Board 8 > If you use rewind/save state to finish a game, did you beat it?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Inspired by the recent controversial argument going down on Twitter involving Mike Matei, Jontron and a few others:

https://twitter.com/Mike_Matei/status/1210959863733530625?s=19

I will clarify, I dont view state saving when you're done playing the game for the day as cheating. But using it to cheat the system to always make the best choice or prevent death is more what I'm asking about.

Discuss.

---

Yes what kind of stupid fucking question is that

---

man, whatever

More often than not it's more of a timesaving thing, so yes, I'd say.

---

Speed runners should do it before a really hard trick in order to safety save or try it again without having to risk a soft lock or reverting to the last in game save.

---

As long as you aren't save crawling with them sure.

If you use them as an alternative to wasting tons of time farming health or supplies it's fine.

If you are hitting a save state every 5 seconds or whatever, then not so much.

Tough question.

Take SMW2 Yoshis Islnd for example. To complete many of the later stages at 100% with all the red coins and stuff it takes some good planning and precision.

Its now on the switch and comes with a 10 second rewind at any time. I can keep rewinding and trying the tough parts over with ease so the tough routes are now a walk in the park.

Hard to convince me someone who gets 100% that way is the same as someone who did it on the original snes cart.

Beating with save states and rewinds is just a thing to specify when claiming to have beat a game. I don't think you can say "you beat the game" without adding that you used save states and rewinds. That's like beating Contra with the Konami code, and just saying "you beat the game" and not elaborating that you had help, or using a Game Genie/Game Shark for any other game, and saying "you beat the game" without elaborating.

Yes, it's beating the game, but there are lots of ways to beat a game. Usually a conversation involves more than a couple words. I wouldn't go up to someone and say I beat Tetris, and then walk away. There is certainly more to a conversation about what difficulty, or how you did it, and explaining your thoughts about the game.

So ultimately, Yes for the poll. It just has caveats.

---

TomNook posted...

Beating with save states and rewinds is just a thing to specify when claiming to have beat a game. I don't think you can say "you beat the game" without adding that you used save states and rewinds. That's like beating Contra with the Konami code, and just saying "you beat the game" and not elaborating that you had help, or using a Game Genie/Game Shark for any other game, and saying "you beat the game" without elaborating.

Yes, it's beating the game, but there are lots of ways to beat a game. Usually a conversation involves more than a couple words. I wouldn't go up to someone and say I beat Tetris, and then walk away. There is certainly more to a conversation about what difficulty, or how you did it, and explaining your thoughts about the game.

So ultimately, Yes for the poll. It just has caveats.

If we have to dance through these hoops after the fact wouldn't the easiest solution be you either beat the game on default settings exactly as the developers intended it to be played, or you didnt.

linid0t posted...

If we have to dance through these hoops after the fact wouldn't the easiest solution be you either beat the game on default settings exactly as the developers intended it to be played, or you didnt.

I believe that's the only way one could fairly say that they beat the game, without elaborating. On one hand, if you beat the game on the hardest difficulty and 100%'d it, it would leave a sense of under representation of yourself and game experience if you never mention it how far above and beyond you went. The flip side of course being this topic, where you took the easy way out, and take full credit, leaving others to misinterpret your experience. It's mostly pointless, but I just think when the topic of beating a game comes up, people would typically talk about it enough to explain what their experience was like, so it mostly wouldn't matter.

---

I would say that by at least some stretch of the imagination you have beaten the game because you quite literally beat the game

If you want to argue about "fairness" or whatever, sure, but there's no need to discredit the way someone else plays a game.

---

I mean if someone is grabbing extra cash from the bank in Monopoly every turn I'm not going to call them a winner if they end up beating me.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

I would say that by at least some stretch of the imagination you have beaten the game because you quite literally beat the game

If you want to argue about "fairness" or whatever, sure, but there's no need to discredit the way someone else plays a game.

Sure if you spent the money and own the game there is no "wrong way" to play it but for all intents and purposes does anyone really use cheat codes, save states, rewind, etc. Then tell everyone they completed a hard game? How could you sleep at night knowing you're a great big fucking phony

oh my god

---

Depends on how you use it.

If you're just using it to save time, it's fine.

If you're abusing it in order to beat the game, then you haven't really beaten the game.

So if you save just before a boss fight? That's okay.
If you save mid-boss fight? Nope.

---

I sleep pretty well because I don't get my sense of self and accomplishment out of beating video games.

But then again, I'm not someone who ever plays a game on the hardest difficulty to begin with. Crushing difficulty is not something in games I find fun.

