I recently bought Independence War 2, a space game with some ridiculously difficult puzzles. I was on the verge of taking this fantastic game back because the challenges had completely ticked me off... until I used the cheat codes... This isn''t a new idea, but one that I haven''t seen around in games in a long time. What ways, do you think, could a designer add in cheats without breaking suspension of disbelief? For instance, one thing I was thinking about was the ability to buy "invulnerability" in the form of a "Quantum Stasis Shell" that eats up energy like mad. For a game that''s more of a sandbox (ie free travel to any level, and no expectation of balance), this might be the difference between annoyed frustration and challenges the player elects to take a pass on. -------------------- Just waiting for the mothership...

I''ve heard that dev''s put cheats in games so they can test things and then don''t take them out cause it''s too much trouble....but I think it''s perfectly fine to put cheats in...then the player can choose to use them or not.....

some players want the pure experience others don''t mind cheats

A CRPG in development...

Need help? Well, go FAQ yourself.

If it were purely for design reasons I would prefer not to have any cheats at all. The ideal game should adjust itself to the skill of the player, always giving him a challenge, but never quite bringing him to the point of utter frustration. In some games this has been done with more or less success (remember Homeworld?).

For testing it´s pretty clear that you need cheats, and since you hide them anyway, you can leave them in.

As for what you mentioned above, that wouldn´t be a cheat, as it would be balanced within the game (short duration, large power consumption).

Create personalized cheat codes.

Player plays game X level Y. He finds a secret level that shows him a cheat code.

Player plays level Z. He finds that he just can''t complete the level for some reason.

Player uses cheat to complete level Z: this lets him complete the level/mission but gives him less experience/honor/etc.

Of course, for cheat codes to function within a design, you''d have to design your game COUNTING on players to use the cheat codes.

And the cheats themselves should be limited.

If a game is based on ''become most powerful'' then a cheat that actually lets the player become ''the most powerful'' will harm the game.

A cheat that instead allows the player to do something that might lead him to ''become more powerful'' might help the game.

A superhero based game would be a great way of intergrating ''cheats'' into the game without breaking coherency. Cheats could be activated or deactivated by the player at will, but each only for a limitted time.

Or divine intervention from the Cheat God. You could be given random abilities that would only usually be available in cheat form, and you have to make the best use of it before it is taken away. If you don''t want to uses the cheats, there shold be some kind of bonus. Prahaps you could give them to other characters?

If the ''cheat'' is part of the game and is balanced by other features of the game, then it is just a feature not a cheat. You can integrate cheats, in a more accurate sense of the word, into a game by awarding cheats for beating a level in under a certain amount of time (or something like that) and the only allowing the cheats to be used on levels that the player has already completed. This is what Goldeneye 007 for the N64 does. This also adds replay value to the game because it gives the player another challenge to meet (obtaining all the cheats). As for using cheats to pass a level that is frustrating the player, all you need to do is include the cheats and if the player wants to use them they can. Assuming we are talking about single-player, the point of a game is to entertain the player, and if they are entertained by cheats, then adding cheats to your game adds to the entertainment value of your game and, therefore, is a good thing.

I wonder if games like Contra and Life Force would have been as popular without their 30-man ''trick''.

thrump, you are so right! Contra woulda been imp without the 30 man cheat. That game rules though!

quote: Original post by Hase
If it were purely for design reasons I would prefer not to have any cheats at all. The ideal game should adjust itself to the skill of the player, always giving him a challenge, but never quite bringing him to the point of utter frustration.

Let''s say you have a situation where you''re completely outnumbered, the odds are horribly against you, but it''s part of the game''s story or in context.

If you give the player no options, that''s just wrong.

If you adapt the game universe, then you can''t have the above situation ("everyone''s fleeing an unstoppable menance, for example")

But if there were limited forms of what are commonly called cheats (compumatrix is right, cheat not the right word exactly) like "teleportation" or "invulnerability" or "noclip walk-through walls" it might be one way to allow unreasonable, in context situations without having the player become frustrated.

Weird idea, and it''s a big "might," I admit.


--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...

quote: Original post by compumatrix
If the ''cheat'' is part of the game and is balanced by other features of the game, then it is just a feature not a cheat.

Good point. Maybe a better word for what I''m thinking is "overrides." The player would be used to playing by certain rules, and would then be able to violate those rules from time to time.

quote:
You can integrate cheats, in a more accurate sense of the word, into a game by awarding cheats for beating a level in under a certain amount of time (or something like that) and the only allowing the cheats to be used on levels that the player has already completed.

Hmmm... good advice. It allows you to control for where the "override" is used, and how.

quote:
Assuming we are talking about single-player, the point of a game is to entertain the player, and if they are entertained by cheats, then adding cheats to your game adds to the entertainment value of your game and, therefore, is a good thing.

What I''d like to see with an "override" is the ability for the player to earn it, and for it to be limited so that they

1) Don''t feel bad for needing to use it
2) Don''t become addicted to using it when they really don''t want to, but can''t help themselves because it''s there.

For example, let''s say you''ve got a game where different areas are of a different difficulty level. Some are ridiculously hard, but constrained to the level. Some players could just tough it out, and if they''re good enough, make it through. Others, though, could stay in the safer levels until they earned enough for temporary overrides.

Like hoarding powerups / weapons in an FPS or RPG, this would let players potentially manage their own difficulty level. If it were rare enough, an "override" would be precious, and players wouldn''t indescriminately use them.

Overrides would be things like:
*Teleport to a safe area instantly
*Temporary invulnerability
*Temporary resource boost
etc, etc






--------------------
Just waiting for the mothership...