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

(+) Yeah! (+)

StealThisSheen posted...

It's kinda wild to me that there is apparently a fairly common fear that there is this large contingent of people out there who beat games with save states, go "Yeah, I beat it, better than anybody else who has ever beaten it," and then the internet police is going to come knock on your door and go "Sorry, sir, but your previous claim of beating Mario 1 is now invalid because somebody beat it with save states."

It's not really about fear of internet police, it's just how I would view it for myself.

If I were playing an old RPG that didn't have a save point before a long final boss sequence, and after a long final dungeon, then I would use save states and not feel bad. I beat that game.

On the other hand, for a skill-based game like Crypt of the Necrodancer or Touhou, I might use stage select or continues (or rewinds, if those existed) for practice; but I wouldn't consider myself to have truly beaten the game unless I cleared it all in one go with no saves/rewinds/etc.
---

Drakeryn posted...

It's not really about fear of internet police, it's just how I would view it for myself.

If I were playing an old RPG that didn't have a save point before a long final boss sequence, and after a long final dungeon, then I would use save states and not feel bad. I beat that game.

On the other hand, for a skill-based game like Crypt of the Necrodancer or Touhou, I might use stage select or continues (or rewinds, if those existed) for practice; but I wouldn't consider myself to have truly beaten the game unless I cleared it all in one go with no saves/rewinds/etc.

Well, right, but that's different than the people who are bothered by other people using rewind/save states.

---

You cheated not only the game, but yourself. You didn't grow. You didn't improve. You took a shortcut and gained nothing. You experienced a hollow victory. Nothing was risked and nothing was gained. It's sad that you don't know the difference.
---

StealThisSheen posted...

Well, right, but that's different than the people who are bothered by other people using rewind/save states.

Well, not bothered, but I'd (privately) apply the same standard to other people.

So if someone beat each stage of Necrodancer in stage select and said "well, I beat the game," I'd think, "actually you didn't."

But I probably wouldn't say anything because I'm not interested in being internet police.
---

Can you believe there's people out there who think they've "beaten" Pokemon after they had to use a Revive during the Champion battle? Freaking cheaters should be ashamed of themselves.

---

Yes, you've beat the game even if you've used "rewind/save state" features, especially in cases where official (re)releases offer you the choice to use it. There are even games are require you to use such a feature as part of the experience (Braid).

There is nothing wrong with doing it, too, despite what these judgemental gamers full of bravado lead you to believe. We live in an age where a lot of people who play video games are now in their 20's or older, most of which have other responsibilities in their lives such as "jobs" (and not "the ones where you play/talk about games" like some of these people arguing against this) and "family" that they have to provide for. They also probably have a bunch of other things they wish to do their free time too such as other games to play, stuff to watch (movies, shows) and other hobbies. So why shouldn't they be free to use said option if it means beating the game quicker and allowing them to move onto something else? In many cases, they could have probably ended up beating the game without that anyway after so much time, but felt the "extra grind" isn't worth it.

Cheat codes (in game or external devices) and passwords are another story, depending on what they do (e.g. take you to the final level/boss, offer you extra lives, unlimited money, unlocking every weapon/skill from the start). Quite frankly, I bet a lot of those against rewinds/save states used cheats and/or passwords at least one point when they younger to beat said games. Especially hilarious in regards to Mike Matei given how James Rolfe has openly used passwords in the past to clear certain games on AVGN.

---

Beating (quote unquote) it with save-states also avoid the need to even be aware of enemy patterns and general strategies. You just gotta get lucky in short segments, one obstacle at a time. You end up not really knowing the game.

I don't get why the ones voting "Yes" are getting so triggered, it's like they need the validation they're so ironically mocking.

---

Disagreeing with someone making an over the top opinion isn't being "triggered."

---

lordjers posted...

I don't get why the ones voting "Yes" are getting so triggered, it's like they need the validation they're so ironically mocking.

This is the most nonsensical opinion yet uttered in this topic, and think of the ground that covers.

---

NBIceman posted...

This is the most nonsensical opinion yet uttered in this topic, and think of the ground that covers.

It ain't wrong though, or what do you think about calling the other side judgemental, or elitist, or deciding what's fun or not.

---

lordjers posted...

It ain't wrong though, or what do you think about calling the other side judgemental, or elitist, or deciding what's fun or not.

I did that and he even admitted the post in question was, so, uh...?

