Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
Nintendo Businesses Entertainment Games

New Super Mario Bros. Wii To Include Official "Cheat" 275

Posted by Soulskill
from the i-can-wiin dept.
phlack writes "Yahoo Games has an article describing a new mode in Nintendo's upcoming New Super Mario Bros. Wii that will allow the player to activate a 'demo' mode to get out of a hard situation. Nintendo plans on incorporating this into future games. Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?" They actually patented this system as well.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

New Super Mario Bros. Wii To Include Official "Cheat"

Comments Filter:
  • Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.

    I may catch on with the casual gamers, though.

    • by murdocj (543661) on Friday June 19, 2009 @07:54AM (#28387793)

      Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'.

      True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game. For example, in one WWII game (Medal of Honor?) I was stuck at this one point where I was in a town with a sniper. I tried everything I could to get the guy and he just kept nailing me. After hours of game time spread over a few weeks of realtime, I finally activated a god mode code and went outside and looked for him where a walkthru said he would be. Even with all that, he was hard to see. Once I nailed him, I switched off the cheat and enjoyed the rest of the game. If I hadn't done that, I would have simply given up.

      I recently have had an experienece in a game where I was really frustrated by the final battle. I looked it up and it turned out I simply wasn't strafing around that much, I was trying to use cover, which didn't work. That was cheating too, to get the strategy, but it's the same thing... I gave it a good try of many, many attempts and finally gave in and looked up a cheat.

      Ultimately, looking up a strategy or using a code isn't as satisfying as doing it on your own, but sometimes you just want to move on and see the rest of the game.

      • Talking about Medal of Honor, it pisses me off because of friendly AI. I mean, in a certain level, I have to keep my squad alive, and there's a load of German snipers around us; how the fuck do I tell my buddies to GET INTO A BUILDING AND STAY THERE while I go outside and hunt down the snipers?
      • Re: (Score:2, Insightful)

        by rjejr (921275)

        Many games have a hard part that's too difficult to get through, so using this ocassionally doesn't seem so bad. I don't remember this much uproar when God of War let people play in "easy mode" after dieing a few times, and there are other games that do this as well.
        I would have liked this option in the Jak and Daxter series. In the first admittedly easy but very fun game there is a fish catching mini-game which has absolutey nothing to do with the rest of the gameplay. In Jak 2 there is a mission where you

      • by ifrag (984323)

        True, but sometimes it's necessary to bypass some ridiculously hard part of a game.

        I'm seeing this happen in several titles now, and in my opinion it's just bad design. Where there is some ridiculous difficulty "spike" which is much harder than the content before it AND the content after it. The expected difficulty curve for a game starts low and goes high with maybe the occasional outliers (small outliers mind) for boss fights or the like. I don't have any issue with a small spike here and there, but if

      • by rishistar (662278)

        I would welcome this - as someone who enjoys a good FPS but is not very good at them for example I loved the fact I could make myself invincible for 2 hard parts of Half Life 2, and then continue as normal. This meant I got to enjoy the rest of the game, unlike when I got stuck on Metroid Prime. For an FPS I'd still like to do that, though maybe its a different problem area to the Super Mario Bros jumping around puzzles that you have to defeat. But I'll stick to FPS on PC's over consoles for this reason.

        I w

        • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

          by elrous0 (869638) *
          What were the hard parts on HL2 you're talking about? I generally thought the game was pretty well designed. But there were two areas that did give me trouble too, though. There is one area where you have to shoot off a certain lock. I didn't know this and flailed around forever trying to figure out how to get past the area before I finally looked it up in a walkthrough and realized I was supposed to just shoot off the lock. Another part was the part where you have to take down the helicopter in the speed b
    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by camg188 (932324)
      "Winning by cheating just isn't the same as winning 'for real'." - lighten up, Francis.
      1. - A game is software. Good software gives you options and the more customizable, the better it is. God mode is just another option. If the user likes the option, it is good. This is no different than having adjustable difficulty level. If you don't like it, don't use it.
      2. - It's not cheating. It's users entertaining themselves. It would only be cheating if it was multiplayer and one of the players did it unbekno
  • by Bluebottel (979854) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:05AM (#28387205)
    Getting rid of the stupid moments and rushing towards the fun ones. Hope they include a 'unlock-all-so-i-dont-have-to-just-to-play-the-whole-game' cheat as well.
    Way to many games assume that i want to grind 25 hours to get that tiny little game mode which just happens to be the most fun part of it all.
    • You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.. of course, some games do take the grinding too far in an effort to make things more valuable, but there will always be plenty of unemployed or people or kids willing to waste their entire holidays to get something and then the developers have to make the next reward even more difficult to get to keep it rare/valuable.. :s

