134 replies to this topic

[Nathaniel]

If you have to cheat to get through part of a quest, or even to want to get to a part that you like, I think that in itself is a good reason to rate something less than a 5. Maybe 4 if you're just too impatient and only want to play through the good parts (which you find to be very good), but that also requires you to take the time to find the good parts. Perhaps you enjoy that process in itself, triple a two. I know I probably wouldn't. Cheating is a matter of personal preference, of course. For me it seems less satisfying to require or choose the aid of cheating. I mean, sometimes it's necessary for beta testing, especially a more difficult quest, for the sake of reaching hard to get to areas, but beta testing is not about having fun and more about making sure everything works right (thus helping it become more fun for others).

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Oh i can elaborate it easily. If the game is free i can simply pick out the part of content that i enjoy from the product and dont need to depend on the content that i did not like as i can skip it with no monetary loss(cheating mostly). If i paid for the game not only so i get back the value i paid for i have to tediously play through all of it. But chances are i probably wont be able to skip crap because cheating is ussually made as hard as possible.

And yes that is what i do with games.

So if i only play the good parts obviously i only judge the good parts. And because its free i am not forced to go through the crap part to get back my value i spent.

See, I didn't ask you to elaborate, cause your argument still makes no sense. I still don't see any reason why you wouldn't want to rate the product for what it is.

When people don't do this, and everyone is using their own weird rules for ratings, then they're all messing up the system, and thus effectively ruining the point of having it to begin with. I really don't know how else to put it, but this couldn't be clearer to me. I'm not gonna tell you how to do your ratings, but I am of the opinion that the system you're outlining here could be nothing but harmful. Though the way you're bringing up cheating makes it hard for me to take you seriously anyway. Nothing against cheats, but... it's not exactly the sort of thing that should factor into the review - unless the designers of the game in question made the gameplay revolve around the usage of cheats, in which case it's very much a part of the game. Cheats in general though, are either there for people to have fun with, or to help you out if you're having a hard time getting through the game. That's obviously not what the developers used the cheats for, but when they're left in the game after launch, that's their main function.

For example, rating a game less for the lack of cheats would just be dumb. It's like rating a game less because it doesn't have a multiplayer-feature. When you do stuff like that, you imply that you think games has to follow a certain set of rules in order to be 'good', which is an idea that is just batshit insane, if you ask me. If multiplayer, or cheats, doesn't work within the creators vision, then that's that. Artistic integrity is gold, and in this day and age I think it's especially important that we as both players and consumers don't penalize developers that are making the game they want to make, rather than making a game according to a checklist given to them by their publisher.

[nicklegends]

When you do stuff like that, you imply that you think games has to follow a certain set of rules in order to be 'good', which is an idea that is just batshit insane, if you ask me. If multiplayer, or cheats, doesn't work within the creators vision, then that's that. Artistic integrity is gold, and in this day and age I think it's especially important that we as both players and consumers don't penalize developers that are making the game they want to make, rather than making a game according to a checklist given to them by their publisher.

I agreed with you until this point. What reason is there to rate something lower other than missed potential? And if a developer's "vision" is a game you don't enjoy, why wouldn't you penalize them for it? To use your own words, "[R]ate the product for what it is."

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

I agreed with you until this point. What reason is there to rate something lower other than missed potential? And if a developer's "vision" is a game you don't enjoy, why wouldn't you penalize them for it? To use your own words, "[R]ate the product for what it is."

Well, maybe I worded myself poorly. What I meant is that you don't deduct points from say, Ocarina of Time, because it didn't have a multiplayer feature. That game wasn't trying to create a multiplayer experience, and while you could make the argument that some games would have been better with a multiplayer mode, that doesn't mean you should automatically deduct points from any game that doesn't have said feature. That's the vibe I was getting from aaa, that any game that doesn't allow him to cheat, is worth less in his eyes. I disagree with that way of looking at things, because a game shouldn't require cheats in order to be completed. Ever. If a game frustrates you to the point where you have to use cheats to progress, I'd say that's an issue of game design, and I'd totally penalize the developer for it - but I wouldn't blame it on the lack of cheats, I'd instead point out the actual problem in question. Maybe there's a puzzle that's simply too confusing, or maybe a certain bossfight is just unfair. Maybe the controls isn't suited for a certain segment, making it very hard to pull off without playing twister on the controller.