Sounds like you're the one that's triggered, friend.

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I did that and he even admitted the post in question was, so, uh...?

Sounds like you're the one that's triggered, friend.

I don't even know what post you're talking about. Not triggered either, more like a combination of puzzled, and amused.

---

It depends on what you mean by "beat". If you mean successfully reaching the end of the game, then sure. If you mean fully completed the game based on skill, then no.

I voted yes because it's not important enough to fight over.

lordjers posted...

It ain't wrong though, or what do you think about calling the other side judgemental, or elitist, or deciding what's fun or not.

Well, the verbiage I personally used was "gatekeeping," which I stand by and regard as pretty reasonable considering the tweet that prompted this topic was an unprovoked and unnecessarily aggressive argument as part of a discussion that literally no one was having.

I don't see how "let people play (and finish) single-player video games the way they want to" is seeking validation. Do you, on the other hand, not see how an opinion like that presented in Matei's tweet comes off as a hilarious attempt to claim some kind of feeling of superiority? "Maybe we both finished the game, but I did it the REAL way, so I'm better than you." That may not have been the intent, but it's how it reads. And people pointing out why that's a ridiculous sentiment aren't automatically "triggered" by it.

---

paulg235 posted...

There is nothing wrong with doing it, too, despite what these judgemental gamers full of bravado lead you to believe. We live in an age where a lot of people who play video games are now in their 20's or older, most of which have other responsibilities in their lives such as "jobs" (and not "the ones where you play/talk about games" like some of these people arguing against this) and "family" that they have to provide for. They also probably have a bunch of other things they wish to do their free time too such as other games to play, stuff to watch (movies, shows) and other hobbies. So why shouldn't they be free to use said option if it means beating the game quicker and allowing them to move onto something else? In many cases, they could have probably ended up beating the game without that anyway after so much time, but felt the "extra grind" isn't worth it.

Oh, for sure. Games are for fun and everyone should play them in whatever way they enjoy.

Not everyone is going to beat every game, and that's okay! There are some kinds of games that I suck at and would probably never beat legitimately (or at least, would not enjoy the effort to get there). If I find it fun to cheat code my way to the ending, that's cool, I had fun. But I still didn't beat the game.
---

NBIceman posted...

Well, the verbiage I personally used was "gatekeeping," which I stand by and regard as pretty reasonable considering the tweet that prompted this topic was an unprovoked and unnecessarily aggressive argument as part of a discussion that literally no one was having.

I don't see how "let people play (and finish) single-player video games the way they want to" is seeking validation. Do you, on the other hand, not see how an opinion like that presented in Matei's tweet comes off as a hilarious attempt to claim some kind of feeling of superiority? "Maybe we both finished the game, but I did it the REAL way, so I'm better than you." That may not have been the intent, but it's how it reads. And people pointing out why that's a ridiculous sentiment aren't automatically "triggered" by it.

His is an opinion like many others. But then people respond with something like "I'll play the game damn game however I want!", so uhh well ok? He wasn't telling you how to play the game. Insisting that you beat the game even with save states is legit does come off as seeking validation, otherwise why not accept you really didn't? Not that you would care anyway. There doesn't seem to be any way of saying you don't really beat the game if you cheat without coming off as condescending apparently, but accepting a game's terms and still getting to finish it it's something that's ingrained with part of the gaming culture, so it is what it is.

I guess a middle ground of sorts would be saying that you beat the Switch version, specifically, of X game, and with save states. Lots of specifications to be made for what it's worth, but otherwise it's left too ambiguous. I think that's already been said ITT, but whatever.

---

no one has been that aggressive about saying they'll play however they want

lordjers posted...

He wasn't telling you how to play the game. There doesn't seem to be any way of saying you don't really beat the game if you cheat without coming off as condescending apparently

well when he says "you have by no stretch of the imagination beaten the game" there's little room to argue it's not coming across as a condescending gatekeeper mentality

he may not be telling you "how to play the game" but he's basically saying he doesn't accept your terms if you don't beat it his way

---

lordjers posted...

There doesn't seem to be any way of saying you don't really beat the game if you cheat without coming off as condescending apparently,

Because anyone who cares how anyone else beat a game is doing so because they see some inherent value in the ability to claim as much, which is a toxic attitude to have
---

NBIceman posted...

This is the most nonsensical opinion yet uttered in this topic, and think of the ground that covers.

