Manipulating bugs in the game - ethical or not [poll]

[TheFeniX]

I'm cutting this down because it's getting repetitive. Consider anything I've skipped as conceded.

I doubt someone intended for people to be able to use slight of hand to deal themselves stacked hands in card-games. But hey, we all need to up our skills, right?

Quite. I have nothing good to say about people who refuse to train in order to get better but instead demand that everyone else be prevented from using skills they can't master.

And this is the key point, unless I'm wholly missing sarcasm. If you're willing to rely on blatant cheating to win at a game with nothing on the line except your own ego, then the bunnyhoping angle doesn't matter. Cheat away, you're the reason systems like VAC and punkbuster have to exist.

And the comparison stands because something as simple as that completely destroys your point that for a mechanic to be good it has to offer a tradeoff.

You ever try shooting on the move in real life or in a video game? If walking is so great, why ever run? You go fast, but use more energy. I mean, walking is slower, but you can walk pretty much forever. No gain/loss system built into walking, nope, none at all.

Still, it seems to me that your only desire is to eradicate behavior which you think is unsightly. Because that is the only real argument you have presented. Everything else is just a bunch of appeals to intent and well nothing smart really. You remind me of the people won run CS servers and randomly ban weapons they dislike because "hur! it ruinz teh game!"

So, do you reserve such judgement for valve for breaking BHing in CS 1.6 and CS:S? Do you think EA is a bunch is whiny admins for removing Dolphin Diving? Something looking stupid, especially when outside the scope of the developer's intent, is a legitimate reason for removing it. That some developers have embraced it doesn't change that.

And I find it funny you'd make a value judgement against me when you've flat-out admitted you'd cheat if it gives you an advantage. You don't care about increasing the skill ceiling of a game: you care about advantages you're allowed to have over other players.

[Purple]

And this is the key point, unless I'm wholly missing sarcasm. If you're willing to rely on blatant cheating to win at a game with nothing on the line except your own ego, then the bunnyhoping angle doesn't matter. Cheat away, you're the reason systems like VAC and punkbuster have to exist.

It's something in between. I do not consider something cheating if the act in question requires as much or more skill as playing "by the rules". What I do consider cheating is stuff like spamming a single move over and over or using some sort of exteriors hacking software and stuff like that.

You ever try shooting on the move in real life or in a video game?

I am not a fan of firearms. And have newer handled any.

If walking is so great, why ever run? You go fast, but use more energy. I mean, walking is slower, but you can walk pretty much forever. No gain/loss system built into walking, nope, none at all.

My point was that for a mechanic to be fun to use or just acceptable it does not need to include a tradeoff. It only needs to

So, do you reserve such judgement for valve for breaking BHing in CS 1.6 and CS:S? Do you think EA is a bunch is whiny admins for removing Dolphin Diving?

To be perfectly honest the last time I plaid CS it was back in 2000-something. They still did not have those rubbish secondary assault rifles for each team that I keep hearing about.

Something looking stupid, especially when outside the scope of the developer's intent, is a legitimate reason for removing it. That some developers have embraced it doesn't change that.

This is where I feel your argument is wrong. Because it relies on two things that I find logically unreasonable:
1. The authors intent > practical reality.
2. How something looks and if it is "stupid" is something that can be objectively measured and judged.

Really, everything else aside we can perfectly well concentrate debating on these two points and ignore every other tangent. In fact, I feel that would eliminate both of our personal biases when it comes to gaming style.

And I find it funny you'd make a value judgement against me when you've flat-out admitted you'd cheat if it gives you an advantage. You don't care about increasing the skill ceiling of a game: you care about advantages you're allowed to have over other players.

Actually, I care about advantages I am allowed to earn over other players. The difference is massive as I explained in #1.
But as I said, I really do not care to debate each others personal bias when it comes to gaming style. My original reply and the thing I do care bout is your argument that says "X is stupid + X is unintended = X should be removed".

[Terralthra]

Wait, you consider bunny-hopping (and other engine exploits) perfectly valid gameplay, but spamming a powerful move repeatedly (e.g. Sirlin's low-strong Rose) "cheating"?

