Out of Lives

Saturday, July 25, 2020

Pinstripe and Broken Achievements

I wanted to write this post at the end of December, but the winter holiday season is a busy time, so that didn't happen. Then, by the time the holidays were over, I was already back at work, and forgot about it. Later on, I had an idea about writing this as a follow-up to How to Cheat in Spec Ops: The Line, but that didn't happen either, mostly due to laziness. Now I have a moment and I can only hope that I remember accurately the details of what I had meant to document in December.

So anyway, there's this game called Pinstripe. I have a hefty collection of random indie stuff in my Steam library, mostly from Humble Bundle and from Fanatical (formerly Bundle Stars), so I probably wouldn't remember exactly where I got this one in particular if there weren't records of it. Cross-referencing my Steam account's history of product key activations with IsThereAnyDeal's list of bundles featuring the game, I see that I must have gotten it from the $1 tier of Humble Jumbo Bundle 12, in late November of 2018. My achievement history shows that this is around the time I first played the game as well, so it didn't languish in my backlog for an extended period of time as many indie games from bundles tend to do. Late November into early December was a nice time to play the game as well, given the snowy winter setting.

Overall, it's a cute game. In any mini-review of any kind of game, I feel morally obligated to judge the gameplay first and foremost; but, in this kind of indie game, it would probably be a lie to say that the game and its mechanics are much more than a vehicle for the developer's artistic expression, which could have been channeled into a short film instead if it could have survived becoming that much less engaging. I won't claim to know the developer's intentions but I suspect the goal was to tell a story in an interactive medium and not to get the player hooked on addictive gameplay. So I'll just say that the gameplay is all right; it gets the job done, and manages to be neither frustrating nor entirely boring. But if you don't care for the story or the music or the art direction, you won't care for the game itself.

What stands out to me in hindsight is the audio. The soundtrack is really nice. The voice acting is also pretty great by video game standards. By the end, the story is perhaps a bit clichéd — well, perhaps incredibly clichéd, if I'm being perfectly honest — but its presentation is not as unbearably pretentious as so many indie games are. In short, they did a good job. It's a nice game. I should feel bad for having paid so little for it.

After having played through the game once or twice, I had unlocked all but one achievement:

Beating Pinstripe in an hour is not a remarkable feat. It's a short game. So, I thought, I might as well try it. There's no visible in-game timer, so I took note of the clock on my computer when I started, and played through the game, already knowing where to go and the solutions to the puzzles. I finished in less than an hour. The achievement didn't unlock. I figured the problem was that I had essentially started a "New Game Plus" so I deleted my save and even reinstalled the game to ensure I was starting with a clean slate. I finished the game in less than an hour again. The achievement didn't unlock.

A trip to the game's discussion forum on the Steam Community site revealed that I wasn't the only one having trouble with unlocking the achievement. It was apparently bugged. I checked the forum again today and it's apparently still bugged. There are workarounds which have solved the problem for some players. At least one guy claimed to have done it just by reinstalling the game, but that hadn't worked for me. In mid-December of 2018, someone came up with another fix which seemingly solved the problem for a lot of other players.

This fix involved editing the Windows registry. Specifically, according to this Steam forum post, one must clear a TotalPlayTime entry from HKEY_CURRENT_USER\Software\Atmos Games, LLC\Pinstripe. Yes, the game apparently tracks total play time in the registry. That just boggles my mind. I don't understand it. Perhaps I just don't understand game development or Windows software development well enough to see why Atmos Games would do this, but it seems insane to me. In any case, for whatever reason, this workaround didn't work for me. I assume I must have done it incorrectly, because it had worked for others. However, having failed once with this attempted registry hack, I had already failed the speedrun achievement at least three times in total, and I was fed up. I uninstalled the game.

However, this was not before I had seen another post claiming to have a fix for the Linux version of the game. At the time, I wasn't using Linux on my personal computer yet, but I figured I might try it someday. Sure enough, I started using Linux the following year. Attempting again to get the last achievement in Pinstripe wasn't really my top priority as a new Linux user, but I was bound to come back to it eventually.

So at the end of 2019, I reinstalled Pinstripe on Linux Mint. Now there was no longer a Windows registry claiming I had played for hours, so if I had still remembered how to finish the game quickly, I probably could have just unlocked the achievement fair and square in one attempt. Unfortunately, I hadn't played the game in about a year. I would most likely have had to play through the game once to remember what to do, and then a second time for the speedrun achievement. I had already messed around with this game enough, and I had already beaten the game in under an hour multiple times as verified by my own clock, so I didn't feel like playing fair. If this Linux workaround documented on Steam could be used to unbreak the achievement, it could also be used to cheat. So I decided to remove any chance of failure, and cheat.

I mean, in my defense, it was barely cheating. The game had already cheated me.

I played through most of the game, and sure enough, as I neared the end, I was not on track to beat the game in under 60 minutes. So I closed the game and, following the advice found in the Steam forum, I opened up the file ~/.config/unity3d/Atmos\ Games\,\ LLC/Pinstripe/prefs. It's a plaintext file in some XML-like format with a handful of tags specifying various preferences such as screen resolution height and width. As promised, there's also a line of the form

<pref name="TotalPlayTime" type="float">xxx</pref>

where xxx is the elapsed play time in seconds. Note that, for the sake of verifying what units are used here (for it could have been milliseconds for all I remember of December 2019), I just reinstalled the game and played it for about a minute, and this line in my current copy of this file now reads as follows:

<pref name="TotalPlayTime" type="float">62.1948</pref>

At the time I first found this file, I suppose it must have read something closer to 3600, as I was approaching the one-hour mark with not enough time to spare. So I opened up the file in vim, decreased the value by a few hundred seconds, opened the game back up, and played to the end. The achievement finally unlocked.

