New Super Mario Bros. Wii To Include Official "Cheat"

phlack writes "Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo's upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii that will allow the player to activate a 'demo' mode to get out of a hard situation. Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games. Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?" They actually patented this system as well.

Comments

Only for casual gamers

[s1lverl0rd]

Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.

I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Haxzaw]

I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.

I wouldn't count on that.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[murdocj]

Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.

True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game. For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper. I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me. After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be. Even with all that, he was hard to see. Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game. If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.

I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle. I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work. That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.

Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Stormwatch]

Talking about Medal of Honor, it pisses me off because of friendly AI. I mean, in a certain level, I have to keep my squad alive, and there's a load of German snipers around us; how the fuck do I tell my buddies to GET INTO A BUILDING AND STAY THERE while I go outside and hunt down the snipers?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[beerbear]

Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.

Especially in single player games I don't play to win; I play to have a good time. That is usually synonymous, but doesn't have to.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Llian]

I remember that level in MoH. Was good fun. Frustrating for about an hour until you get it.

Whilst I don't think that people should cheat, or look up strategy guides, in some games, the developers do not do a good enough job to let you know whats required to move on. In a GOOD game, its not needed. In a mediocre game, it can be.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Devout_IPUite]

I would count on this damaging gameplay experience. Gran Turisimo 3 includes an auto-pilot mode. When you first start playing the game it's not infeasible that the auto-pilot is a better race car driver than you... So you might end up using it a bit and before you know it, you can only use the auto-pilot because you're not good enough to compete on your own at the current difficulty.

Personally, when this happened to me I went back and restarted without using B-Spec mode on a race I hadn't already won at least once (using B-spec to farm for credits to buy competitive cars for other races was a different story). I enjoyed the gameplay experience MUCH more the second time.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

I totally see this happening in Afghanistan.

- Stay in this hut until I have hunted down all enemies.
- But Sir, we outnumber them and have superior weaponry!
- Shut up! I cannot afford to lose any or you as it would make me lose face to other commanders. You all stay here it is an order!

Re:Only for casual gamers

[KillerBob]

Part of the problem is that they need to find a balance between hardcore gamers and casual gamers. A level like he's describing from MoH would have me, a casual gamer (well, except for Warcrack) saying "fuck this" and finding a different game.

Assuming I'd even pick up the game in the first place, which I probably wouldn't.

The problem is that in order to appeal to the casual gamers, the game has to be easy enough that most hardcore gamers won't touch it. By adding the "demo" mode, they can make parts of the game very challenging, to appeal to the hardcore gamers, but can also give casual gamers the ability to avoid the frustrating and annoying content that presents too much challenge and commitment to keep a casual gamer interested.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[conspirator57]

for some reason huts irl aren't impenetrable to bullets/rpgs/explosives and human intelligence recognizes the need to storm one full of bottled up opponents where game AI tells the sniper he's only and always a long distance sniper.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[rjejr]

Many games have a hard part that's too difficult to get through, so using this ocassionally doesn't seem so bad. I don't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in "easy mode" after dieing a few times, and there are other games that do this as well.
I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series. In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay. In Jak 2 there is a mission where you have to destroy 5 ships but I could never get more than 3, so I sold the game back, only to rent it again months later and finally beat it. There is also an on-rails level where you ave to destroy 40 jet-packed bad guys which was really hard. Again, that series is about having fun as I don't think there is a "Game Over" screen anywhere to be found, so if you can't actually lose, is it "cheating" to win?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ifrag]

True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.

I'm seeing this happen in several titles now, and in my opinion it's just bad design. Where there is some ridiculous difficulty "spike" which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it. The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers (small outliers mind) for boss fights or the like. I don't have any issue with a small spike here and there, but if it goes too high and it never gets back up to that point, then it's severely misplaced. If the content exceeds the final level / boss or whatever then after passing it you've effectively won anyway.

In a well designed title, I see no point in cheating to get past a point, because if the difficulty curve is made properly I'd just have to cheat my way through the entire rest of the game anyway. By getting "stuck" at that point, I'm forced to learn whatever game-play mechanics that will allow me to survive future content. The problem here being that future content never required such skill, so cheating past the spike has no effect whatsoever at your ability to complete the rest of the game. The solution should not be to put in a bypass, it should be to rework the skill curve back to where it should be.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[rishistar]

I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2, and then continue as normal. This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game, unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime. For an FPS I'd still like to do that, though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat. But I'll stick to FPS on PC's over consoles for this reason.

I would like to see the cheat only become available if you've tried it a number of times though why its a patent.....

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not -necessary-. You just don't want to develop the skills or try enough different tactics to legitimately pass a part of the game that 6-year-olds have breezed past. Loser! L2P!

Re:Only for casual gamers

[elrous0]

Fortunately, real life soldiers are slightly more intelligent than AI cannon fodder.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[The End Of Days]

Smart choice staying anonymous, because in truth nothing says loser quite like being snotty about being good at video games.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if you're right, casual gamers are most of the market.

What does winning 'for real' give you that you don't get with a cheat code? A sense of accomplishment in doing something almost completely meaningless in the real world? At this point I can't remember whether I ever won Contra without the code; that's because in the end, they're just games -- not college courses or Shakespeare. Have fun with them, and stop trying to assign them with more meaning and value than they have.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[phaggood]

I consider myself the "poster child" for the term "casual gamer". Having enough frustrations in meatspace, I don't want to the attempt to finish a game to be anything like work. I have a handful of Playstation II games and the closest I've got to a finish is "Kim Possible". My kids had to get me past the agility test early in Kingdom Hearts, and a similar test early in "Ghost in the Shell" has ended my progress in that game (my teen girl has no interest in the game and my 7yr old is too young too see such graphic violence).

Really, it's play, I don't wanna work that hard. There are serious sports players and there are "beer-belly" leagues where overweight men hit softballs and sorta jog around the bases - to each his own. If "Ghost" had a demo mode, I might actually know what's in the rest of the damned game nearly two years after I purchased it.

My other console is a Wii, and the types of games I have purchased for it, Wii Play, Playground, Wii Sports, Wii Fit, Wii Music, Cooking Mama, Game Party, Endless Ocean; further demonstrate I purchase games to have fun, not increase my frustrations. Perhaps this is why some of the few meatspace sports I do enjoy are tennis and softball - it seems easier to find casual players for these than say basketball or football which seem to be dominated by guys trying to relive their high school glory days or at least prove they "still got it".

Re:Only for casual gamers

[elrous0]

What were the hard parts on HL2 you're talking about? I generally thought the game was pretty well designed. But there were two areas that did give me trouble too, though. There is one area where you have to shoot off a certain lock. I didn't know this and flailed around forever trying to figure out how to get past the area before I finally looked it up in a walkthrough and realized I was supposed to just shoot off the lock. Another part was the part where you have to take down the helicopter in the speed boat. It took me forever to finally do it, but MAN did it feel good when I did. That fucking helicopter had been a constant annoyance throughout that entire section of the game, and watching it fall felt GOOD!

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ThePhilips]

I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.

I wouldn't count on that.

I have to agree.

For casual players (I consider myself being one too (at least in context of consoles)) it is important that game just flows, either guiding you or making you to explore the possibilities. It is bad game where you hit a bump - "demo" mode wouldn't solve it.

Only thing "demo" mode would achieve is to solve an ancient puzzle of hard core games when you buy an expensive game but get stuck in the middle. It is hard to justify the situation provided that you forked a pretty hefty money for the whole game, but can't enjoy it fully. Add here all the "lockable" crap and you have a case of potentially angry customer.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[slackbheep]

But does someone else "cheating" through a level have any affect on your own enjoyment of a game? It really shouldn't. I could understand if this was an article about WoW adding an option to autocomplete quests/dungeons if you were having trouble, but for those of us who aren't still in middleschool and measuring our gaming prowess against our peers at all oppurtunities this just means that a particularily annoying level doesn't block you from seeing the rest of the game.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[haddieman]

I can relate to that. Even though I consider myself a hardcore gamer, I really only enjoy putting in massive amounts of work in certain games (e.g. Super Stardust HD). When I play a game I'm looking for one of two things depending on my mood; when I'm worn out after a long day at work and I just want to relax, I'll throw in Burnout Paradise and just drive fast, but on weekends when I have more time, I will spend hours playing Killzone 2 or trying to get 100% on Metroid Prime 3. Of course, the game still has to be fun. If a game isn't fun it doesn't matter how hard or easy it is, I'm not going to play it. That's why I think that having a "demo mode" is a good idea (at least for Nintendo) because if you want to experience the challenge (if that's what makes the game fun for you) then you can. On the other hand, if you just want to relax and enjoy the game world you can do that as well.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[camg188]

"Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'." - lighten up, Francis.
1. - A game is software. Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is. God mode is just another option. If the user likes the option, it is good. This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level. If you don't like it, don't use it.
2. - It's not cheating. It's users entertaining themselves. It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbeknownst to the others
3. - How is this news? God mode has been available in games since games have been made
4. - It can be fun. Who hasn't played Unreal and messed around with god mode, playersonly, loaded, fly, ghost and summon?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[mrdoogee]

Two words to people who thought that level was hard:

The End

Horribly awfully hard, but the satisfaction of beating him is almost euphoric.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Fallingcow]

Another part was the part where you have to take down the helicopter in the speed boat. It took me forever to finally do it, but MAN did it feel good when I did. That fucking helicopter had been a constant annoyance throughout that entire section of the game, and watching it fall felt GOOD!

Easily the hardest part of the game, IMO. You can sort-of cheat by leaving your boat up in the cave you come out of, running out until you trigger the chopper, then running back to the boat. You can hide from its guns in the cave and hit it when it drops in to view. Tedious, but less so than dying 10x trying to beat it legitimately.

Personally, I consider it a fair maneuver since the devs gave the chopper a Bin of Infinite Holding for its bombs (it's not long before the damn thing has released more mass and volume worth of bombs than the is in the chopper itself), and made it so much harder to kill than every other identical chopper in the game.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[vux984]

I would count on this damaging gameplay experience.

Did idgodmode ruin Doom? Of course not.
Did being able to get Castle-9 lives in Super Mario Brothers ruin it? Even today I still can't beat World 8 without a healthy stack of lives going in.

What about updownupdownleftrightleftrightabab in umpteen million other games for extra continues, ammo, whatever, etc?

How is this really any different? I mean idgodmode made you invincible with unlimited ammo.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[demonbug]

idgodmode? Don't you mean iddqd?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ground.zero.612]

I would call you an apathetic gamer rather than a casual gamer. Playing games is either about solving problems, competition, or both. Being unwilling to do either is not what I would call a gamer at all. Not in any sense of the word I've been accustomed to using since I first played Pong when it was *gasp* new.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[10Neon]

Some difficulty spikes, however, vary from player-to-player, and will crop up no matter how well the game is otherwise designed. For example, I have a tendency to get stuck in FPSs because I forget to go through some obvious door (I tend to go for the less-obvious doors first, since that's where they like to hide the health and ammo.) Other players, more attentive than I, wouldn't find any kind of difficulty spike, because the door is right there, and it's not fighting back. A "demo mode" would be useful in situations like this because, within seconds of activating it, it would basically tell me, "hey stupid, why not turn right instead of left at this intersection, for once?" In this case, it's not a matter of learning a new mechanic in order to continue, but remembering to use one that you've previously demonstrated mastery over (in my case, turning right.) Watching my casual-gamer sister play, I notice that most "spikes," for her, are things like this. Difficulty in gameplay is not always the result of the skill curve, so it would be reasonable to include a system that would allow players to move past parts of the game that they're getting stuck on, even in a game with a "perfect" skill curve, simply because players' do not apply their skills to each situation in a uniform manner.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Devout_IPUite]

Touché. Still, there might be a significant difference between auto-pilot and god modes. Maybe not.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ukyoCE]

Arguably, if a game has a part that's ridiculously hard, it's just a bad game. The player does share responsibility for making efforts to get past the part.

But if the game hasn't made the player aware of the tactics or abilities required to get past that point, and the players options are Quit or Cheat, then that's a massive failure on the game's part.

And of course thats all true only for the easiest game mode - if you put the game on a harder difficult and it's too hard, the answer is to scale back the difficulty (hopefully without having to start over from level 1), not cheat.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[murdocj]

I would call you someone who doesn't have any empathy. You apparently can't conceive that someone might want to "play" in way that is different from the way you like to play. Some people like to play full out and backcountry ski down mountains, risking their lives every second. Others want to relax with a bit of solitaire or bejeweled. The level of challenge that you want in your "play" is by definition something personal. I've "played" by running marathons, so I know something about challenging myself, but I don't consider you to be apathetic if you haven't run a marathon.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[sexconker]

up up down down left right left right b a b a select start is about the only way to make Contra playable.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Chyeld]

Some things are worth the effort, some things aren't. Some of us are long past the stage in our life where we find breaking our hands or fingers in an attempt to perform some insane maneuver worthwhile. If I can pull it off, great.

