In my experience, Soulslikes would only be fully fun if they had the ability to cheat. You can "git gud" me all you want but I fail to see how dying eighty times in a row to the same boss can ever be fun.

Yeah, that sexism was part of the first edition. Which is odd given that it wasn't there in the earlier (basic) D&D. They had this limitation on women's strength because it was "realistic". A game with dragons and unicorns and spells and gods and magic swords needed to be "realistic" when it came to the strength stat.

The upper strength section was poorly designed anyways with the percentile numbers, along with the allocation of bonuses. I liked how stats were streamlined in third edition.

For me it is ok for a game to be very challenging, if I feel I am getting better at it with each try, and getting closer to achieving the goal. Then I usually enjoy the challenge.

In many cases I don't feel that, I am just bumping my head to the wall, and then MAYBE manage to pass the hard part, either by discovering some game glitch I can exploit or a way to play the game that the developer newer though about (which is very close to cheating IMHO), or out of sheer luck. Like that one hard Wing Commander 4 mission where I finally passed the mission because three enemy ships happened to collide with each other and blow up. Lucky me I guess, but it still left a foul taste into my mouth.

What's even worse is that the 1e PHB says "You will find ... no baseless limits on female strength", yet then a few pages later, there's a female strength limit mentioned.

It also is something that was only done to one ability score, and seems to show that the authors felt that this one ability score is more important than the rest, enough for them to spend any work on it.

Meanwhile, mental stats don't do much. Wisdom at least affects mental saves and gives bonus spells to one class, but all Intelligence gives is bonus language and penalizes arcane casters with lower scores (especially a problem if the campaign gets to high levels, seeing as how low intelligence prevents the use of higher level spells and ability scores generally don't increase during the course of the game), and Charisma doesn't have any hard mechanical effects. (Later editions improve this, but I'm starting to feel like those mental stats could have been condensed into one without losing much, particularly since spellcasters usually only need one of then, unlike physical characters who need all three physical stats.)

I feel like it has everything to do with your age and time.
If you are young and have loads of spare time, you can "git gud" all day long.
The older and the less time you have, all this grind becomes less appealing.

I'd also start cheating if I died 10 times. Games are meant to be fun, not some stupid time waster designed to prove something to anyone.

Cheating in SP games should be viewed as an accessibility feature. Remedy got that with Control, with their in-built trainer.

I'd say that dying that many times wouldn't be so bad if the game didn't harshly punish you for death. Just make dying no big deal, and it's no longer frustrating to die 10 times. In fact, someone playing Celeste is likely to die more than that many times in Chapter 1 alone, and that's still not enough for things to get frustrating, because you respawn nearly instantly and can just retry the room again until you get past it.

Also, VVVVVV and Celeste, which give you things like slow down and invincibility.

Not sure 'bout what you are asking?!

Maybe you are right to cheat

^_~

I can't speak of Celeste as I really haven't played it, but those features in VVVVVV are considered accessibility features and not cheating. There is a distinction in the wording because cheating implies that you're doing something dishonest to gain an unfair advantage that you shouldn't have.

I think people need to really reconsider what is and isn't cheating.

Early D&D was about hack and slash. It was killing stuff and taking their stuff. So the physical stats were important for all the killing going on, while casters were much rarer, so the mental stats weren't nearly as important. Charisma was worst of all, for while it was supposed to be more useful in game, every single gamer treated it as just an attractiveness stat.
I've used these definitions:

Using console commands or out of game software methods like editing files, is cheating.

Taking advantage of things ingame that aren't "supposed" to be, are exploits.

When I use the console to give myself an artifact sword, that's cheating. When an NPC is supposed to reward me once for my mission with 1000 gold, but he keeps giving me gold every time I click on him, that's an exploit. Cheating is me actively altering the game's programming. Exploits are me passively taking advantage of an area where the devs were sloppy in coding something.

What about cheat codes? Or does that count as "console commands"?

I agree about cheating being things that affect the game's code or data through external means or debugging features.

Worth noting that, per this definition:
* Taking advantage of an exploit is not cheating.
* Installing a bugfix mod that patches the exploit, on the other hand, *is* cheating.

(With that said, in some cases one could argue that you're no longer cheating at the existing game, but are playing an entirely different game; this is the case of total conversion mods such as Nehrim, for example, or of various mario romhacks.)

In the case of VVVVVV specifically, the option to slow down the game speed and invincibility mode are specifically in the menu section for accessibility features. They're hanging out with other accessibility options like disabling screen shakes and disabling the moving background. People can call slow down and invincibility cheating and/or exploiting all they want, but the developer didn't intend for them to be viewed as anything other than accessibility options for those that either need them or want them.

Developer's Thoughts: https://twitter.com/terrycavanagh/status/1115222285311463424?lang=en

If these are cheating/exploiting, then I need to be called out as a cheater for turning off screen shakes. After all, I'm going this massive unfair advantage in that the game isn't making me nauseous.

How about color-blind modes? Using them means that you're not viewing the game as intended, which is ignoring the fact that if you are using these, you're not able to view the game as intended.

There's also the rabbit whole that is Neverwinter Nights considering that the game comes with a version of the toolset because the game was meant to be modded. Unless a module item strips and most don't, you can literally take equipment you earned from one module and to the next. There's also all sorts of visual enhancements from improved weapon appearance to not looking at ugly cloaks that have no impact on gameplay beyond making things look pretty.

I'm aware, however you are over 30 years too late for the advice. I can't believe it has been that long. I've had the IIGS version of the game for around 33 years. My IIGS is turning 35 this year.

