To "cheat" is to practice fraud or trickery, to violate rules dishonestly. I can "cheat" at poker if I look at my competitor's hand to know what he has; it gives me an unfair advantage not accounted for by the rules of the game. I can "cheat" at football by impelling the ball into goal with my hand unobserved; it violates the rules to do that, even if I am Maradona.
When you are playing a computer game, or console game, with yourself, if you "cheat," the only
person affected is you. In essence, you are gaining an unfair advantage over yourself, which does not make sense. You are also violating the rules of the game, you are gaining an unfair advantage on the "game" but that is a pretty abstract concept. Once again, the only person harmed is you, to the extent that you "cheat" yourself out of the experience of the game as it was intended.
I think that the only troubling thought for someone who "cheats" at a solo game is, "am I unable to play this game without avoiding all bad things that happen to me through using these methods?" This thought has implications that go far beyond the game arena; is the person unaccepting of the simple concept that bad things can happen in life? Does the person seek to avoid the consequences of his/her decisions at work, for instance? Will the person always look for unfair advantages in dealing with other people?
Games use "cheat" codes and other similar methods for three main reasons:
1. They wish to play around with the game, or learn things about it that they cannot easily find out without the "cheat;" an example would be using "columbus" to see what the pagans are doing in North America during the period prior to their "discovery" by Europeans. It doesn't really affect the game, but you get something you can't get by just playing. After all, if you've already defeated Ganondorf with the Ocarina, why not play with an invulnerability "cheat" to see what you missed along the way?
2. They use the "cheat" to offer a modified experience, to "change up" the game in some fashion. You've already won a game of
EU2, now you want to play some specific role that the game won't easily let you achieve, so you modify as you go. This is really the same underlying philosophy that results in mods; it would be difficult to assert this is somehow "improper" behaviour. Of course, if you intend to share the result with others, you aren't being honest if you don't reveal the use of the "cheat."
3. The "cheat" is used to avoid the consequences of some decision taken, or of some game result, such as random events. You are playing
Civilization II, you explore a goody hut, and eight barbarian knights surround your vital explorer unit. You promptly reload the autosave and try again for a different result. Or you are playing
EU2 and you declare war on Austria, then when more troops than expected arrive, you turn off the fog of war to see what is really going on.
This is the type of solo "cheating" that should cause worry. After all, what is the point to "winning" a game if the only way you can "win" is to alter the outcomes of decisions made along the way to ensure the result? Can you really not tolerate the concept of "losing?"
Obviously, the only person you have to answer to in such cases is yourself. I won't say I've never "cheated" in this sense; I am willing to bet large sums of money against donuts that everyone has at some point (hmmmm, hope I'm right, I LOVE donuts). But I always feel much better about playing when I don't "cheat." Indeed, when playing
Alpha Centauri I always use the "Ironman" setting that forces the game to quit upon save, ensuring that I will play straight through and accept my losses like a man. At least that lets me look myself straight in the eye in the mirror.