If it takes me an hour with my hands cramping up while I still can't quite get it, I'm going to look for another route.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[dzfoo]

You have a very valid point, as do others who have said the same thing about other games. However, as also stated by other commenters, such highly difficult and frustrating parts are signs of a poorly design game.

It's one thing to look online for "cheats" or walkthroughs to aid you in overcoming some unreasonably difficult part of an otherwise enjoyable game, which you already purchased; you probably couldn't tell such challenge was part of the game until you encountered it, and therefore had no recourse except that, or stop playing altogether and forfeit part of your investment in the game.

It is another thing entirely to build this facility into the game itself--in essence making "cheating" part of the experience of playing, ab initio. At such, the game designer has little incentive in correcting his practice and invest resources into making a better gaming experience for the user. They are, to all intent and purposes, accepting as a matter of course that the game experience is going to irritate or frustrate you, and so it is easier to offer you a crutch or "cheat" than to actually improve it.

        -dZ.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[mrdoogee]

Not to mention infinite ammo:

idkfa

Re:Only for casual gamers

[fotbr]

and idspispopd if you wanted to just walk in a straight line to the exit.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ground.zero.612]

I would call you someone who doesn't have any empathy. You apparently can't conceive that someone might want to "play" in way that is different from the way you like to play. Some people like to play full out and backcountry ski down mountains, risking their lives every second. Others want to relax with a bit of solitaire or bejeweled. The level of challenge that you want in your "play" is by definition something personal. I've "played" by running marathons, so I know something about challenging myself, but I don't consider you to be apathetic if you haven't run a marathon.

I respectfully disagree. I have empathy, but not for apathetic people. Pretending you are part of a very specific group of people, but then alienating yourself out of that group with your apathy says it all, IMHO. I agree a person's sense of fun is subjective. However, "casual gamers" are not "apathetic gamers," which the GP claiming to be the "poster child of casual gamers" made himself out to be. Please refer to my previous post for my reasoning on playing games.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Bohnanza]

This ought to be an option in EVERY game. Too many designers don't understand the difference between "challenging" and "frustrating".

Civilization II famously included a "Cheat" menu to allow players to do as they wish with the game. After all, you bought it, why should anyone else tell you what you can do with it?

And furthermore, a gamer who wants a challenge can simply refuse to use the "cheat"!

Re:Only for casual gamers

[y86]

Winning is winning.

The only people who care about the rules being broken are the losers.

--Cheers!

Re:Only for casual gamers

[TheSambassador]

You have a very narrow-minded view of games. Games are only about 2 things? Problem solving or competition? Really?

Have you ever played a sandbox game? I don't think that me driving around in GTA aimlessly is either problem solving or competition. The bottom line is that games are supposed to be FUN. And as you yourself admitted, a person's sense of fun is subjective. If people find that they have fun "playing" some sort of weird autopilot version of a game, then I have no problme with it.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[interkin3tic]

I can't wait until gamers stop talking about "casual gamers" like they're different in any real sense.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[mwvdlee]

There are very few games that I've actually played to the end, simply because they all seem to throw in some challenge at some point which I just don't "get" or is just too difficult. Usually the content that's after it, it perfectly playable for me, but the frustratingly irritating bits stop me from getting there. If I could press a "skip this challenge" button, the game would be a lot more fun for me.

The buyer of a game should be able to play all the content he has bought. If that means including a cheat mode in the game to pass the bits that either bore or irritate me, then do so!

Same goes for unlockables. If I buy a race game, I want to be able to drive the superfast Veyron on every track that's on the disc the very first time. I don't care about competing for hours in a Fiat Panda on the same tracks. Give me a cheat to unlock it all. If other buyers DO like to earn the unlockables; nobody is forcing them to use the unlock cheat. For me, working to unlock the entire game is not fun.

Like most people with full-time jobs and a private life, I play games for fun. I already had to work to buy the game, why would I want to work to play the game too?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[mwvdlee]

Playing games is either about solving problems, competition, or both.

I thought playing games was about having fun.

You seem to confuse the means by which a goal can be achieved with the goal itself.

Walking isn't about putting one leg in front of the other, it's about going somewhere.
Eating isn't about moving your jaw and swallowing, it's about getting nutrition in your body.
Gaming isn't about solving problems or competition, it's about having fun.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[FrostDust]

Interestingly enough, your link is rather on topic. Players who just can't get past The End either get sent back a few areas so they can collect ammo & supplies, or they just eventually win by default.

I guess Konami recognized a good amount of players would have given up because the battle was too hard, so they included a "cop-out", allowing players who tried for a while but still couldn't get past this battle could still continue the game.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[subsonic]

Very true. There are, still, countless games that are simply poorly designed such that there are parts that, if not impossible to beat, are quite simply not fun (which is probably worse than just being "hard"). If the system simply piles on enemies against me, or doesn't give me any clue as to how to avoid certain doom, then I am likely to simply give up and return the game. Developing my own skill at the game is one thing, but simply kicking someone while they're down or poorly designing levels or control schemes is another.

One of the best things that has come along for 'casual gamers' is the "beginner mode" and "no fail mode" in Guitar Hero World Tour and Rock Band 2 (respectively). Those modes have helped a whole ton of people enjoying playing together who otherwise would not have done so. Easing people into an unfamiliar gaming environment like a game is a good thing for families.

However, as a semi-serious gamer (more than casual?) it makes me glad I got rid of my Wii when I did and picked up an Xbox 360. More power to Nintendo for carving out their niche, but I know that I do not want any part of that group.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[damien_kane]

and idspispopd if you wanted to just walk in a straight line to the exit.

mmm... Smashing Pumpkins Into Small Piles Of Putrid Debris... fun-fun

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

This autopilot is very dangerous though. It changes the medium from a game into something else (lobotomized cinema?).

If you take the gameplay out of a game, what do you have left? 40 hours of machinima? ;)

If games are designed so this feature is never necessary, all is well. If set pieces are designed to look cool, but gloss over playability (due to our new crutch), than our medium has declined. :'(

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ikono]

What if the reason contra is unplayable without cheats is because of those cheats?

Re:Only for casual gamers

[sexconker]

Then it would be pretty dumb of them to not tell players the cheat codes.

(Of course, EVERYONE knows that particular code since it was used in so many of their games.)

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

Did iddqd ruin Doom? Of course not.

There fixed that for you.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Drinking Bleach]

This happened to me when I was playing Half-Life 2. There was some point where you need to take down four striders (giant mofo's with something akin to a chaingun attached); they each take six rockets to bring down, and you can only carry three rockets at a time, on top of the fact that the rockets are fairly slow-moving (compared to other games) and you are required to guide them through their entire path via a laser. It was hell... and after spending literally two hours on that part, dying over and over again, because there didn't seem to be enough ammo anywhere, and I couldn't really afford to explore the area for ammo with those things shooting at me, I just said "Fuck it" and cheated by giving myself rockets every time I ran out. Later, I discovered there was one of those infinite-supply-of-rockets-in-a-crate things in some corner I would've never thought to look for.

It was just so aggravating, and I feel no guilt whatsoever of using a cheat to get past that one part of the game, I probably would've never finished the game. Everything after that point was MUCH easier, which was mostly a blessing, except for the fact that the final "boss" of the game was too easy imo.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[sixteenbitsamurai]

Contra is unplayable without the Konami Code because it was originally an arcade game designed to eat all of your quarters by being difficult as hell. There's no way to stick more quarters in an NES to get more tries, so the code is the only way to go if you don't have m4d 1337 ski11z.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[Anonymous Coward]

However, as a semi-serious gamer (more than casual?) it makes me glad I got rid of my Wii when I did and picked up an Xbox 360.

Why? I can understand the whole Wii is not for 'Hardcore Gamers' thing, but the Wii can coexist with the 360. It is not an either / or situation. The Wii has some good games that appeal to hardcore gamers. Smash Bros, Metroid, The Conduit, and Zelda are just some of the solid games / series that appeal to the hardcore gaming crowd. It is not a great selection compared to the 360/PS3/PC but it is worth it just for the exclusives.

More power to Nintendo for carving out their niche, but I know that I do not want any part of that group.

Sounds like elitism. What group are you talking about? Last time I checked, It was about the games, not the "status" gained from owning the system. This seems like the same BS I get because I use a macbook. "Oh, you are one of those mac people...I guess that makes you a yuppie-hipster-douchebag"

Owning a Wii doesn't make you less of a gamer. It merely gives you another outlet for gaming.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[EnvyRAM]

Actually, "god mode" would ruin games such as Doom for me. That's why I only would use it on a game once I got tired of playing it. Then I'd just go crazy, blow through the game, and be done with it. After completely annihilating every monster with the unlimited ammo of the supergun and winning, there wasn't much fun for me going back and poking around with a shotgun. I'm sure it's not the same for everyone, but I doubt if I'm the only one that gets bored with a game after playing it through in god mode.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[vux984]

Actually, "god mode" would ruin games such as Doom for me.

What do you mean 'would'? Doom is over a decade old. Either it -did- ruin it, or it -didn't-. Its a bit late for 'would'.

My point is that it -didn't- ruin the game, even though it was there. Those of us who felt it would ruin the game to actually use it simply didn't use it. You are right, in the sense that using it will suck the life out of a game... but you knew that and didn't use it until you were tired of the game anyway and just wanted to screw around.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[KDR_11k]

From the way the game is emulated in the Konami Arcade Classics for the DS it seems to have a limit to the number of credits it'll let you use in one game, after that it's game over even if you do have credits left.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[KDR_11k]

Of course that ignores that people differ in what they like or tolerate. One person's frustratingly difficult may be another person's welcome challenge.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[ji777]

I don't know... I may be in a minority for this, but I can't do twitch gaming that well. I got to a point in Resident Evil 4 where you have to do a series of button pushes during a cinematic in order to "live" through it. In theory, it's not that hard... they show you the button and you press it or the right combination of buttons. But I screwed it up. And any failure during the long series of prompts, and you had to start over from the start again. Over and over. I was livid by the 30 minute mark of retrys and had to walk away. And I was very upset with the game afterwards... especially when it gave me a series of position sensitive survival button presses just in the next area that held me up for another few minutes... no I didn't realize I had to walk away from the back wall before the lasers came if I even wanted my button press to do anything at all. I'm bitterly grumbling even now about it. Anyway... a difficulty spike, even if it's not a problem for some, with no way around it can really put someone off a game they are otherwise enjoying immensely.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[mrdoogee]

I thought you had to do the "move the date up by a week" hack to beat him without killing/disabling him.

but yeah, I guess you are right... it was programmed in that way. But my opinion stands that beating him (non-lethally no less!) was one of my proudest accomplishments in gaming.

Re:Only for casual gamers

[immakiku]

Re-read the sentence. "... would ruin games such as Doom..". Games such as Doom are not all over a decade old. Some aren't even out yet!

Sounds like a good idea.

[Bluebottel]

Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones. Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game' cheat as well.
Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[robbyjo]

Agreed. In many cases, especially in party games like Mario Party or Super Monkey Ball, this is very useful. I don't need to play it to completion to play the party mini games. If I bring it to my friend's house, I don't need to bring my saved games just to unlock these stupid things.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[somersault]

You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.. of course, some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable, but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable.. :s

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[socrplayr813]

But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[gbarules2999]

You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.

The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.

It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?

That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[somersault]

Fair enough, if the mini-game itself truly is that much fun. I guess I'm just wondering if the drudgery beforehand makes the game actually seem more fun whereas in reality the mini-game isn't much better than any other game, it only seems fun compared to the rest. I just don't know any games that have mini-games that are better than the actual game. Probably because I don't usually play games that take 25 hours of grinding to get anywhere, with the exception being a couple of MUDs and MapleStory.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[rawr_one]

More importantly, as is the case with Super Smash Bros, there are several games on the Wii that have saves locked to the original memory device they are stored on. That means that if you saved your Brawl data on your Wii, then wanted to bring Brawl over to a friend's place to play, you have to lug your whole setup over to their place to have all of your unlocked stuff. Which is just pointlessly inconvenient.

I fully support the idea of companies building cheats into their games again. This was wildly popular in the N64/PS1/Dreamcast era, and I don't think there was a single person who complained (Goldeneye 64 just wasn't the same without paintball mode on, and DK mode just made everything better. Oh, and remember playing as the ridiculous variations of Banjo in Banjo Kazooie? That was AWESOME).

