Graffiti Is Art, Vandalism Is A Crime - your ideas

[charlesr]

Please use this thread to discuss your ideas relating to Edd Hewett's "Graffiti Is Art, Vandalism Is A Crime" Editorial. Where do you feel the boundaries lie? What rules are acceptable to bend in games and what isn't?

If you wish to submit feedback for the feature, please PM Edd or email [email protected]

[Rsdio]

Felt someone should reply as it's a good article, but I don't think there's much more to say that Edd leaves uncovered.

Personally I think anything that can be done in a game is fine, so long as it doesn't effect the enjoyment of others that you're playing with (obviously I'm not talking about beating them fair and square here). I don't play online a great deal and when I do it's generally not for long because I can't be arsed being in games where people are using exploits and the like to get their win. Sucks the fun right out of it when you see others taking it pathetically seriously.

Even something like Animal Crossing which isn't competitive at all can be spoiled a bit by seeing all the goodies people have unlocked through hacking the game, personally I would've enjoyed unlocking them myself but now there's less incentive as the suprise element is gone, having seen and played with them all already. That's not intended as a dig at those who play that way - after all, it's their game and they should play it as they like - it's a slightly different situation to a lot of other games as your game world is the same online or offline and how you choose to play with yourself (ahem) affects others when they visit. The fact that I'm still playing it anyway is testament to how compulsive it is .

[Chief H]

Cheers Now here's the interesting part: what about when players push a communal game to its very limits, to an almost unnecessary degree that very few others can or want to push the game? For example, snaking on F-Zero GX or Mario Kart DS. It's this grey area that's fascinating as sometimes a general concensus is reached as to what's legal (so to speak) and what isn't, whilst at other times it remans ambiguous. But why? And who decides? In these cases (and in most games not on Microsoft's Xbox Live service) there is no top-down moderation, it's bottom-up.

I think it's quite satisfying to see good bottom-up moderation come through, like in Counter-Strike. Valve don't make all the decisions (though they do release patches) and it's mainly the server owners/runners that enforce the use of anti-cheat programs. In terms of videogame ethics, it's also a remarkably clean game when you consider how many players the game has attracted.

Just to pop another example in there, and to build on the Online RPG things you mentioned, how do you feel about players who amass a massive amount of items though playing the game literally non-stop? This is often considered hard work and acceptable, but are they 'exploiting' and taking advantage of having more time to spend on a videogame than most others can possibly spend (due to having other commitments)? What if someone has many many pcs and accounts that they use to farm and mine themselves lots and lots of money and items, taking advantage (in the same way) of how they have the resources beyond most ordinary gamers?

Are these two instances the same? Are they different in one being right and the other wrong? Or is it just a case of raising the bar of what everyone has to do to stay ahead in the game?

[John Beaulieu]

Once upon a time, before Pro Evo came to the PS1 (and for months afterwards if truth be known), me and a group of mates used to meet up once a week for a football tournament, with our weapon of choice being Olympic Soccer on the PS1 (which is still one of the greatest footie games ever made if you ask me).

There was an exploit in the game, if you ran diagonally from the corner of the box (either side) and shot, it would be a goal each and every time - these soon became illegal in our little get-togethers. Then exploit number 2 was found, if, when taking a corner, you aimed it directly at the goal keeper and pressed shoot, it would always go straight along the ground, hit the goal-keeper and go in - these also became illegal.

So we self-regulated games in order to get fair matches - though we were all gutted when World League Soccer (the sequel to Olympic Soccer) was released with all the exploits removed

[Rsdio]

For example, snaking on F-Zero GX or Mario Kart DS. It's this grey area that's fascinating as sometimes a general concensus is reached as to what's legal (so to speak) and what isn't, whilst at other times it remans ambiguous. But why? And who decides?

Aargh, I tried so hard to avoid mentioning snaking . It's a bit of a pet peeve of mine and one of the reasons I don't play Mario Kart DS anymore, for the reasons I stated above. It's totally my hangup but a big part of the reason I play videogames is for escapism - if I see someone snaking around all over then any sort of illusion is pretty much shattered. Plus I just don't understand the mentality or what possible satisfaction someone can gain from doing it. There's the argument that if it weren't meant to be there, then it wouldn't be.. That's fair enough, but I find it hard to see how the boosts could be kept in there if they somehow have to limit the places where they can be used (ie, not on what the game somehow decides is a 'straight'). The games would most likely just end up broken I imagine.

From what I remember (hazily) of F-Zero scoreboards on some sites they had seperate tables for snakers and non-snakers, so I guess it can only be the community that decides. Only in that case it's not really a decision, just catering to both sides. The thing which I can't understand is why everyone doesn't just settle on the 'normal' way of playing, that way you get to compete with everybody without the severe discomfort that snaking apparently brings. Seems like a no-brainer to me. It's obviously born from the attitude that you have to be the best at something in order to enjoy it, if one person's going to snake then others will inevitably follow, until eventually there is something like a widespread acceptance of it.

