|
Post by anayo on Feb 28, 2018 14:54:30 GMT -5
The question, though, remains: what constitutes "beating" a game? Is it just seeing the "The End" screen/credits?... if I'm not solving all of the puzzles/finding all of the finds myself, what is the value of taking the trouble to find/do them? Do I play games to personally triumph over them or just to experience them happening in my own home? I really like Panzer Dragoon and Streets of Rage 2, but they're very simple. It isn't like their elements can recombine and lead to an exponentially vast number of outcomes. You could even say one play through is basically just like any other. But the sights and sounds they offer along the way are just so appealing. The interactivity is shallow, but the presentation makes up for it somehow.
|
|
|
Post by toei on Mar 1, 2018 16:49:13 GMT -5
With Streets of Rage 2, at least, you can play it solo or with a friend, and with 3 different characters. In that sense there is room for variance between playthroughs.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Mar 2, 2018 16:19:19 GMT -5
I don't have any personal guidelines really. I do whatever makes the game fun for me to play. I tend to go in blind and avoid using save states but in games that are extremely obtuse or have very limited continues I'll use the advantages modern technology has granted us. As for what constitutes beating a game, I have a similar answer. I'm done when I'm personally satisfied with the level of completion. They're video games, they should be entertaining and not a competition or a chore. If I'm having fun going for that 100% I'll do it. If I'm happy with just seeing the credits roll and feel like I've had enough I'll stop.
I choose the games I want to put in the time to get good at, some games I'm content to not bother.
|
|