On top of that, because of some of the problems (like the above save-locking) that have come up in the latest consoles, I think that companies should really start looking at systems that allow you to use a potentially experience-ruining cheat (such as an UNLOCK ALL cheat for Brawl) that locks and freezes the game's save file, so you can both allow people to have those unlocks but still be able to have the experience of unlocking things. That seems like a happy medium, no?

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[Anonymous Coward]

OTOH, most of the games I buy are for group fun. I have no desire to play some 1P mode for hours on end just so I can have all of the characters unlocked when my friends come over.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[Beyond Opinion]

Enter the Matrix. It's a terrible game, but the bonus hacking mini-game is a fun diversion. It is unlocked from the start though, so it's not exactly what you're talking about.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[somersault]

Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?

With nothing to aim for or look forward to, life gets boring pretty quickly.

Imagine how much more enjoyment someone who had to work months/years to afford their car gets out of it than someone who was born into an incredibly rich family and has everything handed to them on a plate.

With Uncharted there were a lot of unlockables that I had fun with which would have made the game incredibly boring and easy if I had had them since the start of the game. I never activate the cheats on a game until I have completed it for example, but you strike me as someone who would just cheat as soon as you can so you can get to the "good" parts (maybe even one of those people who plays online games with cheats? What the hell is the point in that? I don't understand how it can be rewarding in the least, unless you get your jollies off on pissing people off).

I'm not saying that games should always operate like that, but it is a valid way of making you appreciate the rewards more. It probably will force you to explore elements that you otherwise would have missed, which in the long run will increase your enjoyment of the game ("kill 30 enemies with the grenade launcher" type stuff despite the fact that you usually would just not bother with that weapon, but it turns out to be good in this game, etc).

I generally agree with your last paragraph, was going to mention a couple of things but realised I do play devil's advocate far too much (as with my original comment, when I knew as I was typing that having to spend hours to get to an unlockable could cause you to dislike something you would have otherwise enjoyed if you build up too high expectations of how fun it's really going to be)..

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[MasterOfMagic]

Holy totally missing the point!

With nothing to aim for or look forward to, life gets boring pretty quickly.

Imagine how much more enjoyment someone who had to work months/years to afford their car gets out of it than someone who was born into an incredibly rich family and has everything handed to them on a plate.

It's. Just. A. Game.

Here's what I look forward to: getting married, starting a family, being able to pay off my bills, a promotion, several more pranks from/to my friends, and so forth. Not getting 100% in Super Hyper Sequel Roster Update 2010 Mark IV.

If you are the type of gamer that feels they must unlock and earn everything, that is perfectly fine. However, all gamers are not like you. I have a day job that's 8-10 hours a day. I have friends that want to go out into the real world for drinking, driving fast cars, golf, shooting, pranking, talking with girls, more than talking with girls, and generally being social while not being behind a headset or a controller. This leaves a small amount of time for me to play video games, and, consequently, cuts into my ability to unlock things.

However, you'll note, that I paid the exact same amount of money for the game as you did. I bought the exact same content that you did. Our discs are likely identical at the bit level. I already worked to afford the game - I worked hard and saved my money to hand over for the disc. This is why a game that already has everything unlocked is not like getting an expensive car without working - I already worked to buy the game!

If anything, having things locked without the option to put in a cheat code to unlock them is akin to working for years to buy that shiny new car, paying for it, driving it home, and finding out that until you've spent another $4,000, you can't go any faster than 45. Make the full unlock option be a cheat code, and then color the icon of the save to, say, red instead of blue. If you have a blue save, then you haven't unlocked everything with the code (and have done it through your hard work).

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[keytoe]

I agree. What takes the cake for me has been the recent trend of having this whole 'unlock the content' idea shoved on top of what amounts to a party game. The very idea that I'd have to play through an entire game in single player mode to unlock the content I'd want to play with my friends is downright idiotic. Party game means I stick in the disk, hand out controllers and beer and that's it.

I understand where these developers are coming from with the whole unlocking thing. It's supposed to be about 'character progression' or some bullshit - and it makes sense in certain genres (RPGs, Sports Career Sims, etc). But that doesn't mean you need to stick an RPG element into every damned game you crank out. The gaming market has matured, and we don't have the time it takes to unlock all the fun bits any more. We just want to play. Make games like that and I'll start giving you money again.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[Chris Burke]

It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?

No kidding, and this is particularly bad for a game whose most enjoyable mode is playing with others, but where this mode doesn't allow you to unlock anything. Soul Calibur II had a really retarded "story mode" that you had to slog through to unlock characters and arenas for some god damn reason when Versus and Arcade modes were the fun ones.

Sometimes unlockables can work and be fun. A good example would be Mario Party, where the stars and what not you earn playing the game as it is meant to be played and is the most fun to play (with a party full of drunk people) allows you to unlock things. Which was cool. You could get done with a game, pool all your accumulated resources, and go unlock a new map or something to play in the next round. This is much better than making the person who owns the game play it in un-fun mode in their spare time.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[HalAtWork]

Or like in the new Prince of Persia, skip all the fights. My s.o. has a fun time with the game otherwise, why force someone to hand over the controller to someone else to get past a certain part of the game? Or those puzzle elements they throw in, I wasted a lot of time on those pools of dark matter that you have to connect. Why is that even in Prince of Persia?

Anyway, I just hope it isn't an excuse for developers to not refine and playtest their games. One crappy gameplay element, and I already hear the P.R. machine winding up ready to say "Oh, we put that in for the hard core!"

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[adisakp]

When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things

You really don't want to buy "Little Big Planet" for PS3 then. The game starts with all levels and items locked except the introductory level and you have to earn EVERYTHING in the game.

That said, it's one of the best games I've played in years. Unlocking and discovering new things can be an integral and fun part of a game.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[dzfoo]

Or you could complain to the game manufacturer about your experience, and if enough users do, they would probably listen to you and improve the gameplay on a sequel.

This is pretty much what happened with Boom Blox for the Wii; the game was primarily a single player game with a "party mode" tacked on. Although innovative and fun, the single player game required you to go through repetitive stages in order to advance to other levels, and after a while it became boring. However, the "party mode" turned out to be the best of it, allowing you to play casually with friends in an interactive manner, though it was mostly a secondary or terciary feature of the original game.

The support and review fora where filled with comments from users stating how fun it was to play in "party mode"--though you still had to finish each level in order to "unlock" the next, with a friend this wasn't such a necessity, as the challenge and fun of the multiplayer interaction made the selection of a particular level less important.

And now a sequel is out, and what is it? It's essentially an expanded version of the "party mode" as a full-blown game. Designed from the start as a multiplayer party game, you do not need to grind in order to "unlock" every single level.

Believe it or not, some game designers actually want to make games other people enjoy, so letting them know what works or doesn't is usually a good idea.

        -dZ.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[Chyeld]

In SSB's case, I would wager a good portion of it was to ensure there was a sufficent online player base for a sufficent length of time after it's release.

In my experience, Nintendo games (Wii or DS) tend have online portions that are worthless half a year after release because either no one plays it any more or because despite knowing that there are cheat engines out there, absolutely no effort is put in to curb hackers in the game and every match is dominated by folk who blatantly hack.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[somersault]

I do really hate when that happens.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[orin999]

That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further.

Exact reason why gaming used to be a mentality for a smaller group of people and not mainstream. People who wanted casual gaming went to places like yahoo games. They did not own consoles or gaming pc's. But nowadays game companies have lost sight of what made a good game. Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game. Not the I want to make a lot of money so I'm going to make this game so easy a 2 year can play it.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[mrdoogee]

OK, first the disclosure:
I am 30. Video Games are my main hobby. I've owned at least one console from every generation from Atari 2600 onward. I also PC game.

I see games as the same type of hobby as golf. Now before you come at me with games=sedentary golf=active, I don't mean in terms of physical activity. I refer to the time and money spent on a pastime that will not generate YOU income (pro golf is not a hobby, but a sport). To be a avid golfer, you'll spend hundreds of dollars a year to play this game. You'll need to buy new clubs, bags, balls and other items intermittently. You'll pay from a dozen bucks for greens fees up to hundreds for a country club membership. You'll spend hours a week ( most of my pals that golf will go at least once a week) playing. And at the end of the day, all you have to show for it is a scorecard.

I guess what I am trying to say is that to some, that cheat code is like lying on your scorecard. To some, the experience is the thing and whether the record shows you shot a 73 or a 200, you had fun. But there are some of us that feel like we worked very hard for our score and even though it seems trivial to an outsider, we feel a bit put out over "casual" players getting to experience the same excitement we feel after investing out time and effort into our chosen hobby.

However, I would be fully satisfied if these games simply had coded into them a system that shows that none of these cheats (or easy mode, or what have you) were used. I am not bothered in the least that someone else gets to experience the whole game. I just want ( and I know it is juvenile and egotistical) to have something to show for my efforts in my hobby.

It seems I have written a novel. Oh dear.
tl;dr: "hardcore gamers" don't want their accomplishments cheapened.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[gbarules2999]

Which is hte challenge and the skill required to beat a game.

No, it's not. YOU ARE WRONG.

Games are fun because they are fun. Good gameplay, good controls, interesting mechanics. Innovative ways of interacting with virtual worlds and creating art and understanding from that interaction. Exploring new lands and shooting bad guys. Relaxing, having fun, playing with friends. Enjoying yourself.

Difficulty, suffering, all that tedium that plagues games even today is just nonsense made up by gamers who want to justify how stupidly hard old games are.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[socrplayr813]

Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.

I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life. That's not universal, of course, but I've gone through a couple of low points in my life in which I fell into a bit of a game addiction. Life sucked; games gave me some small sense of accomplishment and let me be important/powerful somewhere to make up for what was missing elsewhere.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[tixxit]

An integral part of that game you shelled out for is unlocking achievements. If you just want to have some quick fun, there is tons of games out there that will let you do that. However, if you buy a game that is intended to appeal to a hardcore gamer, someone who enjoys that effort-reward system, then don't be shocked if it requires effort to get reward. You shelled out the money for a game, first and foremost, not the content. It's. Just. A. Game. They are meant to be fun and different people have different definitions of fun. If you don't enjoy a game for what it is, then don't buy it.

If you are the type of gamer that feels they must unlock and earn everything, that is perfectly fine. However, all gamers are not like you. I have a day job that's 8-10 hours a day. I have friends that want to go out into the real world for drinking, driving fast cars, golf, shooting, pranking, talking with girls, more than talking with girls, and generally being social while not being behind a headset or a controller. This leaves a small amount of time for me to play video games, and, consequently, cuts into my ability to unlock things.

You seem to hold the classic stereotype that people who enjoy the effort-reward system in video games are loners that live in a basement. I have a full-time professional job that I enjoy. I am also looking forward to finishing my M.Sc. I am engaged and can pay off my bills. I too, have friends (shocker, I know) that I see far too often. I play golf once a week and work out 5 times a week. I also really enjoyed playing Neverwinter Nights and Rockband. I enjoy games like the GP and would wager that I have less free-time then you. If I get 4h of free-time and feel like playing a video game, then I want to play one that I enjoy, hopefully without being judged.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[Hitto]

Huh?
We haven't been playing the same game. You have to play each category's level in a strict order, or you can buy them to unlock them. But it's always linear.

Disclaimer : I don't mind cheating as long as it isn't against online opponents.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[dzfoo]

Are you talking about the original or the sequel?

I conceded that point in my comment, and that's one of the reasons the single player mode sucked so much. In multi-player mode, you still had to unlock each level in strict category order, but it did not matter so much because the point of a multi-player mode is the challenge and fun of interacting with your friends, not the specific level that you play.

This was made better in the sequel.

        -dZ.

Re:Sounds like a good idea.

[somersault]

I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life. That's not universal, of course, but I've gone through a couple of low points in my life in which I fell into a bit of a game addiction. Life sucked; games gave me some small sense of accomplishment and let me be important/powerful somewhere to make up for what was missing elsewhere.

Definitely agree there - the times when I've really been into RPGs coincided with me trying to work myself out of some very low points in my life.

Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers. I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain. I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months. I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way. Kid icarus was my bitch. It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.)

It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.

Re:Good idea

[bigstrat2003]

Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.

Why, exactly, shouldn't it? For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?

There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.

Re:Good idea

[IceCreamGuy]

Why, exactly, shouldn't it?

Uh... because when you're getting wrecked by those goddamn green hopping jerk bug things, you can't press "start," type in "Justin Bailey," kill them, turn the cheat off and then continue on.

For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?

Correct, it does not count. You can only activate it at the very beginning of the game, just like with Justin Bailey; you can't turn it on, pass a hard part, and then turn it off. That's what the summary is talking about.