And yet JonTrons was STILL WORSE
---

lordjers posted...

Insisting that you beat the game even with save states is legit does come off as seeking validation, otherwise why not accept you really didn't?

I'm not "insisting" upon anything. The other side of the argument is the one attempting to force their standards across the board. I mean, if they want to assert I didn't beat the game, whatever. I seldom "brag" about beating a game anyway.

---

Also here he is indeed telling you how to play the game

https://twitter.com/mike_matei/status/1211032836926558213?s=21
---

For the record, I myself don't think I've ever used save states or the like to finish a game that I otherwise couldn't have. My stance has no bearing on my own playstyle. And while I'm not gonna poke through >100 posts to confirm it, I don't think anyone in this topic has done what you're saying they have. I don't think hardly anyone has at all, because again, this was not a conversation until some dude made it one by sending out a hostile tweet about it.

In essence, it seems to me that the only people who care how someone finishes a game are the people who, as Jakyl said, think there's some kind of superiority proven by doing it a particular way. Because otherwise, why would you care?

---

NBIceman posted...

In essence, it seems to me that the only people who care how someone finishes a game are the people who, as Jakyl said, think there's some kind of superiority proven by doing it a particular way. Because otherwise, why would you care?

https://twitter.com/mike_matei/status/1211127691770023938?s=21

Stop SLAPPING HIM IN THE FACE Iceman
---

This Matei dude would be right at home on wrestling twitter.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

Because anyone who cares how anyone else beat a game is doing so because they see some inherent value in the ability to claim as much, which is a toxic attitude to have

I do see some value in that. And it's not because I like to belittle others, it's more something like "oh you climbed up that mountain too? Cool!" (And I don't mean getting there on a chopper).

---

Real talk though, if I can play psychoanalyst

Someone like Matei has put all these hours of his life into struggling to get past overly difficult games, and now feels like if he cant get social value out of it then it was all pointless, and he doesnt want to feel like it was pointless, so he gatekeeps.

If he was actually having fun with the experiences themselves of playing games that way, he wouldnt care, because then he still would have gotten something of value out of it.

Dont play games that arent fun for you, people. Life is too short.
---

Jakyl25 posted...

Real talk though, if I can play psychoanalyst

Someone like Matei has put all these hours of his life into struggling to get past overly difficult games, and now feels like if he cant get social value out of it then it was all pointless, and he doesnt want to feel like it was pointless, so he gatekeeps.

If he was actually having fun with the experiences themselves of playing games that way, he wouldnt care, because then he still would have gotten something of value out of it.

Dont play games that arent fun for you, people. Life is too short.

I don't think you can get social value out of beating games lol. Not since school at least. It's more of a personal satisfaction.

---

lordjers posted...

There doesn't seem to be any way of saying you don't really beat the game if you cheat without coming off as condescending apparently, but accepting a game's terms and still getting to finish it it's something that's ingrained with part of the gaming culture, so it is what it is.

Here's the problem: you're calling mechanisms that come with a given game "cheating" just because they weren't in the game's original version. Would you also say that you haven't truly watched Blade Runner, for example, if you haven't seen its original version?

I wouldn't say no votes are inherently wrong, but it's no coincidence that the people who have spent time arguing for it ITT are exuding a gatekeeper mentality, which is inherently wrong.

NBIceman posted...

And while I'm not gonna poke through >100 posts to confirm it, I don't think anyone in this topic has done what you're saying they have.

Admittedly, I did use save states to beat (the 3DS ports of) Super Mario Bros. 2 and 3, though I wasn't exactly saving in front of every little obstacle and sequence. Nonetheless, the lordjers of the world can feel free to disregard my opinion now.

---

lordjers posted...

I don't think you can get social value out of beating games lol. Not since school at least. It's more of a personal satisfaction.

In his circle you probably can!

If it was personal satisfaction then why would he care how other people get their own satisfaction? Does it cheapen his own satisfaction if other people had an easier time being satisfied?

(Insert How do I know when Im satisfied? meme here)
---

MetalmindStats posted...

Admittedly, I did use save states to beat (the 3DS ports of) Super Mario Bros. 2 and 3, though I wasn't exactly saving in front of every little obstacle and sequence. Nonetheless, the lordjers of the world can feel free to disregard my opinion now.

