What constitutes a "legit" playthrough for classic games?

[DarkTone | 985]

This reminds me of a huge thread over on [NAME REDACTED] where someone said they beat a game, emulated, using save states. He got torn apart, but defended himself. 

[Strikezone1 | 154]

3 minutes ago, Khromak said:

if you used save states to re-try sections over and over again, especially in a game with limited lives/continues, you didn't beat the game. Sure, you got to the end screen, but that's not beating a game.

I think the point is, you have to overcome the challenge that was programmed into the game.

I'll second this.

[TDIRunner | 2,740]

6 minutes ago, DarkTone said:

This reminds me of a huge thread over on [NAME REDACTED] where someone said they beat a game, emulated, using save states. He got torn apart, but defended himself. 

Already mentioned.  

[DarkTone | 985]

Just now, TDIRunner said:

Already mentioned.  

Probably was. 

[T-Pac | 7,548]

I’d like to make a case for the use of turbo controllers as legitimate means for clearing a game under two conditions:

-there were officially-licensed turbo controllers released for the system
(auto-fire for NES games is legit because of the Advantage, but auto-fire for GBC games is not legit because there were no officially-licensed turbo options for the system)
-it’s clearly stated that the playthrough was done with a turbo-controller
(“I beat the game with auto-fire” rather than simply “I beat the game”)

I think that, if a game company makes turbo-controllers available for their system, it is feasible to say that the use of auto-fire falls within the realm of “developer intention” for legitimate gameplay. (Or at the very least, "developer acknowledgement".)
This can also be seen in the same way as strategy guides. Regarding the NES, most people think the use of Nintendo Power strategy guides is perfectly legit because Nintendo themselves provided this (often necessary) advantage in the form of print material. Nintendo also provided hardware advantages for playing games on their system: like zappers, power-pads, vaus controllers, and … wait for it … turbo controllers!
Restricting the use of auto-fire arcade sticks for something like space-shooters is no different than restricting the use of steering-wheel controllers for driving games as far as I’m concerned. As long as the hardware advantage was made officially available by the system manufacturer, I see it as fair game. (This still excludes unlicensed guides and cheat devices, because those were released without license from the game company responsible for the console.)

And to provide a non-gaming parallel: Imagine you are playing golf, and the golf course staff say it is okay to use a course-map (strategy guide) to help you plan and aim your shots, but then they tell you your score won’t count unless you only hit the ball with a standard iron club (stock controller) - no drivers or putters (turbo-controllers). Obviously this isn’t a perfect analogy, but I think it helps to put my point in perspective.

-CasualCart
 

[Tulpa | 3,501]

For turbo controllers, it depends on the shooter. Some like Silver Surfer, you're shooting all the damn time at enemies that take multiple hits to go down. That f'n wears on you, I don't care who you are.

Others, like some of the Hudson shooters, are set up for non-turbo play. They want you to take more precise shots. Star Soldier for one, where a turbo makes the shots go apeshit.

Some games like Fester's Quest encourage a turbo controller. Check the hints section on page 12.

https://www.retrogames.cz/manualy/NES/Festers_Quest_-_NES_-_Manual.pdf

[guitarzombie | 924]

Personally, its as simple as beating the game the way the people who developed it intended. 

If you can farm for 1ups, farm for scrolls in TMNT to max out 99 for each character thats fine, give you infinite continues? Good.  Even exploits that can be found in the game are ok (forcing enemies to despawn).  Even using ABBA in Ikari Warriors is ok to me, because the developers put it in the game intending for people to find it accidentally.  

What doesn't constitute truly beating it is using save states, cheats or cheat devices. 

The only gray area I can kind of think of are turbo controllers.  They were developed by Nintendo for you to give you an advantage.  Even I think Festers Quest suggests using one in the manual as a tip.  I can see how people might call it cheating but using it doesn't guarantee victory.  Sometimes it wont even help, like in Abadox.  So to me its iffy.  Personally if I beat a game using a turbo controller, which I have for 'personal' play, thats fine.  But in some sort of contest, I wouldn't unless everyone was using it.

