Support NeoGAF

[Ploid 3.0]

Replay value is the most important factor for me. I don't play games for the story.

Currently replaying saints row 2 on PC after the first play on ps3 which was a continuous replay itself.

Also for people that never replayed a game, you should really try multiplayer games. They are awesome.

I've only replayed a game once.

Watched a movie or two more than once though.

Hmmmm

 

[Belgorim]

The replay value a game like diablo gives is about what satisfies me in single player unless there is a heavy multiplayer component that can get me more enjoyment out of the game (war3mods/sc2 etc).

I seriously agree with reviewing replay value.

 

[NemesisPrime]

Agree 100% with OP. Case closed.

 

[Bjoern the Smexy]

EVERY game has replay value.

And I mean EVERY game.

"Replay value" doesn't have to be "replay the game as soon as I finished it". It means "replay a game".

Sadly the vast majority of gaming journalist are simply ignorant of that fact.

In the eyes of gaming journalists games like Half-Life 2, God of War or GTA have no replay value, because those games don't give you anything for finishing the game besides a credits roll.

To be honest, I replayed almost every game that I finished, as long as I wasn't dissapointed with the game. Why did I replay them? Because I wanted to relive the story (like with BioShock) or just have stupid amounts of fun (like with Katamari Damacy) or because I wanted to beat my highscore (like with Pacman CEDX).

The "has no replay value" thing is just another way of saying "I'm a stupid gaming journalist, look at me dance!". At least in my opinion.

Gaming journalists, do something about it!

 

[CecilRousso]

Well what people mean with no replay value is that you will get to see everything of importance in one playthrough.

 

[KHarvey16]

I'm fairly sure the term is used to say a game could be played again and still offer new or interesting mechanics or story or what have you. With this definition I think any game with replay value should be given credit for it when reviewed, since it adds value. However the question of whether a game should be criticized for lacking replay value depends entirely on the type of game it is.

In all honesty I think most people can roughly determine what games should have replay value just by looking at the game's overall structure and features(is it a Bioware style RPG? do I care what the achievments are? does it have coop? etc, etc.). And I think even a very long game that claims to offer meaningful choices and the ability to effect the story should very much be criticized if a reviewer determines there is little or no replay value. It means the game hasn't delivered on those claims.

 

[Ledsen]

I see no problems with reviewers talking about replay value or if the game is good enough to warrant a second playthrough. However if they do, then I do hope that they are also taking into consideration how much the game costs and judge games accordingly to their price.

NO. Reviews should never, ever take price into account. Value for money is for the consumer and the consumer alone to judge. Reviewers have no business wasting space writing about it. Showing the price in a separate fact sheet is fine. Talking about replay value, if that is a factor, is fine. But talking about content/dollar in the actual review? NO.

 

[RooMHM]

NO. Reviews should never, ever take price into account. Value for money is for the consumer and the consumer alone to judge.

Oh god THANKS! Sick of seeing all those PSN/XBL/indie games so easy reviewed because they don't cost much. A game is a game ...

 

[DanielJr82]

I played RDR and GTAIV twice, from start to finish with all the side missions and everything. Amazing games.

 

[jonno394]

Games like Zelda, Open world epics like Fallout and Red Dead Redemption.....they don't need replay value. For me, as long as they keep me entertained for the vast amount of hours they take to finish, a lack of replayability is fine in my eyes.

Tbh, the only games I replay though are games inherentley linked with replayability like sport titles (Fifa) racing (Mario Kart)....et al.

 

[plagiarize]

You would pay 60 dollars for a great one hour experience?

sure. i hate this idea of rating games based on length. it's not as bad as it used to be, and games have improved for it, but i'd still like it to go away.

it just leads developers to pad the game, or put in pointless unlockables that don't reward you with anything tangible other than perhaps an achievement.

a good game is replayable without any fluff anyway. so Shadows of the Damned doesn't have a new game plus? so what.

i'm not sure that there's an hour of any game i've ever played that i would have payed $60 for, but i can imagine something being that good, even if just for an hour.

Portal 1 was what, a couple of hours? three hours? i ask myself if i'd have payed $60 for that, and i honestly would have. of course, i beat it a whole bunch of times. no, i didn't touch the challenge rooms, i just replayed the single player.

i don't look at a game in terms of 'how long is it' i look at it in terms of how much fun, and what quality of fun, i get out of it. i've got no patience for grinding. i'll replay something if it's good and not because i missed a few secret hat boxes.

