Are rules meant to be broken?

If a game engine allows for an exploit by the gamer that obviously runs contrary to the way the develoepr intended, should it be allowed?

Let me explain.

I've been playing Marble Mania on the Wii (Rented, not bought, of course) and I've been using an exploit that I don't believe the developer anticipated (or sufficiently prevented).  This is one of those "tilt and roll" games that will most definitely end up being a staple on the Wii over the next couple years (Dewey, Mercury Meltdown).  Essentially you tilt the world, rather than your marble, to get it to move through a labyrinth. 

So here's what happens.  In the game you have to gather crystals as you roll through the level.  Once they have all been collected you can then proceed to the exit of the puzzle.  The catch?  You don't have to collect the crystals in any certain order, and (this is the crux of the exploit) you can collect the crystal even if you die (ie, fall off the maze).  It is the equivalent of pulling off a trick in a freestlye game (Tony Hawk, ATV Off Road Fury), even though you don't land.

Okay...so some levels in this game are very difficult, and highly frustrating.  I love the game's mechanic, but sometimes I just want to beat the level to get on to the next one.  So all I have to do is tilt the world, freefall into a crystal, and then fall to my "death."  The game remembers that you already collected the crystal.  Theoretically you would only have to tilt and fall onto the crystals, then tilt and fall into the exit without ever going through the maze.  Mind you, this is still difficult, but it can be done.

The developer, I believe, did anticipate this.  There is a 2-3 second window that your marble is allowed to be airborne.  After this the level refreshes with your marble back at the beginning.  The trick: make sure you bounce off something solid, even if only momentairly, and then the counter resets.

Is This Wrong?

Similar exploits can be found in other games.  Metroid is known for its "sequence breaking" and Super Mario has the turtle on the ledge that can give you infinite lives.  If a game can be broken, should we?

Just a philisophical question for a lazy Sunday.

nah its not wrong..i quite actually enjoy playing games where i can exploit the game engine...in Smackdown vs. RAW 2007 for the PS2...i just clothesline the heck out of the computer and just keep doin the same moves over again and the computer cannot for some reason counter...and the diffculty is on hard...and in Madden...i really exploit that game...i just use one play where the tight end slants to the right and my only wide reciever runs and flat...my reciever always catches the ball 97% of the time...its just you have the skills and you know what your doing...its nothing wrong with that...its probably that you found a cheat....lol..be happy about it...

I haven't played the game, but from the sounds of it you suicide yourself to collect a crystal. I'm going to assume there a penalty for death and that's what you pay for taking the easy way out. That isn't any kind of super exploit, it's just a way of playing.

An exploit you should feel bad about using is something like wall hacks in Counterstrike or duplicating items in an MMO. What you're talking about it simply strategy using the game mechanics.

No....I don't think I really feel guilty about it. I think it is the nature of a gamer to attempt to break games. Oftentimes we walk up to a wall and use a clipping ghlitch to see who or what is on the other side. But I think it does raise an interesting dilemma for a developer. They essentially have to become physics police to assure that a game is played as it was designed.

Imagine for a moment a race around an oval track. The objective of the race is to cross the finish line. If, however, walking backwards over that "line"activates the animation for completing the race then the fastest time for that track would be less than one second. An imaginary wall has to be put in place to prevent the player from doing this. This is a simple example of something a developer must face on every game.

I'm sure this is obvious, but it is an interesting look into a delima that developers face when creating a perfect game.

I don't mind, as long as it's not in multiplayer games.

I guess if you still have fun it's not a big deal. Though with some examples, I don't know how you still find playing the game any fun as it sounds like you're barely even playing the game.

I must admit, it made me like it less. It made me wish the developer had done something about it. On the other hand, it was kind of fun breaking the game. In some ways the mechanic I had to employ was more interesting than the tilt and roll. It was more a tilt and fly-free fall. And this game was only a rental. It got a 6.6 on IGN for the fact that it is very short and the score is pretty accurate. Mind you, it is a fun game, an 8-9 on the enjoyment side of things, but a 1-2 on lasting appeal and replayability.

Can't remember the name of the game but it was a fighting game on N64 and on my first ever and only game I completed it without losing one match by doing nothing but leg sweeps.

Anything the game allows you to do is ok but in this instance it can make a game very dull.

If you search for super monkey ball on you tube you will see some incredible shortcuts to the end some people take!

I don't like to use thinks like cheats (write a word and get rich) or tricks that uses resources not from the game (like char editors or copy paste saves to duplicate diablo itens) but I love use any kind of internal bug in the game... if someone designed a level in CS that the wall is too small and you can jump off the cenario, it is because you CAN jump off the cenario and fly over everybody... it's not a cheat or a hack, it is use some resource from the game that is there, just a bit "unrealisticly"...

i agree thats so freakin annoying when ur online and u find out that others know the techique too...and they find ways to glitch up the connection...it pisses me off!!!