|
|
Post by ninjabearhug on Oct 15, 2009 15:46:19 GMT
The more older games I play the more I ponder this subject. When do you call a game completed?
With modern games it's generally pretty simple as most games have a stats screen now showing the percentage of the game you have completed, but with older games it's a different story.
For instance, when would you consider Transbot completed? The game loops endlessly and I'm not even sure it's possible to reach a maximum score as the game starts to glitch pretty badly the further you get.
Or how about Sonic? Would you consider just getting through the game enough or would you have to collect all the gems? Maybe you would have to collect every collectable item and kill every badnik to consider the game completed?
Personally, I like to know I've beaten the game, as in found every hidden area and explored every aspect of the game. I quite often complete games 4 or 5 times in a row just so that I'm satisfied that it wasn't a fluke.
Looping games can get annoying for me at times as I never know when to just say enough is enough, I've finished it. I normally tell myself that a certain area is enough, Astro Warrior for example, where I said finishing the third loop would be enough for me. But then I finish the third loop and decide that maybe that was too easy and I should set my sights higher, and it just seems to go on forever.
What does everyone else think? Are you like me? Or do you just charge through a game and shelve it?
|
|
Aypok
Sonic the Hedgehog
Posts: 2,372
|
Post by Aypok on Oct 15, 2009 16:52:21 GMT
For instance, when would you consider Transbot completed? The game loops endlessly and I'm not even sure it's possible to reach a maximum score as the game starts to glitch pretty badly the further you get. That one's simple: you can't. You answered your own question: it's endless - it has no end. It's incompletable. Or how about Sonic? Would you consider just getting through the game enough or would you have to collect all the gems? Maybe you would have to collect every collectable item and kill every badnik to consider the game completed? Getting to the "game over" (not when dying, naturally) or credits screen (you know what I mean) is completing it. Getting all items is "100-percenting" it. I've completed Sonic, but I don't like it enough to 100% it. What does everyone else think? Are you like me? Or do you just charge through a game and shelve it? I just play games until they stop being fun. If a game isn't fun, why play it? Some people like a challenge, sure - but isn't that fun? For me it is (sometimes). If it gets frustrating it can sod off. Uh, slightly off topic... Sometimes that means I play games for five minutes, sometimes to completion - rarely to 100% complete, though. |
|
|
|
Post by grolt on Oct 15, 2009 17:55:26 GMT
As for definition, I'll go by what Aypok said. I'd love to 100% every game, but time really seems a limited commodity these days, so the reality is that as long as I get to the ending screen then I can put a game away. I live for those endings, especially in 8-bit, since often so much wonder is put into them. That's why my avatar is the ending to Aztec Adventure. I do generally like to get all the secrets and visit all the areas (or when it comes to RPGs do all the sidequests and talk to every person), but if it becomes too much of a chore then I have to move on for fear of never finishing the game.
I had a bad blunder not too long ago where my Landstalker cartridge for the Genesis lost the save when I was about 80% completed. It had taken me around 17 hours to get to that point, and I just can't force myself to go back to do it. Still, it eats me inside that I have not gone the distance!
|
|
|
|
Post by Transatlantic Foe on Oct 16, 2009 1:25:05 GMT
Looping games without an end sequence annoy me. I'm not sure I own any actually, all the games I have with loops do have a proper credits sequence. If the game's short and easy like Scramble Spirits I'll play 'til I've maxed out the score - once that's done I'll just come back to do one or two loops for a bit of fun. Operation Wolf is meant to have 4 loops of increasing difficulty but I never noticed a difference!
With Sonic I'll do it with all emeralds to consider it complete - they do have different endings, although Sonic 1's isn't very different at all. For Sonic Chaos I had to deliberately play badly to get the "bad" ending (likewise Cybernator on the SNES)! Some games I'll go through until I've done everything if the game is enough fun - like Zelda 3 on the SNES I kept coming back to until I had all the items and all the heart pieces. I also generally don't bother with finishing on difficulty settings above medium if the difficulty is so great it borders on downright unfair and frustrating (see a lot of shmups - prime example, Thunderforce IV on the Megadrive/Genesis).
I'll admit that the whole "unlockable" content stuff in modern games annoys me as well (see Charlie Brooker's Gameswipe if you haven't already!). For some games it's a good thing - like with rail shooters, because they're meant to be quite easy and just fun so getting extra guns and bits is great. But mainly because it's so easily achievable you don't feel cheated if you're not good enough to unlock it! Stuff where you get extra modes is great, but unless they expand a storyline that won't make sense unless you've done the game, it seems unfair to not have them at the start.
There is, however, nothing worse than getting to a certain point in a game and not being able to get further because either:
a) you're not a good enough player for a sudden sharp rise in difficulty (Starlancer on Dreamcast does me here - the last mission is woefully unfair (defend 12 things that die with one hit from about 24 enemy craft with no help from the rest of your useless squadron), even on easy, that there must be a tactic to do it but I'll be damned if I'll repeat the mission until I work it out, because the logical thing to have happen is half-decent wingmen who'll actually help you by shooting at the enemy!)
b) at your last save point you just don't have enough health or ammo to get further. Can I be bothered to start again? No. Because it's generally only PC games that let you save loads and loads of files (if you don't want to buy hundreds of memory cards), chances are that's the only save file and you're screwed.
|
|
|
|
Post by Jo Musashi on Oct 16, 2009 22:33:19 GMT
Killing the last boss = complete. (generic answer) ;D
|
|
|
|
Post by edwithmj on Oct 18, 2009 17:38:44 GMT
An interesting topic and funny you should mention Sonic 1. In my mind i've completed that since I've gotten the highest score I could get by not losing any lives, getting 99 rings in each act (where possible) and special stage, getting all the lives and emeralds and getting the fastest time I could while doing the above things. I got over a million points.
Games that have no end I don't consider fun so I play them till I get bored. It depends on the game most of the time.
|
|
|
|
Post by ninjabearhug on Oct 19, 2009 9:32:32 GMT
As for definition, I'll go by what Aypok said. I'd love to 100% every game, but time really seems a limited commodity these days, so the reality is that as long as I get to the ending screen then I can put a game away. I like to get 100% out of every game I play, and generally I don't let time put me off doing that. For example, I've been playing Bubba N Stix on the MD for around 3 months now, maybe longer, and whilst most people would have just quit as it isn't exactly a great game, I keep on going. I doubt very much that I will ever get through my entire collection of games, I'll probably have a backlog of 1000's when I die, but as long as I enjoy playing them it doesn't bother me. I live to 100% games  . |
|
.