I think it's quite satisfying to see good bottom-up moderation come through, like in Counter-Strike. Valve don't make all the decisions (though they do release patches) and it's mainly the server owners/runners that enforce the use of anti-cheat programs. In terms of videogame ethics, it's also a remarkably clean game when you consider how many players the game has attracted.

Yeah, in an ideal world that's how it should be. On consoles though, it seems like that sort of thing is generally beyond the end user's control. Mario Kart being the obvious example, you're just lumped in with whoever. Hopefully the Revolution will have a better way of doing things.

Just to pop another example in there, and to build on the Online RPG things you mentioned, how do you feel about players who amass a massive amount of items though playing the game literally non-stop? This is often considered hard work and acceptable, but are they 'exploiting' and taking advantage of having more time to spend on a videogame than most others can possibly spend (due to having other commitments)? What if someone has many many pcs and accounts that they use to farm and mine themselves lots and lots of money and items, taking advantage (in the same way) of how they have the resources beyond most ordinary gamers?

To me, that sort of falls into the category of it not really affecting anybody else if it's not a game that has PvP. That would only really be affecting their own experience, either positively or negatively, and I doubt others would give it that much thought - I think everyone who plays them goes into MMORPGs knowing that the strongest players are the ones who've spent the most time on it rather than the most skilfull (ooh, controversial ). And even if it is the most skilful, it stands to reason that the players with the most practice will more likely be better at the game than the average player.

Are these two instances the same? Are they different in one being right and the other wrong? Or is it just a case of raising the bar of what everyone has to do to stay ahead in the game?

In some cases yes, but there's the question of whether everybody wants to stay 'ahead in the game'. Once a lot of the advanced techniques/exploits/whatever you want to call them start being used, a lot of players who simply play the games for enjoyment are going to be turned off, which to me seems a real shame.. Especially when you consider that more often than not it's these players who play with the true spirit of the game in mind rather than as some kind of ego booster, amassing win after win after pointless win. I'm more than happy to lose, I just like to do it on a level playing field.

[Dogg Thang]

Well there is self-regulation on things like snaking. I was in a Mario Kart tournament recently (I got my ass kicked royally) where snaking was an instant disqualification. As in the football example, people often start to create their own laws.

I think overall the problem here, and possibly the reason it took so long to get a reply to the interesting article is that it will almost always boil down to one answer - depends on the game.

[stroppa]

I remember back in ye olde mega drive days. A friend and I used to meet quite regularly to play various games. One in particular being NHLPA '93. One of EA Sports early gems. After long sessions of play it was inevitable we would find things to exploit in our efforts to get one up on each other. The exploit in question was found by me....which was to skate right up the middle of the rink facing the goaltender and pass rather than shoot. 9 times out of 10 it would result in the puck going through the goaltenders legs and...goal. As you guys have mentioned, these things come down to self-regulation which is usually the best way to handle these things. Online games you can usually arrange private games and so forth, that way it's easy to sort out what you think is allowed and what isn't amongst each other.

[vertigo]

Depending which newsagent or arcade you played in, throws were illegal on SF2. Use of a throw would be rewarded in kind with a free throw for the other player. Generally though, I think if it's in the game then it's a viable tactic, but certain things like snaking are just plain unfair in a multiplayer environment because it requires no skill whatsoever. As Dogg Thang says, it depends on the game. People used to moan at me about corner boosting on Mario Kart 64, but it's a documented legal technique that you can see has been put into the game on purpose, it's not an accident like GX's snaking.

[charlesr]

For example, snaking on F-Zero GX or Mario Kart DS.

Snaking in FzeroGX is an accidental part of the game though, but powerboostin in MKDS is designed in surely? Unless powerboosting is different from snaking in MKDS?

edit oops repeated the above heheh.

[Chief H]

Indeed. I put these two examples together because one is generally agreed to be a glitch and the other is a more 'legal' pushing of the game's features. But how can we know what is an accident and what isn't when a developer isn't willing or able to moderate by clearly stating what is and isn't meant to be in the game? A lot of people dislike the excessive 'snaking' powerboosts on straights in MKDS, citing that it's not in the spirit of the game, but what is the spirit of the game? Surely racing is about going as fast as possible? Or is this not what Mario Kart is about?

I think a lot more boils down to effort and fun rather than spirit and ethics. I can't be bothered with the effort of excessive drifting, nor do I find the process enjoyable, so I don't bother.

But to build on Charles' reaction there in terms of what is in the game and what is not meant to be there, how do you feel about the infinite combos found in Marvel vs Capcom 2 that are impossible to escape? They're made out of moves that are legally in the game, but many regard it as unfair. What about the possibility that they were intentionally put in the game? They've certainly never been removed (as far as I'm aware) when the game has been ported to other formats. Maybe they're in the game for similar reasons that guilty gear has its one-hit-kill specials? Just offering food for thought there.