|
It's a surprise at how much gamers value not only doing things the way they were instructed, but the way that justifies a reward.
Take my friend for example; A couple of his "friends" were talking about a game he recently wiped the floor with their entrails in. The story, from my friend, sounded exciting and glorious. However, it was heard that the "way" in which he played was cheap; they were moves that were considered too highly abused to be used further.
My mother and I were talking about cheating in single-player games while she played MyZoo on Facebook. She visited map after map, showing the same grass with the same cute kiosks and animals along with the same types of trees that were shaken to obtain coins from. As she proceeded through the tedious task, she told me that cheating at a game would ruin the experience, even if the effects were reversible, and they hurted very little about the game.
I've never been a fan of using illegal actions like hacking to upgrade yourself far beyond the capabilities of other players, but who is to think you worse for using cheats in a single-player game? You're not supposed to use them at first, but for only one reason that I think is legitamate: Every time I applied such a cheat, I found regret in not playing the correct way, first. Gamers seem to have an intuition about achieving goals with effort.
Core gamers have a simple ideal: accomplish a goal through a single, difficult task. Casual gamers have some of the harder lives with them; they don't put in effort toward an action, but effort to a series of actions. Should gamers be rewarded with how much time they spent, how many times they pressed a button rather than vanquished a single monster?
Whose fault is it, truly, for a map to have a dominatable spot? Whose fault is it that someone obtained more kills than the other person? The people make the spot, the numbers, and the arguments. A developer probably was rushed in his development and left the place untested. Someone's connection could have lagged and caused some collision boxes to fall behind. The only person who could be upset would be the loser, predictably, but who should he or she blame? How right, although true and completely obvious, would it be to rest more blame on the individual than the hardware?
Some gamers may have realized this and noticed a movement in a gaming social movement. A friend of mine had a brother who taught him that true gamers never speak of the other player, no matter how good or bad said player is. While it keeps arguments down, how social would this ideal be? Of what could it accomplish in terms of friendships?
Perhaps it would be time for a much better movement that could consider a lighter playing atmosphere, despite the fact that such probably requires a better-atmosphered game. Perhaps people do not need to consider social guidelines the absolute rules, whether you cheat at a single-player game or you use "dangerously" advantageous points in a map. Take it a little easier, people; Games are supposed to relieve you. |
