Talk:Cheat code

IDKFA

The meaning of this is unclear. It is variously described as ID Kicks beeeeeeeeeeeeeeep , or ID Killer Full Ammo. I went back to the original Doom source ftp://ftp.idsoftware.com/idstuff/source/doomsrc.zip to see if I could resolve this. Indeed the comments in st_stuff.c give definitions for these cheat codes:

IDFA is commented as:

// 'fa' cheat for killer beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep arsenal

IDKFA on the other hand is commented as:

// 'kfa' cheat for key full ammo

So it looks like "ID Kicks beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep " is apocryphal.

Richard W.M. Jones 23:06, 17 Nov 2004 (UTC)

beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeep

Why do people keep removing It is a real cheat code, I have tested it myself. — JIP | Talk 09:10, 15 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

Yeah, it's real, and famous among Amiga users. Definitely should stay. CaptainMurphy 15:51, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Adventure

The article mentions that the first known cheat code was in the Atari 2600 game Adventure. However, this fact isn't mentioned in the article for Adventure. Anyone know what the code was? Aguerriero 22:33, 30 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wouldn't it be not the Atari game but the Colossal Cave Adventure game, xyzzy presumably? Richard W.M. Jones 06:37, 31 March 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Terrible sorry, but Adventure had the first easter egg a totally different thing in videogaming. Although the article says very little about it, I have yet to hear of a cheat code that predates Colossal Cave Adventure. Doc Strange^MailboxLogbook 03:21, 29 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

sims

—does any one know a cheat for sims?{cpu game}

Cheat Codes on Wikipedia

I think that there should be a page on Wikipedia listing video games on which you could click on the name of a game and a video game system and go to another page that shows cheat codes for that game. For example, The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, the Witch and the Wardrobe [in parentheses, an abbreviation for a video game system, such as (PS2)], and be directed to a cheat code page for that game that shows cheats for that game. Mollymoon 03:10, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia isn't a directory of cheat codes, and this page needs lots of them to be removed. If you want to start a directory of cheat codes (not that there aren't hundreds of them out there already) take a look at something like Wikicities. Richard W.M. Jones 08:34, 10 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

sure, Wikipedia is not a directory (oh, except for the unnumerable long lists of links, the famous people of some single years for example), but some cheat codes are an essential part of computer gaming folklore, xyzzy, ID-codes and warcraft2-codes to name a few. I think, thus, that they do contribute essential value to the article and should be devoted a section. Of couse, some discrimination could be done, for example, based on in how many games the code has occurred, or how popular the game was/is. There is and will be a lot of dispute as to which games deserve the 'classic'-status, but restricting the codes to one per game should be adequate. --Sigmundur 20:30, 10 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Too Many

I think there is too many cheats for Sonic, The Sims, and Medal of Honor. I think listing a cheat under "famous codes", one should also write how it is famous.

Absolutely. There are far too many cheats altogether. Richard W.M. Jones 20:37, 4 October 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Codes

I've removed the entire section of cheats. The article should be about cheat codes, not a list of them. Wikipedia is WP:NOT a game guide. There's plenty of places on the net for codes, Wikipedia's not one of them. Also, there's no reasonable & fair way of deciding what codes should & should not be there. It's subjective, & POV. A few links to major cheat sites (GameFAQs etc) will do. Proto::type 19:01, 24 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Good thing. But we need to keep a lid on the list of external links, because if history is anything to go by, it will become a magnet for linkspammers. Richard W.M. Jones 08:51, 25 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A simple and objective rule of thumb could be that if the site's not established and notable enough to already have an article on Wikipedia, don't link to it. How does that sound? Proto::type 19:52, 26 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]