 

[JimmyRustler]

I agree with OP.

I do replay games but usually only after some months/years and only to experiance them again.

 

[demosthenes]

This is one of the most annoying complaints I hear about games.

"The game is fantastic, but there's no replay value, so it sucks!"

Some of my absolute favorite games of all time I've played only once, but the experience resonated so strongly with me that I don't need to replay the game to "legitimize" it. Take Red Dead Redemption, for instance: I played the game for about 45 hours. Loved it to death. Will I replay it anytime soon? No. I don't ever see myself replaying the game. However, it doesn't lose points for that because it's still a terrific fucking game. Neither does Fallout 3, or Oblivion, or Grand Theft Auto IV, or Mirror's Edge, or Portal 2, or so many other excellent titles.

It's akin to many of my favorite films: I don't really care to rewatch 2001: A Space Odyssey, but I adored it upon first viewing. That's enough for me.

I really believe this "replay value OMG" mentality is far more relevant to short older classics (I'm talking NES, SNES, and earlier) that needed a reason for you to keep coming back or else you'd be finished with it in a couple hours.

I agree with this pretty much.

The way I see it, I don't want to spend $60 on a 6 hour experience that I don't think I'd want to play over and over, I can wait for that price to fall.

But if I think I'm going to love the game and play it several times, $60 is easily worth it for me. The most recent example: inFamous 2. Played it on for both good/bad endings and got the Platinum. Will I play it again soon? Nope but I'll keep it b/c it was a great game and probably got me for 50 or so hours.

Also, if I like a developer and I think I'll enjoy the game even if its short I might still buy it @ $60.

 

[Manmademan]

I think this depends on the game. a 50 hour RPG doesn't really need "replay value". you've likely gotten your money's worth out of the game on the first playthrough. I rarely play such games back to back (persona 3 being the only exception) because I'm frankly exhausted of them after I'm done. a dollar an hour or so is great value for that game. (though persona 3 FES kept me tied up for 120 hours or so, not 50 :O )

Something 4 hours long like Rez? Or a half hour to play through like street fighter?

you bet your sweet ass that needs replay value. In the case of Rez we have score attack modes etc that give you a reason to go through a second time, in the case of street fighter etc we have additional fighters and moves to learn, or multiplayer versus other opponents to give potentially infinite playtime.

 

[Hyuga]

Can we lock this thread now?

?
Uhm.... what about no?

 

[Net_Wrecker]

NO. Reviews should never, ever take price into account. Value for money is for the consumer and the consumer alone to judge. Reviewers have no business wasting space writing about it. Showing the price in a separate fact sheet is fine. Talking about replay value, if that is a factor, is fine. But talking about content/dollar in the actual review? NO.

Isn't the whole point of a review to help people determine if they should purchase a game? How does one talk about the value you'll get out of it without taking price into consideration? Does a $20 digital purchase that provides just as much if not more value than a $60 retail game not deserve praise for that? Does a $60 game with a short campaign and nothing post-game not deserve to be criticized for it, no matter how good the experience is? Does a very meaty game not deserve to be labeled as "Well worth the money"?

 

[Adam Prime]

Replay value is something that mattered to games in 1995.

 

[Dyno]

If you can get 45 - 60+ hours out of a game then it needs no replay value. If you have a game that's finished in 6 - 10 hours then you need to put some replayable mechanic to retain value. I include MP in this because it is a great replayable mechanic in some games (but I rather NG+ instead of tacked on MP.)

Then there are titles where replay is down in the bones of the game, like Demon's Souls. Without it there wouldn't be a game to play.

Replay shouldn't be considered a cliche or even a cring-worthy phrase. It's a pillar of game design and every developer has conversations about how and to what degree it's going to be implemented in their current project.

 

[Princess Skittles]

Replay value is something that mattered to games in 1995.

Indeed. Now publishers can dish out one time six hour servings at $60 a pop instead of giving a gamer something that they can play for months.

 

[ElNino]

As a married home-owner, I don't have time to replay games current games. I will replay old games though, PS1/N64/Dreamcast era and before.

