Are Cheat Codes declining in games?

Have you ever noticed that games these days mostly consists of "Unlock A if you complete B" or just gaining achievements? In console terms (well to be honest I never owned and played a PS3, Wii (well only except the people I live with have one and they mostly play Rockband on it with visitors during every Friday which I played it a couple of times but I didn't get in to it very much) and Xbox360 game all my my life but this is based on what I mostly saw in cheat code websites as of late) what happened to the button combination commands that gives you invulnerability, all weapons, infinite ammo, etc?

Also the last modern game I ever played on the PC was Left 4 Dead 2 and I remember how incredibly difficult it was to even get the console commands working compared to the first game (as if I've been noticing that entering cheats on the PC have been getting more & more difficult) till point I just shut it off and never played it again.

Absolutely. Cheat codes are much more akin to hacks or command line variables than anything else. G4 Tech-TV used to have a tv show called Cheat! that would give away cheat codes to a popular game on each episode. I remember watching an episode on Doom 3 and being so monumentally baffled on how complex it was to gain the same cheat code results as it would be to type idkfa on MAP01 of Doom 2.

Its not like video games need cheat codes anyway. Their way too easy these days anyway and will do anything to keep you from wanting to ragequit.

40oz said:

Its not like video games need cheat codes anyway. Their way too easy these days anyway and will do anything to keep you from wanting to ragequit.

I don't know what games you've been playing but they're sure not the ones I've been unfortunate enough to blow my cash on, only to end up with something I'll never finish.

40oz said:

Its not like video games need cheat codes anyway. Their way too easy these days anyway and will do anything to keep you from wanting to ragequit.

Have you actually played any modern games? Particularly on the hardest difficultly?

caco_killer said:

Have you actually played any modern games? Particularly on the hardest difficultly?

He's said it before, no. He just watches his brother play them and bases his judgments off that.

caco_killer said:

Have you actually played any modern games? Particularly on the hardest difficultly?

Most games don't even have optional difficulty settings. And for the ones that do, yes I do play on the hardest difficulty settings. In many cases they are intentionally unplayable or the consequences for losing are pretty much removed.

40oz said:

Its not like video games need cheat codes anyway. Their way too easy these days anyway and will do anything to keep you from wanting to ragequit.

I'll mostly agree. A few games are still difficult (Megaman 9?), but the last few I played were stupidly easy (Metal Gear Solid 4). Not to say they weren't fun, it's just that I felt jipped.

It's not like you need cheat codes these days anyway. Every game either has an official strategy guide that holds your hand every step of the way, a waypoint system overlaid on linear level design, or simply extra-linear level design.

Cheats are console commands that are ran either when you pickup an item (not a cheat) or a command that runs the command when the item is picked up!

These new things aren't cheats!
It's like a game for powerpoint!

40oz said:

or the consequences for losing are pretty much removed.

Like having to start the game all over again?

Yeah, it was an incentive to not die/lose. But the games (I presume) we are referring to were considerably shorter than the games of today. It's an amusingly common complaint by critics that games these days are "too short", when in reality they are about 8x the size of yesteryear titles. Generally speaking.

DoomUK said:

But the games (I presume) we are referring to were considerably shorter than the games of today.

I wouldn't agree with that.

Gez said:

I wouldn't agree with that.

As a rule of thumb I'd say they are. Why else would I be able to rip through many old Mega Drive/Genesis games in less than an hour when I take a trip down memory lane with an emulator? Games that I recall spending several days trying to complete.

On the other hand, compare an RPG like Ultima Underworld 2 with, for example, its "spiritual successor" Arx Fatalis. The more modern of the two is a lot easier and a lot shorter.

I remember that for some reason, many Doom cheat sources didn't get the IDSPISPOPD/IDCLIP distinction right. Usually only the former was published as working on both Doom and Doom II. Meh.

DoomUK said:

Like having to start the game all over again?

Yeah, it was an incentive to not die/lose. But the games (I presume) we are referring to were considerably shorter than the games of today. It's an amusingly common complaint by critics that games these days are "too short", when in reality they are about 8x the size of yesteryear titles. Generally speaking.

I think you're right. Games like Contra or Streets of Rage, or Super Mario Bros. can be beaten in less than an hour if you are really good at them. However, losing all your lives forces you to play the game from the start again, so the only way to beat the game is to have the enthusiasm to keep trying. I liked the way Partition36 described how the evolution of games "hold your hand every step of the way," I feel like that describes how I feel about it.