Now I've got my 100% completion in Pinstripe. Was it worth it? Well, no and yes. The time I spent trying to unlock the achievement on Windows was a waste of time. However, I still liked the game and wanted to play through it again last December; I also wanted to test drive the Linux version; and, while I was doing that, I figured I might as well get the achievement I was owed. Editing a text file, by the way, was a lot easier than playing around with the Windows registry. Linux wins again, I guess.

There are people who pay absolutely no attention to achievements. For the sake of my mental health, perhaps I should try to be one of them. For the most part, I guess I am. I have far too many games to be caring about unlocking all of the achievements in all of them, considering how many games have achievements which are just arbitrarily time-consuming, seemingly for no reason other than to decrease the number of players willing and able to unlock them and thus to increase their perceived value among self-proclaimed achievement hunters.

If I've already unlocked over 90% of a game's achievements, though, it's hard not to go for 100%. If there's only one achievement left, it's almost impossible not to try, or to be annoyed by it forever if I know it's unattainable. I have other games which, like Pinstripe, have some broken achievements, but there are not always easy workarounds to unbreak them. Do achievements really matter? Not really. But they're a part of the game, and you shouldn't sell broken stuff.

Dear game developers,

Stop selling broken stuff.

Thursday, April 16, 2020

Decoding the Level Passwords in Pushover

Pushover is a puzzle game about an ant pushing over dominos. I played it when I was a kid, and more recently I got a Steam copy of it from a cheap bundle of old games. I didn't really start playing this Steam copy until this week, at which point I remembered that, like many games of the time, Pushover has no save system. Each time the player reaches a new level, the game provides a password which can be used to return to that point.

As I played the first few levels, I noticed something interesting. The first four level passwords were as follows:

Level Password 01 00512 02 01536 03 01024 04 03072

Two of the passwords being powers of two immediately caught my attention. If we convert each password to binary (using sixteen bits just because bits usually come in groups of eight), we get this:

Level Password Binary 01 00512 0000001000000000 02 01536 0000011000000000 03 01024 0000010000000000 04 03072 0000110000000000

Following this pattern, I expected the password for level 05 to be 0000100000000000, or 02048, but using this password brought me to level 07 instead. Going back to level 04, I played up to level 08 and found that, while there was still clearly some kind of pattern, it was a bit more complicated than I had thought. Converting the first eight level passwords to binary, we have:

Level Password Binary 01 00512 0000001000000000 02 01536 0000011000000000 03 01024 0000010000000000 04 03072 0000110000000000 05 03584 0000111000000000 06 02560 0000101000000000 07 02048 0000100000000000 08 06144 0001100000000000

At this point, we can already start to see what's going on, if we look at the binary in columns. There seems to be a pattern emerging:

The 2⁹ bit column (10th from the right) has 2 ones, 2 zeros, 2 ones, and 2 zeros; we might expect this to continue indefinitely.
The 2¹⁰ bit column (11th from the right), after a single zero, has 4 ones in a row, followed by some zeros; we might expect this column to have a pattern of 4 ones, 4 zeros, and so on, albeit offset by a single zero at the beginning.

However, I didn't really see it until I had played through another eight levels. Converting the first sixteen level passwords to binary, we have:

Level Password Binary 01 00512 0000001000000000 02 01536 0000011000000000 03 01024 0000010000000000 04 03072 0000110000000000 05 03584 0000111000000000 06 02560 0000101000000000 07 02048 0000100000000000 08 06144 0001100000000000 09 06656 0001101000000000 10 07680 0001111000000000 11 07168 0001110000000000 12 05122 0001010000000010 13 05634 0001011000000010 14 04610 0001001000000010 15 04098 0001000000000010 16 12290 0011000000000010

Focusing only on the higher-order (leftmost) bits, we can now clearly see that:

The 2⁹ bit, starting at level 01, has a pattern of 2 ones, 2 zeros, and so on.
The 2¹⁰ bit, starting at level 02, seems to have a pattern of 4 ones, 4 zeros, and so on.
The 2¹¹ bit, starting at level 04, has 8 ones in a row, and has presumably started a pattern of 8 ones, 8 zeros, and so on.
The 2¹² bit, starting at level 08, is all ones all the way through level 16, and may have started a pattern of 16 ones, 16 zeros, and so on.
The 2¹³ bit first becomes one at level 16.

But something is also happening in the 2¹ bit (second from the right), where a one suddenly appears starting at level 12. This doesn't seem related to the rest of the pattern, and I think I know why.

It was after completing level 11 that the little ant protagonist found... a bag of Quavers...? (Did I mention that Pushover was sponsored by a snack food company? I've never had Quavers; apparently they're British.) On the menu screen which appears between levels, I could see after completing level 11 that a little sprite representing a bag of Quavers had been added to the bottom of the screen where there appear to be nine spaces available. So it's probably safe to assume that nine virtual bags of Quavers are pointlessly awarded throughout the game.

