Cheating

Beren · Post by **Beren** » Thu Aug 01, 2002 11:11 pm

I love it when chronic cheaters try to defend themselves! Once someone assumes a defensive position, they begin to sound pathetic and guilty.

If you can only win a game by cheating, then you can't win the game.

It's like tearing out the solution to a crossword puzzle and filling in the blanks. You've filled in the puzzle, but only demonstrated weakness of character.

Tycho · Post by **Tycho** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:26 am

Good, memorable, top notch games like Fallout 1&2 are meant to be appreciated and left unspoiled by the foul touch of trainers or hacked saved games. A shoot em up gorefest like Grand Theft Auto is meant to have trainers. Baldur's gate is not.
Cheating only spoils the story and the surprise that is included with every good story. Hacking stats eliminates the elation of seeing your own character, whom you have carefully develloped, level up.
Cheating just shouldn't be a part of RPG's. Period.

Red · Post by **Red** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 12:40 am

Well, yeah, you have a point about diablo. My only interest in that game was seeing the cutscenes for that matter, so I played the game through (without cheating) and beat it. It was quite easy without cheating anyway. And very boring... At least cheating would have saved me a day (took me a weekend to finish).

Rat Keeng · Post by **Rat Keeng** » Fri Aug 02, 2002 3:27 pm

I played Diablo 2 on battlenet some time ago, for the sake of dueling against others. But once you've done it a number of times, it's starts getting repetetive, and that's when you gotta stop. I watch the cutscenes occasionally as i have them on DVD, they just never cease to amaze me.

I think exploiting bugs are cheating. I also consider running around looking for random encounters to gain experience, cheating, or otherwise repeatedly doing something only to increase your stats. The game wasn't designed for people to do that either, so it's a mild form of cheating.

Knight Claydoc · Post by **Knight Claydoc** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 4:14 am

VasikkA wrote:I fully agree with you, Beren.

If you use a trainer or cheat in any way, the character name should change to 'Cheater' or something similar. That would bring end to all that bragging. If you use the cheat menu in Civ2 your rank automatically goes 'Cheater' or 'Cheat' or something like that.

But why would anyone want to cheat in Civ2? Or any game? PANSIES!

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 4:38 am

The only times I accept cheating is to test something out... Say you in civ you want to test certain conditions of games, or in FO2 check what stats are needed to do a spoecific quest.

Otherwise I never beleive in it - even if you've finished the game 40 times, there's no reason for you to make a uberchar.

Warlord · Post by **Warlord** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:15 am

Some games deserve to be cheated.
Some games make their difficulty level by adding ridicilous bonuses to AI.
My idea of difficulty level is that on easy levels computer plays poorly and on harder levels better. That would be difficulty levels. Instead of that, some games just add some bizarre bonuses to IA...like Civ3

Ever tried the editor in Civ3? Checked the difficulty level bonuses with it?
I can beat a comp who plays like me. Has the same start as me and only difficulty would be it's style of playing, but when they add "support 4 units for free/base + 16 freely supported and stuff, it tends to get annoying.

You can try the same with Alpha Centauri. Edit your faction to an ÃƒÆ’Ã‚Â¼berfaction and try out how the comp gets killed. That comp would be you in the hardest level on Civ3.

Note that I have nothing agains Civs, only the stupid AI difficulty level system. Just hope they are gonna develop a working system without these stupid bonuses.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:22 am

Civ 3, the AI also cheats. I can see the entire map, even though it claims it has exploration zones for the sides.

Case in point, have your exploring unit kill a unit far, far away from you. Even if no one has discovered you, you'll get flooded with enemy attackers within a few turns.

Why on earth Civ 3's AI still needs to cheat in this day and age is beyond me. I can halfway see a cheating AI back when we had 8MHz 16bit CPUs, but not now.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:26 am

Sadly, Civ games have always cheated when you put their difficutly over "medium" (whatever the medium level is called within the games).

They make a good game but their AI programming isn't worth shit. And with their latest release the sadest part is there's no multiplayer...

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:35 am

Well, there is in the expansion (or a patch, I'm not sure), although it should have been in the game out of the box.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 6:42 am

Yeah i know... They're still not sure if it'll be a simple patch or a add-on... Seeing as they released it (guessing they needed the money), I'd see that as an add-on personally, probably with a bundle too.

Saint_Proverbius · Post by **Saint_Proverbius** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 5:05 pm

Civ 3 cheats in any difficulty.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sat Aug 03, 2002 9:33 pm

Great, so then spent even less time coding the AI - for a single player game?

Sounds horrible... I didn't even bother with the third installment as apart from the AI the second installment seemed perfect, and Alpha Centauri made me love the customization possibilities in units which weren't implimented in Civ3... A limitation I simply can't play with anymore.

Kashluk · Post by **Kashluk** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 1:06 am

Alpha Centauri is in many ways a lot better than Civilization 3.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 1:14 am

Yes, but Civ2 is even better.

Civilization 3 was over-hyped in my opinion, therefor it was quite a disappointment for me. Compared to Civ 2, it added more micromanagement and removed the fun. Because of that it became too slow-paced for my liking. Not that I don't like slow-paced games, but civ2 was simple, fun and addictive. Besides, it's not really a Sid Meier game, he didn't have much role in game development, mainly testing and giving advice. But the name sells...

Red · Post by **Red** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 2:02 am

Nah, for me Alpha Centauri beats civ2, all the way. With the only issue being to get used to the Alien setting... Some people simply wouldn't accept that and dismissed the game, but t allowed the whole idea of custom units which would simply be too weird to impliment in the Civ game.

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 2:40 am

I enjoy leading my nation to the top and change the course of history rather than conquering an alien planet. I enjoyed Civ2 much because of the mods.

Red · Post by **Red** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 7:12 am

How many games actually end like history would have? Civs never ends like it is

, so I th9ink that point is rather moot, albeit I understand how you related better to this then to Alpha Centauri. IMHO you should give Alpha anotherchance (specially with it's expantion).

VasikkA · Post by **VasikkA** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 4:48 pm

I might dig it up someday.

Talking about customizable units, Master of Orion 1 was great.

Spazmo · Post by **Spazmo** » Sun Aug 04, 2002 11:26 pm

Yeah, I loved that game. Even though I was 8-9 years old when I played it and gave up after a fwe days, it was great.