Hideous Snake
Gold Member
Yes it is. Once I'm done with a game it's done. If I crave to play it again years later I will and have done that a lot. Not going to fucking stick myself with it for the rest of the year when we get a lot of games in a year
When I was a kid? Sure. Because back then we had new games on occasions but now I'm a grown ass man and I get what I want. So fuck replayability and fuck the annoying cunts that keeps annoying us with it
When I was a kid? Sure. Because back then we had new games on occasions but now I'm a grown ass man and I get what I want. So fuck replayability and fuck the annoying cunts that keeps annoying us with it
Last edited:
Killer8
Member
It's a complex topic.
In the age of bloat, ideally our games should be getting shorter and better paced. When I think of some of the best games of all time, like Resident Evil 4, they are like an injection of adrenaline straight into your veins which doesn't relent. Naturally you are going to want to come back to that repeatedly, which by itself will increase replay value. I feel like a lot of developers are harming their own game quality in pursuit of a longer How Long to Beat time, and so we end up with these middling 50 hour games when we could've had an amazing 20 hour game which we can't wait to play again.
Some games are explicitly designed to be replayed, like shmups, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be a conscious decision by developers. Just focus on making a really good game first, without any shit bits, and which doesn't outstay its welcome (meeting these criteria is seemingly harder than it looks for many developers). And even if it's not conscious, include a few replay friendly quality of life features like tutorial skips, an option to skip cutscenes and dialogue fast-forwarding.
In the age of bloat, ideally our games should be getting shorter and better paced. When I think of some of the best games of all time, like Resident Evil 4, they are like an injection of adrenaline straight into your veins which doesn't relent. Naturally you are going to want to come back to that repeatedly, which by itself will increase replay value. I feel like a lot of developers are harming their own game quality in pursuit of a longer How Long to Beat time, and so we end up with these middling 50 hour games when we could've had an amazing 20 hour game which we can't wait to play again.
Some games are explicitly designed to be replayed, like shmups, but I don't think it necessarily needs to be a conscious decision by developers. Just focus on making a really good game first, without any shit bits, and which doesn't outstay its welcome (meeting these criteria is seemingly harder than it looks for many developers). And even if it's not conscious, include a few replay friendly quality of life features like tutorial skips, an option to skip cutscenes and dialogue fast-forwarding.
Last edited:
kevboard
Member
no...
replayability is IMO almost directly tied to the quality of a game's design.
if you start a second playthrough, and there are elements that annoy you during that second time through, chances are these elements sucked in the first place and shouldn't have been in the game.
unskippable cutscenes, excessive forced slow walking, excessive braindead/automated platforming, clear filler moments where you do completely trivial nonsense with no player agency and no skill or mental challenge, and other things like that are all big contributers to making games less replayable and generally shouldn't exist in the first place.
so even if YOU the player don't care about it and you never replay games, the fact that a game is highly replayable still has a direct effect on the quality of a game imo
the only exception to this replayability concept are puzzle games, as the nature of them makes it nearly impossible to add replayability unless you randomise solutions, which in return could make puzzles worse.
but even here there is the potential of having some replay value by not playing them for a few years, and forgetting the solutions and some of the details. a well made puzzle game probably is still fun in this scenario.
replayability is IMO almost directly tied to the quality of a game's design.
if you start a second playthrough, and there are elements that annoy you during that second time through, chances are these elements sucked in the first place and shouldn't have been in the game.
unskippable cutscenes, excessive forced slow walking, excessive braindead/automated platforming, clear filler moments where you do completely trivial nonsense with no player agency and no skill or mental challenge, and other things like that are all big contributers to making games less replayable and generally shouldn't exist in the first place.
so even if YOU the player don't care about it and you never replay games, the fact that a game is highly replayable still has a direct effect on the quality of a game imo
the only exception to this replayability concept are puzzle games, as the nature of them makes it nearly impossible to add replayability unless you randomise solutions, which in return could make puzzles worse.
but even here there is the potential of having some replay value by not playing them for a few years, and forgetting the solutions and some of the details. a well made puzzle game probably is still fun in this scenario.
Last edited:
Hypereides
Member
Not really. If anything, its the type of gameplay format mainstream developers could strive for. Especially, since most modern big gamedev is driven by "engagement". There's the aspect of replayability which lends itself to create digestable, and possibly viral/WoM, Social media or streaming content by influencers/creators. And, again, those big devs, along with their BI analytics departments, love that kind of online interaction.
At least, that's one argument for that kind of design and direction.
At least, that's one argument for that kind of design and direction.
Last edited:
March Climber
Member
Somewhere between Capcom's 'speed running' extras and unlockables, Goldeneye/PD's difficulty objective add-ons, a randomizer, and Dark Souls 2's new game plus lies the perfect formula for second playthroughs for almost all games.
The second mode is the most important though, and would easily boost replayability, which is why people love to make randomizer mods for RPGs.
For open world games I think it's possible but it needs a couple of 'boosters' to help spice it up.
- Firstly, it would need an 'end game' mode like MMOs where you can go back and do side content after defeating the final boss.
- Secondly, a new game plus would need a 'remix mode' or something close to a randomizer mode. This can include adding new enemies, new areas, new branches, etc. or even starting you in an area that you wouldn't have started in before.
- Thirdly, it would need faster traversal options since the beginning or (in a more extreme way of providing fun as fast as possible) all fast travel points already unlocked.
The second mode is the most important though, and would easily boost replayability, which is why people love to make randomizer mods for RPGs.
Last Hearth
Member
Depends on the game but yes, it's overrated. I replay maybe 1 game out of every 20 or 30.
As for RPG choices, I either immediately reload and do a different choice to see what happens, or follow my own path to my canon ending, and YouTube some of the other possible ending paths. RPGs are way too long to redo everything just to see a different ending.
As for RPG choices, I either immediately reload and do a different choice to see what happens, or follow my own path to my canon ending, and YouTube some of the other possible ending paths. RPGs are way too long to redo everything just to see a different ending.
Madserb2023
Member
It's not a must but it is important. If you want to look at it from a point of view of value for money that is. When I think of a game like Resident Evil 4, I have probably completed it about 10 times, getting more hours out of it than many 60 hour RPGs. When I look at the most hours I have put put into a game on my profile they are mostly short games.
Soodanim
Member
Games need to be replayable because I want to, not because the game wants me to.
Games I've played for over 1000 hours got my time because they offered a strong enough gameplay and enough options and freedom for me to keep coming up with reasons to play. Not every game has both, and not every game even needs both. Gaming as a medium works because there are different kinds of games.
Games I've played for over 1000 hours got my time because they offered a strong enough gameplay and enough options and freedom for me to keep coming up with reasons to play. Not every game has both, and not every game even needs both. Gaming as a medium works because there are different kinds of games.
ecosse_011172
Junior Member
I cgaf about it, it's very, very rarely that I'll replay a game, I can't keep up with all the stuff I want to play, never mind replaying stuff.