Your philosophy on beating games...

[tcv]

What's your philosophy on beating games?

 

Do you believe you must beat every game?

 

What do you do with games you don't beat?

 

Are people who don't beat games lesser gamers?

[8th lutz]

I would like to beat every game possible. I don't think beating a games shows how great of a gamer you are in games that you use game genie or have unlimited continues like ninja Gaiden or any cheat codes for that matter. I used to use game genie a lot or cheat codes in order to beat a game. There some games I didn't need to cheat like the megaman games, ninja Gaiden and Double dragon for 7800 as examples.

 

I don't think they are lesser gamers. There are some genre's or games that some gamers are great in, but also stink in some games too.

 

I do keep the games I beat and don't beat.

[shadow460]

I think "beating" a game refers to finishing it without having to use a continue of any kind or getting a game over screen.

[supercat]

What's your philosophy on beating games?

 

One slightly troublesome trend in gaming is that as games have become larger, developers have had to compromise between having most of their efforts never be seen by the majority of players, or else constructing their games so that any competant with enough persistence will eventually get through. Neither approach is really all that good.

 

I think the approach taken in Tempest and Millipede is probably the best (or would be, if augmented by something like a MemCard). On each game, you can set your starting level to any landmark before the last one successfully passed. If you start a game at a certain landmark but fail to clear it, you'll be limited on the next game to starting at the previous landmark.

 

The net effect is that one can only focus your energies on a stage once you've gotten good enough to consistently clear the previous one. If you only cleared the previous one by chance, you'll end up sliding back to the stage before it. Such a design approach would mean that the higest level one could achieve would be a function of skill, but players wouldn't have to waste time on many levels that they could clear in their sleep.

 

BTW, another philosophy I sometimes like is the "trainer mode" philosophy. Players may play in practice mode on any level up to the highest level they've reached, but clearing a level in practice mode would not advance to the next one. Combining practice mode with the previous notion (advancing and backsliding) should allow players to minimize the time wasted on levels that they're good enough to clear, while still ensuring that players can only advance by actually getting good.

 

BTW, how many people have cleared Hunchy II? Has anyone cleared Thrust+?

[rjchamp3]

I think "beating" a game refers to finishing it without having to use a continue of any kind or getting a game over screen.

 

I agree no continues

[Flojomojo]

I don't beat games, they beat me. Unless they are VERY short and easy -- and that's nice once in a while.

[tcv]

I don't beat games, they beat me. Unless they are VERY short and easy -- and that's nice once in a while.

 

So, what do you do? Just play until you get to a point you can't get past?

[Lemmi]

i play untill i get bored then i put it away and most times it never sees the light of day again

 

i have around 1400 games and i dont think ive played even half of them, and ive maybe completed under 100 total but thats a guess, but i know its not alot

[Flojomojo]

I don't beat games, they beat me. Unless they are VERY short and easy -- and that's nice once in a while.

 

So, what do you do? Just play until you get to a point you can't get past?

If I'm lucky. I have more time to read about games than actually play them. Add in the "problem" of being an adult with more money than time, and you know why I have a big stack of "stuff" I'll never finish. I really need to get off the consumption cycle. I've already told myself to skip the PS3 and Wii -- we'll see how long that willpower holds out....

[Lord Helmet]

I believe in playing games until they bore me. If I beat them in that time, good deal

[tcv]

I like the answers here. I've never been very good at games and when I read magazines where the reviewers beat the game in a few minutes and then talk about how that makes it a bad game, I certainly feel quite inadequate.

 

Having said that, I like to discover new levels and things. It's fun that way, too.

 

Back in the classic days, we didn't have much of this level-level-level-boss stuff (or the expansive worlds), so the only two points really there were the score and the amount of time you could play. It's certainly different these days.

[vdub_bobby]

I like the satisfaction of beating a game, but I don't kill myself trying to do it - if I get so frustrated, or it is so boring, that it isn't fun I put it aside.

 

I use continues to beat games, but I don't use cheat codes or cheat devices (Game Genie, etc.).

 

That's just what is most fun for me.

[figgler]

I brag to myself about beating games all the time in my mind. Makes me feel good to say, "Hey, I beat that".

As for using continues, I think it's fair to use them. I consider a game beaten so long as I can achieve the end goal within the allowed limits of the game. If it gives me continues, I use them. Level skips, cheats, Game Genies and the like would of course negate the "beating".

 

I think of completing a game as something different though. This would be achieving 100% completion or doing and seeing everything in the game.

 

For instance; You can beat Super Mario Bros by using the warps in 1-2 and 4-2, then defeating Bowser in 8-4. But you haven't actually completed the game unless you've gone straight through from 1-1 to 8-4 and defeated Bowser that way.