How do you reconcile that position?

[Purple]

Wait, you consider bunny-hopping (and other engine exploits) perfectly valid gameplay, but spamming a powerful move repeatedly (e.g. Sirlin's low-strong Rose) "cheating"?

How do you reconcile that position?

Actually I do not consider his trick cheating either as it takes about as much effort to figure out and perform as any other card move.

[Terralthra]

It's not a card move, it's a fighting game move. It's ducking and pressing a button repeatedly. You just said you consider spamming a single move over and over again "cheating".

[TheFeniX]

It's something in between. I do not consider something cheating if the act in question requires as much or more skill as playing "by the rules". What I do consider cheating is stuff like spamming a single move over and over or using some sort of exteriors hacking software and stuff like that.

Your opinion is wildly inconsistent. Sleight of hand requires a fair amount of skill to pull off without being caught and requires nothing outside the tools needed to play a normal game of cards. So by your definition, it's not cheating.

But just going "All-in" every turn is cheating? Only "betting the pot" is also cheating?

If walking is so great, why ever run? You go fast, but use more energy. I mean, walking is slower, but you can walk pretty much forever. No gain/loss system built into walking, nope, none at all.

My point was that for a mechanic to be fun to use or just acceptable it does not need to include a tradeoff. It only needs to

Well, you picked a bad example because most competitive anything is based around some form of gain/loss and good developers implement it well. This is called "balancing" and whereas Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct are fun, they are generally not taken seriously as competitive games due to balance issues, unlike the long-lived Street Fighter.

The thing is, part of the fun of competitive games is a level playing field. But more so than that: skills (especially physical ones) that are relevant to the game that you don't have to go out of your way to practice outside the scope of the game to learn. This is why I bring up sleight of hand: bunnyhoping is about the same thing (because there are actual few if any video game equivalents to BHing: it's that unique in it application and probably why it's a divisive topic, unlike hacking, etc).

You have to practice SoH on your own and if you decide to use it, everyone else has to learn it to even the playing field. Oh and you've completely changed the game you are playing because a general "rule" of almost all card games is the element of randomness, which you are now removing.

So, do you reserve such judgement for valve for breaking BHing in CS 1.6 and CS:S? Do you think EA is a bunch is whiny admins for removing Dolphin Diving?

To be perfectly honest the last time I plaid CS it was back in 2000-something. They still did not have those rubbish secondary assault rifles for each team that I keep hearing about.

You didn't answer my question: you called me out as a whiner for my opinion on BHing removal: do you feel this applies to developers (read: people making the actual game) when they feel it's breaking the intended gameplay?

This is where I feel your argument is wrong. Because it relies on two things that I find logically unreasonable:
1. The authors intent > practical reality.

It's more practical to just pick up a Soccer ball and throw it into the goal than is is to kick it. Why don't people do it? Rules? So why do rules exist? The problem is that people think that because an oversight (read: bug) unintentionally modified the rules due to the nature of the game, it's ok to exploit them.

"There's nothing in the rules that say a dog can't play: Air Bud: Golden Reciever, the receivening."

2. How something looks and if it is "stupid" is something that can be objectively measured and judged.

It's called an opinion, one a large subsect of the gaming community and development community shares. Because some developers and players embrace it does not make it right. Is it arbitrary: fuck yes, but so are most rules.

Really, everything else aside we can perfectly well concentrate debating on these two points and ignore every other tangent. In fact, I feel that would eliminate both of our personal biases when it comes to gaming style.

So, you want to ignore everything else and argue taste? Good luck with that.

Actually, I care about advantages I am allowed to earn over other players. The difference is massive as I explained in #1. But as I said, I really do not care to debate each others personal bias when it comes to gaming style. My original reply and the thing I do care bout is your argument that says "X is stupid + X is unintended = X should be removed".

I could take this more seriously if you hadn't stated you think deck-stacking is a legitimate tactic.

