Forwards Compatible is a weekly roundtable discussion about thoughtful and interesting topics involving videogames. Each week a spearhead topic will be put forth and several Gametopius writers, as well as other contributors, will give their thoughts.
Jeff Grubb - Managing Editor, Gametopius
I couldn't possibly count the number of games I have beaten. The number is too great. However, the number of games that I have played and never came close to beating dwarfs that number. That would be fine if the unbeaten games only included terrible titles like Bubsy 3D or Blasto, but it doesn't. My "unbeaten" games category includes titles like Bioshock, Castlevania: Symphony of the Night, and Dead Space. Games I had every intention of playing until completion, but stopped playing for no good reason. The issue is complicated by games like Oblivion and Fallout 3. Between those two games I have played close to 200 hours (please, don't judge me), but I don't really know if I have beaten them by the developer's definition.
That is, of course, if the developer even has a definition. When it comes to Fallout 3 I have played the game on the disc to the end of the main quest line, but I haven't beat all of the DLC I purchased let alone what I have yet to purchase. What does that really mean? I know that most of you are going to say, "you beat it whenever you decide you are finished" or "no one can define when a game is beat for you." I agree with those, but at the same time I'm hoping someone will mention that the developers took all this time to put all this stuff into the game and that it actually isn't "beat" until you have completed 100% of the story, achievements, collectibles, whatever.
The thing about that last one is that as gamers we always demand more from the developer. Six hours long isn't enough, so the developer finds ways to elongate. Then we bitch that we don't want collect-a-thons. Do we owe something to these developers? I know that even though I haven't beat Bioshock I have have expectations for Bioshock 2. I would imagine that a developer would take issue with that.
On the other hand I feel like the concept of "beating a game" is pointless and damaging to the experience of videogames. Should we really be concerned with playing every game to the end, instead of just putting the controller down when the experience stops being engaging or enjoyable. I haven't beat Oblivion, but I had a great experience with it. I still go back to play it without any intention of beating the main quest. For me the experience was enough. Obviously not all games are Oblivion, but I feel like it is okay to have high standards. If a particular game doesn't urge you to finish it then that is the games fault, and not the players.
Dan "TheIsland" - Contributor
I believe the appeal of video games is in the way they open us up to other-worldly or impossible experiences. We can accomplish things in games we can't in our normal lives. I think a major part of the entertainment value of gaming comes from surmounting impossible odds, or achieving inhuman feats. As a gamer, I especially love the challenge of a difficult game, experiencing something new and rising to prominence in a game-world or system. Unfortunately, when it comes to "beating" games, my own personal watermark is often set below where most narratives aspire to.
Simply put, once the challenge in a game has passed, when I've acclimated to the controls or acquired powerful enough weapons or level ups that the enemies are no longer a challenge to me I'll usually put the game down. Though I may not have "beaten" the game in the sense that I haven't watched the ending cinemas and seen a credit roll, the game has most certainly been abused and pummeled into a bruised, mewling, submissive state. I view most games as a parabola in this way, there's an initial rise in excitement as I acquire new weapons or powers, learn new moves and perfect my own techniques. Often is the case where too soon I have hit the height of the arc, where skill surpasses narrative, and I begin to goof off or add my own challenge by, for example, using only melee attacks in a shooter, or stripping everyone's weapons in an RPG.
I would like to turn this question around on those who would say that I haven't truly "beaten" a game I fail to complete in this manner, by asking if they could do the same stunts. I would posit that perhaps "beating" and "finishing" a game are two different things. While I can wander around Rainbow Six at my leisure, standing around in the open head-shotting every terrorist that comes my way with a pistol on realistic difficulty I have no idea what happens later on in the story for the first Vegas game. Does someone who ran through the story on easy have the right to tell me they beat the game more than I did?