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by socrplayr813 (1372733)

        But I'm interested in the value of the the reward itself. I don't care about meaningless value attached to it because I worked for hours. While the sense of accomplishment is sometimes nice, I play for fun. If I want a sense of accomplishment, I'll do something that's actually meaningful.

        • Fair enough, if the mini-game itself truly is that much fun. I guess I'm just wondering if the drudgery beforehand makes the game actually seem more fun whereas in reality the mini-game isn't much better than any other game, it only seems fun compared to the rest. I just don't know any games that have mini-games that are better than the actual game. Probably because I don't usually play games that take 25 hours of grinding to get anywhere, with the exception being a couple of MUDs and MapleStory.

          • Re: (Score:3, Interesting)

            by socrplayr813 (1372733)

            Rereading my post, I see how it was a bit ambiguous. I don't usually play games that require that kind of work to unlock things. If the game is fun in its own right, then I'll play it, but I generally refuse to put hours into something if I'm not enjoying it.

            I think for some people, the work they put into achieving high levels or unlocking things in games does make it more fun. However, I think that's partially because many of them don't get enough of a sense of accomplishment from the rest of their life

      • by gbarules2999 (1440265) on Friday June 19, 2009 @10:37AM (#28389837)

        You may find that the reward doesn't seem as valuable if you haven't had to spend 25 hours of your life working so hard just to get it.

        The above sentence is the dumbest comment on this story yet.

        It isn't a "reward." It's part of the game. Why do I have to play ten hours of a shitty single player to unlock a mode in Super Smash Bros.? Why are all of the good courses locked off until you sell your goddamn soul to the game?

        That's not rewarding, that's just annoying as hell. When I buy a game, I assume that I'd be getting everything important unlocked out of the box. Unfortunately, I have to "earn" it, which just pisses me off even further. I don't play games to "defeat" and "earn" things, and then go to my friends on the playground and brag about how I beat the hardest mode. I play games to unwind and enjoy myself.

  • Good idea (Score:3, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:06AM (#28387207)

    I did my grind through Super Mario Brothers. I dropped a missile or twenty on mother brain. I actually beat Tyson after a couple of months. I flipped through contra, shooting my red, oversized, round bullets the entire way. Kid icarus was my bitch. It was all hard as balls, and I didn't have any built in cheats (Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.)

    It makes my elitist heart warm knowing that now I can add one more example into my video game "get off of my lawn" play-book.

    • Re:Good idea (Score:4, Insightful)

      by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Friday June 19, 2009 @08:18AM (#28388015)

      Justin Bailey doesn't count and you know it.

      Why, exactly, shouldn't it? For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?

      There's nothing wrong with having cheats available, really. For players who want to just breeze through the game, it saves them frustration, and for players who want a challenge, they don't have to use it. Everyone wins.

      • Why, exactly, shouldn't it?

        Uh... because when you're getting wrecked by those goddamn green hopping jerk bug things, you can't press "start," type in "Justin Bailey," kill them, turn the cheat off and then continue on.

        For that matter, Contra also had a cheat built-in. Or does that one "not count" too?

        Correct, it does not count. You can only activate it at the very beginning of the game, just like with Justin Bailey; you can't turn it on, pass a hard part, and then turn it off. That's what the summary is talking about.