[Purple]

Your opinion is wildly inconsistent. Sleight of hand requires a fair amount of skill to pull off without being caught and requires nothing outside the tools needed to play a normal game of cards. So by your definition, it's not cheating.

But just going "All-in" every turn is cheating? Only "betting the pot" is also cheating?

Of course not. Those require just as much skill to perform well. It's just that the skill in question is not related to "how" but to "when" to perform them right. Strategy after all is a skill.

Well, you picked a bad example because most competitive anything is based around some form of gain/loss and good developers implement it well. This is called "balancing" and whereas Mortal Kombat and Killer Instinct are fun, they are generally not taken seriously as competitive games due to balance issues, unlike the long-lived Street Fighter.

The problem with balance is that if you take it too far you end up transforming the game into a math problem that once solved always provides exactly one solution. See D&D.

The thing is, part of the fun of competitive games is a level playing field.

Than why are competitive games not just full of identical characters who only have identical moves to make the playing field ultra level? And why do many card games give you the option of making a different deck of cards than your enemy?

But more so than that: skills (especially physical ones) that are relevant to the game that you don't have to go out of your way to practice outside the scope of the game to learn.

Several points here:
1. What about the people that play Starcraft or was that Warcraft professionally and practice all day long?
2. How is bunny hopping a skill you can practice without using the game?
3. So any game that tests skills it does not also make you practice (like say a game where you have to solve math problems to get ahead - yes, I know, dumb example but it's late and I am out of inspiration) is not fun?

This is why I bring up sleight of hand: bunnyhoping is about the same thing (because there are actual few if any video game equivalents to BHing: it's that unique in it application and probably why it's a divisive topic, unlike hacking, etc).

You have to practice SoH on your own and if you decide to use it, everyone else has to learn it to even the playing field. Oh and you've completely changed the game you are playing because a general "rule" of almost all card games is the element of randomness, which you are now removing.

They don't have to practice or learn it. They just have to spot you, throw you out of the game and maybe break your legs. An acceptable tradeoff for the chance of removing randomness would you not agree?

You didn't answer my question: you called me out as a whiner for my opinion on BHing removal: do you feel this applies to developers (read: people making the actual game) when they feel it's breaking the intended gameplay?

Ultimately the developers of a game can do what ever the hell they want with their product.

It's more practical to just pick up a Soccer ball and throw it into the goal than is is to kick it. Why don't people do it? Rules? So why do rules exist? The problem is that people think that because an oversight (read: bug) unintentionally modified the rules due to the nature of the game, it's ok to exploit them.

And there is where we disagree. For you, the rules are what you feel the author of the game intended them to be. Where as for me the rules are what the reality of gameplay is. You base your view on the interpretation of author intent where as I base mine off empirical observation of how the system behaves. Thus your view has a form of morality inherent to it, where good is what the author intended and bad is what is actually presented to your senses. Where as mine does not. It only has the facts of how the system behaves. Facts that are as amoral as gravity, evolution or any other physical law.

"There's nothing in the rules that say a dog can't play: Air Bud: Golden Reciever, the receivening."

Is this a pop culture reference I know nothing about?

It's called an opinion, one a large subsect of the gaming community and development community shares. Because some developers and players embrace it does not make it right. Is it arbitrary: fuck yes, but so are most rules.

So basically you have no real argument in this respect.

So, you want to ignore everything else and argue taste? Good luck with that.

That's the thing. From my perspective the situation is simple. If I can get you to admit that the only thing driving your argument is taste than I have won. For you have admitted that there is no reason, logic or reality behind what you are saying.

I could take this more seriously if you hadn't stated you think deck-stacking is a legitimate tactic.

What is this "deck stacking"? I probably know of it but not under that name.

[Alyeska]

So Purple, glitches that let you get inside of objects making you impossible to kill. Perfectly A-OK. Glitches that let you kill everyone near you because a weapon explodes in a way it was not intended, perfectly A-OK. Glitches that make you invincible (these do exist), just another skill to learn.