---

It's unnecessarily elitist and nostalgic to try to distinguish it. Who the fuck cares how someone "beat" the game, they still played and got to the credits. Let people play how they want. Not everything needs to be a goddamn trophy.

---

Leonhart4 posted...

I sleep pretty well because I don't get my sense of self and accomplishment out of beating video games.

But then again, I'm not someone who ever plays a game on the hardest difficulty to begin with. Crushing difficulty is not something in games I find fun.

Really? Damn dude I definitely love the sense of accomplishment that comes along with beating a really hard game. It's an incredible feeling! If your only playing to advance the story you could always just watch a silent LP on YouTube.

---

Dancedreamer posted...

So if you save just before a boss fight? That's okay.
If you save mid-boss fight? Nope.

But the challenge in a game's difficulty often comes in one's ability to do a series of button inputs with minimal mistakes in an established window set by the game designers. You say saving mid boss fight is cheating, but before a boss isn't? Perhaps the game designers intended the full stage AND boss to be part of the same challenge window in which your skill isn't allowed to falter, and saving before a boss when you normally couldn't would be seen as a form of cheating.

---

TomNook posted...

But the challenge in a game's difficulty often comes in one's ability to do a series of button inputs with minimal mistakes in an established window set by the game designers. You say saving mid boss fight is cheating, but before a boss isn't? Perhaps the game designers intended the full stage AND boss to be part of the same challenge window in which your skill isn't allowed to falter, and saving before a boss when you normally couldn't would be seen as a form of cheating.

He probably meant within the default settings of what's allowed in game. Most games allow the player to save in some fashion before major boss fights.

If come one is using an emulator to play and use save states part way through a fight that's what he means as it's not something that was ever intended to help you

linid0t posted...

He probably meant within the default settings of what's allowed in game. Most games allow the player to save in some fashion before major boss fights.

If come one is using an emulator to play and use save states part way through a fight that's what he means as it's not something that was ever intended to help you

Certainly true for more modern games. My mindset was aimed at NES era where the Rewind is commonly seen--such as Mega Man, where the stage and boss go hand in hand as part of the challenge.

---

And even in Mega Man a 1up is essentially a "save" before a boss since it means you dont need to beat the whole level again unless you burn through all your lives.

---

wg64Z posted...

And even in Mega Man a 1up is essentially a "save" before a boss since it means you dont need to beat the whole level again unless you burn through all your lives.

Exactly. Depends on the game. The developers of each game have their own set difficulty and leeway. I think adding your own leeway, no matter where, before a boss, mid-fight, etc, reduces any intended experience.

---

TomNook posted...

But the challenge in a game's difficulty often comes in one's ability to do a series of button inputs with minimal mistakes in an established window set by the game designers. You say saving mid boss fight is cheating, but before a boss isn't? Perhaps the game designers intended the full stage AND boss to be part of the same challenge window in which your skill isn't allowed to falter, and saving before a boss when you normally couldn't would be seen as a form of cheating.

So you'd say that since the Mario 64 speedruns that use glitches don't beat the game the 'intended way', that they aren't really legitimately beating the game?

And on the other hand, a game like Far Cry 4. You can beat the game by doing almost nothing. A way the developers actually intended a means of victory. You even see the credits!

---

Dancedreamer posted...

So you'd say that since the Mario 64 speedruns that use glitches don't beat the game the 'intended way', that they aren't really legitimately beating the game?

And on the other hand, a game like Far Cry 4. You can beat the game by doing almost nothing. A way the developers actually intended a means of victory. You even see the credits!

I believe the way speedrunners or people exploiting glitches for world record scores are concerned, if it's in the game and you aren't using any cheats or save states to accomplish it, then it's fine.

I think its also an important note that almost all discussion in this realm really comes down to arcade games, platformers, action games and similar things.

There would be absolutely no point in using save states for something like final fantasy for example beyond what's already given to you. It's a jrpg they aren't exactly known for needing extreme skill or 10 minute long segments of uninterrupted twitch reflexes

Dancedreamer posted...

So you'd say that since the Mario 64 speedruns that use glitches don't beat the game the 'intended way', that they aren't really legitimately beating the game?

And on the other hand, a game like Far Cry 4. You can beat the game by doing almost nothing. A way the developers actually intended a means of victory. You even see the credits!

Both those examples are things that are in the game as it originally shipped though.

Speed runs also have seperate categories for that very reason, usually glitched and glitch less.

---

Did you play the game start to finish?

Then you beat it.

---

Maniac64 posted...

Did you play the game start to finish?

Then you beat it.

Finished it* (if you cheated)

---

All the old games were hard as shit to draw out the length anyway, so if there's any way to shorten it, it's fair.

