Separator

Roll credits: When is a game “beaten”?

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
Monday, January 03, 2011
EDITOR'S NOTEfrom Layton Shumway

Bitmob staffer Omri Petitte wrote last week about achieving 100% completion in Red Dead Redemption, claiming that seeing the credits roll on a game isn't always enough. Here, Chase takes a look at some other titles that might require more than just defeating the final boss.

Borderlands

My friend and fellow World 8 co-host Bryan Edelman and I decided to each keep a list this past year of every game we beat to better reflect upon all the titles we experienced, like a scrapbook of sorts.

As the year came to a close, we compared lists -- he crushed me 80-44 in total games completed -- but more interesting than our totals were some of the titles we had on our lists and how we justified their completion.

Which brought us to a somewhat fundamental question: When do you consider a game “finished”?

While it was pretty easy to determine when a game was over in the era of the Nintendo Entertainment System, seeing the credits roll is not always the end these days. I find these examples from my own experience to be helpful....

 

Super Street Fighter 4 springs to mind, though almost all fighting games suffer from a similar dilemma. Where do you draw the line with this type of game? Beat the arcade mode with one character? With all characters? Or can you ever really beat a fighting game? In my opinion, if you put in the effort to learn a brawler and become reasonably proficient, you’ve more than achieved the requirements for completion.

Pokemon Heart Gold/Soul Silver led to a bit of controversy with Bryan and me. His feeling was that beating the first Elite Four (the one in the new Johto region) was enough to make the list, arguing that credits do indeed roll after you defeat them. I disagreed, because only then does the original games’ Kanto region become available, leading to a final confrontation with the first protagonist (Ash, Blue, or whatever he’s calling himself these days). Then there’s always the completionist debate. Do I really need to collect all 490-something critters to consider it “beaten?”

This is the whole Johto/Kanto region. Bryan thinks you only need to play the left half to claim victory.

And where does downloadable content come into play? I completed Borderlands, but after purchasing and downloading the game's four DLC packs, have I revoked that completed status? Or are they all separate entities? While The Secret Armory of General Knoxx certainly seems big enough to be worth its own entry, do the downloadable quests of Dragon Quest 9 deserve the same treatment?

In the long run, it’s a subjective question and one that has no definitive answer. But if someone stopped playing Red Dead Redemption after they got their family back and claims to have beaten it, I’d certainly disagree, wouldn’t you?

 
Problem? Report this post
CHASE KOENEKE'S SPONSOR
Comments (8)
Me_and_luke
January 02, 2011

It really comes down to diction, and I'm sure we'll both catch flak for basically mincing words.  "Beaten"/"finished" (the two are used more or less interchangeably; "beating" is an increasingly archaic term in gaming, likely originating with hardcore arcade games) differ from "completing" a game, I think.  The former refers simply to seeing the game through to the end, while the latter is the 100%.  This is why the 'completionist' moniker is always thrown around with games that have loads of collectibles and extra content that isn't pivotal to "finishing" the core game.

Me
January 02, 2011

As I was reading this, I was looking at my stack of games and looking at the games I had actually beaten. Searching through them I had to get the distinct difference between beating a game and completing a game.

Playing through Red Dead and seeing the credits is beating the game. The story has officially ended and it's up to you on whether you want to get the remaining achievements. If you did get all those achievements, that would be completing the game.

With fighting games, those that have a main "story line" are in the same boat. Games like Super Street Fighter 4 doesn't really have that kind of classification in my opinion. I guess you could beat the arcade mode with all characters and unlocking all the characters as beating the game as you stated.

In whichcase, I've beaten a lot of games. Rarely complete them.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
January 02, 2011

I tend to agree, but even when you take out the completion part, the line at where a game has been beaten/finished is still somewhat up for grabs. In a game like Halo or Bit.Trip Runner, there's a clear distinction, but there are a ton of other games that aren't so black and white.

Me04
January 02, 2011

I think the ending of a game works on a game-by-game basis. But generally, what I'd say is that you've more or less "beaten" a game when you've played it enough to write an honest review. Sure, there may be extra content to play in the future, whether it be on the disc or paid DLC, but the core experience that you review is what I'd consider the meat of the game. With narrative-driven games, that generally means rolling the credits, but with a more open-ended game, like a competitive game like FIFA or Street Fighter, or something akin to Minecraft, I'd say that knowing most of the game and appreciating its qualities (or lack thereof) is enough to declare it "beaten".
I certainly agree with you about Pokémon HG/SS; you need to have gone through Kanto to honestly say you've experienced everything that game offers. That's all the story content, exploration and battle experience you'll need. Anything added to that (such as endgame Battle Frontier-type modes) are purely there for people who want to continue after the main experience to get more bang for their buck.
One other thing I will say is that I wished Red Dead Redemption had ended after you'd saved your family. Sure the big massive fight near the end was pretty cool, but between saving your family and reaching that point, R* made us endure the most soul crushingly boring segment I've ever played.

Pict0079-web
January 02, 2011

If a game has a good enough ending to keep me satisfied, it's as good as beaten to me. If a game doesn't end after the original narrative, I'll just assume that the game just leaves me hanging. And I'll really hate that game for making me go through all this for nothing.

For example, I got really upset after I beat Dragon Quest 9. The game really builds up all this emotional tension, then the ending really let me down. Even though I still managed to continue the story to a somewhat satisfying section with infinite endgame content, I still think this game was beaten a long time before the DLC.

Games like Pokemon HG/SS are a little more difficult to discuss. They really expand upon the experience with the extra Kanto region. On the other hand, it uses the same ending as the original Pokemon games, so it feels like Heart Gold and Soul Silver were just add-ons. To make things easier, I just assume that I've beaten it after finishing the original narrative quest of the game.

On the other hand, fighting games have multiple endings, so these games are more like a collection of stories with alternate retellings of the narrative. That's really why I prefer fighting games over many other games. It's like the ultimate pursuit of happiness to the infinite degree. Unless you fight a lame, super-difficult generic boss like Gill.

There184
January 05, 2011

Oh, didn't you hear? You can't beat most games. http://www.bitmob.com/articles/beating-games-or-can-you-win-at-flower :p

Assassin_shot_edited_small_cropped
January 05, 2011

I'm pretty sure your friend "beat" more games than I played -- that's including the 30-40 games I only played for about five minutes each.

37893_1338936035999_1309080061_30825631_6290042_n
January 05, 2011

@Richard Yeah, he's a beast. He finished 10 games in the last two weeks of the year.

You must log in to post a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.