You are a douchebag. You are making excuses for behavior that is outside the context of the game and what it was designed for. If Bunny Hopping was just fine, why has it been nerfed from almost every single competitive multiplayer game, eh? Explain this to me. You say bunny hopping and dolphin diving is fine, except the developers expressly have removed these from the game.

[Purple]

So Purple, glitches that let you get inside of objects making you impossible to kill. Perfectly A-OK. Glitches that let you kill everyone near you because a weapon explodes in a way it was not intended, perfectly A-OK. Glitches that make you invincible (these do exist), just another skill to learn.

You are a douchebag. You are making excuses for behavior that is outside the context of the game and what it was designed for. If Bunny Hopping was just fine, why has it been nerfed from almost every single competitive multiplayer game, eh? Explain this to me. You say bunny hopping and dolphin diving is fine, except the developers expressly have removed these from the game.

The explanation is simple. Whiny people whined about it loud enough that the developers feared they would start loosing market share so they caved into the demands of whom ever cries loudest. Really, it's no different than anything that happens in other avenues of life such as say politics. Whom ever cries the loudest and shouts the most ends up getting his way, logic, sanity and reason be damned.

[Grumman]

The explanation is simple. Whiny people whined about it loud enough that the developers feared they would start loosing market share so they caved into the demands of whom ever cries loudest. Really, it's no different than anything that happens in other avenues of life such as say politics. Whom ever cries the loudest and shouts the most ends up getting his way, logic, sanity and reason be damned.

Oh, so now you care about intent. If you're going to defend exploits like bunny hopping on the grounds of "what the code says, goes", then you have no grounds to complain when the code says you can't. By your own logic it doesn't matter why they did it, suck it up and quit whining.

[TheFeniX]

3. So any game that tests skills it does not also make you practice (like say a game where you have to solve math problems to get ahead - yes, I know, dumb example but it's late and I am out of inspiration) is not fun?

That sounds fucking awesome.

So basically you have no real argument in this respect.

You're fucking kidding me right. What do you base your "it's cheating is X, but not Y" on? Nothing, that's why it's your opinion. You wanted to ignore everything else. You think bugs make gameplay more interesting, what's your evidence for this? You think that skill is a factor is the determination of cheating: you base this off?

Oh yea, just your own opinion thinly disguised with claims to rationality by stating "oh yea, but my opinion is based on logic" except by stating "developers can do what they want with their game" you basically blew your own bullshit out of the water.

That's the thing. From my perspective the situation is simple. If I can get you to admit that the only thing driving your argument is taste than I have won. For you have admitted that there is no reason, logic or reality behind what you are saying.

So, you say "let's ignore your other points and only argue taste" and declare victory that way? In that case, I'll give you a win because it was such a terrible plan, it had to work.

What is this "deck stacking"? I probably know of it but not under that name.

Don't they have fucking Google in Fantasy Land?

[Alyeska]

So Purple, glitches that let you get inside of objects making you impossible to kill. Perfectly A-OK. Glitches that let you kill everyone near you because a weapon explodes in a way it was not intended, perfectly A-OK. Glitches that make you invincible (these do exist), just another skill to learn.

You are a douchebag. You are making excuses for behavior that is outside the context of the game and what it was designed for. If Bunny Hopping was just fine, why has it been nerfed from almost every single competitive multiplayer game, eh? Explain this to me. You say bunny hopping and dolphin diving is fine, except the developers expressly have removed these from the game.

The explanation is simple. Whiny people whined about it loud enough that the developers feared they would start loosing market share so they caved into the demands of whom ever cries loudest. Really, it's no different than anything that happens in other avenues of life such as say politics. Whom ever cries the loudest and shouts the most ends up getting his way, logic, sanity and reason be damned.

And yet for some reason the devs didn't fix massive inballanced units in these games despite far greater cries from the fans. Aircraft in the hands of air-gods in BF2 render the map OVER. There is no counter to an air-god. This was complained about for ages. And DICE did fuck all to fix these problems. Future games had more ballance. But BF2 did not fix these fundamental problems. If DICE was so keen on listening to their fans whine and bitch, why did these not get addressed?