The fact that the 2¹ bit changed after level 11 suggests that some of the lower-order bits are used for tracking the bags collected, independently of the higher-order bits which indicate the level number. As an experiment, I took the password for level 12 and flipped the 2¹ bit to zero, resulting in 0001010000000000 or 05120. Sure enough, entering the password 05120 took me to level 12, and upon completing the level, the inter-level menu screen did not show the bag that was there when I had beaten levels 11 through 15 before. Moreover, the password it gave me for level 13 this time was 05632, which is the previously obtained level 13 password with the 2¹ bit flipped to zero. However, taking the level 02 password and flipping the 2¹ bit to one did not result in a valid password. So I cannot cheat my way into already having a bag prior to level 12, but it seems I can enter levels 12 or later without one.

If some bits are only for tracking bags collected, and if any level can be entered without any bags, then we should be able to get a complete set of level passwords just by predicting the pattern of the bits indicating level number. The passwords of levels 01 through 16 suggested that only the higher-order bits (starting with 2⁹) encoded the level number. So at this point, I predicted that the full pattern (if it continued indefinitely) would be as follows:

The 2⁹ bit will start with one at level 01 and then change every 2 levels.
The 2¹⁰ bit will become one at level 02 and then change every 4 levels.
The 2¹¹ bit will become one at level 04 and then change every 8 levels.
The 2¹² bit will become one at level 08 and then change every 16 levels.
The 2¹³ bit will become one at level 16 and then change every 32 levels.
The 2¹⁴ bit will become one at level 32 and then change every 64 levels.
The 2¹⁵ bit will become one at level 64 and then change every 128 levels.

This algorithm does predicts the values of the seven highest-order bits for the first sixteen level passwords. Unfortunately, I realized later that it's not quite correct. While looking around in the game's files for goodies, I found that the Steam version of Pushover comes with a file called PUSHCODE.TXT — which, bizarrely, contains most but not all level passwords, and seems to have been written not by the developer or publisher but by someone from a demogroup known as Tristar & Red Sector Incorporated. The file begins:

TRISTAR & RED SECTOR PRESENTS PUSHOVER (LEVELCODES) LEVEL 1 00512 LEVEL 2 01536 LEVEL 3 01024 ...

It continues all the way through level 67:

... LEVEL 65 17023 LEVEL 66 18047 LEVEL 67 17535 NOTE: THERE ARE MISSING A FEW CODES!!!! TIME BANDIT/TRSI

Pushover apparently has 100 levels, so I guess the player who wrote this file gave up about two-thirds of the way through the game. However, they got far enough to show me that the 2¹⁵ bit does not get flipped to one at level 64. Any number with a one in the 2¹⁵ place would be at least 32768, and none of the passwords in PUSHCODE.TXT are that high!

So I wrote a few lines of Python to convert all the passwords in PUSHCODE.TXT to binary. The results are as follows:

Level Password Binary 01 00512 0000001000000000 02 01536 0000011000000000 03 01024 0000010000000000 04 03072 0000110000000000 05 03584 0000111000000000 06 02560 0000101000000000 07 02048 0000100000000000 08 06144 0001100000000000 09 06656 0001101000000000 10 07680 0001111000000000 11 07168 0001110000000000 12 05122 0001010000000010 13 05634 0001011000000010 14 04610 0001001000000010 15 04098 0001000000000010 16 12290 0011000000000010 17 12802 0011001000000010 18 13826 0011011000000010 19 13314 0011010000000010 20 15362 0011110000000010 21 15878 0011111000000110 22 14854 0011101000000110 23 14342 0011100000000110 24 10246 0010100000000110 25 10758 0010101000000110 26 11782 0010111000000110 27 11270 0010110000000110 28 09222 0010010000000110 29 09734 0010011000000110 30 08718 0010001000001110 31 08206 0010000000001110 32 24590 0110000000001110 33 25102 0110001000001110 34 26126 0110011000001110 35 25614 0110010000001110 36 27662 0110110000001110 37 28174 0110111000001110 38 27150 0110101000001110 39 26638 0110100000001110 40 30734 0111100000001110 41 31246 0111101000001110 42 32270 0111111000001110 43 31758 0111110000001110 44 29726 0111010000011110 45 30238 0111011000011110 46 29214 0111001000011110 47 28702 0111000000011110 48 20510 0101000000011110 49 21022 0101001000011110 50 22046 0101011000011110 51 21534 0101010000011110 52 23582 0101110000011110 53 24094 0101111000011110 54 23070 0101101000011110 55 22558 0101100000011110 56 18494 0100100000111110 57 19006 0100101000111110 58 20030 0100111000111110 59 19518 0100110000111110 60 17470 0100010000111110 61 17982 0100011000111110 62 16958 0100001000111110 63 16510 0100000001111110 64 16511 0100000001111111 65 17023 0100001001111111 66 18047 0100011001111111 67 17535 0100010001111111

This is all consistent with my predictions about bits 2⁹ through 2¹⁴, but it's the 2⁰ bit — not the 2¹⁵ bit — which gets flipped to one at level 64. So we can revise the earlier prediction:

The 2⁹ bit starts with one at level 01 and then changes every 2 levels.
The 2¹⁰ bit becomes one at level 02 and then changes every 4 levels.
The 2¹¹ bit becomes one at level 04 and then changes every 8 levels.
The 2¹² bit becomes one at level 08 and then changes every 16 levels.
The 2¹³ bit becomes one at level 16 and then changes every 32 levels.
The 2¹⁴ bit becomes one at level 32 and then changes every 64 levels.
The 2⁰ bit becomes one at level 64 and then changes every 128 levels.

