[go: up one dir, main page]
Jump to content

Talk:Cheating in video games

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Collaboration

[edit]

Hi there, I've been trying to help improve this article and am compiling a list of useful articles for research. Some of these are just ones suggested on the discussion about this article on the collaboration page. Feel free to add any more you think will be useful!

-Sturm55 23:06, 1 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

From early cheating history:

  • Multiface
  • PEEK and POKE
  • Jet Set Willy has already been referenced by Oscarthecat; will need to find citations but I believe it was one of the most hacked 8-bit games (mainly due to the fact that it could only be completed by cheating.)
  • Magazines like Your Sinclair had pages devoted to cheating ('The Tipshop') and the covertapes included programs that were bundles of cheat codes (YS's was compiled by Phil South).
  • Amiga Power also had cheat pages but in its later days it scorned upon cheating (as being ungentlemanly or something) and the cheat-page hosts were mocked.

-Marasmusine 07:57, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks, those will be alot of help with expanding the history of cheating section. -Sturm55 21:19, 2 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It would be neat if some of the following sections were included:

  • Reasons for cheating in single player and multiplayer games. (I tried doing this but I ran out of ideas)

-some reasons for cheating are mentioned in the prevalence of cheating section, but those only apply to single-player games. You might want to add to that with some reasons for cheating in online games. This article might give you some ideas. - Sturm55 09:34, 4 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Common hacks used in online games (Counter-Strike, Runescape, etc.)
  • Fix stuff I add :)

-Dr.scradley

Legality of Cheating

[edit]

I think the Legality of Cheating section should contain some information about the EULA. I think the deal is, game companies cannot arrest you for cheating, they can only deny you their service if you violate the EULA, right? I don't dare contributing, because I don't know that much about the subject. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by MisterPhyrePhox (talk • contribs) 16:22, 6 March 2007 (UTC).[reply]

Hot Coffee

[edit]

Hot Coffee wasn't a cheat. It was only accessible through a modification of the game. -Not Diablo 03:20, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've removed that reference, and added a link to Mod (computer gaming) under See also. Marasmusine 07:53, 14 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reliable sources

[edit]

I'm hoping to get some references in for some specific types of cheat (big-head mode, for example.) Now, whilst there are hundreds of game cheating sites with user-submitted cheats, is there a site with some editorial control over such submissions (that could therefore be used as a reliable source?) It's either that or dig out some old gaming magazines.Marasmusine 07:19, 23 May 2007 (UTC)[reply]

"Manual cheating"

[edit]

Is there anything on the concept of "putting a weight on the controller/keyboard" to keep a button pressed down? This might not qualify as cheating but it seems relevent 76.66.125.118 07:32, 3 December 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Macros in World of Warcraft

[edit]

The use of macros is not forbidden in World of Warcraft... they even put an interface in the game where you can create them... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.227.232.51 (talk) 04:24, 11 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Abuse of bugs

[edit]

Should this article contain a section on bug abuse and why or why not that would be considered cheating? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 77.5.103.158 (talk) 16:22, 30 January 2008 (UTC)[reply]


Cheapness

[edit]

There should be a section on being "cheap" too. For example, abusing techniques not intended for the game, such as in Street Fighter II how you can throw the opponent without giving them recovery time after hitting them with a quick jab. --Denise from the Cosby Show (talk) 07:03, 5 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Using "Cheats" vs. "Cheating"

[edit]

As a couple of the comments above suggest, there's a difference between using a feature designed into a program that intentionally overrides the "normal" play, and a feature that was not designed, but a bug or a weakness in the design. This probably needs to be two articles.

There are several differences between the two. The feature set of "cheats" can be documented in Wikipedia: they have reliable sources: either the original game designers, or later programmers. "Cheating" as a whole, exploiting weaknesses in design is a philosophical issue: Is it really cheating to have a character do XYZ a thousand times to raise their stats?

There's a lot of original research in the article, but whether it is "going too far" depends on what's being talked about.

"Cheating in video games has existed for almost their entire history. The first cheat codes were put in place for play testing purposes."

Well, design defects that can be exploited are just bugs. And bugs always exist in software. So the first sentence is wrong as applied to "cheating". The second sentence, which only applies to "cheats", is wrong in different ways. There's a lot of folklore about how "cheats" started, but much is just unreferenced rumor. There's no proof what the "first cheat codes" were, and if there were, I don't know of any reliable encyclopedic information about their "purpose". The Wiki editor assumes the "cheats" were for "testing purposes", but that's pure speculation. The first "cheat codes" might just have been for fun, or as placeholders for unfinished features. "Backdoors" were standard practice for programmers long before the first games.