Or lets talk about the AWP in Counter Strike. The most OP weapon prior to CS:S. The only true counter to the AWP was another AWP. A gun is not balanced when the only way to counter it is with the same gun. The Valve dev team did try and nerf all sniper rifles by taking away the crosshairs. Which is immediately rectified with a sharpie. But they didn't remove the AWP even though it is the single most complained about weapon in the game. But they nerfed bunny hopping.

Team Fortress 1 did not have Bunny Hopping (not as its known in TFC anyway). But Team Fortress Classic being in the Gold Source engine allowed bunny hopping. And yet Team Fortress 2 once again had no Bunny Hopping. Funny, that.

All I see are excuses coming from someone who has no problems with glitching and exploiting. Its douchebags like you that drive people from the game.

[Purple]

The explanation is simple. Whiny people whined about it loud enough that the developers feared they would start loosing market share so they caved into the demands of whom ever cries loudest. Really, it's no different than anything that happens in other avenues of life such as say politics. Whom ever cries the loudest and shouts the most ends up getting his way, logic, sanity and reason be damned.

Oh, so now you care about intent. If you're going to defend exploits like bunny hopping on the grounds of "what the code says, goes", then you have no grounds to complain when the code says you can't. By your own logic it doesn't matter why they did it, suck it up and quit whining.

I am not whining. I have no emotional response to the question one way or the other. I was simply asked to explain a phenomenon and I did. Perhaps the language I used made you feel some sort of emotional response but that is you reading into what I wrote.

Here is an alternate version for you that might be more soothing and easier to understand:
The explanation is simple. People who dislike something are statistically more likely to complain about it all the time and everywhere they can. Over time and given access to methods of communication and travel this will lead to the creation of large groups which are "loud" enough to get their opinion across. Furthermore, as said methods advance they begin behaving as a multipliers allowing the groups to seem larger and thus "louder" than they actually are. And this "loudness" directly effects the probability that other individuals and ultimately those in charge will cave in to their demands. This mechanism has been exploited throughout history to push things. And it has given us stuff like every protest march ever.

The internet and its easy access to feedback mechanisms set up directly or inadvertently by game developers is the ultimate of these multipliers. It allows fans an unprecedented degree of communication with developers and thus increases the odds of them succeeding.

But ultimately the system relies not on logic and reasoning but on getting enough "noise" to convince the ones in charge to come over to your way of thinking. And thus it has the potential to push through anything at all as long as the "noise" is "loud" enough and the individuals you are trying to convince are pliable. This includes things that are logically, practically and morally unsound.

The event observed in the quoted post is an example of this mechanism in action.

---

Does this version seem less emotional and more understandable to you?

You're fucking kidding me right. What do you base your "it's cheating is X, but not Y" on? Nothing, that's why it's your opinion. You wanted to ignore everything else. You think bugs make gameplay more interesting, what's your evidence for this? You think that skill is a factor is the determination of cheating: you base this off?

On the contrary. I simply believe that the only thing that can be classified as a "bug" is something that makes the program in question incapable of working. So unless it makes the game crash, lag or something like that it ain't a bug. Just an unintended feature.

Oh yea, just your own opinion thinly disguised with claims to rationality by stating "oh yea, but my opinion is based on logic" except by stating "developers can do what they want with their game" you basically blew your own bullshit out of the water.

I do not see how you made that connection. My stance is based on logic and the developers can do what ever they want. Those two are not contradictory but complementary.

So, you say "let's ignore your other points and only argue taste" and declare victory that way? In that case, I'll give you a win because it was such a terrible plan, it had to work.

Actually that is the opposite of what I am saying. I want to eliminate both of our tastes from the discussion altogether because they make any discussion meaningless. Once we do eliminate those we can than see if there is an argument to be had at all.

Don't they have fucking Google in Fantasy Land?

If you want to present a point do your own research and present it. I have neither the time nor interest to do your homework for you. That would just be bad form.