  • Great idea! (Score:2, Insightful)

    by ZmeiGorynych (1229722)

    I want my games to be not very challenging but spectacular looking and amusing interactive movies, little more. Really hard intricate challenges is what work is for (well I'm lucky enough to have one of those).

    If other gamers want to derive a sense of achievement from really hard-to-master games, good for them - but with this, Nintendo is reaching another market, namely people like myself, who couldn't care less about whether it's 'cheating' or not because 'winning' is not the reason why they play games at

  • Both (Score:5, Insightful)

    by physicsphairy (720718) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:16AM (#28387267) Homepage

    Is this a good idea (to help relieve frustrations) or just sanctioned cheating?"

    Yes and yes. It does help who just want to see the next level and it does let people bypass the essential struggle of the game, thereby 'diminishing' the meaning of playing it.

    But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill. I would never use the cheat option, but I'm not going to fret myself into a furor that elsewhere in the privacy of their own homes people are enjoying the game differently.

    (I will however mercilessly mock any of my friends who are less uber than me. :p )

    • Re:Both (Score:4, Insightful)

      by techtoad (1068024) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:42AM (#28387391) Homepage
      I agree with physicphairy, even though many users will see this "demo" option as a cheat option that will diminish the game, its a nice idea for those who choose to use it. There have been so many games I have played for weeks, got stuck on a single level and not played the game again for years due to bordem and frustration. What about those times you lose your game saves by accident and want to make a quick journey back to the stage you reached in the game?* I say this is a good idea, cheaters can use it to cheat, genuine players have the option to bypass a stage that ruins their gameplay experience. *Obviously, some games that are more involved with choices and "collectable" itmes may not be this straight forward, but hey, its better than having to go all the way back to the begging after losing your gamesaves!
    • What's "content"? (Score:3, Interesting)

      by johannesg (664142)

      But, hey, you paid for the game, I say you should be able to access all of its content, regardless of your playing skill.

      If you think of content as just the graphics, or the levels, then I suppose this lets you access all the content. But if you think of content as the gameplay, then rather than letting you access it, this is taking it away from you (if you let it of course).

      I certainly understand the sentiment though. I've seen enough games with ridiculous difficulty spikes (usually when a boss appears) where I used cheats as well - or simply gave up.

  • In Soviet Nintendo, game plays you!

    ... and laughs all the way to the bank.

  • by bhunachchicken (834243) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:30AM (#28387349) Homepage
    It does make a good point, http://www.vgcats.com/comics/?strip_id=282 [vgcats.com]
  • Fantastic (Score:5, Interesting)

    by Jarlsberg (643324) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:40AM (#28387379) Journal
    Having kids (5 and 9), I would have to say this is fantastic. Games like Super Mario Galaxy are too hard for my youngest, and I constantly have to step in and help with the levels. Now, Super Mario Galaxy is quite fun, but any game gets quite dull after having to go through the same stuff over and over. Let's have cheat/demo modes and let the kids have fun. :)

    By the way, my youngest have no problems with Super Mario Sunshine - it is a much easier game for kids. Maybe it's the controller?

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by zwei2stein (782480)

      I would be worried myself rather than celebrating it.

      Game with 'easy way out' can make children expect something like that later in their life subconsciously and become frustrated.

      There is big deal made out of fact that most games expose children to very fast and very direct and simple reward-effort situations, that makes them less able to handle distant rewards.

      But again, kids were playing games before computers were around and Deferred gratification was there before computer games too.

      • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

        by sesshomaru (173381)

        Up-Down-Up-Down-Left-Right-Left

        Help Me

        Heck, I'm 39, and after being killed by Rift Entities one too many times I decided to go to "Casual" mode in the Ghostbusters video game. You know why? Because I don't care anymore...

        This is because after a hard grueling day of work (or for a child, school), I don't want to come home to a hard/grueling video game, and never did.

        We challenge our kid by making sure she keeps her grades up, if she wants to play Cooking Mama in her free time, that's her own affair.

        I'll ad

  • I like options (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Phoenix (2762) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:40AM (#28387383)

    For the hard-core gamer I'm sure that this is considered the height of EVIL and is something of a hell-worthy trespass for them.

