Sunday, September 30, 2018

Are Using Glitches and Obscure Game Mechanics Cheating?

One of the things that gamers love to do is to find obscure game mechanics or glitches and take advantage of them while playing the game. Just as many gamers love to call out those folks who are doing that, and declare them “cheaters”. This begs the question, then: is taking advantage of game mechanics that produce results that the programmer did not anticipate cheating? Is taking advantage of glitches cheating? Well, the answer to both questions depends on who you ask, and you will invariably get a split on the “yes it is cheating” and the “no it is not cheating” answer. Cheating is often defined by the mind of the beholder.

I will give you my answer from the perspective of a programmer. I was a programmer for a number of years and wrote boring business software, but I also made a few games as well along the way. Nothing great or outstanding, but games nonetheless. I encountered both game mechanics that produced unanticipated consequences and glitches in my games so I can speak from experience on both topics. First, let me define what I am talking about when I say game mechanics that produce unanticipated consequences and glitches. The two are very different things.

Glitches are the easiest to talk about so let me define that first. A glitch is a bug. It is a defect in the program that allows a player to do something that they should not be able to do while playing the game if the bug was not present. In Minecraft, duping is a bug, a glitch that is a defect in the program that allows a player to create an item out of nothing. For example, docm77 posted an infinite fuel system that used duped carpets (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HerPN7-KvTo). This is a bug in the program; you should not be able to create carpet out of nothing. That goes without saying in a survival game.

Game mechanics that produce unanticipated results are not bugs, they are results from using the game in a way that the programmer did not think about when they were writing the game. In Minecraft, the technical community lives by game mechanics that are completely valid but have consequences that the programmers probably did not anticipate when adding in the game mechanics. AFK (away from keyboard) fishing is a prime example of this class of gameplay. Flying machines are probably unanticipated as well, although I can't really say for certain. Either way, they have become a staple of Minecraft in some versions at least.

Before I get to my take on whether these two classes of gameplay are cheating, in my opinion, remember that the programmers have the final say. Since a glitch is a bug, it will almost always get fixed at some point in the life of the game. If you use a glitch, keep in mind that you are taking advantage of a bug, a defect, in the software, and bugs are always fixed at some point (we hope). Some are fixed sooner and some later, but don't get too attached to the glitch because it will probably get patched out at some point.

For unanticipated game mechanics, if the programmer feels it takes away from the gameplay she intended for the game, it will be patched out. AFK fishing is not possible in the Bedrock edition of Minecraft because the behavior of auto-casting, which AFK fishing depends on, has been changed so that auto-casting is no longer possible in Bedrock. No auto-casting, no AFK fishing.

I have defined the game mechanics, so is using them cheating? Before I give you my opinion as a programmer, let me say that I abhor the notion of how to tell someone else how to play their game. It is unfortunate that there are some folks in the gaming community that think you should play a game the way they play the game, and if you don't you are incompetent or a cheater. You play the game the way you want to play the game and ignore those who say otherwise. Playing a game is a personal experience and you should follow your own heart and mind when you play a game.

When I play Minecraft I almost never create auto-farms, except for the pumpkins and melons. It isn't because I think auto-farms are cheaty, I enjoy working my crops the old-fashioned way. I grew up in the country and worked farms during both the winter and summer to make spending money, and we had our own gardens with livestock. Some of the best moments of my life come from those humble days. For me, picking potatoes and carrots are a pleasant experience that an auto-farm simple can't capture. The overriding rule on this is to play the game the way you want to play the game and ignore those who think otherwise.

Let me give you my short answer, from my perspective as a programmer, on whether using glitches and game mechanics are cheating: No. No to both. This may come as s surprise, and I am sure other programmers may have different answers, but in my opinion as a programmer, if you use a glitch or game mechanic, it is not cheating. Let me explain.

Glitches are bugs. They are a defect in the program, but it is a bug that the programmer introduced into the game. Bugs don't just appear in a program, the programmer messed up somewhere along the line. The fault, if you want to put it that way, is with the programmer and not the player. The glitch has essentially become another game mechanic, albeit a temporary one. It doesn't matter that this game mechanic arises from a mistake in the programming. I would not chastise a player of my game who took advantage of a glitch, because the glitch is my fault, not theirs and they are playing the game as I created it, glitch and all. This glitch is simply another game mechanic that the player can use while the bug is not fixed. Don't blame the player for something the programmer introduced into the game that has essentially become a new game mechanic. Just don't cry about it as a player when the programmer gets around to fixing the bug and removing the glitch.

If I consider glitches to be valid to use, then, of course, you know the answer to using game mechanics that have unanticipated results. This isn't taking advantage of a bug, it is simply playing the game in a clever manner that the programmer didn't foresee when they added in the game mechanic. For me, I always found this fascinating as a programmer. It shows how dynamic, how synergistic a program really is; a program is more than the sum of its parts. In some ways, a program takes on a life of it own when folks start playing it and it is amazing what that gameplay can produce.

As I have already stated, the programmer has the final say on all of this, and whether they consider the above cheating depends on the vision they have for the game. Glitches are almost always fixed because they are bugs and could impact other areas of the game. Since a program is an organism, a dynamic, ever-changing entity, it is always best to fix bugs as quickly as possible to minimize cascade failures that can really kill a program and ruin the game for everyone. A game is only fun if it actually works. Bugs are always bad, and should always be fixed.

Game mechanics really depend on how the programmer wants the player to experience the game. If the programmer feels that a particular game mechanic, even a valid game mechanic, is interfering with the vision the programmer has for the game, then they will adjust that game mechanic to remove the unanticipated result. The player may have become attached to that game mechanic, as with AFK fishing, and removing that game mechanic may anger some players, but the programmer has to be true to their own vision for the game. The result may interfere with future additions, or it may make the game too easy or too hard; whatever the reason, the programmer is the one creating the game, and as a creator, they have every right to add or remove whatever they want in the game. The player is a user, not an owner (although many players wrongly think otherwise). The programmer always has the final say in both of these topics.

