Hi Moldran.
You seem to have skipped all my arguments concerning 'bugs' that turn into features through patches, and the other way round. Oh well.
Then I will have to argue with you only on your points? Alright.
#1: There may be differences between bad game design and a bug, but at times that's exactly what accounts for a bug: bad, bad game design!
#2: That's right, you read right. Anything odd could possibly be a bug. That's what I sead. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're right again: "Who knows for sure ?".
PS: I didn't assume that everything that's somewhat odd and could possibly be a bug is a bug. No, I didn't.
#3: With that attitude, no bug would have ever been discovered. Not a single, 'cause then no single one would have said: 'Hmm, that's strange. A bug possibly?'. Get what I mean? The 'one particular person' is just the one who discovers it first.
#4: As I get from what you explained, duping and god mode can happen accidently, too. These are just bugs. Not cheats. Exploiters are cheesy loopholers and bug exploiters. Not cheaters. Please see my reply to lemming for more info. And yes, of course it always matters what your personal game ethics are, but as an unbiased 'definition', technically this is not cheating, how bad you may find it.
Again: abusing a bug cannot be cheating, since it actually and very concretely is in the game. It can be used by everybody. It doesn't make a difference if the game designers put it in deliberately or not - this could only be clarified by a new patch that would make it clear that it wasn't intentioned, or a verified statement of one of the game designers that says so.
Fact: a loophole/bug that exists in every copy of the source code/ executable of the game allows players to do something odd (perhaps even unethical).
Fact: this loophole/bug is not qualified as a 'cheat' in any way by the game itself, nor is it repaired/ patched by the company later on.
Fact: the loophole/bug is either good or bad for the player.
Fact: this loophole/bug can even be triggered accidently.
Fact: the player who exploits this loophole is not a cheater. He is foolhardy if it is bad for him, and cheesy if it is good.
Let me explain this to you with one last example:
You are a formula 1 driver. Your car fits the reglement.
You started and during 2/3rds of the race, you are in position 3, but can't endanger the leading two.
By accidently driving over the curbs to fast, your front spoiler and your barge boards bend, and you decide to drive to the box to fix that. On your way, however, you realize that these changes don't slow you down, but make you faster! You decide to drive on with them. You manage to drive faster laps and catch up to the leading duo. Eventually you manage to pass them and win the race.
Did you cheat? No. Did you exploit a bug in the aerodynamics? Yes.
Are you the real winner? Yes.
Last b.n.l.: I read the wikipedia 'definition', and it, too, mentiones the phrase: 'that had not been intended by the developer in that way'. So I ask again: Without a patch, a statement, a revision or a declaration in the game that the feature is actually a 'cheat', how should the user know that it wasn't intended that way?
This 'definition' is basically nothing more than a summary of what you've said. There's no use in reading it as long as one doesn't agree on the base of what is talked about.
Final note:
You sum it up pretty well:
'nuff said.
Greetings, Fragbait
EDIT(24th of July 2004): Don't want to bump this thread again, and I wonder if anyone will ever read this edit. Anyways, I found a good explanation why some use other standarts on cheating than others, which many of you may probably know already, but here it is: Virgil Tibbs - activist legitness.
Bye.
You seem to have skipped all my arguments concerning 'bugs' that turn into features through patches, and the other way round. Oh well.
Then I will have to argue with you only on your points? Alright.
#1: There may be differences between bad game design and a bug, but at times that's exactly what accounts for a bug: bad, bad game design!
#2: That's right, you read right. Anything odd could possibly be a bug. That's what I sead. Nothing more, nothing less. And you're right again: "Who knows for sure ?".
PS: I didn't assume that everything that's somewhat odd and could possibly be a bug is a bug. No, I didn't.
#3: With that attitude, no bug would have ever been discovered. Not a single, 'cause then no single one would have said: 'Hmm, that's strange. A bug possibly?'. Get what I mean? The 'one particular person' is just the one who discovers it first.
#4: As I get from what you explained, duping and god mode can happen accidently, too. These are just bugs. Not cheats. Exploiters are cheesy loopholers and bug exploiters. Not cheaters. Please see my reply to lemming for more info. And yes, of course it always matters what your personal game ethics are, but as an unbiased 'definition', technically this is not cheating, how bad you may find it.
Again: abusing a bug cannot be cheating, since it actually and very concretely is in the game. It can be used by everybody. It doesn't make a difference if the game designers put it in deliberately or not - this could only be clarified by a new patch that would make it clear that it wasn't intentioned, or a verified statement of one of the game designers that says so.
Quote:If you don't label duping cheating, the term 'cheating' becomes completely useless.No, it doesn't. Here it doesn't matter - the player will be frowned upon whether he cheats or bug exploits all the same. But how can you, refering to only this game (Diablo I), actually say that???
Fact: a loophole/bug that exists in every copy of the source code/ executable of the game allows players to do something odd (perhaps even unethical).
Fact: this loophole/bug is not qualified as a 'cheat' in any way by the game itself, nor is it repaired/ patched by the company later on.
Fact: the loophole/bug is either good or bad for the player.
Fact: this loophole/bug can even be triggered accidently.
Fact: the player who exploits this loophole is not a cheater. He is foolhardy if it is bad for him, and cheesy if it is good.
Let me explain this to you with one last example:
You are a formula 1 driver. Your car fits the reglement.
You started and during 2/3rds of the race, you are in position 3, but can't endanger the leading two.
By accidently driving over the curbs to fast, your front spoiler and your barge boards bend, and you decide to drive to the box to fix that. On your way, however, you realize that these changes don't slow you down, but make you faster! You decide to drive on with them. You manage to drive faster laps and catch up to the leading duo. Eventually you manage to pass them and win the race.
Did you cheat? No. Did you exploit a bug in the aerodynamics? Yes.
Are you the real winner? Yes.
Last b.n.l.: I read the wikipedia 'definition', and it, too, mentiones the phrase: 'that had not been intended by the developer in that way'. So I ask again: Without a patch, a statement, a revision or a declaration in the game that the feature is actually a 'cheat', how should the user know that it wasn't intended that way?
This 'definition' is basically nothing more than a summary of what you've said. There's no use in reading it as long as one doesn't agree on the base of what is talked about.
Final note:
You sum it up pretty well:
Quote:or if you do it by abusing a bug in the game. It is both equally cheating to me.Yes it may very well be. To you. But not to me.
'nuff said.
Greetings, Fragbait
EDIT(24th of July 2004): Don't want to bump this thread again, and I wonder if anyone will ever read this edit. Anyways, I found a good explanation why some use other standarts on cheating than others, which many of you may probably know already, but here it is: Virgil Tibbs - activist legitness.
Bye.
Quote:You cannot pass... I am a servant of the Secret Fire, wielder of the Flame of Anor. The Dark Flame will not avail you, Flame of Udun. Go back to the shadow. You shall not pass.- Gandalf, speaking to the Balrog
Quote:Empty your mind. Be formless, shapeless, like water. Now you put water into a cup, it becomes the cup. You put water into a bottle, it becomes the bottle. You put it in a teapot, it becomes the teapot. Now water can flow, or it can crash! Be water, my friend...- Bruce Lee
Quote: There's an old Internet adage which simply states that the first person to resort to personal attacks in an online argument is the loser. Don't be one.- excerpt from the forum rules
Post content property of Fragbait (member of the lurkerlounge). Do not (hesitate to) quote without permission.