"Cheating"

[Moraelin]

Reading a few messages around here got me wondering. Why's "cheating" regarded as such a supreme shame, anyway? It looks like some people would rather admit murder than that they "cheat" in a stupid single-player game. Why?

I mean, I've seen quite a few messages starting with "I wouldn't have tried to cheat myself, but..." and then the author proceeds to complain about the saved random seed. If you don't cheat, why is it your problem? Heck, if you didn't try to cheat, how do you even KNOW that the seed is saved?

So let me be the first one who says that I WOULD have cheated. Now NORMALLY I don't do it with save and reload, because it's boring. Normally I go for a trainer instead. But WTH, Civ 3's combat produces such wild results that it almost begged a reload.

Yes, I cheat like a pig in over half the games I play. In fact, one of the reasons I've learned Z80 and then 8086 assembly was to hack into games with a debugger and give myself infinite funds, lives or whatnot. That was back before cheat codes and "trainer creator" programs became standard. I have like a couple dozen "trained" ZX Spectrum games under my belt, and almost as many on the PC.

So why's it such a shame? Why's it even called "cheating"? In a single player game it's "cheating" whom? Myself? If that's "cheating", then puting more sugar or cream in my morning coffee is "cheating". And I'm sure someone could argue that Real Men can drink their coffee black, just as it is argued that Real Men can try and try again just to beat a stupid game. Yes, they can, but some of us find it more fun otherwise. If I like my coffee with more sugar, it's between me and myself. If I like my games easier, it's between me and myself.

In fact, I'll go even further and say: if I even need to use a cheat, it's not MY failure, it's failure on the part of the developpers. They failed to entertain me. Their minimum difficulty level, if they even had difficulty levels at all, was not low enough.

[SixArmedMan]

I wouldn't say it's so much a shame but rather, a sense that you're getting some kind of unfair advantage over the computer and thus, taking the challenge out of the game. If there's no challenge, then there's no fun. So then what's the point of playing? Apparently, the game is too easy for some people that cheating WOULD take the fun out of playing.

Then again, there's really no fun if you don't cheat anyways so...

Umm... What was the question again???

[GodSpawn]

That's all fair enough. It's up to each individual how they want to play.

[Libertarian]

In speaking for myself on this matter, let me first assure you that I won't presume to impose my own moral standards on another man. I will follow the moral code I choose. And if another man chooses another, then his choice is between him and his God or conscience, so long as his choice in no way abridges mine.

That said, I will judge, however I see fit, the moral code that he has chosen. Though I won't begrudge his choice, I might still condemn it. Not him — IT. That is, it might not be a choice I would make for myself. Likewise, I expect him, while not necessarily adopting my own point of view, to respect me, if not my viewpoint.

I view cheating, like any other matter of morality, through three primary ethical models: charity, noncoercion, and self-interest. These three mirror my overall worldview, which is a customized blend of Christianity, Libertarianism, and Objectivism.

As I see it, the one whom a man defrauds when he cheats is the most important person in his life. As the sole steward of his unique moral journey, when he chooses to cheat, he chooses to lie to himself, to deprive himself of reality, and in so doing defrauds his own conscience.

He who cannot be trusted for the little things cannot be trusted for the greater things. If he cheats in Civ, then he cheats in golf as well, and indeed in every facet of his life, for the same rationalization that is used to reconcile his cheating with his ethics can easily be made to accomodate how he deals with other people — those who are less important, less critical, less significant in his own life than himself.

The same character trait that dismisses any concern over cheating can as easily dismiss any concern at all. Whether he's cheating at a game, cheating on a test, or cheating to breach a contract, a man who cheats has, in my view, decided that he is worthless. I cannot trust such a man to judge me as anything greater than himself.

That's how I see it. Your mileage may vary.

(edited to correct syntax)

[Solver]

Moarelin, I can say that I will never want to play multiplayer with you already.

Yes, it's up to everyone how to play, but where TF is fun if you cheat?

