Support NeoGAF

[Ledsen]

God i get so depressed about people making the value=time/dollar judgment. Fun isn't measured in hours. Ultimately, your time is more valuable than anything else, don't spend it on something that isn't good or interesting to you as something else just because it's longer. Gaming is such a cheap hobby if you take into account games plummeting in price, Steam sales etc that if you have a job or otherwise full-time engagement (and therefore, limited time to play games) you don't have to think in terms of "how many hours will this game last?" but rather "How much fun will I have playing this, regardless of how long it is?". I'm unemployed and I still ask myself the second question when I'm considering buying a game. Useless padding is one of the worst problems in gaming today, and almost all games have it to some degree. The longer the game, the more padding it will invariably have, unless it's an "endless" type game.

Yeah I think would still be against it.

because that's something that can only be determined by the individual for their own personal situation, and isn't really the result of anything the game developers did.

As an example, I personally have logged about 30 hours into Hard Corps Uprising. There are people on youtube who have logged over 100. Then there's my friend who has barely played the game for 5, and hasn't played passed stage 4.

We all paid the same amount and are satisfied with the experience we got for the purchase.(although I guess I'm assuming the guy with over 100 hours has enjoyed the game, lol)

Same with something like Mass Effect 2. Alot of day 1 buyers were satisfied with one playthrough of the single player campaign alone. Then there are the people that have replayed the game multiple times and complete all the side content. Then finally there are the people that bought the game on release, have yet to complete it(and have stopped actively playing) and still hold a favorable opinion of the game.

Every person is different will get different mileage out of the game, often of no real active effort of the developer. It'll always be a subjective thing so I don't think it ever has a place in an opinion of objective quality for a game

I agree with this stance. If you want an equation, it's less value=time/money and more value=time/relative value of money*enjoyment factor, which is all so subjective that it's meaningless to even try to measure.

 

[Karish]

Agreed

 

[G-Fex]

I don't know, it's a tricky more complicated than it looks topic.

See there's the old classic retro gaming days where the games had no savepoints mostly and constant restarting from the beginning. Most of them were replayable, in fact that was probably the biggest point, especially with Arcade games, replaying cause of addictive gameplay.

I remember one game I replayed a lot before even finishing was Goldeneye and PD.

The metroid series is an example of amazing replaying. As is Oblivion, Fallout 3 just to do different things, and obviously with MMO's too. As is RTS's, Sim games and so on.

Then there's more into the modern era, people love Batman:AA but replay it? I...didn't. There's lots of games I bought that I didn't replay, some I did only for the Multiplayer.

But I suppose you can just buy the game cause you love it not so much you want to play it on a daily weekly or yearly basis.

I guess it depends on the experience, if it's a amazing experience one that's really fun and excellent it's worth it.

Prolonged games that use levels as filler just to drag on the game so it isn't so short is however really just bad design.

Short and sweet better than long and dull repetitive? Right?

 

[King of the Potato People]

It’s a well-known fact about the Legend of Zelda, players can access a Second Quest just by typing the word “Zelda”, dungeons and the placement of items are different also enemies are tougher. There’s no good reason that 25-year-old games should be kicking the bottoms of current ones.

 

[jg4xchamp]

Personally if I can't bring myself to play through a game more than once. Then I don't think the game is all that great(not saying it's bad either). A truly great game should maintain that level of greatness(minus the surprise factor) on multiple playthroughs. Ala Resident Evil 4 or something like Shadow of the Colossus which I was able to playthrough tons of times.

That said there are definitely games that are built in a way to be replayable. Games like DMC, Bayonetta, and Ninja Gaiden for instance with how they handle their difficulty(and the level design connected to the difficulty) and secrets are built with replay in mind. Or something like Crysis where the game isn't so overly scripted so you can play through it a few time over and not just be doing the same exact thing.

A "bad" story damning an other wise truly good game with good game design to me is far more irritating of a complaint or the concept of a "good" story making a game good in spite of bad game design ideas.

 

[Sapphire Dreams]

I do replay games, and we must give credit for people who put in an extra effort to make you want to play their games again after you've finished it.

 

[radioheadrule83]

A game that is good to go back to is a good game.

There are some single player games that you beat and then take a break from, but you go back and there's still an appeal there to make you play again. Other games have online or local multiplayer modes, things to unlock, updates, download content... reasons to keep going back. And I think games that have that string to their bow definitely have a strong appeal compared to games that don't.

Some games with little to no replay value are still worthwhile experiences but there's nothing sadder than a game that you beat in 8-12 hours, which then sits on your DVD shelf for eternity or until you bin or sell it.

