There's no proof what the "first cheat codes" were, and if there were, I don't know of any reliable encyclopedic information about their "purpose". The Wiki editor assumes the "cheats" were for "testing purposes", but that's pure speculation. The first "cheat codes" might just have been for fun, or as placeholders for unfinished features. "Backdoors" were standard practice for programmers long before the first games.
The reasons "cheats" and "cheating" exist are largely different. The way they are "discovered" are largely different. A company's response to a "cheat" is entirely different than to an unintentional weakness that allows "cheating".
- I'm not sure why you've removed references to publications like Your Sinclair, Gamespot, etc on the grounds of them being "blogs", so I've reverted one step. Can you go into more detail about your objection to each? Marasmusine (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)
- Because they are amateur homespun websites on the level of poor blogs without citations, references, or authors  . A major purpose of an external link is to add material that doesn't fit in the Wiki article, but would be generally suitable for a Featured Article. (WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided", points 1 and 11.) Furthermore the information is trivial and appears, since they both include pricing to also be promotional. Not even remotely close to acceptable. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're jesting are you not with regard to the promotional claim? The articles are verbatim transcripts of magazines printed in October 1984, and February 1989 respectively. A seconds investigation would have revealed that. At no stretch of the imagination does that count as promotional. Furthermore, the both articles are definite examples of the references - a description of how to get the desired result, and an attempt to sell the results.
- Forewarned - I shall be reverting as I disagree with your assesment of both "...on the level of poor blogs..." and WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided" - which does not mean they must be avoided. a_man_alone (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- (edit conflict) Firstly, regarding WP:ELNO: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." These are references you are removing, not mere external links. Secondly, I've said before, these are not a blogs, or even websites; they are published print magazines. For example, Your Spectrum was published by Dennis Publishing in the UK between 1983 and 1986. If you object to the url to the online archive, fine, you can remove the url, but please don't remove the whole "cite journal". These fully satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. Finally, whilst it may not be common practice now, during the 80s videogame magazines often included the retail price of the item being reviewed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The phrase "However, a cheat industry emerged as gaming systems evolved, through the packaging and selling of cheating as a product." needs a reference? Would any reader doubt this happened? Hardly. You've provided a reference that's unnecessary, except to waste some baffled reader's time. Think "encyclopedia" and not "fancruft". Documenting fancruft is still fancruft. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- What exactly do you have an issue with - the content, or the references? At first it seemed that you were taking issue with the references, and so removing them, however now you seem to have a problem with the content, not the references that backed up the content. I mean, sure, you could be against both, but I'd just like to clarify which it is so I can respond appropriately. I fail to see how a statement - backed up with an example - of people profiting financially from cheating is fancruft. In the same context, I cannot see how an example of what a cheat actually does to the code is fancruft. If you see any baffled readers, that's probably because somebody has taken references out which explain or give examples. a_man_alone (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Level select/skip level
Another common "cheat" not mentioned is level select, and also skip level; I know many 16 bit and some 8 bit games with these features. Sonic 1 & 2 for the Mega Drive had a level select screen among other cheats, as did Earth Worm Jim (which called you a cheater when you accessed it). Aladin, Chuck Rock and Lion King among others had a cheat feature where it would skip to the next level if the player pressed the correct sequence of buttons, often whilst paused. Hidden warp zones like that in Super Mario Bros on the NES, where the player can find a hidden area and warp to a later level sometimes with several level warps to choose from. I imagine many would say these are not cheating as they are within the game, but I think they could be mentioned anyway as they are hidden and make the game a lot easier similar to cheats, and are a bit crafty, some might know about them but disapprove of using them just like cheats.
I am sure there are many more games than I can think of with these features, not sure where to put it in the article but I think we should mention it. do users agree? Carlwev (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)