This is my position as well. I don't even have enough time to play the current games I have once, let alone replay them. I do like going back to older games with my son though now that he is getting old enough to play.

 

[hardcastlemccormick]

For me, replay isn't a matter of value for your money, but rather value for your time.

I can do any other endless sorts of tasks to entertain myself. Books, music, movies, internet, whatever. There's a ton of stuff out there. So when I play a game, I'm investing time into it and the payoff for that time had better be worth it.

Games that are rewarding to play in that regard tend to get played almost endlessly, over and over again, like songs. I play them often to the exclusion of buying something new because I become familiar with the systems and the heartbeat of the experience.

Examples: Metroid Prime 1 and 2, Resident Evil 4, Persona 3, Super Mario Galaxy 1 and 2

Often, simply enjoying these games and becoming more in tune with their worlds is more rewarding as a time investment than buying a new game and then taking a risk. That's not always the case, but it's hard to match such high notes.

 

[Slamtastic]

Hmmmm

I don't count multiplayer as affecting "replay value".

Replaying is when you finish the game, and play it again.

You don't "finish" a multiplayer game.

You could replay the single-player components of them, but not the game overall.

.

 

[Opiate]

I agree. Once I beat a game, I don`t want to play it ever again, because I want to play other games.

So no replay value = good to me.

You want to spend more money? Companies must love you.

 

[sajj316]

The only current gen games that I've replayed because I want to are Infamous and Uncharted 1/2. As most have pointed out, I just want to complete as much as I can (60% completion or higher) and move on. It's the reason why I don't have platinum trophies.

 

[1-D_FTW]

Isn't the whole point of a review to help people determine if they should purchase a game? How does one talk about the value you'll get out of it without taking price into consideration? Does a $20 digital purchase that provides just as much if not more value than a $60 retail game not deserve praise for that? Does a $60 game with a short campaign and nothing post-game not deserve to be criticized for it, no matter how good the experience is? Does a very meaty game not deserve to be labeled as "Well worth the money"?

Absolutely. Until the broken price structure is addressed, these are absolutely great points (and something many reviewers foolishly ignore since they get their games for free and shortness is a virtue for their work hours).

For someone who pays for their games, you bet it matters. I'm not saying I don't like short games. And I hate padding that doesn't belong. But if you've made a short, single-player game, it better be priced accordingly or I'll wait for the bargain bin.

 

[davepoobond]

i think replay value is something that should be addressed if there is a mechanic in the game that allows for the game to played in an intrinsically new way or a way that would be different enough to mention.

a game like oblivion probably has some replay value, but it really just a whole lot of normal "play value."

it really depends on the game. wouldn't you say a game like Tetris has an enormous amount of replay value? you play the same game over and over and over. you're not doing anything new. in fact you played the game once and then as soon as you lose you start over again trying to figure out the game.

 

[v1oz]

To me replaying a game is like watching re-runs on TV. Games should be rated on the first time experience. No game can ever be as fun after you beaten it.

...

 

[angelfly]

For me it's definitely something I wish more games would address. So many games out there that I wish had a New Game+ option or or even a bunch of cheat type options to enable after you beat it (like in Uncharted 1 & 2). Even for a game like GTA which disappointed me I still pop it in every now and them enable a few cheats and just go crazy for a bit to pass some time. There are a lot of games that I'd replay if given a some sort of incentive.

The games length doesn't matter as long as there are reasons to come back and play it again. So agree with reviewer taking it into account.

 

[Opiate]

This is something that bothers me :x

People measuring a game's value in hours(which they don't even bother to accurately calculate) and then equating it to dollar value

instead of judging the game itself


Kind of related to the topic

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

 

[FStop7]

Portal 2 is a good example of why this isn't necessarily an overrated crticism.

Portal 2 was fairly short. The campaign was just about right in terms of time. But the lack of a set of comprehensive/accessible editing tools hurts the game. There was a lot of replay value if the mod community could be turned loose to really explore the possibilities in terms of making new test chambers. But instead the mod tools that were released are pretty janky.

 

[Himself]

Isn't the whole point of a review to help people determine if they should purchase a game? How does one talk about the value you'll get out of it without taking price into consideration? Does a $20 digital purchase that provides just as much if not more value than a $60 retail game not deserve praise for that? Does a $60 game with a short campaign and nothing post-game not deserve to be criticized for it, no matter how good the experience is? Does a very meaty game not deserve to be labeled as "Well worth the money"?

