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’ve so used to the terminology though that I’m probably not gonna change it. It’s kind of a weird thing games have though, with movies or books you can just say you watched or read it, and it’s usually implied that you finished it. But that’s not always the case for games, you can play a game but might not ever finish it, or the game might not have an ending. Or it may have multiple endings - does doing one ending count? Or do I have to do all of them? Or is it nier automata, and I have to do 6 of them?
Don’t really have a conclusion to this, just think it’s interesting.
I think Stanley Parable in a way is kind of about this idea. In the museum ending the female narrator tells you to stop the game, that if you play the whole thing and get every ending, you’ll only see it as what it is: a series of paths and sequences laid out and planned beforehand. By stopping at one or two endings, you preserve the game’s illusion of free choice.
Ultra Deluxe kind of confirms this idea too. The narrator tries to get back that feeling of playing for the first time, and not knowing what choices are available to you, but ultimately fails.