Re:Good idea

[jahudabudy]

If I recall correctly, Justin Bailey simply changed the way your character looked; it didn't change the game play at all. I wouldn't call that a cheat. Contra, on the other hand - yeah, extra lives is absolutely a cheat.

There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.

Yes, this exactly. The only reason I can see for people to be upset is that it somehow diminishes their accomplishment in beating the game when others can do the same thing by cheating. Which is a pretty lame attitude, IMHO.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.

Why, exactly, shouldn't it? For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?

There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.

I'm about to go on a rant. The bulk of my message will be summarized at the bottom. Feel free to skip down there, and I can't ensure what's between this sentence and my closing will make much sense.

The issue is having "cheats-as-a-feature".

As far as "Justin Bailey" and the Konami Code, both were cheats. But neither was an "I win" button. That's what TFA is talking about. Adding an "I win" button to hard parts of the game, and making it a feature. I hope you can understand that there is a big difference between this and, say, grabbing an issue of Nintendo Power and looking up some cheat codes.

There's a large difference between a secret cheat code and a built in "cheat feature".

Furthermore, from TFA,

Rather than forcing players to comb the web for cheat codes and walkthroughs, the new help system is built directly into the game. If a player gets stuck, they'll have the option to pause play and allow the game to take over and play itself through any rough patches. Once they're out of the woods, players can hop back in and continue playing.

Neither Justin Bailey or The Konami Code played the game for you. You still had to have hand-eye coordination, timing, and strategy to beat the challenging parts of the game. This new Nintendo feature is just cruise control.

Ahem, let me get on my soapbox. I apologize ahead of time:

Once upon a time, it actually meant something to beat a game. One could brag to their friends that they made it through a tough game. There were no (or few) shortcuts. We had to fight through a boss a level, only to get to the final boss and have to fight all of his bosses over again! And we enjoyed it! We poured hours in the game to attain our goal: victory. There are still games on the Nintendo that I've never beaten, and it's haunted me to this day.

You know what? Megaman 1 and 2 were genuinely hard! Mario 1 was genuinely hard! Cobra Triangle was hard! Castlevania was hard! Metroid was hard! Dragon Warriors was hard! Tyson's Punch-out was hard! Solstice was hard! Contra was hard! Marble Madness was hard! I could go on. And it wasn't just the NES. Arcade games were a son-of-a-bitch (to get more quarters), several games on the SNES and Genesis were equally challenging.

Do you know how I reacted when my friend told me he beat Grand Theft Auto 4? "Whatever". This wildly successful game is a snore to gamers looking for a challenge. Mario was about 10 times more repetitive as this game, but the challenge kept scaling up. Once you got through about 10 missions in GTA4, it's the same thing over and over again.

This problem of people wanting to take shortcuts is pervasive throughout the entire gaming industry. It's so bad, now, that we have one of the largest game manufacturers having autopilot in their AAA title. Well, us "get-off-my-lawn" gamers aren't interested in it. It's offensive.

Ahem. Sorry about that. Let me leave with a coherent thought.

===== end rant ====

Developer sponsored, "cheat-as-a-feature" cheats devalue the gaming experience for those of us who are proud of beating a game. It is akin to a bunch of people entering the Tour De France, hopping in a car and driving to the finish line. They get out, hop on their bikes, and roll over the finish line. They proclaim that they've beaten it in record time. People who do that cheapen the effort of those who train for long periods of time to have an ability

Re:Good idea

[Sancho]

Once upon a time, it actually meant something to beat a game. One could brag to their friends that they made it through a tough game. There were no (or few) shortcuts. We had to fight through a boss a level, only to get to the final boss and have to fight all of his bosses over again! And we enjoyed it! We poured hours in the game to attain our goal: victory. There are still games on the Nintendo that I've never beaten, and it's haunted me to this day.

You know what? Megaman 1 and 2 were genuinely hard! Mario 1 was genuinely hard! Cobra Triangle was hard! Castlevania was hard! Metroid was hard! Dragon Warriors was hard! Tyson's Punch-out was hard! Solstice was hard! Contra was hard! Marble Madness was hard! I could go on. And it wasn't just the NES. Arcade games were a son-of-a-bitch (to get more quarters), several games on the SNES and Genesis were equally challenging.

I grew up on Nintendo. I beat Megaman 1 and 2--it took me months. I never beat Castlevania (mostly because I didn't enjoy it enough to play for months.) I beat Metroid and Dragon Warrior--but I don't think that they were hard. They were just long. Punch-Out, though....again, probably months (and writing down the strategies that worked against each fighter in each level.)

I guess what it boils down to is that to beat these games without "cheating", it took months and months of work, of replaying the same content over and over, of mastering each level.... Now I'm over 30. My attention span has actually shortened a bit, and I simply don't get enjoyment out of repetititve tasks. Hell, I use unix for this very reason--to cut down on repetition and get to the real meat of a project. Replaying the same levels over and over just doesn't do it for me anymore--I'm pretty likely to just give up on a game and bitch about the $50 I'm out. I guess I'm less hardcore than I used to be, but I think that's okay. I'm also fairly certain that there are a lot of people out there like me.

And that's the rub. Nintendo wants everyone to buy their games. Hardcore games probably won't sell as well[1]. However, for a long time now, game manufacturers have been putting in extras for people who want to "complete" the game. 120 stars in the recent Mario games (when all you need to beat the game is 60.) Extra tokens to find, hidden levels to beat, optional quests, etc. are a staple of modern games. The main quest may be easy enough to get through quickly, but to find everything, you have to work hard at it. This paradigm works fairly well for a lot of people. Demo mode is another take on it. Players who want to do it all themselves can do so. Players who would otherwise get frustrated can get through some of the harder parts without spending days on it. It seems like a reasonable experiment.

[1] Mega Man 9 is an obvious counterexample. It's pretty hard for a modern day game--somewhere between MM2 and the later ones which could actually be beaten fairly easily. And it sold like hotcakes.

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

as someone who rents games often(gamefly), I would love more built in cheats. I don't want to dedicate 20 hours to huning down some obscure item just to enjoy a game

Re:Good idea

[bky1701]

You are seriously complaining about someone cheapening your 'training' to play a video game?

My advice, go spend the time you would 'train' to play games on learning something actually useful. Then you won't need to worry about someone devaluing your accomplishments, because they will be real.

Re:Good idea

[Wdomburg]

B-O-O H-O-O

So you have to add "without cheats" when bragging. Times is hard. :)

Re:Good idea

[Anonymous Coward]

Because Justin Bailey is a purely aesthetic modification.

Instant Satisfaction

[addsalt]

Good marketing is giving people what they want and Nintendo has done well in understanding just that. Unfortunately, most people would rather get something without any effort than they would to actually practice, learn, then succeed.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Anonymous Coward]

Extended frustration isn't good when playing videogames. Most people play them to either relax, have fun, or spend time with friends/family.

I don't care about this Demo mode, because I won't use it. If someone actually has to use it, then I'm glad it enhanced their game experience. If someone is foolish enough to use it to get to the end quicker when they didn't have to... then thank goodness they'll never have enough patience to get good at the online games I play. :)

+1 Insightful for you.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Anonymous Coward]

The need for such a feature at all is a design failure in itself though. A game can still be difficult and not frustrating because of it. Instead of this feature, Nintendo should be going back and looking at what they did wrong and fix that instead.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Shadow of Eternity]

THIS.

Some of the later levels in the genesis sonic games were cant-win-with-infinite-lives hard but they didn't come across as cheap shots like 2/3rds of Sonic Rush does.

New Super Mario Brothers (DS) for example is the same way, at least half the time I died in that felt like the game just saying "Whatever, close enough" and killing me even when I otherwise would've survived.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Anonymous Coward]

THIS.

Some of the later levels in the genesis sonic games were cant-win-with-infinite-lives hard

I'm pretty sure I got through all the Sonic genesis games before I was 7 years old. I don't think I'm alone in this. Do you suffer from some sort of physical handicap?

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[flitty]

Extended frustration isn't good when playing videogames

The most intriguing part of the patent for this "demo mode" was how it was activated. The Wii-mote will detect when it is thrown against the wall and Implement Demo-mode for you.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[grumbel]

Imagine for a moment that your DVD player didn't have a fast forward button, after all you should watch the movie, not skip through it to the end for instant satisfaction.

Doesn't sound to great, does it? With video games its the same thing. Sure a challenging game is fun, but being forced to play through those challenging parts is not. It should be the users choice of how he wants to enjoy the game and if books and movies are any indication, it works quite fine when the user has instant access to the end of it.

The only real trouble I see with this is that games have progression, you learn skills in earlier levels to use them in later ones. So if you skip those learning parts, because you find them to hard, you mind end up being even more screwed later on, as you haven't learned how to play the game, thus a hard game becomes an impossible one.

But in the end: You payed for the game, so you should have the right to see all of it, if cheats and autoplay allow that, so be it.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[FatAlb3rt]

No child left behind?

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[MBCook]

But what a 7 year old or someone who is 60 and has never played games finds frustrating may be pretty easy for a 30 year old who has played games off and on since they were a kid.

This would allow the game to occasionally present a challenge to the 30 year old and give the 7/60 stuff to work against. If it's too hard, they can use it to "skip" that one moment.

How many people here have had a brother/sister/friend get through a "hard part" of some game for them?

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[digitalsushi]

Nintendo commited the fallacy of assuming that people have different levels of patience and ability.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Endo13]

No.

It's "no sale left unsold".

Very few "hardcore" players are going to just not buy a game because it has a "demo" mode like this, but many more "casual" players will buy it, because they know the whole game can be fun and not cause undue frustration. That is the whole point of videogames you know: fun. For some, an extreme challenge is fun. For others, it's not.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Sancho]

I didn't feel that NSMB(DS) was all that challenging. I practically breezed through it in a way that I never did with the earlier games (SMB2/3 and SMW.) The challenge for me was finding all of the coins and alternate routes.

Hell, on my second playthrough, I don't think I died more than 10 times, and most of those were as tiny mario.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Moridin42]

Uh.. no. Including the ability to match difficulty to player ability dynamically is a beautiful thing. This.. is one step removed from that. Presenting a difficult challenge for highly skilled players will alienate everyone else. Presenting an easy challenge for players who are not, and are not interested in becoming, hardcore players will alienate lots of other players due to boredom. Not to mention that if I select expert difficulty for some games, I just wouldn't be able to complete the campaign. If I step it down to hard, the campaign is almost boring. Because, while I am more than skilled enough at most aspects of gameplay, some aspects are just beyond my reach. I'm okay with that. And if game publishers/developers are okay with me not playing their game because the difficulty doesn't match my ability, okay. Sometimes that means they don't get my money. Sometimes it means someone else picks up a used copy because I can't be bothered to keep it.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[blahplusplus]

"The need for such a feature at all is a design failure in itself though"

No it's not, the fact is games never needed these things until gaming went more mainstream and businesses wanted money from any googly eyed drooling human being.

When you put in things like demo play, you're not actually playing the game. I mean should we just pre-render playthrough's and sell them on discs for casual gamers? At point you stop gaming and just really prefer to watch others play or do things for you, and you've removed yourself from the interactivity completely - i.e. completely passive.

Quite frankly we're not talking about design flaws, we're talking about catering to the lowest common denominator. It would be like saying that because cars don't drive themselves, they have design flaws because they don't prevent idiot drivers from doing stupid shit.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[BikeHelmet]

I find most games ludicrously easy. I wish they had harder game modes available.

I like RTS games, and usually I play them through on the hardest difficulty the first time.

Recently I've been trying more FPS games, like TF2. Single player is nice, but for a challenge you need to face real people. At first I sucked, but now I'm doing better; I'm not so good at ControlPoint or Pipeline maps, but I'm really good in the Arena. I average about 3 kills before I die, in 5vs7 rounds. (low numbers of players)

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Anonymous Coward]

A sale isn't unsold, by definition.

Re:Instant Satisfaction

[Shadow of Eternity]

I didn't say it was hard, just that when I DID die I felt more like it was shoddy collision detection and cheap shots (enemy randomly spawning inside you type stuff) more than legitimate difficulty like the older ones had.

Grammar is good. Fix the summary.

[NIVRAM]

Perhaps they can ACTIVATE a 'demo' mode, too?

Great idea!

[ZmeiGorynych]

I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more. Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).

If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at all.

Both

[physicsphairy]

Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"

Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.