And yet for some reason the devs didn't fix massive inballanced units in these games despite far greater cries from the fans. Aircraft in the hands of air-gods in BF2 render the map OVER. There is no counter to an air-god. This was complained about for ages. And DICE did fuck all to fix these problems. Future games had more ballance. But BF2 did not fix these fundamental problems. If DICE was so keen on listening to their fans whine and bitch, why did these not get addressed?

For the same reasons why some times groups can push things that are wrong and unsupported. I explained it above in more detail in my response to Grumman. Basically, it is a feature inherent in the mechanism used to push for change due to the way it functions. As the system relies on convincing people to come over to your way of thinking by being "loud" it relies heavily on how "loud" you can get and how pliable the individuals you are trying to convince are. So if the game developers just do not want to cave into what people want them to do they won't.

[Alyeska]

Double fucking standard. Gameplay glitch is developer intent. But when the developers remove a gameplay mechanic, suddenly that isn't their intent?

I see your mouth moving, but all I see is shit spewing out.

[sarevok2]

I have a different view on multiplayer compared to competitive gamers. I am purely play for fun. If an exploit breaks how I feel the game I would not play the game anymore. I would make a forum post about it, write a support ticket and hope it gets removed. If not GG nice knowing you but I am not spending anymore money on this game.

[Purple]

Double fucking standard. Gameplay glitch is developer intent. But when the developers remove a gameplay mechanic, suddenly that isn't their intent?

I am not the one talking intent here. You people keep bringing intent up as if it mattered. Kind of like those people that interpret the bible looking for what god wanted to say. The only thing that matters is what is objectively in the code. And if that changes than the new state is the new objective fact. You simply have to observe the video game like you would any other object in existence.

If you have a statue of a man does it matter that the intent was to make a mermaid? Of course not. It's a statue of a man regardless of what the author intended. And if someone than goes and alters the statue to look like an apple than it becomes a statue of an apple once again regardless of what the author of either the original work or the edit intended. I can of course have a personal preference toward one of the two states (man or apple) but those are completely meaningless and worthless just like any other opinion.

[mr friendly guy]

If anyone is interested, people have convinced me not to use that trick any more in Infinity Wars. I had only used it in casual play and rarely in ranked play purely because the deck I tended to play with in casual is not allowed in rank play due to the use of promotional cards. That is you were not allowed to use those promotional cards until they become available for purchase (obviously being promotional cards they encouraged you to buy the next set).

[TheFeniX]

On the contrary. I simply believe that the only thing that can be classified as a "bug" is something that makes the program in question incapable of working. So unless it makes the game crash, lag or something like that it ain't a bug. Just an unintended feature.

You're wrong, WRT both the dictionary definition and the definition used across the video game (or programming in general) medium. If you're going to argue your own twisted definition of a word: you need to be upfront about it.

I do not see how you made that connection. My stance is based on logic and the developers can do what ever they want. Those two are not contradictory but complementary.

No it isn't: it's based upon your biased opinion of what is and isn't cheating, what is/isn't a bug, and the double-standard of developers vs end-users.

Actually that is the opposite of what I am saying. I want to eliminate both of our tastes from the discussion altogether because they make any discussion meaningless. Once we do eliminate those we can than see if there is an argument to be had at all.

You fucking said you want to ignore everything else and focus on my comment of "it's looks stupid" which is so blatant in it's wording, I don't understand how anyone can not view it as an appeal to taste.

If that was your "I won, I won" moment, then you already missed your parade.

Don't they have fucking Google in Fantasy Land?

If you want to present a point do your own research and present it. I have neither the time nor interest to do your homework for you. That would just be bad form.

More and more I have to wonder how informed you are on this topic, but fair enough: deck stacking is the act of putting cards in a deck into an order that benefits you (or another player) in a game. To do it and not get caught takes a considerable amount of skill. Which, according to "logic" is not cheating. But in the real world, even you admit people get their asses kicked for doing it.

If you have a statue of a man does it matter that the intent was to make a mermaid? Of course not. It's a statue of a man regardless of what the author intended. And if someone than goes and alters the statue to look like an apple than it becomes a statue of an apple once again regardless of what the author of either the original work or the edit intended. I can of course have a personal preference toward one of the two states (man or apple) but those are completely meaningless and worthless just like any other opinion.

