Arehexes said:
-snip-
And as to what Spy_guy said,
"These modifications were legitimate modifications made for positive reasons, just like the modifications to Oblivion, STALKER etc.
The makers of those mods have, incidentally, not been sued either."
Problem is they still had to use illegal methods to make them work, it's either hacking is bad or good. You can't say they were legitimate is they had to reverse engineer the files(like a save editor for a game like roller coaster tycoon) and for something like this. Both require hacking files to find which values needed to be changed.
And by the way don't avoid my question for you explain to me how is hacking forcing out standard on your but you telling us how we should play is not? Saying "thats how the cookie crumbles" isn't enough you have enough gall to tell us not to force our way on you but then say we should play YOUR way you better back that up.
We seem to be talking about vastly different things, you and I.
Perhaps, I didn't clarify the point of my statement:
Hacking is when you modify a game for the purpose of gaining an
unfair advantage over your fellow players.
What you're arguing for seems to be legitimate modification of game-files in order to produce additional value to the player
without reducing the value for another player.
The way I see it, if a mod isn't detrimental it's a non-issue really, isn't it?
If someone wants to edit the memory to get infinite money in a local game of RC:T, then what's the harm in that?
Will it affect leaderboards? No.
Will someone but the cheating player get any effects from this? No.
That brings me to my second point:
Arehexes said:
Well explain to me why hacking in any other game (even ones without modding tools given by the dev) is ok but it's bad when you use it to earn a token achievement which has no real value (a guy recently got 500,000 achievement points on xbox live but what can he do with the points?). Explain to me why achievements are enough reason to go up in arms about over this.
I mentioned this in my previous post, but it's a lot of text and it's easy to overlook.
Case-in-point: Prestige hacking in Mw2
To those of you who haven't heard about Mw2 and have no idea what I'm talking about, let me fill you in for the sake of clarity.
Modern Warfare 2's multiplayer has a ranking system, i.e. you earn experience, rank up and unlock new weapons. You can also carry out mini-objectives (stick a grenade to someone, for instance) in order to earn ribbons (titles) and emblems.
In addition to that there's also the option to enter "prestige mode" which resets your level and everything, but allows you to unlock new Titles, Emblems and gives you a new ranking symbol. Still with no real impact on gameplay (you will not instantly become more powerful simply for earning one of these).
However due to the fact that the highest rank (10th prestige, lvl 70) is so difficult to reach, because it requires a lot of playtime, it has a certain rarity and as such a certain, if I may say so, prestige surrounding it. Same thing with the other knick-knacks (fall camo, etc).
The developers intended that these badges and symbols of merit would be worn as a sign of dedication and skill in the player. Mind you, it still has no impact on gameplay.
However, prestige hackers use memory editors to give themselves these items and symbols instantly, and the practice is common enough that these items have been severely devalued. For instance, when I see a player with a 10th prestige symbol, I'm supposed to think "oh dear, this one is good", but in most cases I just think "Oh dear, another cheater. Lovely."
Chances are this was not the developers intention, as it clearly destroys a mechanic they inserted into the game for a certain purpose (reward seasoned players).
Using your logic this practice would be completely legitimate, due to the fact that it doesn't affect actual gameplay, you still can't see enemies behind walls, etc.
But, I think you fail to understand, or accept that a game is multifaceted, and that while gameplay certainly is a big part of the experience, the other mechanics play a part as well.
To be perfectly clear, I'll just tie this together with the SC2 situation we have here, and the candidate I have up for show is this one:
Liberty Completionist: Brutal
This is the achievement you get when you complete campaign on Brutal difficulty, it will reward you with the Sarah Kerrigan portrait, which is intended to symbolize your skill. The purpose for this is to give players an incentive to tackle this challenge, and when in an environment where you can be certain it was earned legally will give you substantial bragging rights.
So I'll say it again, hacking is still hacking as long as it gives you an
unfair advantage over your peers.
Arehexes said:
And by the way don't avoid my question for you explain to me how is hacking forcing out standard on your but you telling us how we should play is not? Saying "thats how the cookie crumbles" isn't enough you have enough gall to tell us not to force our way on you but then say we should play YOUR way you better back that up.
This point was not directly aimed at me, but I still feel the need to answer it.
Personally I think that you're just arguing for argument's sake here, but I'll still consider it a valid point.
First of all, Pendragon isn't the one who's telling you how to play the game, the developers did when making it. In a way your argument falls apart on its' absurdity based on the fact that you're actively trying to justify these negative modifications with an argument that can be boiled down to "my personal freedom".
Firstly I'd like to point out that the multiplayer environment you play in is
not in any way anarchistic, but is in fact a benevolent dictatorship. As such you have no right to play the game in "your own way" by using third party modifications. There are rules in place to ensure a fair competition between players, and to prevent the derailing of the game mechanics.
Compare this to real-world sports, they don't allow you to put spikes on the shoulder pads in NFL, nor do they allow you to bring a gun to a boxing match.
For instance, how would it be if, say Mike Tyson went in the ring with a challenger of clearly inferior skill, and said challenger were to simply shoot him in the gut, then take home the grand prize.
Would that be a fair game? No.
If you see how utterly silly that scenario is, then you'll understand my point; just replace boxing with Starcraft, Mike Tyson with the enemy AI (in the campaign), this challenger with a player, and the gun with a memory editor.
What is the difference here?