But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me. :p )

Re:Both

[techtoad]

I agree with physicphairy, even though many users will see this "demo" option as a cheat option that will diminish the game, its a nice idea for those who choose to use it. There have been so many games I have played for weeks, got stuck on a single level and not played the game again for years due to bordem and frustration. What about those times you lose your game saves by accident and want to make a quick journey back to the stage you reached in the game?* I say this is a good idea, cheaters can use it to cheat, genuine players have the option to bypass a stage that ruins their gameplay experience. *Obviously, some games that are more involved with choices and "collectable" itmes may not be this straight forward, but hey, its better than having to go all the way back to the begging after losing your gamesaves!

Re:Both

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"

Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.

But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

(I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me. :p )

Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.

But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

How, in your opinion, does this concept extend into online play? People who "grief" in online games often say things such as "I paid $X for this, I can spend my time ruining everyone else' gameplay if I want to." Barring any Terms of Service violations, these people are often right. What does that do to the quality of the game, however? If a player can impede another player's enjoyment of a game that they both purchased, who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?

The second example are cheats (such as aimbots or wallhacks in first person shooters or drophacks, maphacks, and bots in rpgs/mmorpgs) often claim that "Well, I paid $X for this game, I can do whatever I want in it. It's just a game. You're a tryhard." I know several people who get a lot of enjoyment out of cheating in online games. By cheating, they are able to "see the next level" of the game and "bypass the essential struggle of the game". They paid for the game and online content, right? So they should "be able to access all of it's content, regardless of [their] skill".

I agree with your sentiment. One pays for the game, they should have access to the content. I am interested in if you believe that your point of view is equally valid on online play.

Re:Both

[PGC]

I disagree with "you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill." . Because, just as you said, you paid for the GAME. Not for a level-viewer. If the game is to difficult for you, than that is too bad, you get what you paid for.

Re:Both

[dangitman]

How, in your opinion, does this concept extend into online play?

It doesn't. Online multiplayer, and offline single player are fundamentally different beasts.

Re:Both

[jellomizer]

Aren't games made for entrainment as its primary goal. If the person is getting frustrated at one spot the game looses its entertainment values and because an obsession or not worth the time. Now they may loose the reward of actually getting pass that point. But that is up to them. Sometimes in games there are spots that you just can't quite get threw, say an action sequence in an adventure game, or that one spot where you can't make the jump. Having a cheat to get threw it is helpful.

Re:Both

[silanea]

[...] who's happiness should get preferentrial treatment?

That of whoever can get enough support for their voteban.

In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.

Re:Both

[Endo13]

I'm sure the marketing department will look at it that way too. /sarcasm

They're always going to do what they think sells best, period. And the video game market is speaking louder than it ever has before: right now, targeting video games at "casual" players sells.

Re:Both

[Anonymous Coward]

Reminds me of the solution they had in Guitar Hero 3 for boss battles (besides the last one obviously):

Try, fail, try, fail, try, fail, get message: Whoa! you are getting it handed to you, do you wanna wuss out and go on, you can come back later [wuss out] [try again]

Then on your song list the boss battle is listed as 'Wuss out' until you beat it. Simple solution, and quite elegant, I mean, it doesn't stop you from progressing, but it sure does make you want to go back and do it right if you can.

Re:Both

[Jim Hall]

Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it. But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

I played about 95% of "Prince of Persia: The Two Thrones". I almost gave up on the game at the other boss battle at the King's Road, where you fight two bosses at once: one with an axe, one with a sword. Barely made it. But I stopped completely when I hit the final boss battle, with the Vizier. It got waaaaay too frustrating to keep banging my head against that level. I understand the temptation to make boss battles that hard and repetitive, but that one got to be too much.

I gave up on it. I quit. Fuck it. Sold it back to GameStop.

Later, I head from some of my friends who had finished the game that the next level was, by far, the best level in the game. Too bad, I never got to play it.

Re:Both

[Anonymous Coward]

Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"

And, after all, it IS a game, not real life. If I wished to cheat at solitare, big deal. Even though I can't recall ever doing so, let's put it in the proper perspective.

Now, if you cheat me out of money or out of my house, then I'd be tempted to look for my BFG2000.

Re:Both

[n7ytd]

I remember my old Mouse Systems mouse that came with the brand spankin' new 286. The driver disk included a text-mode solitaire game that was a great way to teach my dad how to handle the mouse.

The game would let you violate the rules of the game, but it would flash "You're Cheating!" when you made an illegal move. If you eliminated all of the cards, it would congratulate you on the win, but remind you "(but you did cheat!)".

It was a great balance between letting you finish the game if you want, but flagging the win as tainted.

Reminds me of the proposal of asterisking the hall of fame records of all those baseball players caught using steroids...

Nice, an AI system in reverse!

[Anonymous Coward]

So a button that would allow Nintendo players to enter a "learn this move for next time" mode.
Why didn't I think of that?
How about one that switches into a particular portion of a previously recorded ghost? (send my portion of the royalties to the Pakistani refugees)

Perfect platform for this

[JohnConnor]

This is a good idea for the Wii. This platform is not supposed to be for hardcore gamers and the focus is more on the general public. Take myself as an example: I play the Wii but unlike my kids I don't have time to repeat a game sequence hundreds of times until I get it right. If I get stuck somewhere in a game I don't waste my time and I move on (read I drop this particlar game). I'm looking forward to be able to skip a frustrating part and get on with the rest of the game. I am not playing to get frustrated

Re:Perfect platform for this

[Anonymous Coward]

How did this get modded troll?

Re:Perfect platform for this

[Kugrian]

A terminator did it.

Re:Perfect platform for this

[Anonymous Coward]

Simple troll, you made a idiotic comment by a troll and someone properly modded the idiotic comment down. Here's to you making a lot more stupid comments so your whole bloody account can be modded down into oblivion.

BTW, flame away retarded troll.

THE REDS ARE GETTING CLOSER!!!!

[bhunachchicken]

In Soviet Nintendo, game plays you!

... and laughs all the way to the bank.

Seriously, though

[bhunachchicken]

It does make a good point, http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282

Re:Seriously, though

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeesh, second time I've seen that on /. in the two or three days and it's still mediocre.

Fantastic

[Jarlsberg]

Having kids (5 and 9), I would have to say this is fantastic. Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest, and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels. Now, Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun, but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over. Let's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun. :)

By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids. Maybe it's the controller?

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe it's not walking upside down and on walls all over the place.

Re:Fantastic

[zwei2stein]

I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.

Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.

There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.

But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.

Re:Fantastic

[sesshomaru]

Up-Down-Up-Down-Left-Right-Left

Help Me

Heck, I'm 39, and after being killed by Rift Entities one too many times I decided to go to "Casual" mode in the Ghostbusters video game. You know why? Because I don't care anymore...

This is because after a hard grueling day of work (or for a child, school), I don't want to come home to a hard/grueling video game, and never did.

We challenge our kid by making sure she keeps her grades up, if she wants to play Cooking Mama in her free time, that's her own affair.

I'll admit, I always thought it was dumb to play through a game on God mode from the very start. I knew kids who did it, and I didn't understand the point. I never thought it was bad to have God mode though.

On the other hand, the games where I get to "that one boss" and give up in frustration, what do those teach a child? If life is too hard you can always give up?

Re:Fantastic

[aliquis]

my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids

Wtf, I'm 29 years old and I have a problem with the damn puzzles.

I got stuck at the level in the first world where you go up a tower and jump over the water to a small cave and then get into some puzzle with moving boxes. Hate that shit.

Beaten by a 5 year old :(

Re:Fantastic

[Anonymous Coward]

The controller could be a small part of it, but I would guess the kids have more difficulty with Super Mario Galaxy because of the gravity flipping and running around small sphereical objects. Sunshine was pretty much a straight up 3D platformer, which is easily relatible to running yourself around in the real world, at least for movement purposes.

Re:Fantastic

[HalAtWork]

No, it's because of the water pack. Miyamoto (the game's creator) said the goal of this design was to afford players a lot more forgiveness when it comes to jumping in a 3D space. Spatial orientation with only a 2D image is something you have to adapt to, and Mario Sunshine allows you to float in mid-air so you can catch yourself or correct your jump. They also let you attack enemies while standing still, by just spraying at them. Mario has more hit points in Mario Sunshine. In Mario Galaxy, you lose special suits after one hit, but you keep your back-pack in Mario Sunshine. There are a lot of reasons the game is more forgiving.

Re:Fantastic

[Gulthek]

Good lord, you are reading quite a bit into this. Are you honestly admitting that you've never heard of cheat codes before?

The only difference here is that Nintendo isn't pretending to hide the cheat codes.

I like options

[Phoenix]

For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.

However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.

There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.

There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough. Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop. I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.

This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players. They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help. Let the game give these options and let the players decide. It's the best way.

Re:I like options

[Anonymous Coward]

For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.

For the hard-core gamers, *optional* ways to make games easier is a godsend. This way there is also an option for the hardcore, as opposed to just cutting off the minority and making everything extremely easy (which to those such as myself is boring).

Re:I like options

[gbarules2999]

However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.

Or, you know, gamers that play games for "fun" rather than "frustrating difficulty spikes that aren't fun at all to ascend."

w...t...f

[Anonymous Coward]

So I'm almost finished reading the article summary, already thinking up my response and about to post, when as I get to the end of the summary I read

"They actually patented this system as well."

Just like that. With a link. FROM THE EDITOR.
Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right? WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!! Where am I, engadget? What is happening? Who did this? It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism. Nope: the editor is "soulskill". W...T...F

I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little. This is some serious shit going on right here.

Re:w...t...f

[Red Flayer]

I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little. This is some serious shit going on right here.

Not to worry, comrade, there's a simple explanation for this.

Slashdot has an automated dupe detector (seriously! have you noticed the reduction in dupes?)

When the dupe detector flags a potential dupe, the editor has a couple of choices. Let the dupe through, for some perverse reason. Block the dupe. Or decide that the new article is sufficiently different that instead, they pre-emptively link to the dupe in the summary, so as to head off the "FP Dupedupedupitydupe" posts.

So no worries, mate, it's not that an editor "TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!!". It's just that an editor noticed that the system caught a dupe, and added in the link in order to save himself the effort of modding down all the "It's a dupe!!111one!!!" posts.

So you can rest assured that all is right in the world, and the sun will come up tomorrow, and slashdot editors will still be slashdot editors.

Re:Grammar is good. Fix the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

This is slashdot. Good grammar has no place here.

Well, it never has, so why should it now? :)

Probably a good thing...

[dr_wheel]

... especially for casual gamers and kids. I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore. Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly. But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.

Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age? I think so. At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.

Re:Probably a good thing...

[SausageOfDoom]

I wonder if that's actually something against it. Say what you like about games, but at least they teach children that if you persevere at something you'll eventually succeed.

Although I guess my relentless practice and eventual awesome skill with quake didn't translate through to relentless revision and eventual awesome skill with exams. Which is why I failed most of them and am now unemployable.

Never mind.

Re:Probably a good thing...

[Spatial]

Assuming it's a 2D platformer, I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures, or if you're on your last life.

It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer. It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit. Perhaps literally!

Re:Probably a good thing...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yeah, instead of leveling the playing field, they are "playing the level field." Get it? Because the game is playing. Haha. I'll be here all week.

Re:Probably a good thing...

[Goalie_Ca]

Well, i learned a lesson playing those games and i eventually got good enough that smb was a laughing joke. It is good for kids to get frustrated and learn patience. It isn't beyond what they can do if they do persevere. This just teaches them that there is always an easy button.

Lego series works pretty well

[tjstork]

I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it. You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.

Re:Lego series works pretty well

[phaggood]

> (helps to) die and respawn close to where you died (in Indiana Jones)

Doesn't help with "Ghost in the Shell" - I've pissed away too many hours helping Motoko fall to her death off the same damned scaffold and respawn back at the ladder; I'm f-ing sick of it. Learning to dodge snipers, get hand-to-hand right, infiltrate buildings and find keys, not so bad. Trying to land on some damned beam like a joystick gymnast? Like hell, man.

"cheating"

[Tom]

When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.

In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it? Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.

No, "cheating" does not describe this at all. There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.

Re:"cheating"

[tepples]

When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.

In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me.

When you play offline but upload your score online, such as achievements in Xbox 360 games, the line between single-player and multiplayer becomes blurred.

Re:"cheating"

[Tom]

Which is an extremely easy to solve problem, especially when the cheat mode is official - just mark whether the score was reached with or without cheating, or even with how much cheating.

Re:"cheating"

[bigstrat2003]

In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?

I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible. It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.

Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.

Re:"cheating"

[Anonymous Coward]

Agreed. Most of my friends approach cheating like it's a big ethical dilemma. I have never understood this view. If you pay for a game (even if you don't) you should be able to do whatever you want with it, as long as you don't gain an unfair advantage over other players during multiplayer play, that would be a little unethical. I personally don't have as much time as I did when I was younger to play games, and when I get the time I would like experience it without having to kill Boars in Elwynn Forest for 2 weeks.

