Why Enable Cheats in Release Ver. of the Game?

Cheats can add replay value to a game by allowing you to go back and do things differently, or just get some cathartic enjoyment out of cheating. It doesn't work for every game, though. I remember in a roguelike I played, the game's difficulty was determined by your level, and if you cheated yourself to retarded levels you'd find yourself facing so many powerful monsters that the dungeon would literally be pulverized by their attacks, so you'd be walking down a hallway and fifteen magic explosions would hollow out the mountain, and then a wizard would conjure ten perfect copies of you and they'd rear you a new one. Fun times.

If you include them, don't have them accessed by a secret code or enabled by a change to a game file, but include them in the game itself, so the player can unlock them and use them after earning them. Make sure that "cheated" games don't count for leaderboard or further unlocks, and it'll be fine.

They're usually in the game for debug and testing purposes. It's usually much easier to just disable them or require a special code to enable them than it is to go through all the code and remove them.

Cheers,

Bob

Quote:

Original post by Scourage They're usually in the game for debug and testing purposes. It's usually much easier to just disable them or require a special code to enable them than it is to go through all the code and remove them.

That is a sign of poor implementation. At the very least, the cheats could be #ifdef'd from the beginning, so they can be excluded entirely from distribution builds.

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder That is a sign of poor implementation. At the very least, the cheats could be #ifdef'd from the beginning, so they can be excluded entirely from distribution builds.

I certainly agree with that for multi-player games. However, for single-player games, a cheat code doesn't hurt at all. After all, nobody really forces you to research and enter the cheat code. It's your own decision whether you want to cheat, and you're only cheating yourself.

On the other hand, the mere existence of cheat codes will give you an audience in the thousands of game cheat websites and communities, which is basically free mass advertisement for your game. Also, you may get a more positive reception if people can skip over something that's beyond their skill, rather than being stuck and frustrated.
Screenshots of the new level 28 after that so far "impossible to kill boss" in level 27 due to a (newly discovered) cheat code is something that will give people something to talk about in forums, too... which again is free mass advertising. Everyone will want to get there too, and they'll tell their friends about it.

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder Quote: Original post by Scourage They're usually in the game for debug and testing purposes. It's usually much easier to just disable them or require a special code to enable them than it is to go through all the code and remove them. That is a sign of poor implementation. At the very least, the cheats could be #ifdef'd from the beginning, so they can be excluded entirely from distribution builds.

Whether or not removing them from the code is the issue, their reason for existing is often just as Scorage stated: so that it is easier to debug and test the game. Once the game is done, it's often decided to leave cheats in there because they could be fun for someone who wants to use them.

For testing purposes it is better to leave cheat codes in. It is possible to introduce bugs in the code buy having conditional compiling. Release version needs proper testing and without cheat codes it is harder to test.

It was standard practice for a mobile gaming company I used to work for. The final version of the game needed to be tested on each supported handset in every language supported. And without cheats it would take forever for the testers.

I've also worked at a gaming company where we developed with cheatcodes/debug interfaces, but built a release version for showing of to publishers. That version crashed during demo, as the release version without cheatcodes/debug interfaces had never been properly tested.

But if it is imporant not to let the players cheat, it might be worth disabling cheats on release. But then a greater effort in testing is needed.

Quote:

Original post by dudeman21 Whether or not removing them from the code is the issue, their reason for existing is often just as Scorage stated: so that it is easier to debug and test the game. Once the game is done, it's often decided to leave cheats in there because they could be fun for someone who wants to use them.

Ja, I don't disagree with you. I was merely pointing out that 'it's too hard' is not a good rationale for much of anything.

Quote:

Original post by swiftcoder I was merely pointing out that 'it's too hard' is not a good rationale for much of anything.

Personally I think "it's too hard" is an excellent rationale! :)

This is a little off-topic, but I wanted to chime in how much I dislike games that acknowledge cheat codes. What I mean by this, are games such as the old Tony Hawk franchise which had a menu item called "Cheat Codes" in the options menu. I have seen other games like this as well. For players who try to ignore cheat codes on at least their first play-through, it can be annoying to have them waved in your face.

IMO cheats should be in some games.
like ninja gaiden.
I won't ever buy that game because i played it at a friends house and it was stupidly difficult.
if there was a cheat in it (or perhaps an easy mode) then i might buy it and play it.

Quote:

Original post by tremault IMO cheats should be in some games. like ninja gaiden. I won't ever buy that game because i played it at a friends house and it was stupidly difficult. if there was a cheat in it (or perhaps an easy mode) then i might buy it and play it.

A lot of people said the same about the original Halo, which was pretty challenging even on easy. Personally, I like my challenges, and prefer the temptation of cheats not to be there. You always hit that one day where you only have 15 minutes to finish the level, and no checkpoint in sight...

yeah everyone has strengths and weaknesses.
I had no problems with the original halo. I'm usually pretty good with shooters, since i am good with gauging my position, finding cover and all that stuff.

some people have trouble with that.