I think you ask some good questions and it shows that the value of a game is entirely subjective. So in my case:

I don't care how long Red Dead Redemption is, it isn't worth a cent to me. I found it to be unbearably terrible. I feel that when the replay value or length of a game is discussed in a review, it can make or break the sales of a game. See: Vanquish. All the talk was, "how long is it?" and the answer seemed to convince people it wasn't "worth" $60. One of the most enjoyable, well-made, tightest and replayable games of the generation not worth $60? Compared to the clunky, repetitive, shallow 25 hour sitcom drama slog of RDR, yes I'll take Vanquish's multiplayerless, "linear" 8 hours for $60 any day.

I buy games because I enjoy them, regardless of how long they take to beat or whether they have multiplayer or not or have "replay value" in a reviewer's opinion.

And I'm sure people will vehemently disagree with the value of the above games, but this is only my take on it. Flower and SuperStardust HD are also worth much more to me than most $60 retail games.

 

[teruterubozu]

Should be called "lasting appeal".

 

[SykoTech]

I like to replay my games several times, so I can't say I agree. Something I can only playthrough once is not something I want to spend $40-$60 on. Maybe $20.

 

[Confidence Man]

Replay value as it's used as a criticism or point of praise usually refers to having something that would keep one going back to a game over time, whether it's multiplayer or having plenty of side/optional content or some kind of sandbox element.

For me this is absolutely a must. I simply won't buy a game that doesn't offer any of these things unless it's dirt cheap on a Steam sale.

 

[Tain]

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

]I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

I agree with you about the judgments in the sense that the hours I can enjoy spending with a game matter, but I don't totally agree with the maximizing value goal. It's entirely possible, and in some situations completely logical, to not care very much about cash and desire games that are very high quality, yet not necessary as great of a value as a slightly lesser quality game at a way lower price. To spend a lot on something a little better.

People measuring a game's value in hours(which they don't even bother to accurately calculate) and then equating it to dollar value

instead of judging the game itself

An accurate assessment of the amount of hours you can enjoy with a game can be a rough measurement of the quality of a game. There are always exceptions, sure, like if you are the kind of guy to slog through the second half of a shitty game just to finish it, or if you're playing a game that you don't like very much because you're playing it with friends, but I'd say it's generally in line.

 

[Struct09]

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

For me, the "most fun out of every dollar" doesn't necessarily depend on how many hours I get out of a game. I always judge a game based on the overall experience I had with it, and if it's a great experience packed into a limited amount of time I'm typically fine with that. I can't remember the last time I finished a game and felt I was shorted because there was no reason to replay it.

I guess my way of maximizing my fun-to-dollar ratio is by deal shopping. I never buy games at full price.

 

[Himself]

Should be called "lasting appeal".

I like this.

 

[TheRagnCajun]

Replay value doesn't mean much on a 45-hour game like Red Dead. It does matter on a 6-7 hour game like Heavy Rain.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

I think you ask some good questions and it shows that the value of a game is entirely subjective. So in my case:

I don't care how long Red Dead Redemption is, it isn't worth a cent to me. I found it to be unbearably terrible. I feel that when the replay value or length of a game is discussed in a review, it can make or break the sales of a game. See: Vanquish. All the talk was, "how long is it?" and the answer seemed to convince people it wasn't "worth" $60. One of the most enjoyable, well-made, tightest and replayable games of the generation not worth $60? Compared to the clunky, repetitive, shallow 25 hour sitcom drama slog of RDR, yes I'll take Vanquish's multiplayerless, "linear" 8 hours for $60 any day.

I buy games because I enjoy them, regardless of how long they take to beat or whether they have multiplayer or not or have "replay value" in a reviewer's opinion.

And I'm sure people will vehemently disagree with the value of the above games, but this is only my take on it. Flower and SuperStardust HD are also worth much more to me than most $60 retail games.

Vanquish's problem wasn't the length, it was the lack of CONTENT, period, especially since it was the first release from Platinum right after Bayonetta, one of the best examples of VALUE in gaming today. 8 hours of Vanquish would've been great with New Game+, alternate characters/skins, new weapons, new suits, etc. etc.