[Ghost Soldier]

I like the playability of games that I cannot beat easily. I can always go back and get just a bit further than the last time before I get tired. As far as beating them I play them to have fun but in the course if I beat them then thats great. So long as the game keeps me coming back because its fun I don't care if I beat it or not.

[BassGuitari]

I believe in playing games until they bore me. If I beat them in that time, good deal

 

I like this answer.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about completing a game just for the sake of finishing it. I generally find that once this happens, I'm never compelled to play it again (with few notable exceptions like Half-Life). But I tend to get bored with most games before I can actually beat them (GTA3/VC/SA, anyone?)

 

I prefer games like Space Invaders. They're always fun, and they can't be beaten (unless rolling the scoreboard counts); you can only try to do a little better each time.

[Trip_Cannon]

I try!! Friggen Empire Strikes Back!!! No matter how hard I try those damn AT-ATs keep coming at me!!!

[madhatter667]

I like to play games through to completion.. although most of those involve a save feature of some kind. I try on all of them. Older games, as in the ones that were designed for silly fun (as most of the Atari console stuff was), I play until I tire of it, run out of lives or whatever.

 

I think if someone doesn't intend to complete a game that has a save function isn't less of a gamer...I think they wasted their money. Games like Silent Hill, Resident Evil, Fatal Frame... all have enough going for them that one should want to play them through to the end.

[rjchamp3]

Almost any game I can beat, or at least get to the final.

 

some I still havent in 15 years

[AussieAtari]

If I'm lucky. I have more time to read about games than actually play them. Add in the "problem" of being an adult with more money than time, and you know why I have a big stack of "stuff" I'll never finish. I really need to get off the consumption cycle. I've already told myself to skip the PS3 and Wii -- we'll see how long that willpower holds out....

 

I'm right with you, Flomojo.

 

Most games I play simply to satisfy a 3 minute gaming urge and match my attention span, although PC games I'll play right through (the Max Paynes, Medal Of Honours of this world) and I am now determined to get through to the end of any DS games I play.

 

Considering I am struggling through Bomberman DS at the moment things don't bide too well for me to finish anything before I shuffle off this mortal coil.

[superjudge3]

There are some games that I just have to beat.

 

Some games I have no desire to play all the way through but there might be certain levels that I love so I'll keep the game just because some of it is really fun.

 

For example: I had to beat Iron Soldier for the Jaguar, but I have no desire to beat Kasumi Ninja. However, I like Kasumi Ninja enough to plug it in every once in a while for some quick fighting if I'm in the mood for a fighting game. Make sense?

[Lord Helmet]

I believe in playing games until they bore me. If I beat them in that time, good deal

 

I like this answer.

 

I'm not sure how I feel about completing a game just for the sake of finishing it. I generally find that once this happens, I'm never compelled to play it again (with few notable exceptions like Half-Life). But I tend to get bored with most games before I can actually beat them (GTA3/VC/SA, anyone?)

 

I prefer games like Space Invaders. They're always fun, and they can't be beaten (unless rolling the scoreboard counts); you can only try to do a little better each time.

 

And that is the difference between most of the Atari era of games and the NES up to now. During the 2600 era, there were only a select few games that were beatable. Now almost all of them are beatable..ie they have endings. Same rule applies though. There are several 2600 games that I could probably play forever, just rolling the score over and over. So I get bored and turn them off. There are a number of modern games that I get bored with 3/4 of the way through the game. I turn them off and never play them again.

[JimmydelaKopin]

My philosophy on beating games?

 

For mediocre games like E.T., I'll use a ballpeen hammer.

 

But for truly awful games, the sledge hammer works best.

[Gabriel]

I think "beating" a game refers to finishing it without having to use a continue of any kind or getting a game over screen.

 

So, RPGs are impossible to beat by your definition.

[Flojomojo]

I remember watching a little kid in an arcade playing the sit-down version of Star Wars (the Atari vector game) -- he didn't understand how to play. He made it to the level one trench, but didn't understand that he had to avoid or shoot the fireballs. He had no shield left when he hit the wall at the end of the trench.

 

G A M E O V E R

 

He jumped off the seat, found his mom, and said "I beat that game!!"

[tcv]

I remember watching a little kid in an arcade playing the sit-down version of Star Wars (the Atari vector game) -- he didn't understand how to play. He made it to the level one trench, but didn't understand that he had to avoid or shoot the fireballs. He had no shield left when he hit the wall at the end of the trench.

 

G A M E O V E R

 

He jumped off the seat, found his mom, and said "I beat that game!!"

 

You watch. That kid's gonna run for office.