I think Nintendo is doing something that should have been done a long time ago. I remember using Game Genie when I was younger to unlock those really cool abilities. Its not really going to change the amount of people who will use these cheats, just make it a little more convenient for them.

Re:"cheating"

[Anonymous Coward]

Hell, forget the concept of the asterisk next to the score altogether. If you activated a cheat code for that session, you can't submit that score, and you are ineligible for achievements. For short games, if you want to submit a score, don't cheat on that session. For longer games, fork the save at the moment of cheating and allow the player to replay on the legitimate save to do the achievements and high scores.

Re:"cheating"

[GradiusCVK]

Step 1: Create single-player video game where your goal is to construct a formal proof of whether P == NP Step 2: Play game and activate "universal cheat" mechanism Step 3: ? Step 4: Profit Does that count as cheating?

Re:"cheating"

[Anonymous Coward]

Gamer score 18000/15000, cheets used/cheets not used

Obviously, it would then sorta require that players can replay the parts with cheeted achievements to get them 'untainted', but this solution seems simple enough.

Re:"cheating"

[Anonymous Coward]

I think it just needs to be clearly marked, the way game difficulties are*. If the douchebag wants to brag about beating it on legendary, thats up to him. You can still enjoy it all the same on beginner.

* The problem of course being the auto-tuning games that just get easier and easier the more you fail. Which is fine too, I guess, if theres a good story they are telling. Theres just too much of a difference between a good story game and a good gameplay game, no one rule can rule them all.

How boring would Tetris be if every time you made a mistake they gave you the perfect pieces to correct yourself?
How pointless would Star Wars be if you could never get past the first act?

all seeing eye

[Ruede]

instead of writing articles yahoo could push all seeing eye again.

Is the really that new?

[asdf7890]

Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?

In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game. I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the game. I imagine that people looking for a more-casual-but-not-always-set-to-too-easy experience would use the feature quite a bit.

What Nintendo are talking about here seems to me to just be going one step beyond this, changing the available levels from Hard/Normal/Easy to Hard/Normal/Easy/Autopilot. Nothing revolutionary.

Re:Is the really that new?

[Jarlsberg]

You can take it too far as well. The new Prince of Persia is going too far, in that you really can't ever die, and that gets boring real fast. Pity, because the previous Prince of Persia games were rather good.

Re:Is the really that new?

[Anonymous Coward]

The new Prince of Persia was boring because it was too repetitive, not because you couldn't die. Although I loved this one (not as much as the previous ones, but still) there wasn't enough variety, everything was in the same scheme.

Re:Is the really that new?

[wagnerrp]

There was some intelligence in the DMC games where if you continually died in the same spot, it would eventually offer you an easy mode.

Re:Is the really that new?

[loftwyr]

And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game. You couldn't keep your score but that's never stopped people from using it.

Re:Is the really that new?

[Jarlsberg]

Yeah, but the no dying part made it more repetitive than it could have been, because you'd constantly try the same thing over and over until you succeeded. I say meh, the previous three were excellent, and I was really looking forward to the new one. A shame.

Depends on the implementation.

[Jartan]

I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining. In just about any game with an "easy" mode it's already absurdly easy to play. The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who don't even bother. Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit. Thus a lot of people might choose more difficulty instead of less with this feature. Sure there will be people who just coast through the game with it but they were already doing that with easy mode anyways.

Desperately needed for puzzle games

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not a fan of puzzle games yet most games have puzzle aspects to them. One of the first ones to annoy me was Myst. I wanted to see the graphics but the constant puzzles quickly became annoying so never got far in the game. I got a little skill game for my iPod touch which technically wasn't a puzzle game but you had to accomplish certain things to access new areas. The problem with it was it wasn't all that clear what you had to accomplish and even after I had collected everything there was nothing indicating that I had finished the game. Poor instructions and puzzles in shooter games really can ruin an otherwise enjoyable game.

Re:Desperately needed for puzzle games

[omnichad]

Sorry. The Myst experience absolutely requires getting stuck and wandering around for 8 hours at a time, having absolutely no idea what's going on. I absolutely love the Myst series, but in Myst IV, there was literally 8 hours where I could not find a single thing available for me to do. Finally, I saw this little patch of tall grass, and clicked and dragged it to the side. Then I could walk into an otherwise inaccessible area.

Adventure games are like self-inflicted torture, but I love them anyway. I'd just rather do without those "pushing aside of the grass" moments.

Re:Grammar is good. Fix the summary.

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe they could implement a demo mode where the article is written for them.

NOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!

[mcfatboy93]

Nintendo why have you betrayed us, now really guys its just super mario there is no need for any cheats unless you "REALLY" suck.

Might be good

[Ksempac]

If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say "go for it".

I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry. I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours. I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio). Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.

On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty. I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.

Re:Might be good

[ProppaT]

I agree, if it keeps companies from watering down games, I'm all for it.

I think the better solution for this would be a "demo" mode that showed the player how to beat the stage and then let the player at it or an in game "ghost mode" that would show the player how to beat the stage as they play. Heck, even enabling something akin to the "rewind" in Braid or a retro NES "slow motion" mode might help alleviate some frustrations.

Games such as Mario Galaxy have proved that you can make games that appeal to casual players but have enough challenge to test avid gamers when you get into the weeds. This might help bridge the gap even more.

Re:Might be good

[Stormwatch]

Short games are not necessarily bad; you can beat Strider in 15 minutes (if you're good enough), and that's one of the best action games ever.

Re:Might be good

[effigiate]

Playtime has more to do with what you want out of the game than the "run through time". My first playthrough of Force Unleashed was on the hardest difficulty available with me looking for every item. I think it took me close to 30 hours to get through the game, and I consider myself a relativley seasoned and skilled gamer. You can beat Diablo in three minutes if you want (see the Speed Demo Archive), just because you played it that way doesn't mean everyone else has.

Re:Might be good

[drinkypoo]

Strider is a mediocre platformer with poor play control and we were all dazzled by it because it was pretty, had a big screen (Strider machines tended to have a bigger display than about anything else in the arcade for some reason) and you could get a near-perfect port on the Genesis... though I actually thought the NES game was more fun.

Re:Might be good

[Ksempac]

Hey...Am I not talking English ? I talk about global playtime, and I get two answers about speed runs.
When I say playtime, I'm not talking about the length of one game. I'm talking about how long it took you to beat the game including all the Save/Reload or all the Game Over/Start Again you did before reaching the end for the first time. You don't beat Diablo (or Strider) on the first try, nor does your first victory happens in 3 min. Sure, there are people who can speed run games in a few min, but it took them hundred of hours to get this good (or find all the tricks/exploits/shortcut to skip areas).

It took 7 hours for my friend to reach the end point. He probably didn't get all the collectibles and didn't play on the hardest difficulty, but he doesn't see enough value in that to replay the solo mode (the multiplayer mode somewhat saves the game for him). Casual gamers aren't the ones who like to waste their time collecting stuff.
I admit some games offer lot of replay value and/or additional challenges and you may argue on that. But most of them just ask you to "find the 400 shorcuts" or "shoot the 200 hidden pigeons". IMHO theses kind of trick aren't replay value, but just a cheap trick from the devs to bump the time you need to get a 100% completion score.

On the other hand, despite my 30H of play in normal mode (harder difficulties must be unlocked), I'm still far from the end of NGB yet (and I'm neither looking for the best grades nor collecting all the items in each level).

Re:Might be good

[Splab]

In saints row 2 I was stuck on a mission for hours, not because I didn't know how to finish it, but because the timing was just retarded. The mission forced me to use a simpler RPG than what I actually had available to me at the time to shoot down helicopters, they where on a fixed track circling a ship - so should be pretty easy to shoot them right?

Well as it happens, the amount of processing to do the scene was just slightly too high making the helicopters jitter just a bit, it was almost impossible to hit them - I would have loved to have a cheat after the first 30 minutes where I could just skip the rest of the crap.

Also the helicopters weren't even shooting back which makes the mission even more retarded since it's just one huge time sink.

Re:Might be good

[jonaskoelker]

he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours.

That's nothing! You can play Zelda: Twilight Princess in five, Diablo II in two, and Quake 1 in fifteen minutes. There's a Starcraft map you can finish in less than half a minute.

See also http://speeddemosarchive.com/ :)

Re:Might be good

[Ksempac]

You probably didn't read my answer to effigiate's post... -_-

Thumbs up... for kids games

[pinkushun]

But for the rest of us, temptation to try again and again (read:perfect the game) will feel crippled.

Well, they usually provided them anyway

[LarrySDonald]

I doubt all those "pause, up, down, left, x, down, right" cheats were exactly programming bugs.. All they're dropping is the pretense.

What's the need?

[Arakun]

I never beat most of the NES games I owned. The exception was the Super Mario games where you could skip most of the game by warping. Did this bother me? No. Did this frustrate me? Not much. I didn't have to beat them, I enjoyed just playing them. Sometimes I made it to a new area and I'd feel the adrenalin start flowing.
I don't get people playing through a computer game with an invincibility code - and doing it over and over. I'm no hardcore gamer (I'm on a Mac Mini dammit!), but I grew up with hard games and enjoyed the challenge. I also believe many of today's games are too easy with their infinite lives and checkpoints/respawn points once every minute. I don't get the same adrenaline kicks anymore since I don't need to be afraid of dying.

Two-fold situation.

[MrCrassic]

I should disclose now that I'm not a very avid gamer. I play games pretty infrequently, but when I do, I like a challenge that gets me thinking. At least for me, games stimulate this by presenting difficult situations that requires strategy, thought and patience to get out of.

Thus, on one hand, incorporating this system will promote more "thoughtless" solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer. However, it's not like this doesn't exist already, since game developers already incorporate various shortcuts to avert these scenarios. On the other hand, "fun" games aren't supposed to really stimulate too much thought on the gamer and are really supposed to just deliver a steady stream of "action."

In short, I really don't see this being a bad thing, especially considering that cheating is prevalent now.

Offline multiplayer

[tepples]

In single-player people can 'access' whatever content they please, online they will have to play by the rules of whatever server they are on or suffer the consequences.

Aren't you forgetting a third way: neither single-player nor online?

Re:Offline multiplayer

[dyingtolive]

Aren't you forgetting a third way: neither single-player nor online?

Doesn't matter. Everyone else forgot it too. :(

Re:Offline multiplayer

[silanea]

Yes, I did forget that. Same rules apply as for online multiplayer, though: If the guy/gal next to me on the couch cheats and I don't like it, I'll either kick them (physically) or stop playing with them.

It really boils down to this: When you play alone, you set the rules and are free to do whatever you want in the game. When you play with others, certain social rules will be set and enforced. It really has nothing to do with video games or cheats at all. Simple social behaviour. Just because you bought your beer does not mean you can smash it into someone else's face without receiving a proper beating.

The reds have been here for decades

[tepples]

The reds aren't "getting closer"; they're already here. Tetris, the greatest Commie plot ever to hit the video game industry, has been on Nintendo platforms for two decades.

Back in my day...

[midifarm]

I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming. Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games. Cheat codes, continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low. If you have to cheat you obviously aren't good enough to win. Most of us who played years ago, beat the super hard levels, by A) having great skill at the game or B) got really lucky. Either one is fine with me, but entering in a cheat proves that you don't have either. I say remove the cheats, keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff, increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable. It's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store, solve it and give it back than buying it. You're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games. There needs to be a change in the industry.

Re:Back in my day...

[ammit]

I agree entirely, but once I've completed a game on all modes I love to EARN the cheats - it kind of gives the game a new lease of life. Dont' get rid of them entirely, just don't make them public. That may have been what you were trying to say anyway.

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined online gaming.

There, fixed that for you.

(or are you really saying that the fact that a game comes with cheat codes would ruin your entire gaming experience? If so, I think you could benefit from a bit of introspection).

Re:Back in my day...

[bigstrat2003]

If it ruins the game to use it, then don't use it. Problem solved. A cheat simply being there doesn't affect you in any way at all.

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Only one thing to say to this:

Up Up Down Down Left Right Left Right B A Select (I had friends) Start

Don't tell me you never used that. You act like cheat codes are new, this one is over 20 years old. The fun part of these games was going through all the levels, not playing the same ones over and over again. And the fun of not dieing turned out to be more about keeping your power-ups as opposed to "can I do it with one life?"

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Cheat codes have been around for a long time. They are sometimes the only way to beat the more difficlt games. If you will recall games like Icari Warriors or Contra, you will remember that using the "abba" code or the 30 lives code was virtually the only way that the games could be enjoyed because of their difficulty level.

