What does "beating a game" mean to you?

[Gunstar Green]

Why does this thread exist?

Are we doing scholarly research, for a peer reviewed journal and we're secretly part of your graduate thesis or PhD dissertation? I didn't consent to that!

Who really cares? If you feel like you beat it, you beat it. If someone has a different opinion or definition, it's not like my hackles are going to go up and try to tell you otherwise.

It's a discussion on video game culture, that's what most of us are here for right?

The object isn't to come up with some solid definition on what it means to beat a game but to discuss what it means to others individually. The interest lies in people having different opinions, not in enforcing a singular opinion.

Been thinking about save states.

I actually use them on the Retron 5, but only as an "extended pause" - essentially a substitute for battery and password saves. Basically all this allows me to do is bypass the title screen / password / save screens. I actually never intended to do this, but the R5 saves automatically.

I really don't think I could fault anyone for this. It's for convenience. Save stating instead of having to leave a game paused all night or to skip wasting time with clunky passwords isn't going to change its difficulty.

[Exhuminator]

I want to mention that it's dangerous to use savestates solely for saving purposes if you're playing a long RPG. As in, you never use the game's own proprietary save game loading. The memory handling in the programming can become corrupted if the game isn't loaded from an actual savegame from time to time. Essentially it's like leaving an RPG running for 30 hours or whatever, the virtual RAM contents can develop memory leaks. I was schooled on this from some ROMhackers back in the day. Pretty sure those guys knew what they were talking about.

I think it would be interesting to have a thread solely about discussing the philosophy of save states. Their ethical and utilitarian benefits and downfalls. But I already made two threads today, so it will have to wait unless someone else does it first.

[ExedExes]

I think it would be interesting to have a thread solely about discussing the philosophy of save states. Their ethical and utilitarian benefits and downfalls. But I already made two threads today, so it will have to wait unless someone else does it first.

Already taken care of in the super secret shmups forum

*runs*

[Exhuminator]

Alrighty I'll look over it.

[marurun]

"Beating" the game suggests you defeated its challenge. There are additional challenges, like 1cc, but the fundamental challenge of a game is reaching the credits.

I'd argue that massively credit feeding where progress doesn't reset isn't defeating its challenge. To use the example I had in another thread, infinite credits with no reset means the game could be beaten by a controller on autofire while you're in another room. So that's not really defeating its challenge.

That's why I used the word "suggests". I mean, the Japanese use the word "clear", which would better match your hypothetical.

[dunpeal2064]

I don't think there is a one-size-fits-all answer to this question, but I'll give a stab at it anyways.

I think the first option, "Use what the developer programmed for you to use", is closest to what I would generally apply to a game personally. However, I think there needs to be a divide between arcade games/direct ports, and games designed for console play.

If you are playing a console game, its safe to say that any tool available has been placed there for your use. Arcade games, however, have an added quantity in that they need to be able to make money, regardless of it fitting in the developers design ideas. You basically have to put a "Win Button" on your machine, costing however much the player decides to put forth until they are either bored, or reach the credits.

I don't personally consider "Infinite Continues" a design choice, but more of a necessity.

And, imagine sitting down with Ikeda, lead developer of games like Dodonpachi, and having him watch you as you just feed credits and press start until the game comes to its eventual end. What do you think his reaction would be? Praise at clever use of purposefully designed resources? I personally don't think so. Does it matter what he thinks? Not so much if you just want to know whether you personally accomplished something, no, but if we are looking into developer's intent, I think its an interesting thing to consider.

Now, would I apply this same logic to say, The Last of Us? Of course not. There just isn't one answer to this question, other than "You know you beat it if you beat it", which is a terrible answer but probably the closest we could get to a catch-all.



Edit: I think it might also be worth discussing that Cave's ports only "count" your run and allow it to be compared to others if you play in Score Attack. Score Attack is the first and primary mode, top of the screen, the first mode your cursor will highlight when you start the game... and it does not allow you to use credits, at all. Even if you pick Normal Mode, and use credits, you are not allowed to save your run for later viewing, even to your own personal HDD. It seems odd that the dev would push so hard for you to not use credits, if they were a design choice, a feature of the game, and not just a necessity.