I was speaking more to the implication that YES votes are "seeking validation" by "insisting" their way of beating the game still counts. The idea that they're triggered because they feel personally attacked or like there's a targeted effort to discredit their accomplishments or something.

---

lordjers posted...

I don't think you can get social value out of beating games lol. Not since school at least. It's more of a personal satisfaction.

Then wouldn't you agree it's rather weird to somehow feel your own personal satisfaction is hurt just because somebody didn't beat a game the way you think they should have?

---

lordjers posted...

I don't think you can get social value out of beating games lol. Not since school at least. It's more of a personal satisfaction.

I give people social value for beating games imo

a few months ago, our board 8 raiding static was doing the Binding Coil of Bahamut and we were one guy short, so newbie got his friend to join. I didn't notice this at the time, but HGR later pointed out he had the Legend title (that you get for beating the Ultimate version of the final boss of the raid sequence we are just doing for the first time). so I was like, whoa, respect.

nothing toxic about that tbh. he's a very accomplished raider slumming with our group and I respect that
---

I personally am triggered when I see dumb opinions

---

Yes. Otherwise about 20% of the games I've beaten won't even count especially NES, SNES and Genesis era games.

StealThisSheen posted...

Then wouldn't you agree it's rather weird to somehow feel your own personal satisfaction is hurt just because somebody didn't beat a game the way you think they should have?

My personal satisfaction ain't hurt. For example, MetalMindStats using save states or not doesn't affect me or my gaming goals.

I do however think a game can be generally appreciated if you get to know it more. And finishing it by its own rules is a very natural way to get to know it more. Using save states liberally is against the original design so that's why people say it ain't the right way. The game just wasn't programmed with that in mind.

---

Jakyl25 posted...

In his circle you probably can!

Maybe, but those are very niche, I meant generally. Even among gamers, what matters most is how "relevant" the games you play are, not very much so if you can beat a clunky old hard game.

---

I would use the word beat but I would usually add a "but", like "I beat Mario 1 but I used save states". I probably would not just say "I beat Mario 1" by itself if I used save states.

If it's some poll that says "Have you beaten Mario 1 () Yes () No" I would probably click yes if I used save states.

I don't think we need to obsessively sort this into two "beat" or "not beat" buckets though, or "cheating" or "not cheating" buckets. Just communicate, I guess.

---

HaRRicH posted...

This is off-topic, but since we're talking about beating games @wg64Z you had a good year with Tarvould's Quest:

*Catherine: Full Body has me marking out as somebody who only played the original.
*Stanley Parable's brilliant, glad you gave it a shot.
*The Mario All-Stars relay ran long but had a lot of fun anyway.
*The whole Extra Life marathon was nice to catch up on -- especially liked WWF No Mercy, Jackbox, and Untitled Goose Game.
*Master Quest was nice to revisit.
*Phoenix Wright, aw yeah of course that was good.
*Keep Talking and Nobody Explodes was hilarious.
*Eternal Darkness coming almost all in one swoop was a sweet surprise.

And I don't usually make time to watch games I haven't played before, but REmake 2, River City Girls, and even Mixed-Up Mother Goose had me tuning in. I watched ya'll a lot this year and I look forward to more soon.

(just a suggestion: Night in the Woods is both a good game and would probably be a good fit for ya'll if you like reading for characters like you did for Phoenix Wright)

Wow thanks a bunch! It's been a crazy year for us, we just threw up a year end review highlights video as well if you're interested:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I3xKCKOUrZI

We'll take a look into Night in the Woods, we're getting ready to start up some new Quests.

---

Just watched it last night!

---

lordjers posted...

I do however think a game can be generally appreciated if you get to know it more. And finishing it by its own rules is a very natural way to get to know it more. Using save states liberally is against the original design so that's why people say it ain't the right way. The game just wasn't programmed with that in mind.

A lot of games are poorly designed, especially games that are almost 30 years old. Save states can actually improve the experience.

Think of it this way: the Warriors won the NBA title in 2015. Sure, basically all their opponents got injured so it wasn't as difficult as, say, the 2016 Cavs, but they still won. Most people place more value on the 2016 Cavs or 2011 Mavs titles because they were more impressive, but the Warriors title still counts. It's basically the same thing

---

MZero11 posted...

A lot of games are poorly designed, especially games that are almost 30 years old. Save states can actually improve the experience.