Game sales are not and have never been affected by the inclusion of cheat codes. I defy you to find a non-RPG game on the shelf that you can't rent for 2 weeks and solve.

Re:Back in my day...

[midifarm]

It minimizes the necessity for skill. "I beat that game" becomes a lie. You simply entered in a phrase or bunch of numbers which made you invincible or pass the level. How much fun is that?

Re:Back in my day...

[bigstrat2003]

That's their problem, not yours. It's a single-player game: there's absolutely no reason to not let them play the game their way, while you play the game yours. Again, the cheat simply being there doesn't affect you if you choose not to use it.

Re:Back in my day...

[srothroc]

The decline in difficulty is probably inversely proportional with the popularity of video games. Can you imagine a game like King's Quest V, renowned for its dead ends and incredibly hard puzzles, taking off in today's market? No, because people who play games aren't just fixated on mastering and beating a game, they just want something to do in their free time. Sure, there's a NICHE MARKET that enjoys that kind of thing, but it's just that -- a niche. If you don't like the "cheat" mode, then don't use it.

Re:Back in my day...

[gbarules2999]

It's much more fun than sitting there trying to beat something that you can't fucking beat.

I had major issues with the last level of Half-Life ("XEN!" moans the crowd in a weeping fashion) so I threw on a cheat code and beat the game. It was worth it. I got to face the final boss (which was annoying, but enjoyable in a weird way). When I went to play Half-Life 2, I knew what was going on.

Without the cheat code, I would have been stuck on one of those dumb jumping puzzles, and probably never have seen the last third of the level. You tell me if "jump, fall, die, load" over and over again is "fun" to you. Doubt it.

Re:Back in my day...

[gbarules2999]

Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount. Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment? It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.

Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?

Re:Back in my day...

[midifarm]

I'm not talking about impossible games, gameplay is paramount, but if I enter a cheat code that makes me invincible, what's the point?

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Games have ALWAYS had cheats. ALWAYS. I'm talking about since at least Frogger on the C64, which was my first gaming experience:

http://uk.gamespot.com/c64/action/frogger/hints.html?tag=tabs;cheats

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

If you aren't cheating you aren't trying hard enough.

Re:Back in my day...

[magus088]

"Back in my day" . . . ? The original Super Mario Bros. even had small cheats available. Actually, come to think of it, they were rather large cheats.

Run out of lives and want to start over? Hold A and press Start when on the Game Over screen . . .

Don't feel like playing through all 32 stages? I mean, that's a lot of SMB, after all. Seriously, how many different level warps did you find? If you did it right you could warp from L1 to L4 to L8 and beat the game by playing about 1/4 of the game iirc.

Those aren't cheating?

What about the famous up, up, down, down, youknowtherest, start . . . ?

Re:Back in my day...

[rainmaestro]

What about the legit uses for cheats? A few examples come to mind:

(1) noclip to bypass terrain bugs (IE, getting stuck in the big freight elevator in HL1).

(2) Enemies shooting through walls that I can't shoot back at, or enemies that spawned inside a mountain, underground, etc doing the same. Is it really a big deal to pop on god mode long enough to get past them?

#2 is particularly bad in checkpoint games. I have to go back to a checkpoint thirty fucking minutes back for the twentieth time because the AI ignores the rules (I'm looking at you, GRAW)? Screw that. I'm either gonna (a) god-mode past that one little spot, or (b) get pissed, break the disc, burn the pieces, and bury them ten feet underground in a lead box with a crucifix and garlic on top where that game belongs. The former is much better for my blood pressure.

If you have to win by LUCK, you obviously aren't good enough to win, and you haven't achieved anything in doing so.

And if your e-peen is damaged because someone else noclipped through a bad spot instead of reloading thirty times waiting for the PRNG to be aligned just right, well, my condolences to you.

Games are exactly what they should be: disposable entertainment.

Re:Back in my day...

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, alienating the casuals and all their sissy, dirty money is an excellent business strategy.

Appealing to the lowest common denominator has almost always been more profitable than trying to adhere to some standard of elitism. Rather than demanding an entire industry changes to suit your needs, why not just hope (or actively try and cultivate, if that's your thing) for a larger "hardcore" portion of the industry? Seems vindictive to just say, "You're having badwrongfun and must be punished. The way I enjoy things is the right way and should be the only way!"

Why not just let everyone have their cake and eat it too? It's not like we're lacking game developers these days. There's enough to go around, I promise!

How about...

[midifarm]

Separate endings for those that cheat and those that don't? So if a cheat is entered, a standard ending sequence is shown, but if you make it to the end without cheating a super fantastic ending sequence is granted.

Re:How about...

[Fallingcow]

... and the cheaters can watch the Super Special ending on Youtube, just like the JRPG gamers who aren't bored enough to do whatever dumb bullshit you need to do (which would usually be impossible to figure out without looking at a guide) to get the super special double-plus happy ending do after they beat the game with the "good, but you didn't find 7 widgets in the Blargle dungeon and spend 40 hours mining Mithryl to turn them in to Super Widgets, so not perfect" ending.

Yes and No... mostly No.

[ammit]

As someone who takes gaming pretty seriously I'd say NO on a massive scale because hours of frustration and then finally achieving your goal is what I play for!! Unfortunately there are too many "easy" games out there - as soon as the PS2 came out Tomb Raider went downhill in favour of graphics. No also because games aren't entirely a waste of time, they develop hand eye co-ordination and logic skills (at least this is how I justify hours and hours of button bashing), taking challenges away will MAKE it a waste of time (just my view). Yes ONLY for small children and maybe people with learning disabilities - this kind of function could help them to develop by doing the easy things first and then introducing harder parts of the game in later..... Just my two pence.

Umm, what about prior art?

[Biswalt]

No way this can stand up, it's actually in other games all ready. You can play a whole game of Blitz II: The League and never call a play yourself, never snap that ball, etc. and the computer will take care of everything for you, but you still have the ability to jump in and actually take control over a guy at anytime. In Madden all you have to do is call plays and snap the ball, and the game plays itself. Space Channel 5 has the same thing, as does I'm guessing a host of other games. And then there's the whole issue of what it means for the computer to play a game. If I create a gang in San Andreas I could then just march over to another gangs real estate and my CPU controlled gangbangers will take care of the fighting and I can sit around, so while my CJ doesn't do anything all of the CPU controlled gang members will fight so that's an example of a game playing itself. To me Nintendo should lose the ability to patent this based ona prior art argument. This is like when microsoft patented the page up and page down buttons, even though there's verifiable proof that other companies had this tech b4 micrsoft.

whatever it is ...

[Bobtree]

It isn't gameplay (or otherwise useful to the gameplay). Thus I'm not interested in paying for it.

Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers. I don't know about you, but I buy games to PLAY them.

Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway. And sections of games should be openly accessible, so stuck players can just skip to them.

I belive the correct answer is...

[Warshadow]

who cares? If you don't want to use it then don't. It's not like the fact that some 10 year old kid next door or 3000 miles away uses "demo mode" actually impacts you in any way.

Logical Progression

[tezza]

* Lives

* Power Pills

* Health Points

* Stealth Suits

* Respawn Points

* Save Games

* Freeze / Rewind Time

All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds. I cannot see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these.

What about an SDK

[Demonantis]

I like PC games that release an SDK since that allows you modify the game heavily to your liking. They should really get something going with the console games to do this. It makes games way more enjoyable for a longer time. The "demo mod" is like a patch on this issue. People could easily do the same kind of thing with an SDK.

They're copying Braid

[bluefoxlucid]

and poorly. Braid lets you rewind time, and correct your mistakes. Sometimes you have to think about what you're doing to actually utilize this (for example, some things don't rewind). There's a level of thought put into it; I think this is correct, giving an easy way around if you can solve a small problem that requires some insight. Like sequence breaking in Metroid.

Re:They're copying Braid

[Vohar]

and poorly. Braid lets you rewind time, and correct your mistakes.

*cough*PrinceofPersiaSandsofTime*cough*

Re:They're copying Braid

[srollyson]

Not to go off on too far a tangent, but Braid's rewind was not just an "oops, let me retry" button like Sands of Time's was. In the GP's example, some monsters and platforms were immune to rewinding. This led to interesting puzzles where you would rewind to get a platform in place for a rewind-immune monster to walk on.

Don't get me wrong. Sands of Time is a good game. It's just that Braid was one of the best games I've played in a long time. Please give it a try, you might like it.

Re:They're copying Braid

[Anonymous Coward]

They're copying poorly, because they're not doing the same thing. Braid lets you rewind time... this new feature lets you *fast forward* time.

Re:They're copying Braid

[TheUser0x58]

Oh the irony. Super Mario Bros. copying Braid?

eXplore mode in Nethack

[Anonymous Coward]

Nethack has an eXplore mode for less experienced players to see what is available in the game.

It does have downsides, giving an easy god-mode. You miss out on essential experiences that give you the knowledge and skill required to win at a game.

Because of the eXplore mode, it took me a long time to figure out just how essential a ring of free action was for ascending in Nethack. It also took a long time before I found out how useful the Oracle was in the game.

The Game Genie

[Dusthead Jr.]

When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while. So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it. And that was that. The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass. In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game. That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat. I extends the life of the game IMHO.

I don't know...Eg: Street Fighter 4 (read)

[emanem]

Hi all...

I don't know if it's ok or not...but I think if it's needed then a game is not well balanced (against CPU I mean, not the game itself).
For example, if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway, while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...easy.
Now, I think that SF4 is a great game, well balanced etc etc. Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP.
But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depressing, considering the quality of the game itself.
But to be 100% honest there could be a reason for that...in order to unlock all the characters you have to defeat the final boss some times straight without losing a game...so CAPCOM knew that everyone would play the game at easiest mode just to unlock all 25 characters...so basically this could be seen as a possible motivation to implement this hard boss as the fact everyone will face him at easiest mode...but still I don't like this.

I'm against demo mode but in favour of balanced games.
Cheers,

How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach?

[rickthewizkid]

The first Jazz Jackrabbit had cheat codes, but, if you use them and complete the game, the game displayed picture of the main character playing poker with some of his enemies, one of them saying "I see yer cheatin!" or something like that... Kinda a cool when I saw it

Re:How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach?

[Anonymous Coward]

Or Theme Hospital? Every time you cheated to gain access to more cash, an annoying voice comes over the PA:

"Hospital Administrator is cheating!"

Re:How about the Jazz Jackrabbit approach?

[mrdoogee]

Sim City had a punishment system set up for cheating. SHIFT + F U N D would get you more cash, but after 4 times, it would trigger an earthquake.

Er, what?

[brunes69]

They patented the Konami Code ?

Why Play The Game?

[Anonymous Coward]

Just go watch a movie. It's in "demo" mode, all the time.

Re:Why Play The Game?

[Anonymous Coward]

And still very enjoyable for the "casual" viewer.

Re:Why Play The Game?

[wsuschmitt]

Just go watch a movie. It's in "demo" mode, all the time.

The production values of many video games rivals many movies in terms of cinematics, storyline, and musical score. The Final Fantasy series of video games are great, but the 40+ hours one spends in experiencing the game can't be easily shared with others. If a demo mode was set into the game in which the story was allowed to play out, I believe more people would be pulled into wanting to get that game. The lines are starting to blur between game and movie...

Re:Why Play The Game?

[ThePhilips]

I tried many FF games and still prefer movies.

... the 40+ hours one spends in experiencing the game ...

Out of which:
- 20 hours of unskippable cinematic and dialogs
- 10 hours trying to figure out what the hell games wants from you now
- 9.5 hours struggling with UI
- 0.5 hours of actual game play.

I'd rather watch 2 hours movie. Because 40 hours of FF or similar those 40 hours are mixed with frustration and humiliation, leaving very little to unspoiled enjoyment.

More like a tip video than a cheat..

[Millennium]

Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.

You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.

Re:More like a tip video than a cheat..

[Anonymous Coward]

Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.

You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.

And it's patented? No prior art?

Wik, The Fable of Souls anyone?

Self playing video games are quite old actually...

[hrieke]

One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day (still in the biz). I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was "Barney (for the Megadrive / Genesis) would self play" if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.

I wonder if that prior art is listed?

It's probably not that absolute.

[dmomo]

Is this a good idea? I think the real answer is "it depends". But whatever you do, don't pull me out of the game! A cheat mode? This takes us out of the immersion. Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.

As a game designer, you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable. If it's difficulty that makes the game fun, and accomplishment that makes it rewarding, then no. Don't do this.

If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard, you are denying access and making your game boring, then sure.

However, even when this IS warranted, I would be willing to bet that there is something less lame than a blatent "cheat" mode. I mean, skin it as something that's actually a part of the game.