The reasons "cheats" and "cheating" exist are largely different. The way they are "discovered" are largely different. A company's response to a "cheat" is entirely different than to an unintentional weakness that allows "cheating".

This article needs to be two articles. Both need sound references. Piano non troppo (talk) 07:21, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure why you've removed references to publications like Your Sinclair, Gamespot, etc on the grounds of them being "blogs", so I've reverted one step. Can you go into more detail about your objection to each? Marasmusine (talk) 15:44, 20 November 2009 (UTC)[reply]
Because they are amateur homespun websites on the level of poor blogs without citations, references, or authors [1] [2]. A major purpose of an external link is to add material that doesn't fit in the Wiki article, but would be generally suitable for a Featured Article. (WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided", points 1 and 11.) Furthermore the information is trivial and appears, since they both include pricing to also be promotional. Not even remotely close to acceptable. Piano non troppo (talk) 11:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You're jesting are you not with regard to the promotional claim? The articles are verbatim transcripts of magazines printed in October 1984, and February 1989 respectively. A seconds investigation would have revealed that. At no stretch of the imagination does that count as promotional. Furthermore, the both articles are definite examples of the references - a description of how to get the desired result, and an attempt to sell the results.
Forewarned - I shall be reverting as I disagree with your assesment of both "...on the level of poor blogs..." and WP:ELNO "Links normally to be avoided" - which does not mean they must be avoided. a_man_alone (talk) 12:32, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
(edit conflict) Firstly, regarding WP:ELNO: "The subject of this guideline is external links that are not citations to sources supporting article content." These are references you are removing, not mere external links. Secondly, I've said before, these are not a blogs, or even websites; they are published print magazines. For example, Your Spectrum was published by Dennis Publishing in the UK between 1983 and 1986. If you object to the url to the online archive, fine, you can remove the url, but please don't remove the whole "cite journal". These fully satisfy the criteria for reliable sources. Finally, whilst it may not be common practice now, during the 80s videogame magazines often included the retail price of the item being reviewed. Marasmusine (talk) 12:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
The phrase "However, a cheat industry emerged as gaming systems evolved, through the packaging and selling of cheating as a product." needs a reference? Would any reader doubt this happened? Hardly. You've provided a reference that's unnecessary, except to waste some baffled reader's time. Think "encyclopedia" and not "fancruft". Documenting fancruft is still fancruft. Piano non troppo (talk) 13:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]
What exactly do you have an issue with - the content, or the references? At first it seemed that you were taking issue with the references, and so removing them, however now you seem to have a problem with the content, not the references that backed up the content. I mean, sure, you could be against both, but I'd just like to clarify which it is so I can respond appropriately. I fail to see how a statement - backed up with an example - of people profiting financially from cheating is fancruft. In the same context, I cannot see how an example of what a cheat actually does to the code is fancruft. If you see any baffled readers, that's probably because somebody has taken references out which explain or give examples. a_man_alone (talk) 22:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Level select/skip level

[edit]

Another common "cheat" not mentioned is level select, and also skip level; I know many 16 bit and some 8 bit games with these features. Sonic 1 & 2 for the Mega Drive had a level select screen among other cheats, as did Earth Worm Jim (which called you a cheater when you accessed it). Aladin, Chuck Rock and Lion King among others had a cheat feature where it would skip to the next level if the player pressed the correct sequence of buttons, often whilst paused. Hidden warp zones like that in Super Mario Bros on the NES, where the player can find a hidden area and warp to a later level sometimes with several level warps to choose from. I imagine many would say these are not cheating as they are within the game, but I think they could be mentioned anyway as they are hidden and make the game a lot easier similar to cheats, and are a bit crafty, some might know about them but disapprove of using them just like cheats.

I am sure there are many more games than I can think of with these features, not sure where to put it in the article but I think we should mention it. do users agree? Carlwev (talk) 15:15, 10 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

If we can get a source discussing this as a kind of cheat, it can go somewhere in this article. Marasmusine (talk) 09:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Wizard mode

[edit]

Some history: Two of the earliest computer games (Colossal Cave and Rogue) had wizard modes that gave users extra powers. Can this be added to the article?

Topher67 (talk) 05:42, 22 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Cheating in video games. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:41, 3 August 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Game hacks" listed at Redirects for discussion

[edit]

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Game hacks and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 October 13#Game hacks until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. 1234qwer1234qwer4 20:31, 13 October 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Fraudulent "cheat" sites

[edit]

If you can, please add a section on the rise of fraudulent sites advertising "cheats" and then just tricking visitors into doing things that are only good for the people who run the site. There is a whole ecosystem of such sites. 2003:C0:9739:7200:514E:4829:BFD6:C8AB (talk) 00:47, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

would appreciate examples of sites and tricks, and sources backing them up cogsan (give me attention) (see my deeds) 15:54, 30 December 2023 (UTC)[reply]

Merge with "Cheating in online games"

[edit]

I think a lot of this content, if not the whole page, should be merged with Cheating in online games. Perhaps there could be sub topics specifically for local vs online games. I made an edit to add more detail to the network traffic heading (on this page), only to now realize the same content exists in the linked article.