Whether or not you LIKE a game shouldn't impact if the game is worth its asking price in terms of pure replay value and/or content. I can dislike a game's mechanics yet KNOW that it had $60 worth of content. I can dislike a game yet recognize that it's a lengthy experience. I can dislike a game and recognize that it offers a lot of replay value. I am perfectly capable of separating my feelings on a game's mechanics from the amount of STUFF it has to offer.

Look at Mortal Kombat vs. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. I can separate my feelings from the gameplay and say that MK was worth $60 and MvC3 wasn't, even if I might like how MvC3 plays more.

 

[Zaraki_Kenpachi]

I don't see why it's so divided for this. I can understand wanting replay value if it's a very short game but it's $60 or higher price for it. One thing that people maybe wait for a price drop due to how quickly you can finish it. If you're on the other side of the fence, I don't see why you would be happy it doesn't have replay value. I can see you not being enticed by the "replay value" but to actually hate it seems odd.

I've replayed some games, others I have never touched again. If it was fun to play, I like playing it again since it was fun and that's why I play the games I do. As far as reviews, does it really matter? Do people still go just by the score? If you read and the only knock is replay value and that doesn't bother you then why would you let the score bother you?

And yes, maybe technically replay value is the wrong word probably but it's anything to keep you coming back. So many consider multiplayer games as also having replay value. If the devs keep the online community fresh and show they are supporting it it has "replay value". Most people don't literally mean start game from scratch and go through games since plenty of games have moved away from the linear level 1-1, 1-2, etc. mold for a while now.

 

[plagiarize]

For me, the "most fun out of every dollar" doesn't necessarily depend on how many hours I get out of a game. I always judge a game based on the overall experience I had with it, and if it's a great experience packed into a limited amount of time I'm typically fine with that. I can't remember the last time I finished a game and felt I was shorted because there was no reason to replay it.

I guess my way of maximizing my fun-to-dollar ratio is by deal shopping. I never buy games at full price.

right.

would you rather play a decent game that was 20 hours long, or a brilliant game that was 10 hours long?

i'd rather play something like Max Payne which offered six really quality hours, without a bad moment, than play something like Jedi Knight 2, which was really long, but had long sections where it dragged.

if a game is 2 hours long and brilliant, then i'm going to replay it a lot more than i'll replay a 15 hour game. because it's only 2 hours long. that's how portal was for me. that's how i am with a lot of games.

an eight hour game doesn't need to be anything but brilliant fun.

 

[cagelessrat]

I love replaying older video games from the NES/SNES/N64 era.

But how often does your intent to play the game 15-20 years down the road influence your purchasing decisions?

It's a fair point to bring up, "How much content is in the game after the first run of the campaign?" But the OP is right in saying that there's too much emphasis put into that aspect...they should probably just use another word, like "value" or something.

 

[plagiarize]

Of course I make those judgements. Why would I not?

I want to be entertained in the cheapest way I possibly can. That seems like a completely rational goal. Do you want to spend more money than you have to, for some reason?

These are honest questions, by the way. I would like someone to explain why they would not behave this way, because it seems obvious and logical to me that you'd want to get the most fun out of every dollar as you possibly can.

i don't rate value in the same way you do. i don't equate length of entertainment to value. i don't do the same with music, or food, or films. i never think 'this is twice as much for the dollar therefor it is twice the value!'.

i care more about quality of experience than i do the length of it. if a game offers a short yet brilliant experience that no other game offers, i look at it like gourmet food. portion size isn't what i'm thinking about at that point.

for me, i rarely finish a single player campaign that is more than fifteen hours long and it takes a brilliant and varied game to keep my attention for that long. twelve hours is about optimum for me.

i don't play games to fill time, so the amount of time they fill isn't a big concern of mine. i'm never bored. i don't have enough time to finish most of the games i buy, so length really doesn't come into it for me.

hopefully that answers your question.

i'm not ignorant of price, but yes, presuming all things equal, i probably would choose the 15 hour game over the 30 hour game, because the 15 hour game will give me a complete enjoyable experience... where as i'll likely not beat the 30 hour game before something new and shiny comes along and steals my attention by offering something more unique than the last ten hours of that thirty hour game offers.

a seven hour game and a fifteen hour game of equal quality and price, then i'd likely take the fifteen hour game... but only if every hour offered as much variety in both games.