    However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.

    There are games out there with very in-depth stories and as the game progresses and gets harder, many find that a particular section is flat-out beyond them and the only way they'll ever get to see the end of the story is to look up cheats, walkthroughs...or now this new system.

    There are times when I've asked someone to get me through one little annoying section that I've tried for hours to defeat...at times even WITH the walkthrough. Being told how to do something is not the same as being able to do it with some of the "twitch" games out there where the solution involves precise timing that many hard-core and/or avid gamers develop. I get help with that "one" spot and I'll beat the rest of the game on my own in my own time.

    This is a good thing and it gives an option and a choice for the players. They can choose to beat the game on their own, or they can choose to get a little help. Let the game give these options and let the players decide. It's the best way.

    • However for the casual gamer (say someone who doesn't have the time required to develop the "Mad Skillz" needed to play these games) this is a godsend.

      Or, you know, gamers that play games for "fun" rather than "frustrating difficulty spikes that aren't fun at all to ascend."

  • w...t...f (Score:5, Funny)

    by Anonymous Coward on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:41AM (#28387389)

    So I'm almost finished reading the article summary, already thinking up my response and about to post, when as I get to the end of the summary I read

    "They actually patented this system [slashdot.org] as well."

    Just like that. With a link. FROM THE EDITOR.
    Just an offhand reference to something they happen to remember, right? WRONG because it belies the fact that THE EDITOR TOOK IT UPON THEMSELVES TO DIG AROUND BEFORE POSTING AND SERIOUSLY LINK TO PERTINENT EARLIER COVERAGE!! Where am I, engadget? What is happening? Who did this? It must be Taco, right, he's the only one who takes Slashdot for journalism. Nope: the editor is "soulskill". W...T...F

    I have to go for a walk, air out my mind a little. This is some serious shit going on right here.

  • by dr_wheel (671305) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:44AM (#28387415)

    ... especially for casual gamers and kids. I have a young daughter who loves the original SMB that I downloaded through the VC, but her frustration level can get to the point where she doesn't want to play it anymore. Something like this would be nice for her and casual gamers if implemented properly. But I also think they should also insert some sort of bonus ending or perk for players who don't need to cheat to win.

    Is it fair to give her an advantage when I didn't have one myself at her age? I think so. At least maybe she won't start throwing nintendo controllers across the goddamn room like I used to.

    • Re: (Score:3, Funny)

      by SausageOfDoom (930370)

      I wonder if that's actually something against it. Say what you like about games, but at least they teach children that if you persevere at something you'll eventually succeed.

      Although I guess my relentless practice and eventual awesome skill with quake didn't translate through to relentless revision and eventual awesome skill with exams. Which is why I failed most of them and am now unemployable.

      Never mind.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by Spatial (1235392)
      Assuming it's a 2D platformer, I think one of the most elegant solutions would be alter the level layout after repeated failures, or if you're on your last life.

      It's what I'd do if I were making a platformer. It's really easy to implement and levels the playing field a bit. Perhaps literally!
  • I have to admit I like the way the Lego Indiana Jones series does it. You die, but, you immediately respawn fairly close to where you died.

  • "cheating" (Score:5, Insightful)

    by Tom (822) on Friday June 19, 2009 @06:45AM (#28387423) Homepage Journal

    When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.

    In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it? Seriously, that's like saying your favourite poet can only be read in candle light on a stormy night, because doing it any other way would ruin the atmosphere.

    No, "cheating" does not describe this at all. There's no party that is being cheated on, after all.

    • by tepples (727027)

      When I'm competing against other humans, "cheating" is an appropriate term.

      In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me.

      When you play offline but upload your score online, such as achievements in Xbox 360 games, the line between single-player and multiplayer becomes blurred.

      • by Tom (822)

        Which is an extremely easy to solve problem, especially when the cheat mode is official - just mark whether the score was reached with or without cheating, or even with how much cheating.