This isn't quite as elegant as what I had initially predicted, because the "level bits" are no longer contiguous, but it appears to be correct. The last rule is already unlike the others anyway, in that we would never actually see the 2⁰ bit change from one back to zero after 128 levels because there are only 100 levels in the game. I predicted that bit to flip at a frequency of once per 128 levels to continue the power-of-two pattern. So that last rule could just be written as:

The 2⁰ bit is one at level 64 and up.

The passwords in PUSHCODE.TXT also give us a hint about how bags are tracked. It seems that each one has its own dedicated bit. If we enter the level 67 password above (17535 or 0100010001111111) and then quit back to the menu screen, we see that we have the first six bags. But if we flip a few bits to get 0100010001010101, and enter the corresponding decimal password 17493, quitting back to the menu shows that we have only the second, fourth, and sixth bags.

If there are nine bags, and if each bag has its own bit, then we need nine bits to represent them all. Meanwhile, if bits 2⁰ and 2⁹ through 2¹⁴ and are used to determine the level, then the nine bits remaining to represent bags are 2¹ through 2⁸ and 2¹⁵.

From another source (the description on this YouTube video), I've found that level 100 is actually a bonus level, and that its password is 44543 (or, in binary, 1010110111111111). This is is still consistent with the above rules regarding bits 2⁹, 2¹⁰, 2¹¹, 2¹², 2¹³, 2¹⁴, and 2⁰; additionally, bits 2¹, 2², 2³, 2⁴, 2⁵, 2⁶, 2⁷, 2⁸, and 2¹⁵ are all flipped to one.

By starting with the level 100 password, individually setting the 2¹, 2², 2³, 2⁴, 2⁵, 2⁶, 2⁷, 2⁸, and 2¹⁵ bits back to zero, entering the resulting passwords to start level 100, and then quitting to the menu to see which bags are shown, I've confirmed that each of these bits corresponds to a particular bag. Interestingly, setting 2¹⁵ to zero in particular, resulting in the password 11775, has the effect of making level 100 easier by revealing the special domino types which are normally hidden on this bonus level. More importantly, though, I'm pretty sure we have now fully decoded the game's level passwords.

The 2⁰ bit is one at level 64 and up.
The 2¹ bit is one after the first bag is collected (level ≥ 12).
The 2² bit is one after the second bag is collected (level ≥ 21).
The 2³ bit is one after the third bag is collected (level ≥ 30).
The 2⁴ bit is one after the fourth bag is collected (level ≥ 44).
The 2⁵ bit is one after the fifth bag is collected (level ≥ 56).
The 2⁶ bit is one after the sixth bag is collected (level ≥ 63).
The 2⁷ bit is one after the seventh bag is collected (level ≥ 78).
The 2⁸ bit is one after the eighth bag is collected (level ≥ 89).
The 2⁹ bit starts with one at level 01 and then changes every 2 levels.
The 2¹⁰ bit becomes one at level 02 and then changes every 4 levels.
The 2¹¹ bit becomes one at level 04 and then changes every 8 levels.
The 2¹² bit becomes one at level 08 and then changes every 16 levels.
The 2¹³ bit becomes one at level 16 and then changes every 32 levels.
The 2¹⁴ bit becomes one at level 32 and then changes every 64 levels.
The 2¹⁵ bit is one after the ninth bag is collected (level = 100).

The above assumes that bags are awarded for completion of levels 11, 20, 29, 43, 55, 62, 77, and 88, based on the binary representations of the first 67 passwords passwords found in PUSHCODE.TXT and of the remaining passwords found on this page. I don't feel inclined to play through the entire game to confirm it myself before publishing this post. Given that we can enter any level just by setting the "level bits" (2⁹, 2¹⁰, 2¹¹, 2¹², 2¹³, 2¹⁴, and 2⁰) — without turning on any of the "bag bits" — there's actually more than enough information here to allow me to amuse myself by writing a little Python script that gives me a valid password for any level I want to play:

import sys def get_level_bit(frequency, level): offset = frequency // 2 return (level + offset) // frequency % 2 def generate_password(level): bits = 0 for index in reversed(range(16)): bits = bits << 1 if 9 <= index <= 14: bits += get_level_bit(2 ** (index - 8), level) if index == 0: bits += get_level_bit(128, level) return bits if __name__ == "__main__": print(generate_password(int(sys.argv[1])))

Is this really useful when I could just look up the passwords on the internet? Not really. But reverse engineering the game's passwords was more fun.

Thursday, February 6, 2020

How to Cheat in Spec Ops: The Line

Why Cheat?: A Quick Review of My Experience with a Not-Completely-Awful Game

I don't usually play military first-person shooters, let alone cover-based shooters like Spec Ops: The Line. But I got it for $1.00 (along with Duke Nukem Forever and The Darkness II) from Humble 2K Bundle 2, and... it wasn't that bad, at least on the default difficulty setting. I suppose it's precisely because I don't usually play this type of game that I didn't just see Spec Ops: The Line's cover-based shooting mechanics as an inferior version of what you would find in, say, a Gears of War game. For me, it was something different, and I enjoyed it, even though it was occasionally frustrating. Having gotten to the end of my first play-through, I could see myself playing it more, and none of the achievements seemed particularly hard to unlock, so I decided to play through the game a couple more times to go for 100% completion.