Those are the real issues. Not the lack of cheats.

Was that better?

[nicklegends]

Works for me.

[aaa2]

That's the vibe I was getting from aaa, that any game that doesn't allow him to cheat, is worth less in his eyes.

Actually if i don`t have the chance to adapt a game to my liking then yes i will rate it worse because i couldn`t adapt it to fit my needs(its not even that much about cheating, cheating is just the easiest way to adapt a game). If i dislike a feature of a game and i can turn it off by modding it i will. If i have to grind in a game i wont i will just use cheats to spare myself the repetition. No developer knows what kind of experience i want. I certainly know best what i want so if i am given the tools that i can adapt things in the way i like of course i will honor that.
To be very honest in one commercial game i had to collect a certain amount of crystals to progress in the game. This is repetitive and boring and since i couldn`t find a way to cheat(even cheatengine did not work for finding values to mod) i wrote a sincere letter to the developers of said game. And what do you know they gave me a save file so i could skip the part that i don`t like.

[Eddard McHorn Van-Schnuder]

Actually if i don`t have the chance to adapt a game to my liking then yes i will rate it worse because i couldn`t adapt it to fit my needs(its not even that much about cheating, cheating is just the easiest way to adapt a game). If i dislike a feature of a game and i can turn it off by modding it i will. If i have to grind in a game i wont i will just use cheats to spare myself the repetition. No developer knows what kind of experience i want. I certainly know best what i want so if i am given the tools that i can adapt things in the way i like of course i will honor that.
To be very honest in one commercial game i had to collect a certain amount of crystals to progress in the game. This is repetitive and boring and since i couldn`t find a way to cheat(even cheatengine did not work for finding values to mod) i wrote a sincere letter to the developers of said game. And what do you know they gave me a save file so i could skip the part that i don`t like.

A game isn't supposed to bow to your personal needs, it's supposed to deliver you an experience that only that one game can give you. What kind of experience this is, is up to the people making the game. You're not supposed to bend a game to your liking, just like how you're not supposed to watch a movie backwards or something. There's nothing stopping you from doing that, of course, and in a lot of cases, things like this can do lots of good for a game. Modding is a great example of what I mean.

But when you buy the game in the store, the product you're buying is not a set of random lego bricks, but instead it's say, a Lego Star Wars X-Wing replica. The creators of this set made it with the intention that you'd be building the X-Wing, but you could of course take those pieces and make something completely different. But if you were supposed to review this set, because of the fact that it is a set, it'd be wrong to take away points because the pieces aren't too compatible with the other ones you already own, or something along those lines. Did that make any sense to you?

My point here is that while you choose how you play your games, when it comes to rating the quality of a product, I do think it's counter intuitive to rate it according to such specific personal 'rules' or whatever. Don't get me wrong, I'm all about reviews being subjective, but there also needs to be a certain degree of objectiveness within them as well. A game-breaking bug is a game-breaking bug, but the lack of say, mod support does not ruin the game. Unless you had a game like Minecraft, that - at least now - is clearly centered around letting the community shape and mold the game in the way they see fit, and it for some reason didn't have mod support. As if the game was clearly built around the idea of mods, but then didn't let people actually mod it. But let's be honest, why would anyone make that game? If that happened I'd think the developers were clearly bad planners.

Another point is that letting users use cheats or not is a decision that's more or less without any serious planning or design, unless you want to be innovative with the system, something I don't think anyone has really tried. Say if you had two equally good quests, in every aspect, like dungeon design, story, music and so on... except one of them didn't have cheats enabled. Does that really make you feel that the one with cheats is superior to the other? The act of enabling cheats is done within seconds, there's no skill behind that addition, it's literally the flip of a switch. Some people may have good reasons not to let players use cheats, as it could easily interfere with some more complicated scripts and whatnot. Some professional game developers might not want the players being able to skip the parts of the game they're really proud of, and wants you to see and experience. I mean, that's why they made it, after all - so people could experience their work.

