Opinionation: Beating The Game
As a kid I almost uniformly defined my gaming accomplishments by whether or not I had "beat the game." Even though there was the occasional NES title that didn't actually have an ending, the vast majority of the games that I played had some form of ending even if it was just some screen with one or two lines of text to sum up an ending. No matter if the ending was lame or not, I would cherish these precious and absolutely way too few moments like nothing else. For some games, these were markers of performance or feats of skill while others where signified the culmination of hours of devotion.
So what is making me feel just a little bit too nostalgic for these moments? This weekend I got to spend a lot of time with Bayonetta and for the first time in a good while I thought to myself, "I think I might actually beat this game!" While this might be something that most gamers attempt or strive for, I'm a very different gamer now than I was when I was a kid and I don't actually beat that many games nowadays. As much as I like a lot of games today, I sometimes get bored playing some of them, especially towards the end. Gameplay might get too repetitive, a spike in difficulty may exceed my patience, or, as it happens too often, something new comes out that steals my attention.
When I look back, I can vividly recall the first game to break me of my desire to beat games. Those familiar with the recent series of Ninja Gaiden titles are aware of the series' newfound taste for extreme difficulty. While I was warned of what was ahead of me when I picked the 2004 game, I was still surprised with the challenge put in front of players. However, as the game wore on my appreciation for its intricacy faded and after one too many rounds of feeling like I was getting nowhere I realized I was no longer having fun. Since then, this has become my line in the sand for games. Maybe I'll come back to them later on down the road, maybe not. But for the time being, as soon as any game ceases being fun, I have to quit it.
I'm sure there are people out there that would tell me that I'm missing out of a great section of gameplay or two that appears late in titles I've given up, I don't really think I'm the one at fault. If a specific part of a game is so great, then the designers should have frontloaded in the experience to ensure that I play it. Also with the introduction of Microsoft and Sony's addition of Trophies and Achievements I don't feel nearly as bad as I used to when I would quite games. I'll still get a few points or bronze trophies here or there, so it helps me think that I got something out of it.
What say you, dear reader? How do you feel about quitting games before you officially beat them? Do you still try to beat every game you pick up? What helps you stick with a game to the very end?
Game-Boy
Posted to Miscellany, Video Games on 18 January 2010
· Comments (10)
Other stuff like this: beat the game, opinionation
These past months I've been saying the same. With me growing up, getting responsabilities and the huge amount of games getting released it's become really hard for me to beat a game. Still I always try to beat it because there is always a sense of satisfaction when you see the credits rolling. There's always the game that I just can't finish, either because I'm bored of it or it's simply way too long but I always feel the need to try to finish it. One thing that I do now is play no more than two games simultaneously until I beat them.
The last game I beat was Kingdom Hearts 2! Seriously video games are too long these days it really turns me off. I get bored and forget the story.
The other day I was listening to some talk radio & the discussion about literature led to the presenter mentioning to the guest that they tended more towards easier crime fiction these days at the expense of reading 'proper' literature.
The guest got a bit snarky and said something along the lines of 'it's meant to be hard, that's why it's worth it, that's why it has meaning'. I agree to some extent.
For the medium of games I'd say beating the game matters if beating a game matters to you. It all depends on what you're wanting to take from it.
I personally tend to play games for the journey or the story, so I I never see the end I still get some satisfaction, an in this day and age if I can't beat the last boss I can go online and watch someone else finish it with their leet skills.
I would personally not see them frontload all the great experiences. Perhaps I'm obsessive, but I do beat many games, and the number of titles that have very poor endings because of this are disappointing.
The better solution would appear to be to make a more cohesive experience that flows evenly (and avoiding difficulty spikes, which has almost, but not quite, caused me to quit a few games).
Frontloading the experience is a terrible idea... It goes against the whole literary slanted pyramid, which is structured the way it is for a reason.
Bioshock wouldn't have been awesome if you Andrew Ryan phoned you minutes 20 minutes after your descent to let you know what was up.
Have you perhaps considered that you are not as big of a fan of video games as you think you are? I get not being a completionist, but not even being able to reach the storied conclusion? I admit I have my fair share of unfinished business, but I'll get to it eventually. (Yes Persona 4, I can still hear you.)
Then again I guess that's what games like TF2 and Tetris are for.
@Randy: I don't think it calls into question his fandom, so much as it speaks to the increasing demands of games, and how poorly many follow an Aristotelian plot structure paralleled with a similar model in gameplay.
The back log of games I have on multiple platforms is pretty huge but I managed to finish some of them 1) out of fandom if not the Pokemon syndrome and 2) they just need to be played to the end.
Finishing most of the Silent Hill games over the Resident Evil series was one of them. Though the game play wasn't the best the games aesthetics and atmosphere kept me coming back to play more. I did not do multiple sessions for the different endings due to time.
On the other hand with ICO I found the game manageable in small hourly bites over a week or two. For a game that I felt had the least amount of narrative had me hooked on the main characters emotionally along with the puzzle/action style game play.
Now I've been working on Shadow of the Colossus and I am about half way through. I put it down and lost my momentum playing it. I want to finish it but every time I defeat a Colossi I feel so sad so it's easy for me to put the game off and just not finish it.
I was surprised to read this article. I have made it a point to truly beat every game I own my entire life. After reading the responses, I'm realizing that I am way more obsessive with feeling accomplished than I realized. I thought most people make sure to beat every game that they own. Since I first got my NES back when I was probably 6 years old, I have beaten almost every game I have ever owned. The only exception that I can think of is Assassin's Creed. Despite how beautiful that game was, I kept finding myself losing my desire to play it. I even sucked it up and beat Ninja Gaiden Black, despite its outrageous difficulty.
I think another part of the reason why I try to not only beat games, but explore them thoroughly as well, is that I always feel horribly guilty about spending so much money on a video game. I tell myself that since I spent money on something that I don't really need, I'd better experience as much of it as I possibly can.
I've got a lot of free time, and not much money (I'm a teenager, can you guess?) so I beat every game I buy. I only get about 4 a year, so I squeeze every bit of playability out of them.
On the front loading aspect: I'm not talking about plot and story as much as I am talking about interactions and gameplay. I think game designers that purposely hide or bury the best elements of gameplay are doing their game a disservice. Why should someone trudge through 30 hours of bad gameplay to get to a five minute segment at the very end that could easily occur at the beginning?
It's interesting that Randy went right to "the whole literary slanted pyramid." It brings up a valid point depending on what aspect of a game we're talking about, but overall games have the freedom to accept or reject this notion as they see fit because they are not inherently literary. Why should gameplay or games in a general sense be shackled to the standards of an entirely different media?