[...] Computer game cheaters If you read up on how to do a WOW raid then you’re a cheater (Post a new comment) anfalicious 2008-01-24 04:10 am UTC (link) I wouldn’t even consider RMT [...]

[...] displayed by the interface in order to give to the player the information he needs and too much.  Ralph Koster also talks about information and how getting information is part of playing a game.  He considers [...]

There is no such thing as one-way shaping.

All media reflects the nature of society. As that nature changes, so does the reflection.

Simply because people use games to better understand society, albeit at fundamental levels, does not mean that games shape society. That’s the same argument that people use to blame video games and Marilyn Manson’s music for school shootings. That’s just scapegoating.

Reflexivity is the feel of the brakes on the evolution train.

Pink banana! Pink banana! Seriously, Len, I’m not a disciple of Confucious. If I wanted a fortune cookie, I’d go to a Chinese restaurant.

Cyranix wrote:

Some of us, however, might be cheating out of frustration or dissatisfaction with their (in)ability to progress.

…and that’s my point. There are many reasons for cheating… too many, in fact, for your question to have a useful, unambiguous answer.

I don’t disagree with your suggestions on alleviating frustration though, but I wouldn’t attribute those suggestions to lessons from cheating. I’d attribute those suggestions to lessons from frustration.

There is no such thing as one-way shaping.

All media reflects the nature of society. As that nature changes, so does the reflection.

Simply because people use games to better understand society, albeit at fundamental levels, does not mean that games shape society. That’s the same argument that people use to blame video games and Marilyn Manson’s music for school shootings. That’s just scapegoating.

Reflexivity is the feel of the brakes on the evolution train.

Pink banana! Pink banana! Seriously, Len, I’m not a disciple of Confucious. If I wanted a fortune cookie, I’d go to a Chinese restaurant.

CyranixSome of us, however, might be cheating out of frustration or dissatisfaction with their (in)ability to progress.

…and that’s my point. There are many reasons for cheating… too many, in fact, for your question to have a useful, unambiguous answer.

I don’t disagree with your suggestions on alleviating frustration though, but I wouldn’t attribute those suggestions to lessons from cheating. I’d attribute those suggestions to lessons from frustration.

… people cheat for many different reasons, including due to failure. Failure also doesn’t necessarily correlate to cheating either, so your question is unanswerable given that the underlying rationale is incomplete.

I agree with you in that failure avoidance isn’t the only reason to cheat, but it is a reason to cheat and likely a significant one. Even if it doesn’t paint a complete picture of cheating, might it not provide some modicum of insight to consider its relationship to the design of failure?

My amateur definition of cheating would be “obviating the need for in-game skills, usu. to increase perceived personal enjoyment.” Wall hacks and god mode effectively sidestep combat skills; walkthroughs negate the importance of info-gathering and learning skills. In your case, you’re getting a better experience by cheating because, as a master player, you’re alleviating the boredom of simple victories. Some of us, however, might be cheating out of frustration or dissatisfaction with their (in)ability to progress. In that situation, it could be argued that the game’s design could be improved by giving players (1) better in-game access to methods of improving their next efforts after failure or (2) a non-preferred reward as an outcome — worthwhile yet not optimal — instead of an out-and-out, waste-of-time failure state.

(2) is fairly simple to depict; I gave the example of the Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book to illustrate it — a short paragraph describing a “bad” ending beats “THE END” by a long shot. I like to think of (1) like a number-guessing puzzle in a children’s game:

Version A: The child has five guesses to select the right number from 1 to 20. After five wrong guesses, the game ends and the child has to restart from a save point.

Version B-1: The child has five guesses to select the right number from 1 to 20. The child receives feedback in the form of “You’re getting hotter/colder” after the second, third, and fourth guesses. After five wrong guesses, the game ends etc.

Version B-2: The child has five guesses to select the right number from 1 to 20. The child receives feedback in the form of “You’re getting hotter/colder” after the second, third, and fourth guesses. If the child guesses a number that should have already been logically eliminated, his/her character explicitly notes this fact in order to steer the child back on track. After five wrong guesses, the game ends etc.