The last game I remember playing on the hardest difficulty setting was Call of Duty 4. I'll admit, the towelheads chucked grenades at you like no tomorrow and were fiendishly good sharpshooters, but the game literally autosaved for you every few minutes, so you never lost any progress. You still kept all your weapons, all your ammo, nearly all of your body count. There was no incentive to try to be better at the game because you were always restarted almost exactly where you left off.

40oz said:

I remember watching an episode on Doom 3 and being so monumentally baffled on how complex it was to gain the same cheat code results as it would be to type idkfa on MAP01 of Doom 2.

"Give all"?

40oz said:

Most games don't even have optional difficulty settings. And for the ones that do, yes I do play on the hardest difficulty settings. In many cases they are intentionally unplayable or the consequences for losing are pretty much removed.

Actually most games do have difficuly settings, particulary shooters and action games. A lot of Japanese games do not have them, but a great majority of games from other countries do.

40oz said:

I think you're right. Games like Contra or Streets of Rage, or Super Mario Bros. can be beaten in less than an hour if you are really good at them. However, losing all your lives forces you to play the game from the start again, so the only way to beat the game is to have the enthusiasm to keep trying. I liked the way Partition36 described how the evolution of games "hold your hand every step of the way," I feel like that describes how I feel about it.

The last game I remember playing on the hardest difficulty setting was Call of Duty 4. I'll admit, the towelheads chucked grenades at you like no tomorrow and were fiendishly good sharpshooters, but the game literally autosaved for you every few minutes, so you never lost any progress. You still kept all your weapons, all your ammo, nearly all of your body count. There was no incentive to try to be better at the game because you were always restarted almost exactly where you left off.

You do realize that those games were designed that way because of hardware limitations, right? And Super Mario Bros actually has a continue system. If those games took eight hours to complete with no way to resume your progress, and force you to start over from the beginning, nobody would finish the game. Any PC game that lets you save anywhere could also be considered easy. Nobody is stopping you from saving constantly.

As for COD4 on Veteran, I don't believe you. You just dismiss the game's difficulty based on a checkpoint system and give no examples I know of three people who beat that game on Veteran, and they all have stories of how difficult is was, particularly the levels "One Shot, One Kill" and "No Fighting in the War Room." Sure, there's checkpoints alright, but it is not easy to get to them at all. You pretty much have to memorize where the enemies are coming from since you have no time to react once they start shooting you.

Then there's the bonus level, "Mile High Club." On this level, you have to rush through a small army of terrorists to rescue and evacuate a hostage. On Veteran, you have one minute to do this. In addition to having to memorize where the enemies come out, you have to be very skilled with Grenades and Flashbangs. At the end, you must kill the hostage-taker with a headshot or you fail the mission.

caco_killer said:

You do realize that those games were designed that way because of hardware limitations, right?

In the case of arcade games, that was not the only reason. A game that was challenging enough to be nigh-unbeatable meant that there was always the possibility, even remote, of beating the current high-score. A good incentive to keep inserting coins.

That's why you also had infinite games. Like a pinball. You only reach game over when you lose, you can't win the game, all you can win is a good place on the high score.

Gez said:

In the case of arcade games, that was not the only reason. A game that was challenging enough to be nigh-unbeatable meant that there was always the possibility, even remote, of beating the current high-score. A good incentive to keep inserting coins.

That's why you also had infinite games. Like a pinball. You only reach game over when you lose, you can't win the game, all you can win is a good place on the high score.

Heh, which leads to his addiction rant. :p

It's because online play and achievements are incompatible with cheat codes.

The days of Tyrian and ROTT are over.

I don't really miss the cheat codes for giving all the weapons or anything, as those were mostly for debugging purposes or to see parts of the game without having to play through earlier levels, ala Sonic. What I -do- miss are the cheat codes that did a bunch of really cool stuff, or were just funny. Goldeneye had a bunch of those, as well as a lot of other games. Now we just don't see very many.

caco_killer said:

As for COD4 on Veteran, I don't believe you. You just dismiss the game's difficulty based on a checkpoint system and give no examples I know of three people who beat that game on Veteran, and they all have stories of how difficult is was, particularly the levels "One Shot, One Kill" and "No Fighting in the War Room." Sure, there's checkpoints alright, but it is not easy to get to them at all. You pretty much have to memorize where the enemies are coming from since you have no time to react once they start shooting you.