    • Re:"cheating" (Score:4, Interesting)

      by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Friday June 19, 2009 @08:28AM (#28388113)

      In a single-player game, that I paid for, the interaction is between me and something owned by me. Its purpose is my entertainment. Challenge is part of that, but if I want to use an easy way, what could anyone possibly have against it?

      I agree, but there are some jackass gamers out there who feel that the very presence of such a cheat option is something offensive and terrible. It's not enough to challenge themselves, they must force everyone else to take on the same challenge.

      Then again, that's why those idiots have no friends.

  • Is this really a completely new idea, or just an extension of what Valve games have done for ages?

    In all the HL2 series (and maybe before that) you've been able to change the general difficulty between the three levels mid-game. I normally do fairly well on "normal" settings in games, but I did once find this feature useful (in HL2, the prison complex, I forget exactly where on the level) for getting past a frustrating point so I could stop banging my head against it and get on with enjoying the rest of the

    • by Jarlsberg (643324)
      You can take it too far as well. The new Prince of Persia is going too far, in that you really can't ever die, and that gets boring real fast. Pity, because the previous Prince of Persia games were rather good.
    • by wagnerrp (1305589)
      There was some intelligence in the DMC games where if you continually died in the same spot, it would eventually offer you an easy mode.
    • Re: (Score:3, Informative)

      by loftwyr (36717)
      And most games picked it up from Nethack as you could use the Wizard Mode to change into invulnerability and complete the game. You couldn't keep your score but that's never stopped people from using it.
  • I think this could be used a lot differently than people are imagining. In just about any game with an "easy" mode it's already absurdly easy to play. The big problem as I see it though is there are probably a lot of people who can play on normal/hard who don't even bother. Past history has taught them that if they play on harder difficulties they'll eventually run into some nasty spot that was poorly designed and is so frustrating that they just want to quit. Thus a lot of people might choose more

  • Might be good (Score:3, Interesting)

    by Ksempac (934247) on Friday June 19, 2009 @07:25AM (#28387613)
    If this means game companies can stop worrying about frustrated casual gamers and start making their game harder and longer then I say "go for it".

    I'm sick and tired of both the debilitating trend and shortening trend in the video game industry. I've got a friend which enjoys video game but isn't good at it and even him was disappointed that he finished Star Wars Force Unleashed in only 7 hours. I thought it couldn't be worse, but I've been proved wrong with a test I saw on the latest Terminator video game : apparently, you can finish it in 4 hours (and I'm not even talking about the price/hours ratio). Sure theses two games use well-known licenses, but this trend is occuring for almost every video game serie.

    On the other hand, I'm currently playing Ninja Gaiden Black, which is reputed for its difficulty. I'm at the 2/3 point, it took me 30h to get there, and I've enjoyed every minute of it.
    • by ProppaT (557551)

      I agree, if it keeps companies from watering down games, I'm all for it.

      I think the better solution for this would be a "demo" mode that showed the player how to beat the stage and then let the player at it or an in game "ghost mode" that would show the player how to beat the stage as they play. Heck, even enabling something akin to the "rewind" in Braid or a retro NES "slow motion" mode might help alleviate some frustrations.

      Games such as Mario Galaxy have proved that you can make games that appeal to cas

    • Short games are not necessarily bad; you can beat Strider [wikipedia.org] in 15 minutes (if you're good enough), and that's one of the best action games ever.
      • by drinkypoo (153816)

        Strider is a mediocre platformer with poor play control and we were all dazzled by it because it was pretty, had a big screen (Strider machines tended to have a bigger display than about anything else in the arcade for some reason) and you could get a near-perfect port on the Genesis... though I actually thought the NES game was more fun.

  • But for the rest of us, temptation to try again and again (read:perfect the game) will feel crippled.
  • I should disclose now that I'm not a very avid gamer. I play games pretty infrequently, but when I do, I like a challenge that gets me thinking. At least for me, games stimulate this by presenting difficult situations that requires strategy, thought and patience to get out of.