As for the GS/OS version, I would be willing to make disk images, but I have no idea where to upload them to. "The Apple IIGS Memory Fairway" aka "What is the Apple IIGS?" hasn't been maintained in a while, and Asimov removed the Apple IIGS section 20 years ago, not that I've visited that site in a while. I haven't really been active in the Apple II community in almost 15 years.
I owned the Apple IIGS version as a preteen around 1990.

Yes, cheat codes are cheats (IMO). To repeat, this is only my own definition... I don't claim it's objective.

Yes, I make a distinction between cheats and exploits. Cheating is actively looking for a way to alter the game, while exploits can be stumbled upon ingame accidentally, and gamers can argue if they're intentional or not.

In VTM Bloodlines, there are books that raise a specific skill once then disappear (there is only one book in the game for that specific skill). However, if you sell the books to a merchant, they will then sell infinite copies of that book, allowing you to get more than one copy and raise the skill more than once. Is that an exploit? One gamer allegedly spoke with one of the devs who said it was okay. But was it okay as in 'do what's fun for you' or okay as in 'yes we intentionally designed the game that way'? To me, it "feels" wrong, so I count it as an exploit regardless of what a dev may have said. If I want to be a purist who doesn't use cheats or exploits, I don't use that option.

To me, I think things in games are supposed to be a certain way. Using cheats or exploits to "unfairly" make oneself richer or more powerful or whatever goes against how I "feel" something is supposed to be... the "spirit" of the game... so I don't use it. Patches to fix bugs only "fix" how I think things are supposed to be, so I don't consider them cheats. They're not benefitting me, they're removing a flaw that was missed. But what's "unfair", how is a game "supposed" to be... these are all subjective things. While I think I'm consistent in my own view of things, I fully understand other gamers have their own views, and neither of us are "correct".

Mods of course can significantly alter a game, but I don't consider them cheats. I suppose cheats to me are not just altering a game, but doing so to give powerups or advantages one isn't "supposed" to have. Mods that add new dungeons or NPCs or storylines or tactical options just make a game richer... add more stuff to do... increase the replay value. Again, I guess my position centers around what is "acceptable" in a game without being OP. I don't generally add content that gives more power, but I will do it if I think it's how something "should" be.

In Dragon Age Origins, three companions are missing +4 racial bonus to stats. One is missing a specialization point. Alistair doesn't come with a warden's amulet, which I think he absolutely should have. So I add these things in. Certain items and skills don't work as I want, so I altered them. It's how I think things "should" be, so I change it for my game. Maybe it's even a mental issue for me, but I REALLY want things just so in each game, and it can ruin my fun if things aren't as I think they should be. These changes make a game more lore-consistent and balanced to me, letting me immerse myself more, and ultimately have more fun.

And that's the most important thing.

EDIT

They wouldn't be cheats or exploits by my definition. Is anyone saying they are?

In DAO, the base text was so small I could not read it, and so I couldn't play. If I hadn't found a mod that greatly increased the size, I'd never have played the game. Orwell also was quite tiny, and I played the whole game hunched over with my face up near my screen. Not fun. Neither game had the option to adjust font size. I haven't bothered to get Orwell 2, because I don't want to play like that again.

Note: This post spoils a puzzle solution for Might & Magic 2, as well as one for Wizardry Gaiden 3.

I can think of a couple cases where you are required to do something that feels like an exploit in order to proceed.

In Might & Magic 2, there's one place where you can get a nice diamond ring, one that provides a nice AC bonus. However, you don't get to keep it, because it's in an anti-magic area (so you can't teleport out), and when you leave, you are immediately sent to jail and your ring confiscated. However, you can keep the ring by giving it to a hireling, dismissing them, and then re-recruiting them. Sounds like an exploit, right?

Thing is, there's another item you have to use a similar method to get, the Element Orb. It's in a dungeon where teleportation is blocked, and if you try to leave with the Orb in your inventory, you get the message "The Orb denies you exit!", and you're not allowed to leave. In order to keep the Orb, you, again, have to give it to a hireling and dismiss t hem. Thing is, unlike that diamond ring, there's a whole quest that revolves around getting the Orb, and the Orb is needed to trigger an event elsewhere in the game. (It's not *technically* required, as all it gives you is information, but on a first playthrough without guides this is basically required, and the plot expects you to do this.)

Wizardry Gaiden 3 has a situation that feels similar. There's an Orb in an anti-magic area that you need, but once you get it, you can't leave, as the door will not open. Turns out that there's a box earlier in the game where items you drop go, and you need to take advantage of this box's existence to smuggle the orb out of the dungeon it's found in.

So, these two games require doing things that feel like exploits in order to get plot-critical items.

Thing is, you might have a mod that adds an interesting dungeon or side-quest, but the reward from it ends up breaking the game.

Incidentally, I like cheats that give me things I'm not supposed to have, so that I can play with things that aren't meant to be available to the player, like the abilities of the final boss, or of monsters in games where you don't normally get them.

I remember using a glitch in Fire Emblem: The Sacred Stones (FE8) that allows you to control the enemies, which then allows you to get many monster-only items. (It also allows you to see the status screens of gorgon eggs, which allows you to read the class description, a line of text that you can't see otherwise.)

Or there's hacking Wizardry 4 to raise your level so that Haman and Mahaman become usable, and it turns out that they're actually programmed to work in a sensible manner (so you can revive monsters that died this turn, or wipe out an enemy party of do-gooders, at the cost of a level). (In case you're wondering, DI/KADORTO, if you cast it, displays a "Not Dead" message, while Loktofeit silently does nothing.)