This is where your bullshit breaks down: if you set out to create a statue of a mermaid and you promised people a statue of a mermaid, and you gave them a statute of a man: they're going to be pissed. Why? Why would they be pissed if intent wasn't a huge part of the development, balancing, and advertisement process?

You think EA ran any adds showing "SUPER 1337 DOLPHIN DIVING ACTION!" with slow-mo shots of awesome doods flapping through the air and little bits of dolphin chattering going on in the background? Fuck no, that wasn't the game they wanted made.

If stuck with your failed project, some people might try and make it look like what they had previously envisioned. Hell, you might try and fix it and maybe ask people to just envision boobs and a fish tail while you try and fix it. Maybe stop anyone from looking at it who refuses to envision said boobs and tail. And maybe I'd quit stretching this metaphor to it's breaking point to try and explain to someone that statutes are not video games.

[Purple]

You're wrong, WRT both the dictionary definition and the definition used across the video game (or programming in general) medium. If you're going to argue your own twisted definition of a word: you need to be upfront about it.

No it isn't: it's based upon your biased opinion of what is and isn't cheating, what is/isn't a bug, and the double-standard of developers vs end-users.

There is no double standard. Just a system composed of the game and the users who play it.
And outside of this system you have the developers who are like gods, creating and reshaping the game as they please. What the developers intend is unknowable to us and does not matter. Only the state of the system as is matters because you can't play the game the developers intended, just the one you physically have.

You fucking said you want to ignore everything else and focus on my comment of "it's looks stupid" which is so blatant in it's wording, I don't understand how anyone can not view it as an appeal to taste.

I said I wanted to ignore everything in that post other than your original argument, which was composed of the two things I cited because the rest of those were various side questions that were meant to probe how I feel about this and that. And those I felt were not importance. But everyone here spun that out of context for a whole page now.

And worse yet. You still keep pointlessly arguing over how I feel about what. As if it matters. We should not be discussing how we feel about what topic. We should be discussing if there is a rational and logical argument to be made here.

More and more I have to wonder how informed you are on this topic,

So that you do not have to wonder I will tell you. The only card game I enjoy playing to any extent is solitaire on my PC.

This is where your bullshit breaks down: if you set out to create a statue of a mermaid and you promised people a statue of a mermaid, and you gave them a statute of a man: they're going to be pissed. Why? Why would they be pissed if intent wasn't a huge part of the development, balancing, and advertisement process?

My experience with people is that if you just look around you will always find someone being pissed off over something. Peoples feelings are inconsequential to logic and reasonable arguments.

If stuck with your failed project, some people might try and make it look like what they had previously envisioned. Hell, you might try and fix it and maybe ask people to just envision boobs and a fish tail while you try and fix it. Maybe stop anyone from looking at it who refuses to envision said boobs and tail. And maybe I'd quit stretching this metaphor to it's breaking point to try and explain to someone that statutes are not video games.

That's how life works most of the time. Just look at politics or religion or advertising in general. You are told one thing, get another and have to live with what you get. Some people cry and shout over it. Others enjoy it. Some time it's fixed, some time it isn't. And all of those are completely inconsequential when trying to rationally evaluate the system by empirical observation.

[Phillip Hone]

Purple, do you really think anything that doesn't crash or lag a program isn't a bug? What if in MS word, every time you saved a doc it randomly deleted 3 words? You wouldn't consider that a bug? Would someone complaining about be an emotional fool who fails to "rationally evaluate the system by empirical observation?"

I feel like you are arguing that we can't take purpose into any account when evaluating if something is a defect, which is strange to me.

I mean, if purpose and intent are completely worthless, then a car that can't drive is totally fine because we should just accept it for what it is (a metal shelter).

[TheFeniX]

That's how life works most of the time. Just look at politics or religion or advertising in general. You are told one thing, get another and have to live with what you get. Some people cry and shout over it. Others enjoy it. Some time it's fixed, some time it isn't.