    Thus, on one hand, incorporating this system will promote more "thoughtless" solutions in areas where the game is actually supposed to aid in developing the mental capacity of the gamer. However, it's not like this doesn't exist alr
  • Back in my day... (Score:3, Interesting)

    by midifarm (666278) on Friday June 19, 2009 @07:47AM (#28387751)
    I don't want to come across as an old codger, but cheat codes and the like have ruined gaming. Easter eggs and hidden levels are fun and add some dimension to the games. Cheat codes, continues and even the prospect of getting unlimited extra lives have taken game skill levels to a new low. If you have to cheat you obviously aren't good enough to win. Most of us who played years ago, beat the super hard levels, by A) having great skill at the game or B) got really lucky. Either one is fine with me, but entering in a cheat proves that you don't have either. I say remove the cheats, keep the Easter eggs and hidden stuff, increase the gameplay and quit making games disposable. It's cheaper to rent the game for 2 weeks from the video store, solve it and give it back than buying it. You're going to find the sales figures plummet for marginal games. There needs to be a change in the industry.
    • by bigstrat2003 (1058574) * on Friday June 19, 2009 @08:30AM (#28388121)
      If it ruins the game to use it, then don't use it. Problem solved. A cheat simply being there doesn't affect you in any way at all.
      • by midifarm (666278)
        It minimizes the necessity for skill. "I beat that game" becomes a lie. You simply entered in a phrase or bunch of numbers which made you invincible or pass the level. How much fun is that?
        • That's their problem, not yours. It's a single-player game: there's absolutely no reason to not let them play the game their way, while you play the game yours. Again, the cheat simply being there doesn't affect you if you choose not to use it.
        • It's much more fun than sitting there trying to beat something that you can't fucking beat.

          I had major issues with the last level of Half-Life ("XEN!" moans the crowd in a weeping fashion) so I threw on a cheat code and beat the game. It was worth it. I got to face the final boss (which was annoying, but enjoyable in a weird way). When I went to play Half-Life 2, I knew what was going on.

          Without the cheat code, I would have been stuck on one of those dumb jumping puzzles, and probably never have seen the
    • The first Jazz Jackrabbit had cheat codes, but, if you use them and complete the game, the game displayed picture of the main character playing poker with some of his enemies, one of them saying "I see yer cheatin!" or something like that... Kinda a cool when I saw it
    • by srothroc (733160)
      The decline in difficulty is probably inversely proportional with the popularity of video games. Can you imagine a game like King's Quest V, renowned for its dead ends and incredibly hard puzzles, taking off in today's market? No, because people who play games aren't just fixated on mastering and beating a game, they just want something to do in their free time. Sure, there's a NICHE MARKET that enjoys that kind of thing, but it's just that -- a niche. If you don't like the "cheat" mode, then don't use it.
    • Because people don't play games for the "challenges" they surmount. Who wants to struggle with their freaking entertainment? It's better to relax and ENJOY the game, not brag about beating it.

      Wherever the gaming golden rule that says "difficulty = fun" is, it should be erased. Hard games are simply a pain in the ass, and any reason to get rid of that mindset should be grabbed by the horns. Because I mean, yeah, you beat some really hard game; who gives a shit?
  • Separate endings for those that cheat and those that don't? So if a cheat is entered, a standard ending sequence is shown, but if you make it to the end without cheating a super fantastic ending sequence is granted.
  • It isn't gameplay (or otherwise useful to the gameplay). Thus I'm not interested in paying for it.

    Developers should remember that their audience is game buyers. I don't know about you, but I buy games to PLAY them.

    Cheats should just be a proper menu item anyway. And sections of games should be openly accessible, so stuck players can just skip to them.