It was only at the point where I had unlocked all but one of the game's achievements — the one for beating the game on the hardest difficulty setting, FUBAR — that I realized how anti-fun the game could be. So I dropped it for a while. But after a few years of seeing 49/50 on the game's achievement tracker, it began to bother me.

The thing about me and achievements is that, while I'll make some effort to unlock them if they actually happen to be fun to unlock, I don't really care a whole lot about them otherwise... except in that they annoy me when they serve as a reminder of what's almost finished. In other words, while I don't normally treat a game with achievements as a tedious "to-do" list, 98% complete is just irritating.

So eventually, I did go back to the game and try to beat FUBAR mode, thinking it just couldn't be as bad as I remembered. But it was worse than I remembered. It was an enjoyable challenge for a while, and I actually got all the way to chapter 11 out of 15, but after a certain point, I couldn't play for more than 30 minutes at a time without getting annoyed. I wasn't enjoying it anymore, and while there were occasional moments of satisfaction in which I was able to pass a checkpoint by figuring out some optimal strategy and executing it perfectly, these moments were outnumbered by all the times when having gotten through a tough fight seemed like blind luck. The game's FUBAR difficulty setting isn't just unreasonable at times; it's also where the inherent flaws in the game's design really shine.

When one isn't having fun with a game anymore, does it make sense to keep playing just for an achievement? Not really. Not when nobody else is ever going to see or care about that achievement. When a game isn't fun anymore, the rational choice is either to drop it or to make it fun. I had begun to wonder if there was a way to cheat my way through the last bit of the game, as venting my frustration by breaking the game in some amusing way might make up for what felt like a waste of time so far. Turning that 49/50 into a 50/50 (so that even my undiagnosed OCD could accept that I'm done with the game) without having to subject myself to any more of this sadistic FUBAR nonsense would be nice too.

That's when I realized that the game's configuration files, which are encrypted in the Windows version on which I did the first half of my FUBAR play-through, are human-readable plaintext in the Linux version on which I continued the game after the termination of Windows 7 support gave me the final push towards using Linux for almost everything.

How To Cheat, The Easy Way: Step One Is To Install Linux (Which You Should Do Anyway Unless You Really Love Windows 10)

Install the Linux version of the game using the Linux version of the Steam client, and go to

~/.steam/steam/steamapps/common/SpecOps_TheLine/SRGame/Config

and you'll find a bunch of .ini files — 94 of them, by my count — and a single .txt file. I haven't fully explored the contents of these configuration files, because some of them are rather large, and there are too many of them to summarize here even if I had looked at them all. However, a quick browse through a few of them suggests that they contain variables for almost all the numerical and Boolean values one might want to alter, such as: player health, health regeneration rate, enemy health, the amount of damage required to explode enemies' heads, weapon damage, amount of ammo each weapon gets from ammo boxes, et cetera.

Some files have multiple variations. For example, the files

SRPawnEasy.ini SRPawnEasy_Coop.ini SRPawn.ini SRPawn_Coop.ini SRPawnHard.ini SRPawnHard_Coop.ini SRPawnInsane.ini SRPawnInsane_Coop.ini

all contain values like character health. The ones with the "Coop" suffix obviously apply to the game's cooperative multiplayer mode, while the files marked "Easy", "Hard", and "Insane" presumably apply to the the game's "Walk on the Beach", "Suicide Mission", and "FUBAR" difficulty modes, respectively. I assume the "Combat Op" difficulty (which lies between "Walk on the Beach" and "Suicide Mission") is considered the default setting, so it probably just uses the values from SRPawn.ini (or SRPawn_Coop.ini for cooperative mode). Furthermore, I assume other difficulty modes will also fall back on SRPawn.ini for values which don't appear in their specific files, as SRPawn.ini has many more lines than the other variations.

I'm making some educated guesses here, because I haven't actually tried editing each of these files individually to confirm that the effects are what we might reasonably expect based on their names and contents. However, I did try editing the file SRPawnInsane.ini with the intent of modifying FUBAR mode. I started by modifying the health values of the player character, Walker, and his two squad mates, Lugo and Adams. This is just a matter of finding the right m_defaultHealth values. There are several m_defaultHealth lines, each appearing in a separate section indicating which character's default health level is being modified. Here's a snippet of SRPawnInsane.ini:

[SRGame.YPawn_Walker] m_defaultHealth=60.0 [SRGame.YGamePawn_Player] m_damageModifierExecuting=0.3 m_damageModifierReviving=0.3 [SRGame.YPawn_Lugo] m_defaultHealth=220.0 [SRGame.YPawn_Adams] m_defaultHealth=220.0 [SRGame.YPawn_AdamsAlone] [SRGame.YPawn_Enemy] m_defaultHealth=155.0 m_chanceToGrantGrenadeToExecutor=0.2 m_vaporizeModifier=3.56 m_headExplodeModifier=1.52

When I found this, I vastly increased the m_defaultHealth values found under [SRGame.YPawn_Walker], [SRGame.YPawn_Lugo], and [SRGame.YPawn_Adams]. I was unsure if it would actually work, but when I started up the game and continued my FUBAR mode campaign, it was clear that the player character and his squad mates were all practically invincible. It seemed too easy but it actually worked.