I love Doom Eternal because you can play the game however you want without penalty.  They want players to have the fun of combat and not the poor feeling of not progressing.  So they allow you to play thru it with cheats, or being able to change difficulty on the fly.  Now if you use that to say you beat it?  Well I wouldn't count it, but ultimately who cares.  The enjoyment for that game is not 'beating' it but the thrill of the arena combat.

[guitarzombie | 924]

5 minutes ago, Tulpa said:

For turbo controllers, it depends on the shooter. Some like Silver Surfer, you're shooting all the damn time at enemies that take multiple hits to go down. That f'n wears on you, I don't care who you are.

Others, like some of the Hudson shooters, are set up for non-turbo play. They want you to take more precise shots. Star Soldier for one, where a turbo makes the shots go apeshit.

Some games like Fester's Quest encourage a turbo controller. Check the hints section on page 12.

https://www.retrogames.cz/manualy/NES/Festers_Quest_-_NES_-_Manual.pdf

You stole my comment!!  Hahaha.

Silver Surfer is one of those games that yeah is tiring but when you're fully powered up, you really don't even need the turbo controller.  But if you're at the end and arent maxed out, yeah use it hahah.  The biggest flaw ive always said in that game is how underpowered you are in the beginning.  If they made the enemies a bit weaker, people would have enjoyed it more.  I think thats a much bigger issue than the 'one hit death' environments in the game.  Even with that, there is a password to turn that off IIRC.

 

EDIT: Another point, of course if the game OFFERS auto fire, thats fine, as again, it was put in the game by the developers for you to complete.  Kinda like beating Mega Man 2 on 'easy' or 'normal'.  I think its silly to say someone didn't beat the game properly because it was on easy instead of normal.  So if auto fire is programmed in the game as an 'easy mode' thats fine.

Edited March 16, 2021 by guitarzombie

[Brickman | 3,986]

Depends on the genre and game for me. Every game I try to beat without walkthroughs, cheats, save states etc. but if I get stuck I don't mind using them. I want to enjoy the game and if it means having to use those things I don't mind.

Save states are a must for when I play RPG's these days though. I don't have the extra time to deal with all the bs that old jrpgs used to throw at you.

[DoctorEncore | 3,691]

I'm pretty lax about what is required for a "legit" completion, but the main requirements for me would be:

1. No save states
2. No game genie or game modifying device
3. No turbo controller or other special controller that significantly reduces the required dexterity

 

Things I'm personally okay with, but others disagree:

1. Continues 
2. Glitches
3. Codes
   1. If they significantly reduce difficulty (i.e. Konami code in Contra), I'd consider this more akin to completing the game on easy mode, but still legit.
4. Strategy guides, hint books, and video walkthroughs
   1. Controversial I suppose, but hint books and the Nintendo Power Hotline existed 30+ years ago. We used to share tips for beating games all the time at school and go to each other's houses to show how it was done. The internet is the same thing on a bigger scale.

 

I'm okay with different people setting their own rules for legit completion and I would never consider arguing about it. If you want to cheat and save state your way through the entire NES library and then brag to everyone that you beat every game, more power to you.

[Estil | 1,265]

4 hours ago, guitarzombie said:

Even using ABBA in Ikari Warriors is ok to me, because the developers put it in the game intending for people to find it accidentally.  

Gimmie gimmie gimmie more lives after dying...won't this code help me chase the game overs away...  

Edited March 17, 2021 by Estil

[peg | 371]

1) Continues are nothing more than a poor man's save state.  If you have to rely on either of these in your run then you really don't have a clue how to actually play the game properly. 

What part of "game over" do you not understand? Score being reset to zero should be another clue but most people now don't understand simple concepts like this.