  • * Lives

    * Power Pills

    * Health Points

    * Stealth Suits

    * Respawn Points

    * Save Games

    * Freeze / Rewind Time

    All of these give an edge to the poor slob on the couch who only has reflexes in tens of milliseconds. I cannot see how making an actual explicit mode is dissimilar to any of these.
  • I like PC games that release an SDK since that allows you modify the game heavily to your liking. They should really get something going with the console games to do this. It makes games way more enjoyable for a longer time. The "demo mod" is like a patch on this issue. People could easily do the same kind of thing with an SDK.
  • and poorly. Braid lets you rewind time, and correct your mistakes. Sometimes you have to think about what you're doing to actually utilize this (for example, some things don't rewind). There's a level of thought put into it; I think this is correct, giving an easy way around if you can solve a small problem that requires some insight. Like sequence breaking in Metroid.
  • The Game Genie (Score:2, Interesting)

    by Dusthead Jr. (937949)
    When we first got the NES SMB was the only game we played for it for a while. So with all the frustration of playing the damned game we did eventually beat it. And that was that. The we got a Game Genie and played it again but we kicked the games ass. In a game where getting touched once or twice by any enemy kills you It felt good to get a permanent invincibility and plow through the game. That's how I uses cheating now days, beat the game at least once, then cheat. I extends the life of the game IMHO.
  • Hi all...

    I don't know if it's ok or not...but I think if it's needed then a game is not well balanced (against CPU I mean, not the game itself).
    For example, if you play in the easiest mode at SF4 the final boss is able to destroy you anyway, while in all the other enounters the opponents are really...easy.
    Now, I think that SF4 is a great game, well balanced etc etc. Really I stopped WoW to play SF4 PvP.
    But as a single player game the fact the last boss is very hard even in easiest mode is a bit depress
  • They patented the Konami Code ?

  • by Millennium (2451) on Friday June 19, 2009 @09:35AM (#28388905) Homepage

    Cripes, people; read the patent before going all WHARRGARBL.

    You cannot save progress that the game makes for you. It's right there in the patent, explicitly specified in no uncertain terms. When you turn off the demo mode, you're dropped back where you left off, not where the computer did. The computer can show you a path, but you still have to take it yourself. Except in puzzle games, knowing the path and walking the path are two very different things, and if knowing what to do makes it easy then something is wrong with the game design.

  • One of my friends from college was a game tester for Sega back in the day (still in the biz). I remember the conversation about the oddest stuff he saw during his tenure and his response was "Barney (for the Megadrive / Genesis) would self play" if there was no input from the user after a minute or so.

    I wonder if that prior art is listed?

  • Is this a good idea? I think the real answer is "it depends". But whatever you do, don't pull me out of the game! A cheat mode? This takes us out of the immersion. Find a way to achieve the same thing in the spirit of the particular game.

    As a game designer, you should make decisions on what makes the game most enjoyable. If it's difficulty that makes the game fun, and accomplishment that makes it rewarding, then no. Don't do this.

    If the levels themselves are fun and by making something too hard, you a

  • Demo mode is certainly superior to a game which makes you grind through an overly difficult section over and over again. But using demo mode feels like cheating and is not a satisfying way to win.

    I think it would be much better to have some mechanic within the game which makes a section easier when you die there repeatedly. If you fall in a pit three times in a row, or get beat up by a bad guy three times, a little angel could come along and add some platforms to make the jump easier, or start dropping powe

  • I am all for this if it means that they'll make the game actually difficult now. Recently Nintendo games have become way too easy, presumably because they don't want to frustrate casual players. With this demo feature, they can make the games provide more of a challenge without risking alienating casuals.
  • by farker haiku (883529) on Friday June 19, 2009 @10:50AM (#28390031) Journal

    This is very similar to what I've been seeing out of Blizzard, but the opposite approach (and I think Blizzard has this right). Instead of pushing the "Easy Button", how about making all the content easy and making hard modes that you can do for mad props/cool cut scenes/phat loot/self gratification.

  • As long as the score for that game doesn't go into the leader board, or goes in with an asterisk for every time the "cheat" is activated, then I would say it is ok. It is difficult to design a game that works for all skill levels, and many poorly designed games have some levels that are just impossible/impassable for small children, which limits their enjoyment. I get really annoyed when my daughter calls me in to "do this level for me, it's too hard!" Some games (particularly online games) are designed so

"Pull the trigger and you're garbage." -- Lady Blue

Working...