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’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games now continuing even after the story or all the extra things you get through multiple playthroughs, it’s a pretty outdated term now.
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.
I would actually have to finish one first, instead of getting bored, switching games, coming back, realizing I have no clue what’s going on, restart the game, get bored, switch games, etc.
There are distinctions, sure, but at no point in MY life has “beating a game” been equated with “100% completion of every piece of available content in a game”.
Going all the way back to the 90s, if you beat Robotnik in Sonic 2, you beat the game, even if you didn’t get all the Chaos Emeralds.
If you beat Bowser in SMW, you beat the game, even if you didn’t finish the secret levels and unlock fall.
In FF7, if you beat One Winged Angel Sephiroth, you beat the game, even if you didn’t do Emerald/Ruby Weapon or breed a Gold Chocobo.
If you beat Majora but didn’t get all the masks you still beat the game.
If you finished Baldur’s Gate 2 and defeated Irenicus you beat the game.
If you beat the Elite 4, you beat Pokemon, even if you didn’t collect all 150.
If you went Act 1-4/5 in Diablo 2 on normal, guess what, you beat the game. You can beat it again on Nightmare, and again on Hell, but you still beat it.
Did that change somewhere along the way? I beat Spider-Man. Did I 100% it? No. I beat BotW and ToTK. Did I 100% them? No. I beat God of War 2018. Did I 100% it on the highest difficulty? YES, but I beat it first!