2) Using guides or watching replays isn't cheating either. Just like watching someone play chess isn't cheating.  No outside information or research or anything you do while not actually playing the game can be considered cheating.

3) Turbo or autofire is fine, unless you want to consider all of the Japanese world record holders to be cheaters.  Actual input macros or scripts are a different story and are more debatable.

[WhyNotZoidberg | 585]

15 hours ago, TDIRunner said:

NO game is truly beaten unless you can do it with just your feet.  

They need to get a Mike Tyson’s Punch Out runner to attempt this.

[TDIRunner | 2,740]

57 minutes ago, WhyNotZoidberg said:

They need to get a Mike Tyson’s Punch Out runner to attempt this.

While blind folded.  

[Sumez | 2,953]

7 hours ago, peg said:

What part of "game over" do you not understand? Score being reset to zero should be another clue but most people now don't understand simple concepts like this.

There's absolutely some truth to this.
I'm not gonna say you can't use continues while playing through a game and not enjoy it, but there's definitely a strange perception that's been building over the last two decades that the words "game over" should be ignored and don't have any meaning.

Like, alright, you can use 100 continues if you want, it's not like I have any reason to stop you, but at least recognize the difference between doing it and not doing it. Beating a game without getting a "game over" isn't a "self imposed challenge", it's the challenge the game is designed around.
Some games work better like this, than others of course, and I don't really think you get anything out of mastering Startropics to the point where you can get through without Game Over'ing, meanwhile something like Ninja Gaiden or Ghouls 'n Ghosts is all about that experience.
It's also kind of pointless in a game like Super Mario Bros. 3 where you'll probably have 40+ extra lives left over by the time you reach the end anyway.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Sumez

[DefaultGen | 5,405]

I think most people consider continues fine. Almost everyone continues 20 times before they beat Ninja Gaiden or GNG for the first time, then celebrate, not think "Oh god I didn't really beat it". Then games like Contra and Ninja Gaiden III give you tons of continues, but not unlimited continues. You can beat those with continues, beat them without a continue, beat them without dying, going up the power-gaming master chain, but you're beating the game regardless.

What's the point of limiting continues if that's not developer saying "You really should be able to beat Contra with like... 15 lives kid" or however many it actually gives you.

What about modern games? If I die in The Last of Us II should I delete my save game and start the entire movie over if I die, or does it count as beating it if you continue?

[Sumez | 2,953]

5 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

Almost everyone continues 20 times before they beat Ninja Gaiden or GNG for the first time, then celebrate

It's fine to celebrate, it's not like I didn't. But if you stop there, you're missing the majority of the experience the game has in store for you.
Again, 1CC'ing the game isn't a self imposed "power player" challenge. It's the challenge the game was designed around.

5 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

What's the point of limiting continues if that's not developer saying "You really should be able to beat Contra with like... 15 lives kid" or however many it actually gives you.

What's the point in only giving you 3 lives on a credit, if the intended challenge is to beat it on 15? There's also a code to give you 30 lives, and you can play it however you want, but that doesn't change the fact that the game tells you Game Over when you run out of lives on your first credit.

5 minutes ago, DefaultGen said:

What about modern games? If I die in The Last of Us II should I delete my save game and start the entire movie over if I die, or does it count as beating it if you continue?

I can't tell, haven't played the Arcade version of Last of Us 2 yet.

Edited March 17, 2021 by Sumez

[guitarzombie | 924]

22 minutes ago, Sumez said:

There's absolutely some truth to this.
I'm not gonna say you can't use continues while playing through a game and not enjoy it, but there's definitely a strange perception that's been building over the last two decades that the words "game over" should be ignored and don't have any meaning.

Then why does the company who develops the game allow you to continue the game instead of starting it over, infinite or limited?

Game over is a hold over from the arcades of inputting one quarter in, and losing.  Thats it.  Period.  Continuing is adding another quarter to continue where you left off.  Eventually this was dropped from the NES because it stopped being an 'arcade simulator' and a genuine home gaming platform.

