To "Beat" a game

[Cardot]

I'll probably come off as a bit of a semantic douche bag here, but I find the expression "I beat the game" to be a bit odd. Aren't all single player games designed so that they can eventually be "Finished" or "Solved" by the player? To me it is almost the same as reading a book and saying "Yeah, I did it. I beat the book".

It is rare, but even funnier when applied to a sports game. I have read things like "I played xyz football game and won the Super Bowl. I beat the game".

[coffeeholic]

Re: To "Beat" a game

I'll probably come off as a bit of a semantic douche bag here, but I find the expression "I beat the game" to be a bit odd. Aren't all single player games designed so that they can eventually be "Finished" or "Solved" by the player? To me it is almost the same as reading a book and saying "Yeah, I did it. I beat the book".

It is rare, but even funnier when applied to a sports game. I have read things like "I played xyz football game and won the Super Bowl. I beat the game".

That kinda gets to me too. I use to know someone that whenever a FPS or RPG came out, he had to borrow it from some one. He never bought a game in his life-cheap ***. Anyway,he once borrowed Quake 2 from me-kept it for about 3 days. When I got it back he said"I beat it easy-this game is a piece of crap" and literally tossed it in my face. I find out he stayed up for almost 2 days straight JUST to finish it. Not enjoying it though. His room mate said he played the game hyper fast and would cuss if it didn't play perfect for him. He doesn't like or enjoy games,he just wants to "beat the game" to show you he can do it quicker,therefore making him Lord Crap of Turd Island. Ever since then,whenever someone says"I beat the game" makes me wonder if they really enjoyed the game or not.

[Village Idiot]

Re: To "Beat" a game

"Yeah, I did it. I beat the book".

[born_bad]

Re: To "Beat" a game

I don't hear "beat" that much anymore. I think it's kind of an old-school term before games were as involved as they are now. You actually could "beat" games back then. Now it doesn't really make sense. I use "finished a game."

[Jistic]

Re: To "Beat" a game

How many times did you have to re-read the final chapter in a book to finish it? Was it usually the most difficult chapter to read in the book? Did you have to keep bookmarking your place in case it got too hard to you could start over?

Some games you finish, some games you beat.

[Chief Illinimac]

Re: To "Beat" a game

Certain games, like Mario, had enemies that were trying to stop you from finishing the game. Hence, you "beat" the game. It's not the same as passively reading a book.

I'm not sure too many games now, though, deserve that term. Maybe single player shooters/adventure games, but games have gotten so complex, that beating the game is more like completing 100% of content, rather than finishing each level, or the completed story.

[dkgojackets]

Re: To "Beat" a game

Yeah I agree with Jistic, there is definitely a feeling of accomplishment after finally "beating" the enemies on the last level when you've died and tried again dozens of times.

Not all games are so "everyone" can finish them. Not everyone can beat Halo 3 on Legendary.

[Cardot]

Re: To "Beat" a game

That kinda gets to me too. I use to know someone that whenever a FPS or RPG came out, he had to borrow it from some one. He never bought a game in his life-cheap ***. Anyway,he once borrowed Quake 2 from me-kept it for about 3 days. When I got it back he said"I beat it easy-this game is a piece of crap" and literally tossed it in my face. I find out he stayed up for almost 2 days straight JUST to finish it.

I once new a guy who felt he was beating the developers when he completed a game. He also said that he liked finishing a game as quickly as possible to really show up the developers. He was a bit of a tool. That probably when I first really noticed the experession.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: To "Beat" a game

The key difference between finishing a book volume and "beating" a game is challenge. The game is a game, and as such, it is a competition between the user and the program. That's why the programming challenge is divided up into difficulty levels, to differentiate the different skill levels of gamers who are either defeating, or defeated at said levels.

Books are primarily a storytelling medium, and the goal of the book is simply to communicate. A challenge to finishing a book would require errors in communication methods, and is antithetical to master storytelling which is meant to enhance communication and make it easier for people to receive the ideas in the volume. In a video game, this challenge to its participants is an integral part of the virtue of gaming, and in turn is a challenge to the developers who have to find the right balance of difficulty that allows gamers to grow enough to develop skill, but isn't so stifling that gamers are frustrated and seek easier experiences.

As usual with discussions like this, the answer is in function. The function of games is partially to provide challenge, and place the user in the role of loser (game over) or winner (game ending). So the term "beating the game" is an abbreviated expression short for "defeating this level of difficulty set forth by the programmers".

With a book, there is no "losing". There is only complete and incomplete, which is entirely dependent on time spent, rather than skill acquired.