Derek Lavigne - Community Manager, GameTopius
I would have to totally agree with Dan that "beating" a game and "finishing" it are two completely different things entirely. To take a very recent but great example, both these concepts can be applied to Shadow Complex. There is a master challenge which asks you to "beat" the game with only 4% of the items acquired. While yes, this will get the credits to roll, 4% of the items in no way means you are finished. To throw in a quite anecdote, the first time I "beat" the game, I had only around 47% of items acquired and knew that I had not gotten the full experience. I then went back and completed the game again, this time getting 100% of the items and 100% of the map. After this I went and played through the training rooms, and now I can honestly say that I have "finished" the game.
I recently heard a fairly shocking number on a gaming podcast about what percentage of gamers actually "beat" a game, and while I cannot recall the exact number, it was somewhere as low as 20%. This lends to Jeff's statement of believing the concept of beating a game is pointless, as it is obvious that a lot of people really don't care. Like many other gamers, I can't even begin to count the number of games I've started but never played to completion. However, I can also say that I am guilty of telling myself that I need to push through to the end of a game I am not necessarily having the best time with because I've already put time into it. I believe in most cases this had more with wanting to see a resolution to the narrative I was involved with than anything, but I would be lying if I said that it didn't have anything to do with wanting to get a little bit of closure on however many hours of my life I'd spent.
This generation has instituted a whole new level of "finishing" though with the introduction of achievements. That could be a completely different discussion though.
Dustin Rodgers - Millionaire Playboy Extraordinaire, Gametopius
I agree with everyone that "beating" a game and "finishing" it are not the same thing, but I disagree with one thing that Jeff said, "if a particular game doesn't urge you to finish it then that is the games fault, and not the players. " I think it's important that we don't assert blame onto the game. It wouldn't be fair. After all, what's the real reason we don't "finish" our games?
As good as Fallout 3 and Oblivion are, many gamers couldn't find time complete them, or got bored, or like me, they bought another game, and then another one, and then forgot what they were doing in Oblivion and gave up. Ultimately, deciding to play something else is one of only two possible reasons that someone didn't finish their games, the other being that they've stopped gaming entirely. If tomorrow, no one were allowed to own any more new games, I guarantee that our existing titles would receive a much higher rate of completion. It's not Halo 3's fault that I quit for Call of Duty 4.
Regardless of our rationale, it's because we play other games that we stop playing the ones we were. If a game isn't very good, that's different, but it's unfair to blame games if they don't urge you to finish them.
Michael Rousseau - Contributor, Gametopius
In my mind, when I've reached the end of the core narrative that the developer has set out and seen the credits roll, I've beaten a game. There may be extra content, harder difficulty levels and various doodads and unlockables, but at that point, the game is over. I'll play on if I have the time, but most of the time, I leave the game behind.This wasn't always the case. Back when I was a teenager, I didn't consider a game "beaten" until I had accomplished absolutely everything the game offered. My copy of Chrono Trigger contained a save file with maxed out stats and levels for every character; however, I didn't consider it truly beaten solely because I didn't have 99 of every item in my inventory.
That attitude was born primarily out of a lack of income and a long wait between new, worthy games. I had the time to spend on working towards that ludicrous level of completion. But now, there just isn't time to play every game I want to play through to utter completion. Last week, I dropped $600 on pre-sales for all of the games I'm interested in playing in Q4 - and I won't even be in the country for the entire month of November, which makes December a 5-title month for me. How can I be expected to finish a game, top to bottom, in a marketplace like this?