---

"Yo, I just beat Super Mario 3!"

"Sweet, what did you play it on?"

"The Switch!"

"Cool!"

That's enough to tell you they beat it and they could have rewound or not.

Anything beyond that and you're qualifying how good that player is...which can be a fine and fun conversation, but plenty of bad players have beaten plenty of games. I saved something like 84 times when I played Resident Evil 4. I'm awful at it and horror games in general, but you can't take away I beat it by only using what the game gave me. Very similar thing here -- if they beat it, damn, just let them say they beat it and you can qualify it as you see fit afterward.

---

Does beating a game on "easy" count as beating the game?

Of course it does.

Therefore, I believe beating a game on "ez rewind" mode also counts as beating the game.

---

Standing by my stance, but that's pretty funny.

---

Peace___Frog posted...

It's unnecessarily elitist and nostalgic to try to distinguish it. Who the fuck cares how someone "beat" the game, they still played and got to the credits. Let people play how they want. Not everything needs to be a goddamn trophy.

this is the correct answer, you experienced through to the end and can reminisce & share/relate with the full game then sure you beat it and I couldn't care less how many times you typed bactame or yodajammies in Dark Forces II

---

I think its fine if its used in a way to save time, such as saving before boss fights that send you way back if you lose. There are a lot more games to play these days, and it sucks having to redo levels for losing to bosses.

---

banananor posted...

Does beating a game on "easy" count as beating the game?

Of course it does.

Therefore, I believe beating a game on "ez rewind" mode also counts as beating the game.

Do you consider this type of victory the same as someone who didn't need a handicap?

yes and there's no downside for including accessibility options and you should not care if other people use them if you don't like them

---

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

yes and there's no downside for including accessibility options and you should not care if other people use them if you don't like them

I dont think anyone is at all against accessibility.
What people dont agree with is saying someone beating Contra with 1 credit is the same as someone who credit fed and died 300 times accomplished the same thing.

i mean i think it depends on context

if you're just chatting with someone about which games you've gotten through you don't wanna be like "i didn't beat celeste" "oh okay i won't talk about the ending then" "no no i saw the ending and credits, i got to the end, i just didn't <i>beat</i> it because i used accessibility mode"

but if someone is like "have you beaten 7C in celeste" you probably wouldn't wanna say "yeah i beat it" if you did it with invincibility on because then you're being misleading

HeroDelTiempo17 posted...

yes and there's no downside for including accessibility options and you should not care if other people use them if you don't like them

I don't care, in fact if it helps people play some of the classic retro games I'm all for it. Doesnt mean I'm gonna consider it a win if they cheat to do it.

Im also not actively refereeing or even asking people HOW they beat a game once they tell me, cause I really dont care. It's just a thought I keep to myself and figured would make for a decent discussion (which honestly, it has!)

---

linid0t posted...

Do you consider this type of victory the same as someone who didn't need a handicap?

Beating the game on easy is not the same as beating the game on hard, so no


---

But I can't remember a conversation where it really mattered.

You'd have to specifically ask if someone beat it on hardcore legendary if you only wanted to count hardcore legendary difficulty or whatever

---

Obviously not, it's just another cheat. An OP cheat even.

Unless you think every person that's able to hold a controller can now beat Battletoads.

---

linid0t posted...

What people dont agree with is saying someone beating Contra with 1 credit is the same as someone who credit fed and died 300 times accomplished the same thing.

literally nobody has said otherwise

I don't think you have to be worried about someone bragging about beating a game with save states for cred

---

Crazy idea here, but what if we just let people enjoy gaming in whatever way they want and didn't gatekeep "beating a game".

It feels like people on the side of "oh wow you didn't play it without additional help so that doesn't count" are actively bothered by how other people choose to game, which seems absolutely wild to me.

---

Yes because the idea that video games aren't designed to be enjoyed is incredibly dumb

---

Uh okay so I've played Pokemon Fire Red with emulator. And I use save states since it's faster than going to the menu and saving manually. Say I don't use the save state to 'rewind' a battle or try to catch a Pokemon. I just use it functionally in place of a normal save because it's more convenient. Did I beat the game? I don't see why not. The outcome wouldn't change one bit.

---

tazzyboyishere posted...

Yes because the idea that video games aren't designed to be enjoyed is incredibly dumb

And yet thats the stance of the people on Twitter who started this

The irony that Mike Matei of all people is championing the stupid game design of many NES games as something to take pride in overcoming is staggering
---

Basically this entire idea is being floated by people who tie some sense of their self worth up in how they beat video games
---

And can I just also say that JonTrons stance that he hates when developers facilitate easier ways to play their own game is (unsurprisingly) even worse
---