[Moraelin]

Solver: I've already mentioned in a few places that I'm talking about "single player" games. MP is a whole different issue. And the fun is seeing what happens next, same as when watching a movie. It's probably different from YOUR idea of fun, but, hey, it just shows we're not identical people.

Libertarian: no offense, but methinks that there you have a case of not seeing the woods for the trees. It's just a stupid game, not reality, nor anything else. I've already stated in other places that I play a game just like I watch a movie. It's a way to pass the time away, not something to prove I'm superior or anything. Same as, say, watching a movie on DVD.

It's just entertainment. No more, no less. And some people seem to lose track of what the focus for entertainment is. The focus, for myself is: me having fun. _I_ am the one to be _entertained_. That's the whole reason why I buy a game or a movie on DVD, not just to inflate someone's sales figures. And if _I_ choose to maximize _my_ fun, without hurting anyone in the process, why is it something bad? Seems to me like it's only the sane approach. If I decide it's more fun for me to fast-forward over a boring part of a movie, then I WILL do that. Because again, the only reason I even watch the movie at all in the first place is to have fun, not to prove that I'm a Real Man who can endure through the boring sequences. Same with games, same with books, and same with any other form of entertainment.

Besides, I fail to see what does "morality" have to do with how I play the games, or with how I watch the movies. If I choose to fast-forward over some parts of a movie, what's "morality" got to do with it? Nothing. I'm not fast-forwarding anyone else's movie.

Methinks some people just confuse "morality", with some imaginary right to rule other people's lives.

[Solver]

Originally posted by Moraelin
Solver: I've already mentioned in a few places that I'm talking about "single player" games. MP is a whole different issue. And the fun is seeing what happens next, same as when watching a movie. It's probably different from YOUR idea of fun, but, hey, it just shows we're not identical people.

Sure. But if you cheat in SP, it makes you partially suspicious in MP. At least for me.

And yes, I've never used the cheats in other civ games, because *to me*, the FUN in Civ is challenge - having to compete with the others, losing a city or two, having them do something better than I do, not marching with Cavalry during the Bronze Age.

[Libertarian]

Methinks some people just confuse "morality", with some imaginary right to rule other people's lives.

Hmmm... Well, as I said plainly, I apply my own morality only to myself. I presume no authority whatsoever over you or your life. Again, your choices are between you and your God or conscience, not between you and me.

If a man wishes to cheat his own experience, it's not my problem — so long as I am NOT forced to have dealings with him that require trust.

(edited to correct spelling)

[Jodo Kast]

Well since we are selecting who we play 'Fantasy MultiPlayer', I choose not to play with either of ya because everytime I win this is what I will hear:

"You cheated!"

We are ALL still beta-testing this game, so I think it's GREAT if you push the game to it's limit. Don't do it if it scares ya!!

Let's see how you fair up against an enemy AI or human that does NOT hesitate to cheat, and you start the game at 50000 gold.

I think it's fair to say you won't release the best strategy until it's too late and my legionaries are pounding on your door.

[Moraelin]

Libertarian: I'm not even sure where the hey does the "trust" factor come in. Trust me with... what? With knowing better how I want to play the game?

I could be wrong, but your argument seems to be based mainly on the idea that "cheaters" somehow lie to themselves, shield themselves from reality, etc. That's actually false. I KNOW there are whole genres where my skills suck. I KNOW there are whole genres where I lack the patience and would get severely bored without a cheat. (Point in case: RPG's and doing hundreds of random battles just to survive in the next area.) Not only I know it, I'll freely admit it.

I just don't care. So some of my gaming skills suck. So what? So do my painting skills, music skills, mountaineering skills, acrobatic skills, lockpicking skills, and so on. Yes, I couldn't paint if my life depended on it, and I couldn't lockpick my way out of a wet paper bag. I KNOW that. I don't need to delude myself about any of that. So what? Those skills (mad gaming skillz included) are just a bunch of skills I've never really needed in the first place.

Again, I know very well when I suck at a game. Yep, there's no two ways about it. I royally suck at it. But I choose to play the game nevertheless. (As opposed to taking it back to the shop.) What IS morally wrong with that? No, really.