And some people take the product and make their own modifications to make the game playable in the way they feel it's meant to be played. Then you deride them as "whiny" while trying to also maintain the illusion of a neutral observer.

And all of those are completely inconsequential when trying to rationally evaluate the system by empirical observation.

You haven't observed shit. You came in with your opinion locked from the start and, when presented with examples that show you're full of shit, ignored them and instead started just say shit like "LOGIC!" and "Ephemeral Obfucationing!" Big words don't make an argument, especially when you've demonstrated you don't even know what they mean.

You're trying to treat gameplay as some kind of Darwinian survival of the fittest, which doesn't pan. That intent doesn't matter: only the result. Even if we go that route, mechanics selected for reuse would be so because they are popular: so we're still arguing taste. And the only reason those mechanics exist is because a developer had an original intent he either hit or missed. Player's have intent when they play a game or decide what game they want to play.

I don't see a difference between anything you've posted and "Well, this book was supposed to be in English, but the printer translated it to Sanskirt. Thank God I majored in a 5,000 year-old dead language, CUZ I AIN'T NO CASUAL! "

[aieeegrunt]

People like Purple are the reason that I and many people I know don't do multiplayer anymore.

[Borgholio]

*Joining public game of Diablo 2*

"Want to do a Baal run?"
"Ok, I have maphack. This way."
"Can we just explore the old fashioned way?"
"No, it's boring. Just use maphack."
"I'd rather not."
"You don't have maphack? Loser."
...

Yeah, you get looked down upon if you DON'T cheat in D2...

[Lagmonster]

I wonder if anyone here remembers the unending parade of bizarre glitches and cheats in vanilla, out-of-the-box, never-been-patched Battlefield: 1942?

That was truly the glory days of multiplayer gamers doing just...bizarre shit. I remember, Omaha Beach map. Man...people vanishing into floors, being catapulted from the ship to the rear of the map, launching themselves with magical grenades up the steep slopes and double-jumping onto roofs. To this day I have no idea how half of them accomplished it.

[TheFeniX]

Man, it's been too long. But it's funny that nothing has really changed in EA patching methods. I spent most my time playing Desert Combat either way.

One of the worst I had to deal with in "recent" memory was the "under the floor" exploit in TF2. Dealing with hidden sentry guns was not fun. I don't know if anyone remembers the ROOMBA group of TF2 players. They used to make videos of them griefing players through exploits, porn sprays, and other such shennanigans. I personally had to ban many of them off our TF2 server. They thought they'd be smart and pull their tags, but stupidly left themselves in their ROOMBA Steam group. Once I identified one griefer, finding the other and banning their SteamIDs was easy.

I get the lure behind griefing. It has it's moments, especially when it's based on some wild bugs. For instance, there was a bug in Jedi-Academy where you could basically kill someone from across the map with your lightsaber. You could put the idle saber through a player, run away, then do a roll+stab and the game would register a hit. It was funny to use on some of the more annoying "no powers, no guns, saber down = peace, final destination" servers and kill some guy standing around watching a duel while everyone freaks out.

I try and justify it by pointing out that those server weren't about kill counts nor did it really cost a player anything by having to respawn, walk 50 feet, only to stand around again. But it was still a dick thing to do and the few bans it earned me were well within the right of the admin. Most just wanted to know how I did it, which I would always explain.

The worst showing from exploiters I can recall was when I figured out you could swap Bridge Officers in STO to reset their Cooldowns. Now, you had to be out of combat to swap BOs.... which Klignons were good at, especially Birds of Prey. Even for feds, being able to kill a guy, then start the next fight with almost everything off CD was a huge boon in PvP. So.... I just started explaining in shout chat how to do it figuring Cryptic would patch it the more it was abused. The amount of vitriol I got from people on both sides of the fence was hilarious. Mostly though, the bad whispers were from people saying shit like "don't be a fag, stop telling people our secrets" as if we were in some kind of secret club together. Oddly enough, I should have been banned for telling people how to exploit, but I never even got a warning.

Probably because EA wasn't in charge.