I just strongly disagree with the way you look at the gaming medium as a whole, I suppose. And no offense, but I really do think that views like that is harmful to the medium, because it doesn't encourage innovation and the evolution of gaming in general. It asks that games follows a strict set of rules, and if you don't see why that can be damaging, you just go look at Call of Duty, and what that has done to gaming just in the last few years. Let creators be creators, and if they create a shitty game, that's their fault. But don't tell them that if they don't to this or that, their art is somehow worth less, because that's just an unfair way of going about rating a game, regardless if it's a game made by a professional game developer or a ten year old kid in his room.

[aaa2]

Ok i felt the urge to give a very detailed explanation of my viewpoints. Maybe you will like some ideas maybe not. Its your decision

A game isn't supposed to bow to your personal needs, it's supposed to deliver you an experience that only that one game can give you.

If i pay for it the game should better well do what i want or i want my money back!

What kind of experience this is, is up to the people making the game.

Might be true but if its not what i want i will change it!
If i pay for it the game should better well do what i want or i want my money back!

You're not supposed to bend a game to your liking, just like how you're not supposed to watch a movie backwards or something.

I absolutely dont care about what i am not supposed to do as long as it does not harm anyone.

But when you buy the game in the store, the product you're buying is not a set of random lego bricks, but instead it's say, a Lego Star Wars X-Wing replica.

Well if i dont like that replica and i already paid for it the next best thing to do is destoy it an salvage anything you can.

The creators of this set made it with the intention that you'd be building the X-Wing, but you could of course take those pieces and make something completely different. But if you were supposed to review this set, because of the fact that it is a set, it'd be wrong to take away points because the pieces aren't too compatible with the other ones you already own, or something along those lines. Did that make any sense to you?

If the X-Wing sucks but if the set at the same time is a good deal for the pieces its made of i think i have the right to rate it for the pieces that i could salvage.

My point here is that while you choose how you play your games, when it comes to rating the quality of a product, I do think it's counter intuitive to rate it according to such specific personal 'rules' or whatever.

With the problem that there is no rules established for rating it. This kind of goes back to a point i made somewhere in this thread. Tell people how they should rate and they will rate in a uniform manner. If you dont tell them how to rate everyone will make up their own system. This is why everything needs a clear definition so that thoughts are comparable.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all about reviews being subjective, but there also needs to be a certain degree of objectiveness within them as well. A game-breaking bug is a game-breaking bug, but the lack of say, mod support does not ruin the game.

If there is a gamebreaking bug and i can simply mod it away then its a non issue unless its very frequent.

Another point is that letting users use cheats or not is a decision that's more or less without any serious planning or design, unless you want to be innovative with the system.

And that is why i am completely unsympathetic towards things that dont allow cheating. It takes no effort to allow people to enhance their game this way if they want. Why take this option from them unless you want to force your own ideas down their throat, which in my opinion is rape!

Say if you had two equally good quests, in every aspect, like dungeon design, story, music and so on... except one of them didn't have cheats enabled. Does that really make you feel that the one with cheats is superior to the other?

While it might be only better by a bit its still better.

The act of enabling cheats is done within seconds, there's no skill behind that addition, it's literally the flip of a switch.

And that is why you should enable them because it can be fun to people and it takes you no effort. Essentially a win win situation!

Some people may have good reasons not to let players use cheats, as it could easily interfere with some more complicated scripts and whatnot.

In that case the player not the creator needs to deal with those issures naturally.

Some professional game developers might not want the players being able to skip the parts of the game they're really proud of, and wants you to see and experience. I mean, that's why they made it, after all - so people could experience their work.

And this is essentially rape if i dont want to play that section where does that developer think he gets the right from to force me the paying customer to play it?

I just strongly disagree with the way you look at the gaming medium as a whole, I suppose.

Ok that is probably right.

And no offense, but I really do think that views like that is harmful to the medium, because it doesn't encourage innovation and the evolution of gaming in general.

Oh why? In my opinion they can try anthing they want to innovate and i will probably buy it. And if i dont like some parts i will have the tools to adapt things to my liking, which means they were able to try something new and if i liked it i will have no need to adapt things. If i did not like it i did not waste money though because i could adapt things to my liking.

It asks that games follows a strict set of rules, and if you don't see why that can be damaging, you just go look at Call of Duty, and what that has done to gaming just in the last few years.

