Ah, A big question.
This my friend is cheating. Even though in games like Pokemon (Which I can understand, I have played each version) it is still cheating. Entering a code to get a pokemon defeats the perpose of the game. You can enter a code and have both ledgenary pokemons and say ya... I got it. But.... Do yuo really feel like you have earned the reward?? The best part of the game is to get a kick-Butt pokemon that you have caught with no aid. It's a rush that a simple code can not give you. Plus, adding codes to make a game easier only makes you a softer game player and lowers your gameplay skills. I like challenges, So I don't cheat or have aids to help.
Have you beat a game without cheating? If so. Doesn't feel good to do so. I get a rush everytime I beat a Final Fantasy game with no cheats. I stand up and say YAAAH!! Take that you ******** *******! In your ******** FACE!! LOL. Sorry, Got carried away. Heh.
hermitprojects
As I said earlier, is it really cheating when the developer has made some "questionnable" design choices with how to get some of these Pokemon? Heck, some people don't even use the means developers give them such as rare candies or masterballs (both of which are easily acquirable through trade) because they could be considered "cheating".
1) Well we could remove challenge from a game using means the developer themselves put in, including glitches as I mentioned earlier, but also bad design choices that unbalance games (which really shouldn't be in games to begin with). To take a famous example: "snaking" in Mario Kart, it requires no special codes, no AR cards or flash devices, just a callous thumb and some patience; would you say this isn't cheating? Or can it still be considered so even though the developer left it in because it could be considered an oversight or unbalance on the developers part. I'd have to say that anti-snakers would say that it makes the game unbalanced and as such should be considered cheating, but to them I say I think the whole method of catching Pokemon is unbalanced due to the level of effort it takes to catch some not being directly proportional to the Pokemon's general strength in battle (Isn't this fun!!!).
2) Your argument is very ego-centric, what might be rewarding for you might not be for someone else (and sometimes, as a I mentioned earlier, playing a badly balanced game the way the developers intended it, can be far less fun that balancing it your way)
3) Is being a softer player a bad thing? I don't honestly care much these days for spending huge amounts of time on a game for so little reward, the whole risk-reward mechanic is so worn in games nowadays that I can honestly see a reward coming just because a side-quest appears (let's face it, sidequests don't exist for any other reason...). This point is really about tired and predictable design rather than bad design.
You have to ask yourself another question too, is cheating based on the end result, or the means? Take for example the older pokemon games, you might trade with someone to get a rare pokemon...which unbeknownst to you, is from an AR device. In this case, who is cheating? The innocent player in this case could be no different from a kid who stumbles across a glitch or accidentally triggers a sequence break and gets items out of order in a Metroid game.
Log in to comment