Does anyone object to a merge of the two? MCSjojo (talk) 20:46, 6 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]

If anything, I think the content there should be merged here, as this is the umbrella topic. Why don't we do some work on sourcing to figure out how much of these topics we can actually cover before we commit to a merge? I know the venn diagram between these two has a lot of overlap, but I could also see a world where it's helpful to keep them separate. Alyo (chat·edits) 14:55, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I agree that this should be the main article, that is what i meant to say. In modern day most video game cheats are actually for online games, so it doesn't really make sense to have "Cheating in video games" (the main article) just be for local games. Most of the content has already been written as well it can be given the limited availability of sources, so most of the work would just be in re-structuring the pages into one. If you look at the content under "Modification of runtime game data" it actually all applies to online games as well - none of them are unique to local ones even though they are framed in that context. I am just cautious about making such a significant edit to have it reverted for a (probably valid) reason that I haven't considered. MCSjojo (talk) 16:13, 7 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yup, I understand. However, although it may be written well, we still need to have sources attached. Right now, 10-15 of the sections of 'online games' have no sources at all, so it's a valid question to ask if that content should be merged at all. Lets try to get some additional sources on that content, and then merge what's good over here once we do that. Alyo (chat·edits) 13:05, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yeah I get you. However, completely removing sections that are poorly cited may not be the best approach imo. While it may get rid of some incorrect information, it will also lead to the loss of valuable content that is accurate but simply lacks formal verification.
Much of the content that is uncited has been up months/years and been exposed to thousands of readers, many of whom are 'experts'. In reality this gives the content much more scrutiny than 99% of the editorial sources. If something were wrong or inaccurate, it would have been corrected or challenged already..
I know the standard Wikipedia practice is to not include any original work, and only use content that already exists in reliable sources, but in this case I think some leeway should be allowed given the unique/niche area.
TLDR: Leave the poorly sourced sections in? MCSjojo (talk) 17:41, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I understand why you may feel that way, but that's not how Wikipedia works. We cannot assume any expert has read our pages, much less agreed with the content and given a silent seal of approval. What if they're all just too busy to edit? Heck, I follow enough SMEs on twitter to know that when they see something incorrect, their most likely action is to laugh, screenshot it, and share it with their friends/audience. I'm not in any hurry to cut content, but we should definitely try to improve the sources for a couple reasons: first, the above, that it's helpful and required to verify, but second, if we can find a good source that discusses cheating in gaming, then it will also help us to define the scope of the article, and what should be covered. This may also help us to make a final decision about your original question, which is the real reason why I think it's important. Alyo (chat·edits) 17:56, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Yep I agree about improving the sources, I'm just not sure it's possible because there is so little... Do you think all content that is not backed up by a source with editorial control should be removed? If that's the case the majority of content in both articles would have to be cut. I just strongly believe some leeway should be given in the case of this page. The guidelines of Wikipedia do not perfectly apply in every scenario.
Regardless I think merging the pages and improving sources can be treated as separate concerns? Both pages don't need to be perfect for the merge MCSjojo (talk) 19:06, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Give a read to (at least the introduction of) Wikipedia:Verifiability. That's one of our core pillars on Wikipedia, and yes, if applied correctly, I do think that basically "all content that is not backed up by a source with editorial control should be removed". That rule is the reason that Wikipedia has a good reputation, it's why people trust is, it's why you're here. :) And since I do think a lot of material is going to end up cut, I'd rather just do that now, instead of merging a bunch of meh content and then realizing after the fact that maybe the article doesn't look like what we thought it would look like. Alyo (chat·edits) 19:40, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Fair enough. While I maintain my pov in this case, Wikipedia's policy does clearly contrast with it.
Is there a way to collaborate on large edit, it's not very clear to me from reading online. It would be nice if there was like a saved edit state that could be shared between editors? Are you interested in working on the merge? How much do you know about the topic? MCSjojo (talk) 19:55, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
I've played video games for 15+ years now, so I supposed I'm reasonably knowledgeable about the topic. One thing you can do is use a "sandbox", like your userpage User:MCSjojo or maybe User:MCSjojo/sandbox to make edits. Then once we like what we have, we can copy it over to the live article. Alyo (chat·edits) 21:59, 8 July 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Cheating_in_video_games&oldid=1233404540"