Lol. There we probably share an opinion todays games suck(i am very tired of first person shooters and third person shooters). While you still hope that people will fix this i instead in the rare cases i think its fixable try to fix it myself. Like as an example take Dark Souls. That game was amazing however i did not enjoy the need for grinding(while i can see that it is needed). SO what did i do? I cheated for souls whenever i would have needed to grind(savemodding and yes i played the game offline). Would i want them to remove the need for grinding or the punishing difficulty? Definetely not because that is what made the atmosphere and everthing in that game so great. Would i have played the game if i couldnt cheat? Probably not.

Let creators be creators, and if they create a shitty game, that's their fault. But don't tell them that if they don't to this or that, their art is somehow worth less, because that's just an unfair way of going about rating a game, regardless if it's a game made by a professional game developer or a ten year old kid in his room.

Well if they produce a game that in my opinion is shitty. They better give me the tools to fix it for myself otherwise i wont buy their next game.

[Avaro]

I understand why you'd want to rate fan games better, yes.
But read the first post. That is exactly what he meant: people are giving 5 stars to freely, thats how the topic started. I think that you even should go critical on reviewing quests or otherwise people cant tell wich are the better quests and wich are the not so well made quests.

If all people would mod their Games they buy to how they want it to be or using cheats or something like that, nobody would be playing it how it was originally intended to be and that'd be ridicolous :O

[aaa2]

The point is i am not playing games because i want to play them how they were intended to be played i play them plainly to have fun. And if the game is fun naturally i will rate it better no matter the reason why it was fun.

[Jared]

If you're playing them the way they're supposed to be made, then for the most part you should be having fun. But if you can't find a quest that doesn't suit your needs, maybe you should just make your own.

I can tell you'll never like any of my quests though. I don't give out cheats, and make the player actually work to progress in my quests. It's much more rewarding than getting all your hearts back in a simple "H" press.

[aaa2]

You really dont understand how i use cheats. If i die at a boss too often then i use it not if i just die once, it is a last resort to avoid frustration. Or another instance i use it: if a boss is a good deal of distance away from the entrance and i just died at the boss then it is pretty boring to be careful on your way to the boss so i just hold down the fast forward button + the H button and go to the boss faster. Then right before it i refill health and attempt it restricting myself to not using the h button. Sometimes if a game has potions i restrict myself to using the H button to the number of times a potion can heal(because i am lazy to go to the shop to buy potions). So to sum it up: If you use cheats wrong it will ruin the game. If you use them right it will save you boring repetitions and can enhance the game. So use cheats right. The problem most people have with cheats is that they are mentally incapable of restricting their use to an amount that makes the game more fun. As an example invincibility is a cheat that is almost never fun.

[Shane]

Cheats are not there to "avoid frustration", it's there to cheat, plain and simple. By cheating you are not playing the game how it should be played. Want to "avoid frustration"? Then maybe quit the quest, hug a puppy, go outdoors, smell a flower and go back to playing the quest or another entirely. There are other alternatives to use, and most of them don't just break the quest.

Again Robin is correct. Maybe the reviews are hidden but the actual ratings are not? That would at least prevent others from copying other ratings to seem like they know what the deal really is before playing thoroughly. It's hard to figure out what someone meant simply by a score.

Eh?

"You must give a review before you can see other reviews"? Still think that's kinda stretching it but again, eh!

I got an idea, all the reviews and ratings are invisible until you have reviewed and rated the quest. Of course guests and the creator(s) can see the ratings. It's just an idea.

Edited by Shane, 19 April 2013 - 09:16 PM.

[aaa2]

Cheats are not there to "avoid frustration", it's there to cheat, plain and simple. By cheating you are not playing the game how it should be played. Want to "avoid frustration"? Then maybe quit the quest, hug a puppy, go outdoors, smell a flower and go back to playing the quest or another entirely. There are other alternatives to use, and most of them don't just break the quest.

Lol and you would probably say deal with things how they are lol. I personally prefer to change things into the way i like. Things need to bend to my will as long as it doesnt harm anyone.

[Shane]

Lol and you would probably say deal with things how they are lol. I personally prefer to change things into the way i like. Things need to bend to my will as long as it doesnt harm anyone.

But in the end: do you think the quest maker will appreciate that? You can't always get what you want, and you can't simply depend on everything to bend at your own will. If you want something that fits your desires then you got to most likely make it yourself.

Edited by Shane, 20 April 2013 - 06:00 AM.