I played it already, and I agree. The one thing I disliked about Chronicles was too much playing with the Stronghold, which I'm not too fond of. But in terms of story, they definitely felt better than most in HoMM3 itself. And being easier, they were way more enjoyable in the "I can just explore the map at my own pace" kind of way, which to me is really one of the most fun things about HoMM games.

To be clear, I don't think there's anything wrong with using walkthroughs. And there are cases where I don't feel bad about it at all myself, but it's usually with games where I realise from the start I'll probably resort to it, and it's more about experiencing a certain game than beating it. Usually some point & click or RPG classic that there's just no way I'll have to time and patience to really contend with all the old-school "here, how about you spend a month on this puzzle and get into an unwinnable state without even knowing aout it for the next 8 hours" design mentality. I just probably wouldn't really say I beat such a game, unless I did vast majority of the work myself, and only resorted to help in some not too many extreme cases (like I did with Indiana Jones and the Fate of Atlantis, where it was only once I got to the Cursed Maze of Backtracking... I mean Atlantis itself, that I opened the browser).

In general, I would consider a game be "beaten", when I see the end credits roll.

Though, I do remember (action-y) games of my youth, that had no end credits to reach.

After "beating" those games' "last" level, the game simply jumped back to the first level - which you then tried to play through, but now against more enemies and/or with heightened game speed.

In particular regard to your examples, I would also differentiate between "(merely) beating" a game (= seeing its end credits roll (if available)) and "completing" a game (= collecting/unlocking 100% of the content a game may offer).

Because the first can and (arguably (?)) should be possible, without collecting/unlocking everything a game has to offer.

I'd say, that first option is meant for "gamers (in general)", while the second option is (only) for the "completionists" among the gamers.
(And often enough, the second option is first and foremeost meant to feign a longer playtime than there actually is).

In that regard, I also think, it's important to note that - to accomplish a 100% completion - it is probably necessary to (completely/in parts) play through a game several times.

Which is an option, that is simply not interesting for many (most?) gamers, which usually have a (more or less huge) backlog to yet play through - for the first time.

And last but not least: from time to time, and with some games, we simply have to accept, that a game will beat us - instead of the other way 'round.

Edit:
I just remembered a game where I didn't even bother to complete all unlocked side quests anymore, after 20 to 25 hours in the game: "Two Worlds".

I consider that game "beaten", because I beat the end boss and saw the end credits roll - despite still having a list of undone side quests.

But after 20 to 25 tiring hours of
"getting a side quest in village A,
move to village B, get a hint, that the side Quest from vilage A can be finished by visiting village C,
moving to village C, receiving an important item mentioned in side quest,
moving back to village A, only to get send to village B again to get something else necessary for completing the side quest - from the very same NPC with which you talked earlier"
...rinse and repeat that for basically every side quest...
I was fed up with the game and its side quests.

Oh yeah, I agree there isn't anything wrong with using walkthroughs. It's really a matter of how much challenge you want and how much tolerance you have for banging your head against a brick wall for hours on end.

I remember having to resort to a walkthrough at at least one point in Fate of Atlantis - in the Cretian labyrinth, where I had been traipsing around for so long I was starting to suspect I was locked in a 'dead man walking' situation (I wasn't, it was just super-obscure). In those cases, I'd say it's totally justified.

I'd consider a game with a story campaign "beaten" when I got to the end of the story campaign, though if good and bad endings are possible, then when I got to a good ending. However, getting a bad ending would also count as having "completed" the game, albeit without "beating" it.
In sandbox games without a story, like the example of Civilization, winning once, on any difficulty, is enough to count it as "beaten".
Additional, separate scenarios or challenges or achievements (only if local) don't really count. I may go for them if I enjoy the game and want more of it, but if I reach a satisfactory end of the story or otherwise win, it's "beaten".
Whether I used hints or walkthroughs or anything of the sort doesn't factor into it. I complete so very few games as it is, if I'd have to do it without that, it'd be down to next to nothing most likely. And it's (unfortunately) important in many RPGs, and pretty much a rule mainly in older ones, to know how to develop your character and certain things that will happen later when you start if you don't want (even more) frustration down the line.

Definitely do. As far as campaign experience goes, V is by far the best to me. Feels like actual campaigns and not just a bunch of disjointed scenarios wrapped together and called a campaign. And with the improved skill system, it's a joy building up your main hero during its course. Bonus point for both expansions continuing the story from the main game. Interestingly, the story ultimately ends in Dark Messiah of Might and Magic, but the end of Tribes of the East offers enough closure. There is also a 20 year gap between end of TotE and Dark Messiah.

This is the main reason I don't care about beating city builders or 4x campaigns. What you said is true V felt like actually campaign.

Whenever I achieve most of the content. Things like a RNG +1 sword don't count as content, I am considering static quests or unlockables. Random stuff is empty calories, my time better spent elsewhere.

Pucuk138, a premier Gacor Slot Online site by Luxegaming, offers top-notch slot88 games, high RTP, big wins, and attractive bonuses in 2024

It depends entirely on the game.

For RPGs and visual novels, I just need to play through once such that I see the good ending (if there are multiple) and the credits roll. I don't need to see every single ending when there are multiple because I'm not going to enjoy premature game overs or bad endings. It doesn't matter if I missed a side-quest, and I don't have to go through all post-game content when present.

For games like Master of Magic or Civilization that you could technically play forever, I'd consider the game complete after achieving victory once. I consider SimCity (in all versions) to be beaten once you reach a point in your city where you don't want to build it up any further because it's really not necessary to go through every single scenario.

I bought Dungeon Keeper 2 specifically for the My Pet Dungeon mode, so I beat the game after playing through the pet dungeons. Yes the missions can be fun... maybe, but they're not why I own the game. Likewise I enjoy the free-roaming world areas of Absolute Drift, but I absolutely hate all the tracks thus that game is complete without me trudging through the tracks that would only make me hate the game. Any other game that I own for a specific game mode, that's all I need to do.

The Textorcist is complete even though I technically never actually finished the game. It's unashamedly brutal as far as typing games go just for the fact that you need to dodge stuff being shot at you while trying to type stuff out. Unfortunately, breaking my left wrist when I was ten is starting to catch up with me. If you like typing games, I'd recommend Epistory over this one.

When I don't feel like playing it anymore.

I consider "beating" a game simply making a single pass through the main campaign at any difficulty without cheats, save states, or the like. If you get stuck on an adventure game, looking up what to do next is fine. Even using a walkthrough for the whole thing is cool so long as you don't pretend you figured it out on your own.

Beating a game is not 100% completion or any claim of mastery. Just enjoy yourself! :D

Edit:
I generally prefer to say I've "played through" a game rather than beating it.

Depends. In most cases, I consider beating the main story + significant sides to be enough. However, the sidequests must enhance the story or your cast of characters in some way so that they're more like semi-sidequests.

For a game with vastly different endings, especially with a true ending only unlockable on a 2nd playthrough, seeing all the mandatory ones are necessary to beat the game. However, if multiple saves aren't available and a 2nd playthrough is too tedious especially without an NG+ mode, then a thorough 1st playthrough + watching the endings on Youtube is also acceptable too.