DooM was going to implement lives but they removed it, especially with the ability to save at the beginning of each level.  Actually I think original doom allowed you to save at any point.  So whats the criteria to beating DooM?  Not dying once?  Good luck for that on Nightmare.

[Sumez | 2,953]

1 minute ago, guitarzombie said:

Then why does the company who develops the game allow you to continue the game instead of starting it over, infinite or limited?

Various reasons. It allows you to see the end even if you aren't good enough to beat the game yet, or helps you practice difficult sections.

1 minute ago, guitarzombie said:

Game over is a hold over from the arcades of inputting one quarter in, and losing.  Thats it.  Period.

No one is denying this.

[guitarzombie | 924]

Just now, Sumez said:

Various reasons. It allows you to see the end even if you aren't good enough to beat the game yet, or helps you practice difficult sections.

So that means you beat it, right?

[Sumez | 2,953]

"Beating" something means overcoming a challenge, right?

 

There are lots of games where using a continue spawns you right at the point where you died, and give you infinite continues. Metal Slug, Strider 2, Dodonpachi, etc.

Did you still beat the game on your first try if you you kept spending credits for 30-60 minutes until you see the ending?

[guitarzombie | 924]

4 minutes ago, Sumez said:

Did you still beat the game on your first try if you you kept spending credits for 30-60 minutes until you see the ending?

Yes.  Again were not talking about the arcade.  Whats the difference between someone beating the game in one credit or many?  Skill.  Do the people who designed the game care?  No.  Actually they were designed to make money, so they wanted you to spend a lot to get to the end to see the ending, so you get a sense of closure and relieving that tension.

So yeah.  You beat it.  Who cares how much money or 'credits' it took you.

[spacepup | 2,404]

I think there is a lot of semantics here about "beating" a game and perhaps different interpretations about what that means (which, I suppose, is the question in the thread here).  Completing versus "conquering."  

I've never really put all that much thought into something like this before - if I get to the end screen without straight up hacking or cheating, I beat the game.  That's how I've always looked at it.  I don't care if I used some continues or whatever - that matters not at all to me.  In my opinion, I still beat the game.  I never went anywhere publicly bragging about how I "conquered" a game or did any sort of super special feat.

Let's take the fun little 2021 backlog challenge.  I'm marking the games "beaten" as I complete them and get to the end.  If I use continues, I'm still marking it completed.  I'm not going to make sure that I play from beginning to end without using any continues in order to say that I beat the game for a fun little thread.  If I violated some sort of "gamercode" by doing that, then feel free to believe whatever you want.  I'm not going to add little disclaimers on each one specifying something silly like that.

In a Twin Galaxies competition or other competitive style situation? That's a totally different thing as all players must agree to a certain set of agreed-upon criteria about what constitutes something.  If it's a weekly NES contest for scores here at VGS, and there is set criteria - ok, that's a different thing.

But just for my own personal sake and chit-chatting with people and whatever, I don't care if you used continues.  I also don't really concern myself if something thinks I'm a crappy gamer or "less than" because I used continues.

 

[Khromak | 768]

For my $0.02, I fully agree that you've beaten the game when you get to the credits screen, regardless of lives or continues. They reset your score when you continue so that kids could still exchange stories about getting high scores, and send pictures of their high scores to Nintendo Power editors. If they intended for the game to be over when they said game over, they would have started you back at the beginning.

Definitely a holdover from the arcades, we all agree, but I don't think using any number of game-granted lives and continues means you didn't beat it or didn't overcome the challenge the devs intended. I'm sure they'd be thrilled if someone told them they 1 CC'd the game or did it without dying, but if a kid told them they beat the game on their last life of their last continue, I highly doubt the devs would've told the kid to eat shit because they didn't really beat it.

[peg | 371]

How can you say you've beaten the game when the game itself straight up tells you that you lost?  What the fuck is not clear about "game over"?