Are single-player story-based games won, or finished?

[xshadowscreamx]

finished,done,dusted.

 

[Craorach]

Finished.

To me, to win something, there has to be some kind of contest. I don't think I've ever "lost" a single player game, if its too hard I just drop the difficulty level.

 

[spectrenihlus]

I think it all depends on how the final section is handled. If it is a very tough section then it is beaten if it was like the rest of the levels it is finished.

 

[burningdragoon]

Both, really. Though I don't use "won" I basically look at like this: I've beaten the game once I've finished the story.

 

[Bostur]

Hmm, thanks again for all the responses. One more question, though. I was trying to get at this before but I don't think I explained it very well.

Do you think that for something to be considered a game, it needs to be winnable?

Saying yes may remove the 'game status' from games such as Assassin's Creed, and restrict it to things like RTSs etc (games where there is a clear winning objective).

I think in video games winning conditions can be broadened to success conditions. Winning is usually related to competitive games with a binary result of win or lose.

Many single player video games use a structure similar to pen and paper RPGs where outright winning is impossible, but gradual success is possible. Typical success conditions can be beating a level, beating an encounter, leveling up, finding all the shinies. The end of the game usually represents the sum of the mandatory success conditions. Even though a game like this is not winnable in the strict sense of the word, the structure is so similar that it feels like a game.

There are a few elements that I feel a game must include to be considered a game.

1. A predefined ruleset. Not everything goes, the player must abide by the rules.
2. Conditions for success and failure as I mentioned earlier.
It's also necessary that both success and failure is possible. This may seem self evident but it's possible to make something 'gamey' where failure is impossible but still allows for a feeling of success. To me such a system doesn't feel like a true game, but more like inclusive storytelling.


Creative software like a paint program or a digital musical instrument breaks both rules. A sandbox or true simulation usually only breaks rule nr. 2 since they tend to have internal logic that can be interpreted as a ruleset. For example one of the rules of Minecraft is that the player must abide by the laws of physics. A typical rule in a Flight Simulator is that the airplane must react according to its predetermined flight model.

In practice it's not as clear cut since many forms of entertainment cross the boundaries and can be both game and non-game at the same time. Terraria and Civilization are sometimes games and sometimes sandboxes.

 

[AndrewF022]

Interesting thought. However I approach games as entertainment rather than art so my view on it will probably be very different to yours.

I use 'win' to describe individual moments in a game. I/we win a round Counter-Strike, win a fight against a boss or win a match of Starcraft 2.

I use beaten/finished to describe when I have well, beaten the game, seen the end credits while feeling superior that I was able to beat the game all of these people made (seriously, in a really hard game seeing the credits can be so rewarding). I think I use beaten because I would not have been able to get to this point without having input, you finish a movie, but you don't contribute to whether you see the end or not, but I had to work to get to the end of a game, thus I use beaten, as it has attempted to stop me getting there.

also... I thought Portal 2 was a puzzle game, not a story focused game.. man we either had different games, or you look at games in a completely different way to me, because I thought the story aspects of Portal were extremely weak, although GlaDoS' deadpan humor always make me chuckle.