I have adjusted my mindset instead of adjusting the terms themselves, for me. While completely getting everything that exists was and is still to “100%” a game, I have adjusted “to beat” a game to no longer be nearly synonymous with 100% because I ain’t got time for that anymore.

Instead I believe to have beaten a game if I get the main sequence credit roll and have completed as much non-main scenario content as I want to before I feel it’s tedious or stupid. Sometimes beating the game is strictly completing the main sequence because no extra content exists, are only achievements, or are so difficult that I simply don’t feel like investing the time into it (unless I want to. Shout out to God of War ps3 with the hardest difficulty + Valkyrie Queen side quest! Now THAT was a hard but fair and fun fight!).

I recently played through BotW finally so I can move onto TotK and I did all shrines, about 320 korok seeds, and some side quests and chains (like terry town) but I decided against doing the trial of the sword deep dungeon. I kept playing and doing things and didn’t get all shrines because I wanted to but instead had such a fun time that I got all of them because I just happened to continue enjoying the journey to all shrines. That subtle distinction means I keep playing games as content still exists and while I’m still having a good time.

When the good time ends, then I feel I have beat the game. And that’s good by me.

Yeah I get you. And honestly so few games these days have an actual ending anyway. Open world, sandbox, ancillary objective, and multiplayer games have changed the way we look at games in general. I can’t remember the last time I “beat” a game. I mean maybe a few months ago when I finished the main storyline of No Man’s Sky, but did I really beat it? No, I just finished one of the many quests.

Super Mario 64 is a game you beat. Most games today, you just don’t.

Very much feel the same! “Beat the game” made more sense back when it felt like the game was trying to defeat you, whether that was for more quarters in the arcade or for more perceived value at home. But I switched to saying “finished (or completed) the game” a long time ago as the general nature of gaming shifted over the years. For story games with multiple endings, I might say I “finished it” if I don’t plan to go back and see other branches, or “completed it” if I got all endings.

I too am curious if this an age-related tendency or not, I’m in my 40s.

The term comes mostly because there is a upper limit(like you get to the last level and then it goes back to level 1), there is last boss from old RPG, you finished all 100 puzzles the designer put in place, etc. So it makes sense to say I beat the game cause there is nothing else the game can provide a challenge.

But modern games like you mentioned, aren’t even designed with this approach. It becomes a wild variety of genre and flavor that you can pretty much do anything you like. ie. I finished GoW:Ragnarok on GMGoW difficulty 100% everything, while there are streamer doing Lv1/no damage runs, and there are people that play story mode and just want to enjoy the lore and story development. All are valid ways to finish the game. And there are even games, say Flight Simulator, how do you “beat” or “finish” that? Or competitive games like Rocket League, CS:GO those just never “finish”, you get “better” and climb the ranks like online chess players.

However, you can still “beat” some games that are designed in more traditional fashion. Say, Resogun is a side scroll arcade shooter, it was traditionally designed so people tries to get better and chase high scores, but if you “beat” it as in finish the arcade mode, there is not much it has to offer than chase high scores. Or games like MetalSlug series, you beat the game cause they don’t have any other challenges to offer.

Most people don’t say “beat” the game now as we know how high the ceiling is that people can do with games(knife only runs, blindfold runs, rockband guitar controllers, etc.), we mostly say we finish the campaign, platinum the game, or 100% complete from the game stats(not every game tracks completion stats).

There are distinctions, sure, but at no point in MY life has “beating a game” been equated with “100% completion of every piece of available content in a game”.

Going all the way back to the 90s, if you beat Robotnik in Sonic 2, you beat the game, even if you didn’t get all the Chaos Emeralds.
If you beat Bowser in SMW, you beat the game, even if you didn’t finish the secret levels and unlock fall.
In FF7, if you beat One Winged Angel Sephiroth, you beat the game, even if you didn’t do Emerald/Ruby Weapon or breed a Gold Chocobo.
If you beat Majora but didn’t get all the masks you still beat the game.
If you finished Baldur’s Gate 2 and defeated Irenicus you beat the game.
If you beat the Elite 4, you beat Pokemon, even if you didn’t collect all 150.
If you went Act 1-4/5 in Diablo 2 on normal, guess what, you beat the game. You can beat it again on Nightmare, and again on Hell, but you still beat it.

Did that change somewhere along the way? I beat Spider-Man. Did I 100% it? No. I beat BotW and ToTK. Did I 100% them? No. I beat God of War 2018. Did I 100% it on the highest difficulty? YES, but I beat it first!

In my household beating the game has the same meaning as “rolling credits” - largely based on Backloggery’s distinction between beaten and completed games. I’ve started focusing on actually beating games/rolling credits in the past ~3 years and while there’s still a few games I’ve started and put down unfinished for various reasons, I beat 25 games in 2022 and 14 so far in 2023.

I’d be interested to know what the difference in language means for you - would “beat” apply only to games that don’t have post-credits gameplay?

I’ve so used to the terminology though that I’m probably not gonna change it. It’s kind of a weird thing games have though, with movies or books you can just say you watched or read it, and it’s usually implied that you finished it. But that’s not always the case for games, you can play a game but might not ever finish it, or the game might not have an ending. Or it may have multiple endings - does doing one ending count? Or do I have to do all of them? Or is it nier automata, and I have to do 6 of them?

Don’t really have a conclusion to this, just think it’s interesting.

I’ve noticed I usually say now “I completed the story” instead of “I beat the game.” With so many games now continuing even after the story or all the extra things you get through multiple playthroughs, it’s a pretty outdated term now.

I’m in my 20s and I’ve always said “finished the game”, I agree “beat” feels odd with the way gaming has changed nowadays.

Back then pretty much every took dedication and skill to finish, so “beat” made sense

I say finished playing or finished the game, I don’t normally clarify that it doesn’t mean I did everything in the game, people seem to understand that it means that I played the core elements

This resonates. A lot of games nowadays emulate something more like a movie or book and like you said, it’s about finishing the experience. Even something like Hades he gameplay is old school and fairly straight forward, but the sheer amount of recorded dialogue makes for an experience in and of itself.

Along the same lines I grew to care less about 100%ing a game unless it’s a game WORTH doing so.

Yeah I’m with you. I tend to say I’ve completed the main story/campaign but haven’t finished getting all the collectibles/side quests/100% the game yet. These days I hardly ever hit 100% which I consider would equate to “beating” the game.

No I like the term beat, not because it’s accurate but because it’s like a tradition, it’s part of the culture of the medium. Beating a game is a triumph, something to celebrate and be proud of, not just checking off a to-do list.

I would actually have to finish one first, instead of getting bored, switching games, coming back, realizing I have no clue what’s going on, restart the game, get bored, switch games, etc.