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.
man, I still remember the first time I beat Gone Home
Yeah, that term has felt jarring to me since I first started hearing it in the 90s. It’s even less appropriate now.
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’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.
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.
Very much feel the same! “Beat the game” made more sense back when it felt like the game was trying to defeat you, whether that was for more quarters in the arcade or for more perceived value at home. But I switched to saying “finished (or completed) the game” a long time ago as the general nature of gaming shifted over the years. For story games with multiple endings, I might say I “finished it” if I don’t plan to go back and see other branches, or “completed it” if I got all endings.
I too am curious if this an age-related tendency or not, I’m in my 40s.