 

[Himself]

Vanquish's problem wasn't the length, it was the lack of CONTENT, period, especially since it was the first release from Platinum right after Bayonetta, one of the best examples of VALUE in gaming today. 8 hours of Vanquish would've been great with New Game+, alternate characters/skins, new weapons, new suits, etc. etc.

Whether or not you LIKE a game shouldn't impact if the game is worth its asking price in terms of pure replay value and/or content. I can dislike a game's mechanics yet KNOW that it had $60 worth of content. I can dislike a game yet recognize that it's a lengthy experience. I can dislike a game and recognize that it offers a lot of replay value. I am perfectly capable of separating my feelings on a game's mechanics from the amount of STUFF it has to offer.

Look at Mortal Kombat vs. Marvel Vs. Capcom 3. I can separate my feelings from the gameplay and say that MK was worth $60 and MvC3 wasn't, even if I might like how MvC3 plays more.

Again, well said. First off...imagine Vanquish had the amount of extra shit packed in that Bayonetta had? *drool*

There is no standardized gauge for measuring what asking price is equal to what quantity of content. It all lies in gamers' expectations of what they get when they pay their money.

As far as separating opinion and content, that all makes perfect sense. But if you enjoy MvC more, how could it not be worth the same amount of money as a game you enjoyed less? That kind of sounds like saying the 30-pack of Keystone Light is worth the $16.99 but the two 4-packs of DogfishHead 120 min. IPA isn't because 8 beers isn't worth the same as 30 Keystones at $16.99. As if more content is worth more than quality.

Haha. Man that sounds stupid and convoluted (I'm at work and constantly being interrupted), but moving on...

I've never paid for a game, played it, enjoyed it and said to myself "that was one of the best games I've ever played, but it didn't have enough content for the amount I payed".

 

[Allonym]

With games becoming increasingly more expensive why would we as gamers not want to have games that have more replayability? You don't see cars becoming more expensive without adding more features or better warranties or greater longevity. Im not saying all games need a multiplayer component and if it does it should not interfere with the single player but there should be some features that give players more for their money. How about time attack, survival, high score or something else.

 

[plagiarize]

oh great. car analogies. is this a hacking thread or something?

 

[Chairmanchuck]

Really depends on the type of Game.

Something like L4D, CS etc. needs to have good "replay value" and shouldnt be boring during the MP-Matches.

Then you have something like a "Quickie-Shooter" like Red Faction. Those Games really need a better replay-value if it costs 40-50 Euros.

And then finally you have these big games like Oblivion, Fallout, Tales of... where you really dont need to have more replay-value, because these games are already long enough.


That reminds me...
I guess I beat Drakensang 2 three or four times just to get all the different 2 Minutes FMV-Endings.

 

[cametall]

I replayed Max Payne 2 several times from start to finish. That game has no "replay value" whatsoever.

The only other game was Starfox 64, which had tons of side paths and secondary bosses.

I think there are two definitions of "replay value" going on here. 1) being a reason to start a game over from the beginning again (see Starfox 64). 2) games having a reason for continuing play after the game ends (see sandbox games).

To me replay value is the 1) category, since you are actually replaying a game, not just continuing it. 2) is just a question of content above the main story arc.

 

[plagiarize]

I replayed Max Payne 2 several times from start to finish. That game has no "replay value" whatsoever.

The only other game was Starfox 64, which had tons of side paths and secondary bosses.

I think there are two definitions of "replay value" going on here. 1) being a reason to start a game over from the beginning again (see Starfox 64). 2) games having a reason for continuing play after the game ends (see sandbox games).

To me replay value is the 1) category, since you are actually replaying a game, not just continuing it. 2) is just a question of content above the main story arc.

so why did you play Max Payne 2 several times from start to finish?

it evidently had replay value even if it didn't have alternate endings and new game plus and hidden collectables.

 

[Freshmaker]

I don't count multiplayer as affecting "replay value".

Replaying is when you finish the game, and play it again.

You don't "finish" a multiplayer game.

You could replay the single-player components of them, but not the game overall.

That makes no sense. If you play a game for a year straight, doesn't that imply that you keep replaying it?