[Cardot]

Re: To "Beat" a game

The key difference between finishing a book volume and "beating" a game is challenge. The game is a game, and as such, it is a competition between the user and the program.

Perhaps a puzzle would be a better analogy than a book. That involves a little more challenge than a book, but like a video game, if you invest enough time and energy, odds are that eventually you will finish it.

I think "competition" is the key word here. I don't think video games against the CPU are competition. They can be very challenging, but they are designed to be beaten. If I am playing against a human in a real competition, they aren't going to deliberatly leave a path open to me that will result in victory if I figure it out.....A video game essentially does this.

I guess it is a pretty slow day here at work.

[bkfount]

Re: To "Beat" a game

Perhaps a puzzle would be a better analogy than a book. That involves a little more challenge than a book, but like a video game, if you invest enough time and energy, odds are that eventually you will finish it.

I think "competition" is the key word here. I don't think video games against the CPU are competition. They can be very challenging, but they are designed to be beaten. If I am playing against a human in a real competition, they aren't going to deliberatly leave a path open to me that will result in victory if I figure it out.....A video game essentially does this.

I guess it is a pretty slow day here at work.

yes, but it often requires skill development and dedicating numerous hours to the game. Both of which many people give up on, leading them to move on to other games. Bungie even released stats showing that a small percentage of totals players even beat Halo 3 on legendary, so it becomes a badge for some people. This allows them to be able to say they got beat a game on the toughest difficulty, got all 1k achievement points in a game, or got 100% completion like in GTA, whatever.

[Bizzy Da Kid]

Re: To "Beat" a game

Perhaps a puzzle would be a better analogy than a book. That involves a little more challenge than a book, but like a video game, if you invest enough time and energy, odds are that eventually you will finish it.

I think "competition" is the key word here. I don't think video games against the CPU are competition. They can be very challenging, but they are designed to be beaten. If I am playing against a human in a real competition, they aren't going to deliberatly leave a path open to me that will result in victory if I figure it out.....A video game essentially does this.

I guess it is a pretty slow day here at work.

You obiviously haven't played shooters or sports games on the hardest level. Beating games on the hardest levels gives you the sense of accomplishment. Now you factor in achievements, on top of beating/finishing/completing the game and WOW!!!!

[Cardot]

Re: To "Beat" a game

You obiviously haven't played shooters or sports games on the hardest level.

You are correct. I haven't. The hard levels are too "Challenging" for me.

[mgoblue]

Re: To "Beat" a game

I think part of the "Beat" mentality is the idea (perhaps more obvious in the past) that most of the game was just a trail to a big final boss that you defeat (or "beat"), and then the game was over. There wasn't much plot in the past, some games would go directly to credits or a "You are teh winner" screen. Really all the benefit came from beating that one boss character.

Nowadays, games can tell a story....the end of the game isn't really a final battle, there are cutscenes and stuff afterwards.

I'd never say I "beat" a sports game, IMO that's kinda crazy. Those are games you don't really finish.

I see your semantical argument and you have a good point...that being said, I doubt I'll stop saying I "beat" Assassin's Creed. I think it's more just the usage of the term and how it's evolved in this respect. Kleenex isn't a word, it's a brand name. Do you say that you've got to grab some kleenex when you want to blow your nose? I doubt you say "facial tissue". Maybe tissue, but tons of people say kleenex. Q-tip isn't a word either...you get my point I think.

Just foibles of the English language. Maybe check out this book:
http://www.amazon.com/Butterfly-Fear...6460251&sr=8-1

I remember getting it as a gift in my teens, but it's just got interesting questions about common English phrases and whatnot that you don't normally think about.

[Bornindamecca]

Re: To "Beat" a game

I think "competition" is the key word here. I don't think video games against the CPU are competition. They can be very challenging, but they are designed to be beaten. If I am playing against a human in a real competition, they aren't going to deliberatly leave a path open to me that will result in victory if I figure it out.....A video game essentially does this.

Actually, the key word isn't being said. "They are designed to be beaten" based on the variable of gamer investment. Games are designed for many things, and challenge is part of it, but the overall goal is to engage and expand a functioning user base. It'd be counter productive to design games simply to be finished. The completion of a game is only one part of an elaborate reward system designed to give gamers a sense of fulfillment. How "beatable" a game is on its hardest difficulty differs from company to company to fall in line with the goals of that game.

Puzzles aren't an apt comparison because they don't involve a storytelling or roleplaying element, and thus exclude many of the emotions associated with most games. Also, even in one player games there will be an artificial personality for the gamer to pit his projected hero against. This is one of the main reasons for having a main villain, or last boss. These antagonists are set up for us to personify and project upon as a proxy for the visceral reward we get from more traditional (human) competition.