Think of it this way: the Warriors won the NBA title in 2015. Sure, basically all their opponents got injured so it wasn't as difficult as, say, the 2016 Cavs, but they still won. Most people place more value on the 2016 Cavs or 2011 Mavs titles because they were more impressive, but the Warriors title still counts. It's basically the same thing

But one is competitive and the other is a single person's play through which affects no one else. This is why cheating is absolutely forbidden in competitive multiplayer or speed running.

---

Well, yes, in competitions there are rules everyone agrees on. Beating a game by yourself is not a competition, so who cares what rules you play by.

---

It only matters if it's a competition. If it's not then who cares it's just a game

edit: oh Leon literally just said the same thing. lol me
---

That's the issue at hand

People that feel the need to dictate what is and isn't "beating" a game feel the need to make it a competition in order to try to feel superior to others for some reason. They don't want to feel on the same level as somebody who used rewind or savestates, thus they want to insist it's not beating the game. That way they can continue to look down on others. And just "Oh they used rewind" isn't enough, they feel the need to insist the other person can't say they beat the game at all.

That's the only reason that makes sense for people that are bothered by others beating a game differently than they did.

EDIT: And I'm not saying this to be insulting. I'm just saying that if you are truly bothered by somebody else saying they beat a game when they used rewind/save states/whatever, then you have some subconscious desire to feel superior/make it a competition, because otherwise it has no impact on you or your life whatsoever.

---

It isn't cheating if its a feature included with an official release
---

Right, I understand that. He was just using the NBA as an example which doesn't fit. That was my only point.

---

no, you didn't.

that said, i have done so when i was too impatient to git gud and not regretted it

---

HashtagSEP posted...

That's the issue at hand

People that feel the need to dictate what is and isn't "beating" a game feel the need to make it a competition in order to try to feel superior to others for some reason. They don't want to feel on the same level as somebody who used rewind or savestates, thus they want to insist it's not beating the game. That way they can continue to look down on others. And just "Oh they used rewind" isn't enough, they feel the need to insist the other person can't say they beat the game at all.

That's the only reason that makes sense for people that are bothered by others beating a game differently than they did.

EDIT: And I'm not saying this to be insulting. I'm just saying that if you are truly bothered by somebody else saying they beat a game when they used rewind/save states/whatever, then you have some subconscious desire to feel superior/make it a competition, because otherwise it has no impact on you or your life whatsoever.

but aren't you doing the exact same thing? the only difference is that you have decided that it 'is' beating a game, while your opposite side has decided that it 'isn't' beating a game. you are acting superior to mike matei. he is acting superior to people who use rewind states.

and if the point is that you don't care, then why do you seem to care so much what mike matei or random people on board 8 to consider to be not a valid way of beating a game? how does this affect you in any way unless you value their opinions?


---

MariaTaylor posted...

but aren't you doing the exact same thing?

...Not really?

One side is specifically going to the other side and saying "Yo you didn't really beat the game because you used rewind."

The other side isn't going to the first side and going "Yo I beat the game with rewind and you have to acknowledge it and lick my balls."

This didn't start because somebody forcibly made Mike Matei watch them beat Zelda 1 with rewind while shocking him with a taser every time he tried to look away. This started because Mike Matei specifically felt the need to attempt to belittle other people.

It's a specific case where one side is trying to assert their superiority/opinion over the other side when it wasn't asked for, while the other side is defending themselves when they shouldn't have to in the first place.

As for the rest, is it not natural for people to want to defend themselves when they've randomly been attacked or belittled, or when they see somebody being attacked or belittled?

---

'he did it first' was not a valid argument when you were 6 years old, and it's still not one today.

so yes

really

just because someone belittled you first doesn't somehow change the fact that you are now belittling others.

StealThisSheen posted...

The other side isn't going to the first side and going "Yo I beat the game with rewind and you just have to deal with it."

this is almost verbatim the exact stance you're taking

you're essentially saying that make matei should just 'deal with it' that people are going to use save states, but also in the same exact discussion claim that you aren't doing this

StealThisSheen posted...

As for the rest, is it not natural for people to want to defend themselves when they've randomly been attacked or belittled, or when they see somebody being attacked or belittled?

this is only a valid position if you are admitting that 'using rewind states is the correct way to play' and feeling that anyone who disagrees with that position is 'attacking you.'

which exactly lines up with what I just said two posts ago

so yes, looks like we agree.


---