In an interview of Ron Gilbert by Tim Schafer, the topic of video game hints comes up. The issue is this: that game hints take an element from gameplay away from the player, regardless of whether or not the player prefers to have them or not. Today, the only game that doesn't have easily accessible hints, cheats, or answers to it is one that has no popularity whatsoever. This is because of the internet. People will ask for help, and post help on the internet for just about every single game out there. Before the rise of the internet, games were not necessarily any harder, but the puzzles and challenges were what they were meant to be: puzzles and challenges. With such a vast world full of solutions and hints and cheats online, the level of the challenge befalls entirely on the player when it comes to such a thing. Is it the duty of a player to play through a game as intended, and to try and solve the puzzles and challenges strictly within the confines of the game? Does it speak to the player's integrity? Or is it, perhaps, the responsibility of a game maker to accommodate for the internet, and count on the fact that players will certainly post solutions and strategies online for anyone to see. Or is it totally amoral? Is the level of hints and cheats that a player use a personal gaming choice, and the choice to make a game challenging in different aspects purely a creative choice?
Cheating carries a huge negative connotation. It's fair to say that in any fair competitive system, cheating is immoral- not in the same sense that murder is immoral, but immoral nonetheless. Cheating is old. It's been going on for centuries- no for thousands of years. One of the earliest recorded cheats was "Eupolus of Thessaly," who allegedly bribed his opponents in... well... this is just classic: boxing. The punishment for cheating in Ancient Greece was a fine. Throughout history, cheating has always been a competitive issue. But now a new kind of cheating has sprung up. We can cheat on something that is 100% personal- not a test, or a relationship, or a competition- which calls to question whether or not it can actually be considered cheating at all. Cheat codes are one thing, and they are different from looking up hints and answers. To some, cheat codes are a disgrace to the integrity of a true gamer, but to others, like myself, cheat codes are similar to game mods: a method used to expand a game, and open up new possibilities that we wouldn't have experienced otherwise. To some though, cheat codes are just an easy way through the game, and I've used them for that too. I'll agree though, that using cheats in a multi-player game is immoral, if it is a competitive one. But how do cheat codes differ from the other two?
While the purpose of cheat codes is debatable, the intention behind looking up hints and solutions online is not. If a player looks those up, there is no question about it: they want the game to be easier. Is that a bad thing? I don't think that it is, in and of itself, immoral. I think the problem here is either laziness, or negligence. Especially when it comes to indie games, game makers put their time and effort into making the game work, and when they do that, most of the time, they have an idea in mind of how challenging they want the game to be. So in some sense, players are paying disrespect to the people who made the game when they don't make an honest attempt to solve the puzzles themselves. Sometimes, players don't care. Again, I'm not going to say that it is in and of itself immoral- to not care. Not everyone who plays games is what the gaming community calls "a true gamer." So I think it is necessary to differentiate from the casual gamer who plays games for only a short period of time, solely for the purpose of entertainment, and not the challenge; and the competitive gamer, who gains more from completing difficult levels and challenges. Some players will often only become competitive gamers under certain conditions, and that's something that we should also recognize. A phrase that a lot of high school and middle school teachers through around a lot is "cheating yourself," as in: if you cheat on a test, you're really only cheating yourself. And it's true, you can cheat yourself to an A, you can cheat yourself into a good college, and as Frank Abagnale Jr. showed us, you can cheat yourself to fame, fortune, and even a legitimate job, that employs your skills in cheating. So is the gamer who uses hints and finds solutions online really just cheating themselves out of the play experience that the makers of the game intended?
That calls into mind the next question: is it the responsibility of the game designers to account for the biggest cheat and hint tool ever seen? On one level, I would say so. But on a totally different level, I would disagree. I think what it really comes down to is "what does the designer want players to experience?" Any game designer who tries to force a player to sit through their puzzle is going to have a miserable time getting people to play their game, especially if they also want the player to experience the satisfaction of solving an incredibly difficult puzzle. I think a good example that I keep hearing for this is the infamous Water Temple in Silent Hill. I have not played it myself, so if you have no idea what I'm talking about, you should find out secondhand yourself, instead of me explaining it to you. Or... play through it yourself so you know what I think I'm talking about. Another example that I am more familiar with, is the combination to get the runestone in the Mothership level of Gauntlet: Dark Legacy. If you've ever played that before, you know what I'm talking about, especially if you hit the wrong switches the first time around, and got stuck in the lengthy process of resetting them, which often meant restarting the level. In either example, you can just go look up the solution online. So how does a designer make a game challenging even with hints and solutions online? I see two solutions: 1st, make the game so difficult, and the puzzles so challenging that no one in their right mind would take the time to figure it out; or 2nd, make the game challenging through other elements: such as its mechanics and overall difficulty. As I already mentioned, the 1st method is likely to make players ragequit. The problem with the 2nd method, however, is that you have to remove the puzzles from the game, or at least give them a back seat in the game's story.
Unfortunately, I don't think that there is a way to force a player to solve the puzzles in a game on their own. It all boils down to the type of player that's playing the game. Some players will enjoy the difficulty of the puzzle, and others will not. Those who do not will either quit or look up the answers. I suppose the result of this is the rationalization that certain games are meant for certain players, and in that sense, games become more subjective when it comes to what makes a good game, and what makes a bad game, simply because different mechanics and challenges appeal to different types of players- much like horror movies, fear is highly subjective and, for the most part, unpredictable- and so is gaming.
No comments:
Post a Comment