If you are a commando fighting insurgents? Maybe you can activate "special forces" that come and help you. You get to play the game you otherwise might have missed out on, but you simply don't get that "bravery" badge.

We call it cheating? How about making it a feature that becomes some part of the game?

Eh...

[fr4n3l]

As much as cheats are useful, wouldn't that take away from the point of the game? It's to challenge people, not let them find an easy way out. I remember when I would play (and...still do, on occasion) Super Mario Deluxe on Gameboy and there are some levels that were IMPOSSIBLE but I didn't look up cheats for them, I just kept trying until I got it right.

A better idea

[CopaceticOpus]

Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again. But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.

I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly. If you fall in a pit three times in a row, or get beat up by a bad guy three times, a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier, or start dropping powerups.

However, there would be a cost for this help - you would get a lower score, or you wouldn't unlock a new hat for your character, etc. The hardcore gamers would practice so that they became good enough to win without help. Those who just want to play the whole game wouldn't have to give up because of one little section which gave them problems.

Stop the Ubiquitious Dependence on Dexterity

[Anonymous Coward]

Dexterity requirements kill me. My reflexes suck. I've got a drawer full of games that, while otherwise enjoyable, decided to throw in a dexterity puzzle that stopped me in my tracks. Boom Blox was great until I hit the shooter parts. I can't complete them so I'm stalled. Zelda was great until I had to pull-turn-run-jump-turn-jump-jump-run. After a week of trying I quit. The list goes on and on.

Why are computer and console games so dependent on dexterity challenges? Even games that purport to be puzzlers throw in dexterity challenges - it seems to be some unwritten rule to require the reflexes of a young man at least once in every game. Guess what - not everyone can juggle, whistle Dixie and shoot ten enemies at the same time.

I'm no cripple but I am on the low side of the bell curve when it comes to reflexes. Ninety percent of the games that I'd like to play are unavailable to me because of these stupid dexterity challenges. This leaves me reluctant to buy any games, fearing it will become another in the collection of "unfinishables".

Yes, Good Idea

[hawkd_sf]

I have a 19 year-old son with a disability. He has always enjoyed video games but quite simply, lacks the eye-hand fine motor skills to play a lot of them. I've often thought while watching him struggle with this that it would be great if games could be "adjusted" to be "doable" by others than those with the time, skill and inclination to invest incredibly long hours in a game. Don't worry "gamers", I don't think he'll ever try to claim your title or take you on in a game. He's just a kid who has had way more than his share of (real) challenges in life and wants to have just a tiny bit of the same kind of fun that the "T-D's" (typically developing) have. CTFO.

Could this mean harder games?

[Quackers_McDuck]

I am all for this if it means that they'll make the game actually difficult now. Recently Nintendo games have become way too easy, presumably because they don't want to frustrate casual players. With this demo feature, they can make the games provide more of a challenge without risking alienating casuals.

Similar to Blizzard's new content

[farker haiku]

This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right). Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.

It depends.

[Locke2005]

As long as the score for that game doesn't go into the leader board, or goes in with an asterisk for every time the "cheat" is activated, then I would say it is ok. It is difficult to design a game that works for all skill levels, and many poorly designed games have some levels that are just impossible/impassable for small children, which limits their enjoyment. I get really annoyed when my daughter calls me in to "do this level for me, it's too hard!" Some games (particularly online games) are designed so that you can never fail, you just need to keep grinding long enough. But that makes for a shitty game. On the flip side, if a reasonably experienced player needs to use a "cheat" to complete all the levels, then the game is poorly designed. I still think they should put these cheats in, but I also think most players will get more enjoyment out of the game if they manage to avoid the temptation to use the cheat. And as mentioned above, using it should have some effect on you final score.

Firstly

[Idiomatick]

This isn't new at all. TOONNNNS of video games have had cheats. Hell with a Nintendo owned gamegenie or a gameshark you could cheat on the earliest Mario games. So don't get uppity just cause you are older. It didn't seem to ruin everything back then. There just came a whole generation of people that refused to use cheats. Sure if you are bored and beaten it before then play around in invincibility mode and it is content added. But really cheat codes are no different than difficulty settings.

Next the one thing I would like to see is the inability to rank or w/e while you are cheating. I remember in Warcraft1 and 2 if you cheated when you beat the level you'd be labeled as a cheater. I think with that there could be no complaints.

Some games have debug mode

[HikingStick]

I've been playing Neverwinter Nights 2 lately (yes, yes, I know--old hat, not a hot game right now) and got stuck in an area. I spoke to the NPC that should have ended the scenario and taken me into the next cut scene, but nothing happened. As it turns out, another NPC that was alive at the end of my battle with that scene's boss subsequently died of recurring damage (e.g., poison or acid). Instead of going back through from my last save point, I was able to open a debugger console and instruct the game to re-spawn the secondary NPC.

Now, for games that score and have leader boards, I'd agree that barring entries (or at least flagging entries) that used the "demo" mode would be fair. I just don't think it's big news that such a mode will be advertised as a feature of the game. A lot of casual gamers just want to get to the end of the game. They're not as concerned about the purity of doing it without help. I once was in that camp myself, though now I prefer to get through without cheats and walkthroughs whenever possible.

I miss the days of the old Atari 2600 games like Laser Blast and Demon Attack. I cleared both of those games. Laser Blast gave the satisfaction of a screen filled with large explanation points and question marks to denote the victory (I had recorded my final few rounds on a VHS tape in the day). Demon Attack (not by Atari, but a game for the 2600) topped out at a certain score (1 mil?). I think it just went to a blank screen or rolled credits. Those were glory days in my mind.

What's "content"?

[johannesg]

But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.

If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content. But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).

I certainly understand the sentiment though. I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.

Exploitable bugs are now patented!

[__aagujc9792]

Give me goooooold!
--
olderphart

IDDQD

[Phairdon]

All we need is IDDQD in every game. Simple.

Re:Sounds like a good idea. A question

[__aarzwb9394]

When you play a console game, do you finish it on easy mode and then go up through the difficulties or just go to the hardest? I always think you get more time for your money if you start at the bottom. Anyone else's views?

Definitely *not* only for casual gamers

[Torodung]

People round here have some short memories.

Back in the day, we had this thing called GameShark and it was just about the only way some people could win Contra or, more to the point, Bayou Billy. No one but Rain Man could beat Bayou Billy without a cheat. GameShark was a product gamers paid good money for.

Problem is, it is a hack, and Nintendo is using the Wii as an online distribution system, among other things, and hacks are right out. They just got their butts handed to them in a sling over flash carts on the DS, and that means they can't abide any third party products designed to hack the system.

So all they're doing is providing the product themselves so they can keep control of the platform. They're satisfying an historically proven market demand. They're finding a way to deliver more difficult games, knowing full well that some of the original Nintendo games were sometimes more fun with cheats enabled.

Now does someone want to tell me that only casual gamers bought GameSharks? Or are we looking at the past, with all the cheat codes we used to pass around when games got too tough, with peril-sensitive stone black colored sunglasses?

Yikes.

--
Toro

Re:Definitely *not* only for casual gamers

[rainmaestro]

I wasn't a casual gamer back in those days, but I had Game Genies for both NES and SNES. I treated them as a last resort, but they were *very* nice to have around for some games. Few games made me curse more times than Contra.

Like you said, some games, without cheats, were more frustrating than fun.

Re:Definitely *not* only for casual gamers

[Torodung]

Oh man, I had forgotten the Genie entirely! Thank you for reminding me.

achievments

[master_kaos]

I think this is a good idea, and would work great on the PS3 and XBOX consoles. If you are afraid of pissing off hardcore people *wahh casual people can still see the ending even though they didn't "earn" it* then make a 250GP achievement for beating the game without cheats on the hardest difficulty. Most casual people don't give a shit about achievements, whereas a lot of hardcore people do.

UDUDLRLRBABA*Select**Start*

[r_jensen11]

How the heck can you cheat with the Wiimote? While there are Up, Down, Left, Right, B and A buttons, here's no select, nor start button!

Re:UDUDLRLRBABA*Select**Start*

[A Rabid Llama]

It's "up up down down" not "up down up down", and only one "B A". Get it right >:(

Marathon had it right

[retchdog]

No cheat code, but you could save; change the difficulty level mid-game; and load. It forces you to admit failure, as opposed to sleaze your way through; but you can save face by choosing a lesser handicap. Setting it to Kindergarten difficulty basically is cheating; going down to Normal is more acceptable.

I really don't see it

[Chris Burke]

But for the rest of us, temptation to try again and again (read:perfect the game) will feel crippled.

If you're the kind of person who enjoys the challenge of perfecting a difficult game without any kind of cheat, then I don't see how the existence of a cheat mode will stop you.

I mean, Nethack has a "Wizard" mode that you can enter at any time that makes you essentially omnipotent (like the admins on an MUD), yet I still slogged through losing character after character, having to start over each time, to eventually ascend without ever cheating (or even reading any spoilers except what I considered "player's handbook" stuff like what the basic weapon and armor types stats were).

If you're really sorely tempted to cheat even though you want to "perfect the game", maybe that's a sign that you aren't actually having any fun.

Re:I really don't see it

[pinkushun]

Fair enough, but even wizard mode in Nethack has the after-effect that your character won't make it on the record file, ie no high score for you -- it was basically a testing & debug mode.
And you're right! I don't find many new games fun anyway!

In the menu?

[Riddler Sensei]

Oh I always rather liked having a little hidden cheat code that you had to look up to activate. It was kind of charming in its own way. But is this just going to be straight up in the menu? "Start Demo Mode New Game"? That would seem a bit hokey.

"Cheats" are lame!

[LoudMusic]

Cheats are lame. I find that when I enable them in games (StarCraft / Warcraft 3 for example) I quickly become bored with the game and quit playing. There's no point in continuing. There's no challenge. It's no longer a game. It's a decided event from the moment you "god mode" and you are just blitzing the enemies.

But there are children who are being raised with life's "cheat mode" on now where they don't have to work at anything to make it to adult life because their parents make it too easy on them and give them anything they want. And they suck at being adults. And the rest of us have to put up with them. Sorry - had to throw that in.

Cheat modes are lame.

Difficulty levels are better

[averner]

I see many people arguing that cheats allow casual players to have fun playing a game. I disagree; having difficulty levels is better. Cheats simply let you skip the content altogether, while difficulty levels will allow you to lower the difficulty just enough to enjoy it. 4 is a good number - 1 for the complete novices, 1 for the casual players, 1 for the hardcore players, and 1 extremely hard difficulty just for fun (think Nightmare mode in Doom 2).

Mario Bros!

[Anonymous Coward]

Now for that i will buy the Wii

It's a *Game*. It's supposed to be *Fun*

[mitbeaver]

Way I see it, I bought it, I should be able to do whatever I want with it. "Cheat" only applies when competing on uneven term, e.g. online play. Also a "Cheat" can just as easily be a quick fix to bypass a poorly play-tested or unbalanced portion of a game. Games are designed by people, not infallible game-creating Gods.

Been done before

[slapout]

I remember years ago a game that if you died more than a certain number of times in a level it would offer to let you skip that level.

Only 99.9% completed...

[Bones3D_mac]

Perhaps there will be some element to this that if the feature is used within a save game profile, the game itself "marks" you as something less than perfect, like prevent you from ever reaching 100% completion. You'll still be able to see the ending, etc... but you'll be forever denied the bragging rights of being a perfect player.

how many of us are already cheaters?

[sixsixtysix]

i activated 'demo mode' to not have to rtfa, yet i still commented. did i cheat?

Heres the cheat code everyone

[Terrorwrist]

up, up, down, down, left, right, left, right, a, b, select, start.

Developing as a Person

[Anonymous Coward]

Growing up playing everything on hard mode, never ever cheating (and I mean ever), I have developed a very particular set of skills that I am extremely fond of. These skills include (but are not limited to) perserverence, patience, the ability to stay resolute in an atmosphere of extreme pessimism (thanks GLaDOS), self-confidence, and I suppose a bit of dexterity. In my opinion, nurture trumps nature in all of these cases as I had to LEARN to stick with it even after my palm started bleeding from Mario Party 2 or my throat hurt screaming due to attempting the final boss from "I Wanna Be the Guy". I had to learn to calm myself down after a half hour went to waste because a single security guard saw my barcode-ridden head peeking through a keyhole after 45 minutes of being extremely precise in my black suit and red tie. In fact, I remember crying when I was 6 or so because the large bumble bee boss on Donkey Kong Country 1 was just way too hard for my current skill. But I persisted, and overcame that darn bee.

My point here is, I developed as a person due to having many many traumatic experiences, and overcoming said experiences.

On a side note, why can't they just have difficulty levels?