Tristessa
said:
 |
Consensus often holds that a game is beaten when one sees the credits roll. That's a big help in games that continue after the main story elements have been experienced. This is where I fall in. I don't agree with "you've beaten a game when you decide you're finished"...that would be called 'being finished with a game'. If I was playing baseball and was ahead by one point, then decided to stop in the fourth inning, did I win? Could I say I've beaten the other team? I feel there's a difference in beating and finishing, while also in playing to a 100% completion state. Since the start of gaming, people would play games after beating them, often merely restarting numerous times or trying to play through while imposing new rules (minimalist Zelda runs, anyone?). The more open nature of gaming these days allows many of us to more easily continue on in attempt to gain a 100% completion or to overcome the challenge of earning difficult trophies and achievements. So while we might have beaten a game, we're not always finished with it. If we attempt to include any of these details in a firm definition of 'beating' a game, then secrets and side missions would need to be included. We'd have to play a game with multiple branches numerous times to complete all the side stories. I don't purchase all games with the intent of playing them through to the end. Some are just there to be played arcade style - and if I ever hit an ending (of whichever sort), then that's a nice bonus. These would all fall into the XBLA and PSN types, small (usually downloadable) games that provide challenges but aren't story heavy. There are some games that I start, only to find them too difficult for me! So naturally, I don't beat these - instead, I'm fine with allowing them to have beaten me. These are usually strategy RPGs like Rondo of Swords (DS). If we're talking about the standard boxed game, I nearly always finish them. My 'finish' rate on there is (at worst) 95% of what I start. My 'conveyor belt of games' blogs usually chart the absurd number of titles I've played during a week and sometimes you'd wonder if I do anything else! I play a lot and as long as I still put away a couple of books a week, I'll never consider it' too much'  |
Darke
said:
 |
I always finish every game I play. It might take a week, a month, a year. But I always come back to finish the whole story  . Accomplishment is one of the reason I play games in the first place. If I really like a game, I go for marathon sessions of beating it over and over again. Assassins Creed I must have played 8 times, with different self-imposed rules every time. I am the opposite of Tristessa. I play downloadable/indie titles more than full retail games! So, finishing a game is predetermined by the developer. Beating it is determined by the player. Great article! |
Rowan
said:
 |
There are many, many, many games which don't exist in the "beat it once and be done with it" mode. Tetris is the most obvious example - no credits roll at the end of the storyline with it, or most other puzzle games. SimCity and the Sims and all those "sandbox" games as well. The most popular game on the planet, World of Warcraft, cannot be beaten (although a case can be made that there are temporary endpoints). Then there are games which exist to be beaten multiple times, such as sports games and strategy games like Civilization or the Total War series. Sure, you can say you won a championship or finished a game as Britain, but that New Game or Next Season button is right there, daring you to do it again. Dynasty Warriors also has different storylines for each kingdom or character - you could "beat" Dynasty Warriors 5 a good 30 times and still not have completed the game. Most rhythm games, while they may have certain challenges strung together kind of like a campaign mode, are still designed to be played over and over. Then there are the games which exist primarily for multiplayer. Usually RTS or FPS games have a short campaign or storyline, but are played far, far, far more online. How many people shelved Halo when they finished its story compared to how many just started playing online or with their friends? Finding games that are exclusively story-driven and can, and perhaps should, be shelved when they're finished is actually kind of rare compared to the others. You're looking at primarily single-player RPGs, action/adventure games, and some tactical shooters. |
Flash739
said:
 |
mmm I am guilty of NOT beating most of what I own. I won't consider FIGHTING games as able to beat since they are really just constant play distractions, even if a character has an ending. I admit, I am my own worst enemey. I see a shiny new game and want it. But having older games I have not beaten yet are also ways I save money this generation. When i see a new copy of Batman:Arkham Asylum, i remember I still have Ico, FF12, and a plethora of other games already that I could sit down and beat finally. And I do. It has been great not being able to afford NEW games. I also equate not finishing a game with a interested narrative to not finishing a book or movie. Every movie/book has a slow part. Did we all walk away when the Ewoks were introduced in RotJ? If we did that, we would have missed a kick ass sabre duel and amazing space battles. I can accept my own problems in not finishing what I start without blaming the game. Though some games get me mad, like Professor Layton. Damn you for reminding me why I hate numbers. |
| < Prev | Next > |
|---|