As a programmer, I have no problem for a player using either glitches or game mechanics in a game. Both were added by the programmer, both have become valid gameplay mechanics by virtue of the fact that they are simply in the game, and it is to the programmer to change the situation if they feel it is necessary. Any programmer that scolds a player for using either glitches or game mechanics needs to remind himself that he is the one that added said game mechanics to the game. He is at fault, not the player. If, as a programmer, you don't like the way a player is playing the game, fix it or change it.

All that be being said, the real answer to both questions is how do you as a player want to play the game. That is all that really matters. I personally don't use glitches, not because I think it is cheating, but because most glitches ruin the game for me. I don't want to have easy infinite fuel for my furnace array, because for me it is much more interesting to have to go look for coal or cut down trees and make charcoal. I enjoy playing the game, and that means looking for stuff or working on the farm. However, that is me, not you. You play the game how you want to play the game. Your gameplay doesn't affect my gameplay in any way, so why would I care? For servers, it is up to the server owners to determine what is appropriate for the server. The server owner has the final say on what is valid and invalid gameplay on a server.

These are just my thoughts on the topic, among many, but since I have programmed a handful of games, I do have the full range of experience on the subject. I am sure you have your own opinion, and I would love to hear them. Throw a comment down below if you want your opinion known.


Wednesday, August 29, 2018

Minecraft One Chunk Base

Complete Base in One Chunk

Here is a complete base with just about everything you may need in a single chunk. The whole base is contained within a single chunk. To see the chunk border press F3-G. The world download is at the link below. Requires Minecraft 1.13.

World download: One Chunk.zip

Tuesday, July 17, 2018

The Little Brown Book


There is a bookstore down the road from where I live, a little hole-in-the-wall store at the back of a dying strip center, with a fading red door and a single window that simply reads “Books” in what was once yellow window paint. It is one of my favorite stores to visit.

When you enter through that faded red door, the glare of the Texas sun pouring into that door blinds you just for a moment so that you can't see anything of the dim interior and the first thing you sense about the store is the smell. How do I describe it? It is the smell of books. The slightly musty, slightly dusty smell of books. Along the edge of that smell is the sweet smell of leather, the tang of cardboard, and the merest nibble of glue in various stages of dryness and even decay in some instances. It is the smell of books; hundreds of books, packed into a small space no larger than a convenience store. The first time I walked into the store the smell was a bit of a shock, but now it is like an old friend welcoming me home.

As your eyes adjust to the gloom inside, books shelves appear out of the glare, bookshelves packed so close together that you need to turn sideways to walk between them. If you happen to run into another customer while browsing a shelf, a rare occurrence but it does happen occasionally, it is impossible to pass one another even if you are willing to get cozy.

To the left of the door, in a tiny open space is Maggie, the store owner, sitting at a small desk usually surrounded by stacks of books that she hasn't yet found a space to stash. Maggie is a retired librarian, she told me once, and the store is just a way to pass the time and to keep her days occupied. I asked her if she made any money, when we were chatting one day, she said she had no idea. It didn't really matter to her.

There aren't just stacks of books around the desk, they are all over the store, like silent monuments to authors past, present, and future. For some reason as I make my way carefully around the store, I always think of Easter Island and the statues on it that nobody really knows much about. These stacks of books, these monuments of words, stand silently yet each one has a story to tell. A story that no one yet knows, but may yet one day.

It was on one of these stacks near the back of the store, in a dim corner that I hadn't visited in quite a while, that I found the little brown book. I was running my hand along the top of the books, exploring the different textures of the covers, when my fingers fell on this particular book. I stopped immediately because there was something different about this book, something unique about this book, something that I couldn't quite put my mind to or put into words. The book was small and thin, and did not look like anything special, a brown cloth cover—but it felt different, slick and warm, and completely unlike its appearance.

I opened the book and looked at the lined pages, and I remember thinking, what is this? On the lined pages, in a small and very neat handwriting were URLs, organized in sections. The sections had headlines, Beginning, Means, Method and under some of the URLs were small notes. I looked at one note and it read, “We lost.” I pulled out my phone and typed in the URL and it when the page loaded, and I realized that this was something strange. A joke perhaps, or something else. Whatever it was, my curiosity was piqued and I took the small book up to Maggie. There was no price on the book and she eyed it for a moment and then charged me a dollar.

I have since looked at all the URLs and I still do not know exactly what this book is all about. It is both interesting and puzzling. If it is a joke, the joke is lost on me. If it is a journal of some sort, I cannot fathom the purpose. After going through all the URLs I decided to post them here on my website in the hopes that someone may have better insight than I do. The URLs are interesting and bizarre, things I would not normally come across myself. But what do they mean? That is the question.

Here are the URLs as they are presented in the book, with group headlines and notes copied exactly as they are in the book.

Beginning


The time period is wrong; it was much older.
We lost.
We had to do something.
We gained some time.

Means



Method


Manipulating reality.

Goals


Running out of time.


That is all there is in the book. I can see a picture being painted with these entries, but the picture is too bizarre to take seriously and if a joke, as I have said, I just don't get it. I will leave them here for you to decide for yourself.

Edit: After I had put this all together, I left it on my computer to be published after work, and I left the book next to my monitor. When I came home I found my front door closed but unlocked. I am sure I locked it when I left for work. I looked over the house and everything seemed fine, and then I noticed that the book was missing. I distinctly remember placing it beside the computer monitor but it is nowhere to be found. Not sure what it means.