 

[ihearthawthats]

using game and movie comparisons? the gaming industry is far more purchase-heavy moreso than the movie industry (imo), so it makes a lot of sense for one to own a game that they'll play multiple times. arcades are close to dead and game rentals exclude pc gaming and download-only games, which are a a decent chunk of game sales. compare this to the movie industry where theatres and movie rental services are still greatly popular (increasingly so if you look at netflix).

let me ask you op, of all the games you listed did you buy them or rent them? if bought, did you resell them? do you also purchase movies that you only watch once, or do you only rent them/watch them in the theatre?

unless you are a video game collector or some crazy guy who likes to support developers with full amount purchases of new game copies (or just have money to throw away), replay value should be a big concern if you buy games.

 

[plagiarize]

using game and movie comparisons? the gaming industry is far more purchase-heavy moreso than the movie industry (imo), so it makes a lot of sense for one to own a game that they'll play multiple times. arcades are close to dead and game rentals exclude pc gaming and download-only games, which are a a decent chunk of game sales. compare this to the movie industry where theatres and movie rental services are still greatly popular (increasingly so if you look at netflix).

let me ask you op, of all the games you listed did you buy them or rent them? if bought, did you resell them? do you also purchase movies that you only watch once, or do you only rent them/watch them in the theatre?

unless you are a video game collector or some crazy guy who likes to support developers with full amount purchases of new game copies (or just have money to throw away), replay value should be a big concern if you buy games.

So what is wrong with me if I don't think a game has to be replayable to be good. If its good once it's good.

Thinking otherwise is madness to me.

 

[NEOPARADIGM]

If its good once it's good.

Should have been the first reply.

 

[tiff]

So what is wrong with me if I don't think a game has to be replayable to be good. If its good once it's good.

Thinking otherwise is madness to me.

If it's good once then why wouldn't it be good twice? That's what I don't get.

 

[Yasae]

God i get so depressed about people making the value=time/dollar judgment. Fun isn't measured in hours. Ultimately, your time is more valuable than anything else, don't spend it on something that isn't good or interesting to you as something else just because it's longer. Gaming is such a cheap hobby if you take into account games plummeting in price, Steam sales etc that if you have a job or otherwise full-time engagement (and therefore, limited time to play games) you don't have to think in terms of "how many hours will this game last?" but rather "How much fun will I have playing this, regardless of how long it is?". I'm unemployed and I still ask myself the second question when I'm considering buying a game. Useless padding is one of the worst problems in gaming today, and almost all games have it to some degree. The longer the game, the more padding it will invariably have, unless it's an "endless" type game.



I agree with this stance. If you want an equation, it's less value=time/money and more value=time/relative value of money*enjoyment factor, which is all so subjective that it's meaningless to even try to measure.

True, but with sales it's really just a matter of how long you're willing to wait. 8 hour games are fine, I've just never felt happy paying $50-60 for them. The cost then becomes an impenetrable barrier for the enjoyment factor to burst through. Feeling ripped off takes precedence over all enjoyment for me.

 

[Bumblebeetuna]

If a game has no replay value then it better have a substantial amount of content or else I am renting or buying cheap and used down the line.

Example.. God of War 3. Hey, the game was pretty good. But it was short and had no replay value so I went the Gamefly route. At the same time, Just Cause 2. Might not have been as polished, but I spent nearly 100 hours on it so it was well worth a purchase.

 

[SmokedMeat]

A good game is a good game, but I certainly prefer games that give me incentive to keep on playing them. Whether it's shooting for a high score or working towards unlocking weapons, cheats, or bonus playable characters, I prefer having that little extra something to strive for. It's far more enjoyable than simply going through a game again, with nothing new to gain/experience.

 

[LAMBO]

I always think I'm going to replay games but the only ones i ever have in the last 20 years are DMC3 SE, Megaman 2, Freespace 2, Total Annihilation, SOTN.

 

[XLant]

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.

I'm the opposite; most of the games I play are ones I've already played. It depends on what kinds of games you play; I was raised in the age of arcades and that score attack mentality is almost extinct in today's market, not to mention coin-ops themselves.

Regardless, surely a game that leaves a lasting impression after one playthrough is surely a sign of successful design and a quality product?

 

[goldenpp72]

Replay value is a valid concern when a game is very short, when we spend our hard earned dollars on a brand new video game we should expect to get a certain amount of time with it, we don't pay 10 bucks to see a movie and leave the theater happy if it lasted 30 minutes, if the 30 minute movie could somehow be made enjoyable to watch 4 times, maybe it would work as long as you don't have to pay more than once.

Imagine dropping 60 bucks on a game that lasted you 2 hours.

 

[Insertia]

This is why I hate what this 'multiplayer' era has done to videogames. It's affected all aspects of game development. Having a complete package means having some sort of online element (that's generally watered down) and a watered down single player experience.

Ever wonder why sequels aren't getting any better than their originals despite all the advancements in technology?

I blame using time and thought put into multiplayer

 

[NullPointer]

But you don't need multiplayer to have replayability or "lasting value" as one poster eloquently puts it. That's where the mistake is being made I think.