This is a weird thought but I’m just curious if anyone else feels this way. I’m 39 and grew up playing games all the way back to the original Atari and I just feel weird about the term “beat” when it comes to finishing games. I don’t know why, but I just feel like it’s weird to say nowadays. I’m talking specifically about story based games, not puzzlers and such. It’s more like playing interactive movies nowadays and saying you beat it feels just …off to me. A game podcast I listen to, they tend to say they “rolled credits” on the game or finished it. I just feel like a lot of games nowadays it’s not about “beating” so much as finishing an experience. I dunno, maybe I’m just weird, but I am curious if it’s just me.
I’m in my 20s and I’ve always said “finished the game”, I agree “beat” feels odd with the way gaming has changed nowadays.
Back then pretty much every game took dedication and skill to finish, so “beat” made sense
Yes, I mean, some people don’t have the time or skill to play on harder difficulties and they just play on the easiest mode to experience the story. Did you truly beat the game if you do that? I’m all about play however you want. I sometimes replay games on easy just because I want to relive the story.
I have adjusted my mindset instead of adjusting the terms themselves, for me. While completely getting everything that exists was and is still to “100%” a game, I have adjusted “to beat” a game to no longer be nearly synonymous with 100% because I ain’t got time for that anymore.
Instead I believe to have beaten a game if I get the main sequence credit roll and have completed as much non-main scenario content as I want to before I feel it’s tedious or stupid. Sometimes beating the game is strictly completing the main sequence because no extra content exists, are only achievements, or are so difficult that I simply don’t feel like investing the time into it (unless I want to. Shout out to God of War ps3 with the hardest difficulty + Valkyrie Queen side quest! Now THAT was a hard but fair and fun fight!).
I recently played through BotW finally so I can move onto TotK and I did all shrines, about 320 korok seeds, and some side quests and chains (like terry town) but I decided against doing the trial of the sword deep dungeon. I kept playing and doing things and didn’t get all shrines because I wanted to but instead had such a fun time that I got all of them because I just happened to continue enjoying the journey to all shrines. That subtle distinction means I keep playing games as content still exists and while I’m still having a good time.
When the good time ends, then I feel I have beat the game. And that’s good by me.
Yeah I’m with you. I tend to say I’ve completed the main story/campaign but haven’t finished getting all the collectibles/side quests/100% the game yet. These days I hardly ever hit 100% which I consider would equate to “beating” the game.
The way I see it - does the game have a final boss? Or a difficult climactic ending sequence? A meaningful resolution? Then I did the part that matters, and feel fine saying I beat the game. The side quests and collectible junk usually is just busy work that wouldn’t pose a challenge, I just don’t have the time or interest.
Yeah, this is the distinction I usually make - beating the game is rolling the credits, finishing the story, what have you. Completing the game is doing all the side quests / koroks / enemy camps / content in the game.
No I like the term beat, not because it’s accurate but because it’s like a tradition, it’s part of the culture of the medium. Beating a game is a triumph, something to celebrate and be proud of, not just checking off a to-do list.
Yeah I get you. And honestly so few games these days have an actual ending anyway. Open world, sandbox, ancillary objective, and multiplayer games have changed the way we look at games in general. I can’t remember the last time I “beat” a game. I mean maybe a few months ago when I finished the main storyline of No Man’s Sky, but did I really beat it? No, I just finished one of the many quests.
Super Mario 64 is a game you beat. Most games today, you just don’t.
With modern (non-multiplayer) games it always seems as though there’s a clear “main” chunk of the game. I usually try to complete that bit to feel as though I “beat” the game.
Main chunks are main story, levels, or getting beyond the main obstacle. Sandbox games are a good example of something outside this sphere and with those I simply enjoy the experience and don’t sweat completion.
I find myself playing more sandbox style games as things go due to time and skill commitments which has been an interesting change from when I was younger.
In my household beating the game has the same meaning as “rolling credits” - largely based on Backloggery’s distinction between beaten and completed games. I’ve started focusing on actually beating games/rolling credits in the past ~3 years and while there’s still a few games I’ve started and put down unfinished for various reasons, I beat 25 games in 2022 and 14 so far in 2023.
I’d be interested to know what the difference in language means for you - would “beat” apply only to games that don’t have post-credits gameplay?
This resonates. A lot of games nowadays emulate something more like a movie or book and like you said, it’s about finishing the experience. Even something like Hades he gameplay is old school and fairly straight forward, but the sheer amount of recorded dialogue makes for an experience in and of itself.
Along the same lines I grew to care less about 100%ing a game unless it’s a game WORTH doing so.
For sure. I find sandbox games to be the ones I feel like 100%ing, but most story based ones, I just want to experience the story.
I’ve noticed I usually say now “I completed the story” instead of “I beat the game.” With so many games now continuing even after the story or all the extra things you get through multiple playthroughs, it’s a pretty outdated term now.