There are a few other things to note in the snippet above:

The [SRGame.YGamePawn_Player] section has a couple of damage modifier values; based on the names, I assume these will alter the amount of damage which the player will take while performing execution moves on enemies and reviving squad mates. However, I haven't tried changing these yet, so I don't know whether they are positive or negative modifiers. Does setting them to 0.0 mean the player takes full damage or that the player takes no damage? Presumably it's one or the other. Either way, setting them to 1.0 probably does the opposite of whatever setting them to 0.0 does, because the fact that each value is currently set to 0.3 suggests that these are fractions of the normal amount of damage.
The [SRGame.YPawn_AdamsAlone] section in SRPawnInsane.ini is, in fact, empty. However, it's not empty in SRPawn.ini or SRPawnEasy.ini. In each of those files, this section contains another m_defaultHealth line, so it's safe to assume that we can add one here as well, if we want to. When placed in this section, m_defaultHealth probably modifies the amount of health that Adams has during a sequence in which he is separated from the player.
The [SRGame.YPawn_Enemy] section contains some very specific modifiers; you can probably guess what they do based on the names. The file SRPawn.ini has even more values, any of which could most likely be modified here in SRPawnInsane.ini as well. The section name might be a bit misleading, though, as it seems to pertain only to one type of enemy. There are other sections called [SRGame.YPawn_MediumEnemy], [SRGame.YPawn_EnemyMarauder], [SRGame.YPawn_EnemyElite], and so on.

I'm just trying to give you an idea of what can be done with these configuration files. As noted above, some of the .ini files are rather large, so I'm probably just scratching the surface of what can be modified here. I haven't tried making substantial modifications myself — but it looks like you could, in theory, fine-tune many aspects of the game to be exactly how you want them. If you don't like the fact that the player can take damage while reviving squad mates, change it. If you don't like the amount of health that a particular enemy has, change it. If you want enemies' heads to explode with every headshot from any weapon, you can probably make it happen. Whether anyone cares enough about this game to do any of this, however, is another matter entirely.

I only went as far as modifying the health of Walker, Lugo, and Adams — adding a few zeroes to each number, before the decimal of course — and the rest of the FUBAR campaign was a hilarious joke. I got to the end in a tiny fraction of the time it would have taken if I had played the game fairly, and it's probably the only way I would have been willing to get to the end, as my patience had run out. And, for the record, this did unlock the achievement for finishing the game on FUBAR difficulty. Modifying these configuration files does not disable achievements.

Therefore, those of you who actually take achievements seriously as an indicator of your skill level, or something, might want to avoid playing with these configuration files while doing anything which might unlock an achievement. Personally, as noted above, I don't really care — but I can understand how others might regret unlocking a tough achievement by cheating. If you're the kind of person who takes pride in achievements, unlocking one by modifying the game might leave a bad taste in your mouth.

The Case For More Games Being This Easy To Exploit

The encrypted configuration files used by the Windows version of the game actually can be decrypted, but I can't personally vouch for the tool used to do so. I didn't bother with it when I played the Windows version of the game, because I didn't want to cheat at this game badly enough to put up with the extra steps, let alone the mysterious executable. (I trust it a bit more now that I've found it on PC Gaming Wiki, but when I first became aware of the decryption tool, it was through a link on some random forum.)

The fact that the files are not encrypted in the Linux version of the game is probably an oversight — or maybe they just didn't care, or maybe they figured Linux users would find out how to break into the files anyway, or maybe they already knew about the decryption tool for the Windows version by the time they made the Linux version so they decided decryption was pointless. In any case, the fact that the files are encrypted in the Windows version is a clear indication that players were not meant to mess with these files.

But why not?

Cheating in multiplayer games is not okay, because it spoils the experience for other players, hence the existence of anti-cheat measures in multiplayer games. When it comes to single-player games, though, I don't see why we shouldn't be able to do whatever we want with a game that we bought. Many single-player games are made to be (or just are) easily modifiable; Skyrim, for example, is famous for community-made mods. Other single-player games, however, are made to be (or just are) very difficult to modify, as the Windows version of Spec Ops: The Line would be if nobody had figured out how to decrypt its files.

It's almost a shame that a game like Spec Ops: The Line, which is considered by many to be thoroughly mediocre, happens to be one of the games in which so much of the configuration is exposed to players through plaintext or easily decrypted files. A lot of games expose graphical settings not found in-game via configuration files, but in my experience, the ability to change the gameplay this way is rare. I wish I could so easily make similar modifications to games like Alan Wake, not because they're hard and I need to cheat, but because it would be fun. I'd actually like to make Alan Wake harder. Unfortunately, it's not an easily modifiable game.

Achievements are a possible reason that a game's developers might not want players to have unmitigated access to configuration values like player health. Some people take achievements seriously, especially rare achievements which are difficult to unlock; the perceived value of such an achievement, for players able to unlock it through skill and perseverance, is lessened when someone like me unapologetically cheats to unlock it by modifying configuration values.