I have trouble with other stuff like in ninja gaiden, repeating certain tasks with perfect timing.

i think cheats allow for and help with people's weaknesses.


i think the advent of game score tracking systems like in xbox live, really allows cheats to be implemented more effectively. if you cheat, you don't get your score. if people simply want to experience the game, they can cheat if they have trouble. but then this prevents cheaters from having an advantage of those who thrive on competition.

Hi,
Thank u all for the feedback.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage If you include them, don't have them accessed by a secret code or enabled by a change to a game file, but include them in the game itself, so the player can unlock them and use them after earning them.

I like that idea! Maybe earning it would be better than just placing it.

Quote:

Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Make sure that "cheated" games don't count for leaderboard or further unlocks, and it'll be fine.

Would players feel cheated (:-)) if I won't count their games in leaderboards? Would they find the game still challenging? Could it make them lose interest in the game?

^If players feel cheated that when they're cheating and not getting anything for it, then they aren't looking for a game, they are looking for a movie.

There are certain differences however, there are cheats like godmode that breaks the game. But there are also cheats that are like Successive play, where yuo start out with items you got or all teh items. Sometimes it should be ok for you to allow them for certain things. Not leaderboards though, unless you make a lil leaderboards for cheaters or successive play.

Quote:

Original post by Digital Chaos I like that idea! Maybe earning it would be better than just placing it.

'Earning' a cheat is the most annoying things in the world.
the whole idea of a cheat is that you get stuff without earning it.
if you earn it, it's not a cheat. it's an unlockable.

and you have to be careful with earning unlockables.
you need to allow the player to earn it in a way that it is still useful
so whatever you do, don't make the player beat the game 20 times to earn the super instant kill gun. they already beat the game more than enough times, they don't need the super instant kill gun now. it's useless. it's like giving an ipod to a deaf man.

cheat should simply be hidden.
that is if they are left in.
they should be hidden because regular people will not know about it and will play the game normally. they will only know about the cheat if they purposely hunt for a way to make the game easier like on gamefaqs.com

Quote:

Original post by tremault 'Earning' a cheat is the most annoying things in the world. the whole idea of a cheat is that you get stuff without earning it. if you earn it, it's not a cheat. it's an unlockable.

:-) 10x! good to hear a different opinion..

Quote:

Original post by pothb There are certain differences however, there are cheats like godmode that breaks the game.

What do you mean by 'breaks the game'? There are plenty of games using this cheat and it is quite fun:-) off course in such case I wouldn't credit the player with points.

Quote:

Original post by Digital Chaos Quote: Original post by Iron Chef Carnage Make sure that "cheated" games don't count for leaderboard or further unlocks, and it'll be fine. Would players feel cheated (:-)) if I won't count their games in leaderboards? Would they find the game still challenging? Could it make them lose interest in the game?

You are kidding, right? No one shows up at a marathon with a Suzuki Hayabusa and expects a scoreboard spot and a medal for their fifteen minute "run".

Cheats can be cool for messing around a while, but it's a very short-lived, disposable, throwaway kind of fun. The better the game, the less you want to play it with cheats in proportion to playing it normally. Starcraft has cheats. It's no worse for it - but, what percentage of time does the average player play Starcraft with cheats on? 1%? 0.1%?

And there are certain games (most arcade games, for instance) which I think should not offer cheats. The common thread for these games is mastery and the thrill of survival. When you have someone who doesn't enjoy this kind of play and isn't willing to put in the effort, it superficially looks like a good idea to give him all manner of tools "so that he could see everything in the game", but that's really the equivalent of burning the house down to have warmth. In this case, the things that make the game difficult are the game. The end result will be that the person still won't be entertained by the eviscerated husk of a game, and will most likely throw crap at it (which it deserves, but the real game does not deserve).

Don't believe that last part? Check out Gamespot's review of Contra: Shattered Soldier. This is a game that has no cheats, infinite continues etc., and is all the better for it, but makes the mistake of having an "easy mode" which is really a mislabeled training mode and does have infinite continues for all practical purposes. Kasavin, the reviewer and then-editor of the site, only plays the "easy mode" and in the process of doing so, horribly misunderstands what the entire game is about -- going as far as reporting that the game has five levels when it actually has seven, and calling it "short" when it actually takes tens of hours for a good player to beat. And this is a professional who, at least in theory, really should know better.

In olden days the cheat code were useful to allow players to get past problematic
sections in the (single player) game where something was too hard (where the player got 'stuck') This was often due to hardware variations (timings/input devices) or more often poorly/limited tested game code/script). It would allow the player to get on with the rest of the game instead of trying 100 more times and then giving up in disgust and subsequently badmouthing the game/game company/game author until the day they died.

Earning cheats defeats the purpose of a cheat as a testing tool, and also gives it an air of legitimacy. Digital Chaos's question about players feeling cheated seems valid to me: if the game tells me I've 'earned' some feature and waves it under my nose as though it's meant to be there, but then denies me something else because it's really a 'cheat', then yes, I probably would feel cheated.