#1 Posted by l4wd0g (1952 posts) -
#2 Posted by Surkov (992 posts) -

I always like replaying through GTA in god mode after I have beaten it legitimately.  

#3 Posted by EuanDewar (4922 posts) -

It normally does but when I was younger I put god mode on in Doom without knowing what it meant. I thought I was the shit at that game until I found out.

#4 Posted by gakon (1952 posts) -

Well, I wouldn't do it on a first playthrough. But for some games God Modes are highly enjoyable.

#5 Posted by Capum15 (4900 posts) -

Nope.

I usually save it for a second run though. I love being overpowered after I know the game.

#6 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -

Without challenge, there is no game, it becomes a 'toy'.

#7 Posted by JJOR64 (18991 posts) -

If there is a God Mode in any game I play, I just use the mode to fuck around.  Never use it to "cheat" my way through the game.

#8 Posted by Bloodgraiv3 (2712 posts) -


Yep, gives it no challenge and I love a challenge in games.

 

#9 Posted by kaos_cracker (588 posts) -

is God mode basically the easiest difficulty? i dont think i ever played a game lower than normal difficulty

#10 Posted by DiscoDuck8k (499 posts) -

Sometimes, depends on the game. God mode or infinite ammo in most cases tends to get boring right quick.

#11 Posted by Getz (3012 posts) -

I haven't used straight-up cheats in anything for years. Not even for messing around in GTA or Crackdown. It doesn't hold my interest when I'm not in peril.

Online
#12 Posted by supermike6 (3564 posts) -
@Valkyr said:
" Without challenge, there is no game, it becomes a 'toy'. "
I disagree very much! I don't think games have to be difficult to be considered video games, they just have to be video games and then they are considered video games.
#13 Posted by crusader8463 (14422 posts) -

If you are playing it for the first time then yes. If you are playing it again just for the story or to screw around in then no. 

#14 Posted by ReyGitano (2467 posts) -

I use to be able to do it, but now it just sucks the fun out of the games for me. Case and point, Starcraft I was all cheats all the time. Starcraft II, it's just not fun.

#15 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -
@supermike6 said:
" @Valkyr said:
" Without challenge, there is no game, it becomes a 'toy'. "
I disagree very much! I don't think games have to be difficult to be considered video games, they just have to be video games and then they are considered video games. "
According to Jesse Schell game designer and author:

  1. Games are entered willfully
  2. Games have goals
  3. Games have conflict
  4. Games have rules
  5. Games can be won or lost
  6. Games are interactive
  7. Games have challenge
  8. Games can create their own internal value
  9. Games engage players
  10. Games are closed, formal systems

Take away one of those qualities and you have a toy, if you play using god mode, you can never lose and there is no real challenge.
#16 Edited by waitwhat (251 posts) -

it depends. god mode is pretty fun to use in a game like fallout 3 or [prototype], but not in a game like dead space (these are probably pretty bad examples).

#17 Posted by waitwhat (251 posts) -
@Valkyr: doesn't god mode just mean you can't die? it's still possible to fail timed tasks and other objectives.
#18 Posted by MooseyMcMan (11009 posts) -

It depends. I think playing Crackdown in "god mode" is pretty fun, because you can just go around blowing stuff up. But in anything linear, blowing your way through everything with no resistance gets boring pretty fast. 

Moderator
#19 Posted by Oldirtybearon (4800 posts) -

Depends on the type of game. I willingly used and will continue to use God Mode on something like Starcraft 2 during some of the more insane missions. Other stuff like GTA or Bethesda games, it can be really fun to just totally break the game.


Stuff like Portal or Teh Haloz, though? Nah. No point.
#20 Posted by fox01313 (5072 posts) -

Will play through it first then use god mode to get any frustration/revenge on elements of the game.

#21 Posted by craigbo180 (1739 posts) -

God mode is only fun if you have already completed a game, no one wants to play through completely unchallenged the first time they get at a game, its just meant as a fun little incentive to go back and play some more once the game is done.

#22 Posted by Valkyr (667 posts) -
@waitwhat said:
" @Valkyr: doesn't god mode just mean you can't die? it's still possible to fail timed tasks and other objectives. "
You probably won't fail them because you don't have to care about your health anymore but yes, you could still lose in a lot of cases.
#23 Posted by Beforet (2921 posts) -

Depends on the game, but usually yeah.

#24 Edited by SeriouslyNow (8534 posts) -
@Valkyr said:

" @supermike6 said:

" @Valkyr said:

" Without challenge, there is no game, it becomes a 'toy'. "

I disagree very much! I don't think games have to be difficult to be considered video games, they just have to be video games and then they are considered video games. "
According to Jesse Schell game designer and author:

  1. Games are entered willfully
  2. Games have goals
  3. Games have conflict
  4. Games have rules
  5. Games can be won or lost
  6. Games are interactive
  7. Games have challenge
  8. Games can create their own internal value
  9. Games engage players
  10. Games are closed, formal systems



Take away one of those qualities and you have a toy, if you play using god mode, you can never lose and there is no real challenge.
"
That's on the assumption that you remain within the scoring/challenge system provided solely by the game.  You can also step outside those, like say playing a drinking game based on how many times Roman asks to go Boawleeng in GTA IV and so on.  Or maybe how many Combine you can successfully stack on one another in Garry's Mod.  Or even "can I make a machinima as funny as Red vs Blue" using Section 8 : Prejudice?  All of those present challenge at some level and all can be rewarding in of themselves.  There is nothing wrong with Godmode and please don't take Schell's fundamental design spec of what a game needs to be out of context just to justify your argument.  He clearly sides with my point of view that challenge can be Meta when he discussed the Future of Gaming @ DICE last year:-

  
#25 Posted by Marz (5652 posts) -

IDDQD


forever burned in my memory banks.
#26 Posted by supermike6 (3564 posts) -
@Valkyr said:
" @supermike6 said:
" @Valkyr said:
" Without challenge, there is no game, it becomes a 'toy'. "
I disagree very much! I don't think games have to be difficult to be considered video games, they just have to be video games and then they are considered video games. "
According to Jesse Schell game designer and author:

  1. Games are entered willfully
  2. Games have goals
  3. Games have conflict
  4. Games have rules
  5. Games can be won or lost
  6. Games are interactive
  7. Games have challenge
  8. Games can create their own internal value
  9. Games engage players
  10. Games are closed, formal systems

Take away one of those qualities and you have a toy, if you play using god mode, you can never lose and there is no real challenge.
"
Wait, so when does this guy get to decide? He gets to say what the whole medium is, just because he made some games? Bullshit. There are plenty of games where you can't "lose", or aren't designed to be a challenge; that does not mean they can't be called video games. Hell, I found Deadly Premonition pretty easy, I didn't have much challenge. What I really, really enjoyed about that game was driving about the world and talking to the characters. If they stripped the combat out of Deadly Premonition, would it no longer be a video game? Because I'm certainly using a controller to interact with the game world, and that's the description I've used for video games for all my life. That's probably not the best example, but I'm sure if I thought harder, I could think of better ones (to be honest, I just love dragging Deadly Premonition into practically ever discussion I have).