Putting the 'role' back in role-playing games since 2002.
Donate to Codex
Good Old Games
  • Welcome to rpgcodex.net, a site dedicated to discussing computer based role-playing games in a free and open fashion. We're less strict than other forums, but please refer to the rules.

    "This message is awaiting moderator approval": All new users must pass through our moderation queue before they will be able to post normally. Until your account has "passed" your posts will only be visible to yourself (and moderators) until they are approved. Give us a week to get around to approving / deleting / ignoring your mundane opinion on crap before hassling us about it. Once you have passed the moderation period (think of it as a test), you will be able to post normally, just like all the other retards.

Preview Ausir's Fallout: New Vegas Preview Part I

JarlFrank

I like Thief THIS much
Patron
Joined
Jan 4, 2007
Messages
34,353
Location
KA.DINGIR.RA.KI
Steve gets a Kidney but I don't even get a tag.
Clockwork Knight said:
I think "beat" is alright because you are playing against the cpu. You reach the ending = cpu could not make you give up = you beat the cpu.

No, not really, especially not in RPGs. Heck, or even in shooters or any games with a story. Maybe in strategy games where it's really just you vs the other armies whose moves are calculated by the CPU. In, say, Total War, you pick a nation and play against other nations that are CPU-controlled.

But let's take an adventure game. You don't play against the CPU at all. You read dialogues and solve puzzles that the developers designed.

So the most fitting word would be to "finish" a game.
 
Joined
May 6, 2009
Messages
1,876,733
Location
Glass Fields, Ruins of Old Iran
I use "CPU" as "nonspecific entity that supposedly controls everything other than your character(s) in a game, including puzzles, npcs and furniture", out of habit. I forget the common meaning for that word is for bots controlled by the game.

Also, it's a game, and games end with someone winning and someone losing, because the first beat the second. Since we play games instead of simply "going through" them, it seems like a gamey term like beat is more adequate, for coherence.

Cardinals end five-game losing skid, beat Giants 5-1

In a single player game, that someone else would be teh evul CPU. "Finish" makes me think of something non interactive, like a book, but I also use it for games just as much, also out of habit.

I dont have a "incorrect" word for it since I grew up hearing all sorts of terms, including something that in english is like "turning over" (because you go back to the intro screen after reaching the ending, that is, the game turns over, hur hur) and "zeroing" (because the score would eventually revert to zero after you accumulate an obscene amount of points, also used for games without a score by osmosis)

As for "beating" adventures, it's because your objective is to reach the ending, like always (at least, an ending where you don't die horribly), despite gameplay consisting of puzzles instead of bot-mashing.

Then again, like CreamyBlood said this is so minor and irrelevant, it's hilarious, so have some of this to lighten the mood.
 

As an Amazon Associate, rpgcodex.net earns from qualifying purchases.
Back
Top Bottom