Despite the blind number-guessing puzzle itself not being intrinsically well-designed, the game can still provide a way for the player to learn and adjust in the wake of failure. I think that the child who plays Version A would be much more likely to cheat by going online and finding the answer in a walkthrough than the child who plays Version B. Does this seem like a reasonable analogy to draw, or am I completely off my rocker?

Oh, and one more unrelated thing, from Raph’s original post:

There could easily be a poker variant where players do not see their own hands, but do see everyone else’s.

Blind man’s bluff is a fun (albeit mildly paranoia-inducing) poker variant, in which reading others’ reactions is just as important as the numerical odds!

Then there is Raph’s comment on “My Tiny Life”:

“…the best book written about what it is like to live immersed in a virtual world.”

He’s right. Spooky stuff.

Emotional investment doesn’t equal social commitment. One may consider cheating in a game just another way to experience it, but if one didn’t place so much value on the experience for whatever reason one does, cheating wouldn’t matter. Most confidence games and all psy-ops rely on that fact.

What does the incredible amount of cheating say about the design of failure?

I understand that you were addressing Raph; however, I have to say that people cheat for many different reasons, including due to failure. Failure also doesn’t necessarily correlate to cheating either, so your question is unanswerable given that the underlying rationale is incomplete. I cheat in games, for example, because I’ve mastered the patterns of those games in which I cheat and therefore prefer to exclusively experience the other aspects of those games that I find more enjoyable.

… we are compelled to look for the man behind the curtain.

I’d say that’s largely a product of society, a sign of the times. With the debacles of Enron, Arthur Andersen, astroturfing, and even not long ago, The Economist labelled the U.S. VP as “The Man Behind The Curtains,” those of us at least in the West are increasingly concerned with who’s pulling the strings. The fact that resources such as opensecrets.org exists is proof.

One mistake often made in looking at games and society is the idea that games shape society when, like film and television, the products are actually more reflective of the world in which we live. When we consider that society shapes the games we play, why we consider transparency and security important in “virtual worlds”—loosely defined—isn’t that far of a reach.

1) @ Raph #127:

Ah, this may merit a post in and of itself.

Feedback is to make people feel good about themselves when they succeed. They also have to know when they fail.

A lot of games these days are about making you feel good about yourself by not letting you fail. This isn’t always good design.

As I read your post and the ensuing comments, the thought that kept coming up in my head was, “What does the incredible amount of cheating say about the design of failure?” If learning is to be emphasized as a valuable process in a game, what should designers do (and what are they currently doing) to convey this message?

For example, if I die in a combat situation, I expect my failure to teach me how to survive better next time… but there are venerable classics that don’t provide even hints at such information. [That's one big reason I steer clear of 1v1 fighting games: when I'm KO'd, I get no indication as to what kind of move will prevent my future defeat or how to execute that move -- two missing links in the informational chain that prevent in-game learning!] Likewise, many game narratives are designed so that upon success there’s the reward of plot advancement and upon defeat… nothing. I’m fine with plot progress being the carrot for players to pursue, but perfunctorily terminating the game upon critical failure, without any sort of closure, sucks. In my opinion, that’s tantamount to reading a Choose-Your-Own-Adventure book in which any page that’s a non-preferred terminal state simply reads “THE END”. Not only is it not fun, it’s not worthwhile from a learning / enjoying-the-experience perspective. In some ways, the rate of cheating doesn’t surprise me, because so many games (inadvertently?) construe failure as a waste of time rather than a learning opportunity.

2) Another topic that came to mind from reading this exchange was how the ultimate reward, for some players (and to a limited extent, I include myself in this category), has shifted from reaching the planned in-game conclusion to deducing the hidden mechanics that govern the game. It’s not enough to finally be in the presence of the Wizard; we are compelled to look for the man behind the curtain.

Because total understanding is usually accomplished through a community spading effort, rather than each player working independently, this re-definition of victory ends up awfully close to your perception of cheating. Should game designers embrace this re-definition of victory? If so, how? If not, why?

[...] [...]

[...] You’re all cheaters: Continuation of Raph Koster’s musings on cheating and RMT (real money transfer) in online [...]