Then there's the bonus level, "Mile High Club." On this level, you have to rush through a small army of terrorists to rescue and evacuate a hostage. On Veteran, you have one minute to do this. In addition to having to memorize where the enemies come out, you have to be very skilled with Grenades and Flashbangs. At the end, you must kill the hostage-taker with a headshot or you fail the mission.

This. Call of Duty 4 was truly difficult on Veteran. It took a lot of strategy, especially in the later levels. And Mile High Club is a bitch.

This can't be said about MW2, though. It's only hard when you break the cheap sequence of events or get separated from the untouchable important characters.

40oz said:

In many cases they are intentionally unplayable

I'm interested in examples. Would you consider Doom 3 Nightmare Mode to be one?


Either way, if you really enjoy a game but think it's too easy, you can always challenge yourself by making your own difficulty. For example, beat a modern FPS using only the default sidearm and melee weapon. This is similar to how Doomers sometimes challenge themselves to beat a level in "Tyson mode", isn't it?

Spleen said:

For example, beat a modern FPS using only the default sidearm and melee weapon.

Heh, I remember doing this in Far Cry and giving up halfway through when I stopped finding pistol ammo anywhere. So much for that idea. :P

DuckReconMajor said:

This. Call of Duty 4 was truly difficult on Veteran. It took a lot of strategy, especially in the later levels. And Mile High Club is a bitch.

This can't be said about MW2, though. It's only hard when you break the cheap sequence of events or get separated from the untouchable important characters.

I found MW2 somewhat difficult but that had more to do with poor design than anything else. Particularly with the enemies carrying riot shields. There was one part near the end where you had to go up against several of them in a pretty cramped hallway. Normally this wouldn't be so bad but there were also a couple of catwalks above said hallway that enemies spawned on top of nonstop. To me, this is nothing more than the formula for a cluster fuck that relies heavily on pure luck to get through.

Spleen said:

I'm interested in examples. Would you consider Doom 3 Nightmare Mode to be one?

Doom3 on nightmare was the point of Doom3. Even monster closets work in Nightmare because you actually have a reason to be afraid of the thing coming out of the closet.

Spleen said:

I'm interested in examples. Would you consider Doom 3 Nightmare Mode to be one?

I haven't played Doom 3 on Nightmare mode because you have to unlock it, and I didn't own the game for a very long time, I borrowed it from my brother.

Half Life 2 was a game I really didn't like because even on the hardest difficulty you were still a bulletproof tank. And even on the hardest parts you get allies that give you health whenever you need it. Most of the difficulty relied on figuring out where to go next anyway.

Borderlands is another one. It uses RPG elements and a levelling up system so that if you were to replay the game and fight the highest level enemies, its pretty close to impossible because of the definitive rules of the game. You have to earn the game's idea of experience, unlike the actual experience you get from playing a game like Doom 2.

These games will make sure that you get the fullest experience from the game regardless of your skill level through tedious long-lasting gameplay, unlike the games I like where your enjoyment of the game is heavily founded on how good you are at playing it. There was a point in my life where I didn't like Doom 2 very much at all, but then I started playing maps like ChordG and Sigvatr's Cesspool and trained myself to get used to utilizing my full knowledge of the game and the Doom Guy's abilities, and now I'm finding the IWADs more fun than ever. Games these days don't really do that and just expect that everyone that plays them will suck and know nothing about the game so they don't want to tantalize the player by killing him for not being good at it right away.

40oz said:

I haven't played Doom 3 on Nightmare mode because you have to unlock it, and I didn't own the game for a very long time, I borrowed it from my brother.

+set g_nightmare 1

I miss cheat codes, TBH. I miss the likes of the Action Replay/Game Genie carts and some of the cool stuff you could do with them which could bring a new challenge as well as the "I Win" button. Cheats have declined with the advent of online gaming in consoles and the insta-ban politics of their servers. Not to mention the culture of "achievements". Codemasters used to do really good cheats, most of them completely bonkers (anyone remember the tank in TOCA Touring Cars?).

NEWSFLASH: games don't have "levels", "rounds", "lives" or even "score" anymore :-(

Games have changed. If that's a problem get into game development and make your own damn games. Otherwise shut up.