Solver: if you really want to talk about MP, personally I think people who cheat in MP should be skinned alive. There is very little use for cheating in MP, except to ruin other people's fun, and sure enough that's what it's mostly used for.

But SP? It's not like the AI's whole day will be ruined because I cheated.

[Libertarian]

Moraelin,

I am neither your conscience nor your God. Your rationale is wasted on me. Pardon me, but I feel all icky... like I'm reading a man's diary.

As I already explained, I don't hold you to my standard. Nor do I think any less of you as a human being for having a different standard than I. And I do not think that the standard that I hold has any absolute superiority over the standard you hold.

Like you, I have my own moral journey. I cannot trust other men without first trusting myself. And I cannot trust myself if I cheat.

[Moraelin]

The whole point was that modifying a SP game isn't cheating in the first place. I'm not cheating anyone, nor telling any lies. It's all between me and myself, and me knows very well what myself is doing. (And viceversa)

But then, so be it. I never imagined (nor intended) I'd convert everyone to the One True Faith (TM). You play games your way, I play them my way.

[Libertarian]

It's all between me and myself, and me knows very well what myself is doing.

[...closing door... ...washing hands...]

[Moraelin]

Well, I guess it does however answer my question. (Why do people avoid admitting that they're "cheating" in a SP game.) NOW I understand. Thanks.

[Akka]

Originally posted by Libertarian
He who cannot be trusted for the little things cannot be trusted for the greater things. If he cheats in Civ, then he cheats in golf as well, and indeed in every facet of his life, for the same rationalization that is used to reconcile his cheating with his ethics can easily be made to accomodate how he deals with other people — those who are less important, less critical, less significant in his own life than himself.

The same character trait that dismisses any concern over cheating can as easily dismiss any concern at all. Whether he's cheating at a game, cheating on a test, or cheating to breach a contract, a man who cheats has, in my view, decided that he is worthless. I cannot trust such a man to judge me as anything greater than himself.

Ok, as long as I'm still able to read english, I can sum up what you said here with : "someone who cheats in Civ3 is untrustworthy". You even extended it saying that the same lack of self-pride that allows him to cheat in Civ3 could allow him to cheat on exams, contracts and makes him consider he's worthless.
I'm just wondering : are you mentally sick, mad, or just joking ?

If he cheats in Civ, then he cheats in golf as well, and indeed in every facet of his life, for the same rationalization that is used to reconcile his cheating with his ethics can easily be made to accomodate how he deals with other people

Already quoted, but had to quote it again just to be sure that I was reading it well and it was not going from my imagination.
So if I have the mental pattern that allows me to cheat in a SP game, I have the mental pattern that allow me to cheat, lie and deceive in any other task ?
Seems that's YOUR mental pattern that has some flaws.

If a man wishes to cheat his own experience, it's not my problem — so long as I am NOT forced to have dealings with him that require trust.

God, I'm so glad that most people don't have the same sick reasoning. I cheat like a whore in all SP games. I can't even remember a SP game where I have NOT cheated. So well, I'm not trustworthy.

Especially funny for me considering that I put most of my pride in the trust that others can put on me - and I don't know anyone that can tell rightfully about me that he's trust was not well placed.

Sure. But if you cheat in SP, it makes you partially suspicious in MP. At least for me.

And yes, I've never used the cheats in other civ games, because *to me*, the FUN in Civ is challenge - having to compete with the others, losing a city or two, having them do something better than I do, not marching with Cavalry during the Bronze Age.

Same paranoic maniac as Lib ?
Watched too much X-files ?
My personnal fun in SP is the adaptability of the game. I enjoy from time to time a challenging game where I'll have to put all my will and skills to win. I enjoy as much an easy game where I can crush the AI easily. I don't have any hesitations about changing my civ to make it an uber-civ nearly invincible if this can be fun for me. If this makes me suspect in your eyes for MP, well, I think I won't miss playing with you then