But just as developers can program a game to disable achievements when built-in cheat codes are activated, they could also program a game to disable achievements when some deliberately exposed configuration file differs from the intended defaults, as verified by a checksum or whatever. I guess I'm advocating for games to offer the same level of easy modification as Spec Ops: The Line, if not more, but on purpose instead of by accident.

Some developers release powerful tools for modding their games, which is great. Changing a configuration file is also great, though, especially for players who aren't going to bother learning how to use whatever modding tools exist. My philosophy as a software developer is that hard-coding arbitrary numbers is bad and everything which reasonably could be configurable should be configurable, and maybe that's far easier said than done when it comes to games — I'm a software developer, not a game developer — but I have a feeling that most games hide configuration from players on purpose, and doing this just to prevent a human from cheating against a computer is silly. The ability to cheat is not going to ruin a game for anyone with any self-control.

I'm also a big fan of games having plaintext save files, for similar reasons. I've played a few, and although I've rarely bothered to skip ahead or otherwise cheat by editing their save files, knowing that I had the option was nice. Save editing is probably hard to detect, so I don't expect it from games whose developers want achievements to mean something — but as with all forms of unintended cheating, my selfish take on the subject is that I should be able to cheat to unlock achievements, and also, deal with it.

Sorry for making the global achievement statistics for Spec Ops: The Line slightly less accurate though, I guess.

Saturday, November 2, 2019

Steam Library Update: A Quick Review

The big Steam Library update is out. I had tried it during the open beta phase, and while I was somewhat impressed by the new look, there were some things I had hoped they would improve. Maybe the performance is a bit better, but unfortunately, everything else appears to be the same.

A comparison of the old (top) and new (bottom) library designs.

At the end of the day, the library is just a fancy game launcher, whose primary purpose for those who don't use Steam as a social networking site is simply to provide a "play" button for each game, so I'm not mad enough to write a huge essay about it. I'll just break it down into lists of "pros" and "cons" and call it a day.

Pros

Aesthetics

Overall, it's more modern-looking and — subjectively, of course — prettier. At least, some aspects of it are prettier. Maybe this is too subjective to list as a definite "pro".

Dynamic Collections

The one functional upgrade that actually got me excited was the addition of dynamic collections, in addition to normal collections (previously known as categories). Whereas regular collections are static, and are defined by adding games manually, dynamic collections are based on a selection of filters, or on user-generated store tags, and thus will grow automatically as new games are added to the library. This is really nice if you want a collection for all your single-player games, for example, but don't want to keep updating it.

The filters currently available for dynamic collections.

I should note that the list of pre-defined filters available for dynamic collections is somewhat lacking (by which I mean it's only a subset of the pre-defined filters available in a store search). Oddly, I can't even make a dynamic collection for games supporting Remote Play Together, a new feature which one would assume Valve should want to promote in this way. Granted, that feature is still in beta, so perhaps I shouldn't hope for a specific Remote Play Together filter in the library yet (although there is a Remote Play Together filter in the store search). However, it should be noted that the games supporting Remote Play Together are, in theory, those with any kind of local multiplayer, and there are no built-in library filters for local multiplayer, local co-op, or shared/split screen either.

Update (November 21, 2019): Remote Play Together is officially released as of yesterday, and — as if to respond to my inane nitpicking — a "Remote Play Together" option has been added to the list of built-in filters available for dynamic collections. No other new filters have been added, though, and I still wish there were at least as many as are available in a Steam store search. I assume these library filters are the same as the store filters, under the hood.

I had hoped that the "store tags" option would make up for any shortcomings in the list of pre-defined dynamic collection filters, but a quick test indicates that this is apparently not the case. As of the time of this post, a store search for the "Local Co-Op" tag returns far fewer results than a store search using the built-in "Local Co-Op" filter. Even when the latter search is narrowed by adding the "Games" filter (thereby excluding DLC, etc.), it still returns many more results than the "Local Co-Op" tag search. It seems that store tags related to features are not applied to all products which contain those features according to the built-in filters. For this reason, I don't trust a dynamic collection defined with the "Local Co-Op" tag to contain all of my local co-op games. But I can't really call this a downside of the library update, because the old library didn't have dynamic collections at all, and the fact that the Steam store provides two conflicting ways of searching for the same thing is a weird problem which predates this update.

Update (November 21, 2019): I'm not sure when this changed — perhaps it was when Remote Play Together came out of beta yesterday — but the store's built-in "Local Co-op" filter has been renamed to "Shared/Split Screen Co-op" and thus the above example of the difference between tags and built-in filters makes a bit less sense. For what it's worth, the new "Shared/Split Screen Co-op" filter is the same as the old "Local Co-op" filter, judging by the URLs, but the name no longer matches that of the "Local Co-Op" tag, so it's harder to show that Steam is doing something nonsensical here. So I'll revise my example with filters which have not been unexpectedly renamed: Compare the search results of the "Co-op" tag to the search results of the built-in "Co-op" filter; the latter yields more results. The same is true when comparing the "Online Co-Op" tag to the built-in "Online Co-op" filter; the latter yields more results. I still take this as evidence that tags are unreliable. But again, I've gone off on a tangent regarding things which aren't strictly related to the library update, which didn't introduce this problem but merely drew my attention to it. So, moving on...

