Talk:Aimbot

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Famicom style controller This article is within the scope of WikiProject Video games. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Stub This article has been rated as stub-Class on the assessment scale.
VG To-do:

[edit] Aimbot Does Not Equal Auto-Aim

I don't think 'auto-aim' should be equated to 'aimbot' - autoaim is a feature of a game that makes it easier to aim, aimbots are cheating tools.

[edit] Linking to Aimbots

I'm not one to go all moralistic on people's arse, but... in my opinion, there shouldn't be a link to a "collection of aimbots". It may very well be within the topic, but it's like giving a link to a virus, just because the article is about that virus. Cheating in multiplayer games is, as I see it, unethical and inappropriate (when talking 3rd party programs)... opinions on this link? - Jacen Aratan 00:14, 10 Jun 2005 (UTC)

  • good point but unlike viruses, which can cause havoc and financial damage, aimbots do not have this potential. at worst they will make a victim pull his hair out (figuratively). i think the educational benefit outweighs the harm it may cause. besides, if someone really wanted to use aimbots, he could find them relatively easily. also by spreading more information, people will be more aware of suspicious activity when confronted by others using aimbot. Bubbachuck 28 June 2005 17:37 (UTC)
Well, it CAN financially damage corporations with games that are widely abused with aimbots. The programs often also are in violation with the game's license agreement. But I suppose about the same things could be said for the links on List of BitTorrent RSS feeds. Also, when you say that people are made more suspicious, that's actually a larger problem that the cheating itself. I used to play an online shooter (years ago), and the false accusations of cheating there were absolutely terrible, even after the introduction of PunkBuster. -- Mfb52 23:06, 19 November 2006 (UTC)
I'm fairly certain that most aimbots violate their respective games EULAs, so should probably not be linked to. ChimpZealot 08:48, 11 December 2006 (UTC)
Without weighing in on the morality, I'd like to point out that what Wikipedia links to has nothing to do with any EULA. The game's EULA only matters to what you can and cannot do while playing the game. What you do outside of it (including reading up on cheating and installing aimbots) is irrelevant. In short: it's people's own responsibility, and Wikipedia doesn't need to censor these things because honest players consider it objectionable.
On the other hand, it's also true that Wikipedia would offer little extra by including lists of aimbots. They're not that notable individually (exceptions like StoogeBot excluded, of course), and Google is your friend. 194.151.6.70 12:00, 4 April 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Sources

This page does not show any sources.. this is not allowed on wikipedia. --87.127.77.49 01:24, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

It's not so much 'not allowed' as 'discouraged'. If you feel strongly about it, find some sources and add 'em. -Toptomcat 13:29, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
I could set up some sources for this, although they would be links to information with the actual source code which are in many of these cheats, with explanations of what the code does. Would this be appropriate?
Either way, I changed the link in the sources section from the small site (which was most probably added by one of it's few users), to Game Deception, which is where you can actually find information on how these things work.
Lars Holm 08:20, 28 July 2007 (UTC)

Take it from other side. Im game developer. How i can protect my game again aimbot, when i dont know them? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.197.79.18 (talk) 10:06, 31 March 2008 (UTC)