And yes, I realize I am pretty much focusing this discussion on the one genre, but its the one that started this debacle, and seems to be the main point of divide.

[isiolia]

If you are playing a console game, its safe to say that any tool available has been placed there for your use. Arcade games, however, have an added quantity in that they need to be able to make money, regardless of it fitting in the developers design ideas. You basically have to put a "Win Button" on your machine, costing however much the player decides to put forth until they are either bored, or reach the credits.

I don't personally consider "Infinite Continues" a design choice, but more of a necessity.

I'd look at it more that, in that case, the game doesn't need (or want) to enforce any kind of standard. Arcade games are there to make money, and the game's design is going to fit that - same as the design of subscription or F2P games tend to be influenced by their profit models.

Probably a bigger factor with arcade games is how they succeed in getting players to put money in, and keep putting money in.

On the design level, player motivation to use fewer credits, and thus quarters, would be a safe assumption. Not because truly playing the game means not needing to, but like you said, because it costs more money every time they continue. A given individual would likely have their own limit, which for most would represent a solid challenge.

To me, they're meant to allow for continues...just, probably assuming that you'd be unwilling or unable to put more than maybe a few buck's worth in during a given session.
Stepping things up to the point of only needing one credit would be above and beyond that.

I think it might also be worth discussing that Cave's ports only "count" your run and allow it to be compared to others if you play in Score Attack. Score Attack is the first and primary mode, top of the screen, the first mode your cursor will highlight when you start the game... and it does not allow you to use credits, at all. Even if you pick Normal Mode, and use credits, you are not allowed to save your run for later viewing, even to your own personal HDD. It seems odd that the dev would push so hard for you to not use credits, if they were a design choice, a feature of the game, and not just a necessity.

That's part of competitive play, in a sense, which would be a different thing than playing the game at all. The default menu options also make sense if the game will return to that screen after a game over - someone playing without continues would be seeing it a lot more, no sense making them toggle stuff to get back to it. Especially if it's already a niche product.

[J T]

You can never truly experience everything the developer intended for the audience because the developer has placed challenges throughout the game that are to be both failed and overcome. Some challenges you will overcome without failure, and therefore you have not truly experienced the challenge to its full extent as a less talented player will have experienced it.

It is obvious to us that someone who never overcomes the game's challenges has not experienced everything the game has to offer, but it is less obvious to us that someone who has not failed every challenge sincerely, who succeeded more than lost, has likewise not experienced everything that the game has to offer.

This is a metaphor for life.

[J T]

Related to my prior post, if a developer were to make a game with challenges that could not possibly be overcome, it would not be a game, but rather an exercise in frustration. If a developer were to make a game that could not be lost, it would also not be a game and at best would simply be someone else's story. So failure and success are both required for a game, but you cannot always fail nor always win, or you are not playing anymore, or at least not having much fun. So you only beat a game when you no longer find a reason to keep playing it, but then there is nothing left to win and what's the fun in that? You would need to know that there is another game to play, but you'd have to play that other game knowing that you experienced what was meant for you in the last game, or else it would keep bugging you in the back of your mind. Winning and losing are not ultimately what matter. What matters is your willingness to engage in the game.

This is still a metaphor for life.

[pepharytheworm]

Related to my prior post, if a developer were to make a game with challenges that could not possibly be overcome, it would not be a game, but rather an exercise in frustration. If a developer were to make a game that could not be lost, it would also not be a game and at best would simply be someone else's story. So failure and success are both required for a game, but you cannot always fail nor always win, or you are not playing anymore, or at least not having much fun. So you only beat a game when you no longer find a reason to keep playing it, but then there is nothing left to win and what's the fun in that? You would need to know that there is another game to play, but you'd have to play that other game knowing that you experienced what was meant for you in the last game, or else it would keep bugging you in the back of your mind. Winning and losing are not ultimately what matter. What matters is your willingness to engage in the game.

This is still a metaphor for life.

Sounds like someone read Ender's Game.