Drag-and-Drop Collection Editing

I do like the fact that I can drag and drop games into collections. Games can also be added to collections by right-clicking on them and selecting a collection from a list, which is approximately how games were added to categories before, so the new feature doesn't come with any significant loss in functionality.

My only complaint about collection editing is that adding a game to multiple collections at once is slightly more arduous than before. In the old Steam library, the list of categories was actually a checklist from which multiple categories could be selected at once. Adding a game to multiple collections simultaneously doesn't seem possible with the new Steam library. Whether you drag-and-drop or right-click, games must be added to collections one-at-a-time. However, I think it's rare that anyone would want to add a single game to so many collections that this would become too much of a hassle. What's more important is the ability to add multiple games to a single category in bulk, and this can still be done just as easily as before.

Cons

Proton Ambiguity (See Update Below)

On Linux, the library no longer indicates whether a game will run natively on Linux, or with a specific Proton version selected by Valve testing or by the user, or with the default Proton version selected for all other games. This sounds like a weird complaint, but not being able to see whether a game will be executed with Proton can be a bit of a problem.

During the recent Halloween sale, I bought a game called Oniken; the game's store page does not indicate that it natively supports Linux, but the overall rating on its ProtonDB page indicates that it works perfectly, out of the box, with Proton. So naturally I tried playing it on Linux, where I have Steam Play enabled for all games. It didn't work. A closer look at the ProtonDB page revealed that, although the game has no native Linux support, it apparently does have some kind of built-in Wine wrapper which, of course, doesn't work. I had assumed the game was running with Proton but, unbeknownst to me, it was doing something else by default instead. When I tried forcing the game to run with Proton, it did indeed work perfectly. Situations like this were a lot less confusing back when the Steam library displayed a Proton version, if applicable, next to the "Play" button of each game.

As before the big update, the built-in filter for games which run on Linux is useless when Steam Play is enabled for all titles (which is the only correct way to use Steam on Linux given the success rate of Proton in getting Windows games to work); with this Steam Play option enabled, the filter includes all games, so it doesn't actually do anything. Given that the library no longer indicates how each game will run, it would be nice if there were separate filters (or the ability to define separate dynamic collections) for native Linux games and Proton-enabled games, at least. Unfortunately, I can't find any such option.

Given how incredibly great Steam has been for playing games on Linux, this relatively minor downgrade is a disappointment, as it gives the impression (though perhaps I'm being paranoid) that Valve is losing interest in maintaining Steam as a Linux gaming platform.

Update (November 9, 2019): A few days ago, I did some digging and found a related issue report on the "Steam for Linux" GitHub page. I had no expectation that it would be fixed any time soon, but I was glad to know I wasn't the only one who noticed this glaring problem. Today, however, a new comment on the issue report claimed that the missing feature had been restored. A screenshot on a later comment shows that, sure enough, a Proton version number can be seen after clicking a game's "Show more details" button. It seems this fix is in beta, as I had to opt in to beta updates to see it, but I assume it will be rolled out to a stable release soon enough.

Grid View Dimensions

An example of the box art problem.

The new grid view uses box-art-style (portrait-oriented) image dimensions. Many older games don't have suitable images, so the banner-style (landscape-oriented) images are used and the empty space is filled with an ugly blur effect. There's no option to go back to the old grid view despite literally all games having images with the right dimensions for it.

As before the update, users can manually select custom images for games. Finding such images isn't hard; there's a site called SteamGridDB dedicated in part to providing custom box art of the proper dimensions. The use of custom box art images, where developers have not provided official images in the new format, is one way to get a uniform-looking library. However, I have nearly 800 games on Steam, and the size of my library is largely due to the fact that so many of my games were bought for pennies because they are old and/or obscure, and these are exactly the kinds of games which are more likely to be missing the new box-art style images. The use of custom images is a good solution for users with small libraries, but I have too many games which are lacking proper box-art images, and I just can't be bothered to spend time fixing it. I'd much rather be given the option to use the old grid view.

Awkward Columns

When a game is selected and Steam displays game details, the wider left-side column is reserved for friend activity, developer updates, and community content; meanwhile, the narrower right-side column has information like achievements, Steam Workshop, screenshots, DLC, trading cards, etc. If the auto-loading of community junk is disabled in the settings (as I think it should be) and there are recent developer updates or friend activity, it leaves a big empty space pushing all of the other information to the side. Some of my games have two or more screen lengths worth of content in the narrow column, and nothing in the wide column when I have auto-loading community stuff disabled. It makes sense for most content to be put into the narrow column when the wide column was designed for infinitely scrolling auto-loading content, but I think infinitely scrolling auto-loading content is annoying, so of course I'm going to disable it. Once the wide column's (annoying) main purpose is disabled, it negates a lot of the effort that went into making this design aesthetically pleasing.

Manual Links Removed (Yes, I'm Nitpicking)

The library no longer contains direct links to game manuals, forcing users to go to a game's store page or open its properties window.

Performance

Unsurprisingly, performance is poorer. With the prettier interface comes greater resource usage.

And Of Course, Bugs

There are still some bugs, indicating that the update should have stayed in beta for longer. For example, when I switch back to the Library tab from the Store or Community tabs, some parts of the library don't appear until I move the mouse over them. I've seen this on Windows 7, at least. Maybe it's just me, but I doubt it.