Support NeoGAF

[bender]

FFVII Remake is the latest example, I think it was done absolutely horribly. They expect you to play through an entire game again(on hard mode) to max out your weapons just to get manuscripts? To get all the costumes, you need to fully replay full chapters. No option to jump into said chapter at specific points. I think it's horribly designed.

Nier Automata was one, and while it wasn't too bad, I still thought it was done kinda clunky and annoyingly.

I've heard Persona games are like this, but I haven't gotten into them as much. Those are a few recent ones off the top of my head.

Dishonored 2(or was it Death of the Outsider) doesn't allow you to get the best ending if you made certain choices. I forget which it was. And you have to replay the entire damn thing if you miss it.

I think Eternal Sonata did this with the Score Pieces.

This backlog cray.
Ain't nobody got time to replay anything!

Even with an Insane backlog, I find myself replaying games I love. I just rolled credits on my 3rd play through of Shadow Of Colossus (I can finally reach the secrete garden).

 

[Rentahamster]

FFVII Remake is the latest example, I think it was done absolutely horribly. They expect you to play through an entire game again(on hard mode) to max out your weapons just to get manuscripts? To get all the costumes, you need to fully replay full chapters. No option to jump into said chapter at specific points. I think it's horribly designed.

Nier Automata was one, and while it wasn't too bad, I still thought it was done kinda clunky and annoyingly.

I've heard Persona games are like this, but I haven't gotten into them as much. Those are a few recent ones off the top of my head.

Dishonored 2(or was it Death of the Outsider) doesn't allow you to get the best ending if you made certain choices. I forget which it was. And you have to replay the entire damn thing if you miss it.

I see, thanks.

I'm gonna be a little critical of your thesis, don't take it too hard.

1. FF7R, Nier, Persona, Dishonored. That doesn't really sound like "too many", although I can accept that it feels like this to you.

2. I also wouldn't necessarily say that this is a phenomenon for "today's era of gaming", as this is something that has been around since the SNES days (e.,g Chrono Trigger). It doesn't seem to me like the this kind of game design is getting more prevalent relative to yesterday's era of gaming.

3. Using FF7R as an example doesn't match up with your original criticism.

So many games now don't even allow you to experience all the game has to offer unless you play through the main story multiple times. And again, I'm not talking little side things. I'm talking major things like getting the "true" ending. You're just artificially bloating it, because you didn't put enough content in it in the first place.

FFVII Remake is the latest example, I think it was done absolutely horribly. They expect you to play through an entire game again(on hard mode) to max out your weapons just to get manuscripts? To get all the costumes, you need to fully replay full chapters. No option to jump into said chapter at specific points. I think it's horribly designed.

Your complaints about FF7R deal with little side things, not major things.

 

[Danny Dudekisser]

I completely agree, though I'd argue that it's part of a broader problem of trying to build games that people will play endlessly.

 

[Nankatsu]

What did they do?

I prefer games where i can play directly on hard like Last of Us Grounded Mode. xD

Simply put an amazingly confident game that didn't need to have an ultimate difficulty trophy in the way for you to get the platinum. The trophy was added in a later update, so if you want to have it you need to go for a new game plus, but it doesn't lock you from getting platinum.

 

[GeorgPrime]

Simply put an amazingly confident game that didn't need to have an ultimate difficulty trophy in the way for you to get the platinum. The trophy was added in a later update, so if you want to have it you need to go for a new game plus, but it doesn't lock you from getting platinum.

That sounds like useful game design

 

[DragoonKain]

I see, thanks.

I'm gonna be a little critical of your thesis, don't take it too hard.

1. FF7R, Nier, Persona, Dishonored. That doesn't really sound like "too many", although I can accept that it feels like this to you.

2. I also wouldn't necessarily say that this is a phenomenon for "today's era of gaming", as this is something that has been around since the SNES days (e.,g Chrono Trigger). It doesn't seem to me like the this kind of game design is getting more prevalent relative to yesterday's era of gaming.

3. Using FF7R as an example doesn't match up with your original criticism.



Your complaints about FF7R deal with little side things, not major things.

I might have overstated the amount of games that do this currently and it might just feel to me like there are more than there are, but I know I'll think of others if I had the time to sit down and go through all the games I've played.

I disagree though I think the FF7 Remake, I'd consider maxing out your weapons a major thing. For a completionist like me anyway, I consider that big. Also the extra simulator battles, I consider those big as well. I think the dresses are smaller things, but still you have to spend a lot of time playing them just to get them.

 

[Myths]

It's hard to say what devs would actually expect that... I can only address the game's that are truly replayable. Actually, Chrono Trigger is the only one that comes to mind.

 

[DrScissorsMD]

Even worse, too many devs are designing games expecting that gamers will play them endlessly and gamers are enabling it.

This. We're fast approaching critical mass regarding season/battle passes and while there's plenty of games and plenty of gamers to go around, it's fucking exhausting and often off-putting to see a game have a bunch of "get it now or you'll miss it" content when you're already neck deep in a few other games doing the same thing.

On topic, I half agree. I think it's fine if the game is good enough that it justifies playing through again, or if it's the type of game intended for multiple play throughs anyway (roguelikes). If it's like a single-player story-driven game with at best average gameplay? Nah fam.

 

[Rentahamster]

I disagree though I think the FF7 Remake, I'd consider maxing out your weapons a major thing. For a completionist like me anyway, I consider that big. Also the extra simulator battles, I consider those big as well. I think the dresses are smaller things, but still you have to spend a lot of time playing them just to get them.

Maxing out the weapons has nothing to do with the story, though. Maxing out the weapons is also unnecessary to unlock any additional content. It's the same mechanic as level grinding - it's there to get even stronger than you already are.

The simulator battles also do not require a full game replay. Just go to the chapter they're in.

FF7R has "chapter select" - a QoL improvement that is designed specifically to deal with the specific complaints you have. You don't need to play FF7R all over again to do the simulator battles. You do need to complete every chapter, but that's because there's hidden stuff in every chapter.

I guess your main questions would be - "Why didn't they just let you get all the manuscripts in the normal playthrough?". Well, that would make you too strong. You don't need to max out your weapons in a normal difficulty run. You don't need to in a hard mode run either, but it's there if you want to. Because hard mode is hard. That's sorta the point. They could have easily just capped the max at the number of manuscripts you get in normal mode and be done with it. Functionally, it makes no difference.

I leave you with this thought experiment:

Game A - You beat the game, and the game lets you persist in the world so that you can revisit old towns, get any equipment you missed, complete any minigames/sidequests you missed, and engage in difficult post-game content. This is the type of game that you are okay with, right? If I'm understanding your point of view correctly.

Game B - You beat the game, and the game lets you warp to any time or place in the world so that you can revist old towns, get any equipment you missed, complete any minigames/sidequests you missed, and engage in difficult post-game content. This is the kind of game design you have a problem with in FF7R?

Functionally, I don't see how that is a significant difference. Game B isn't "forcing" you to play the game again any more than Game A is.

 

[DragoonKain]

The Tales series, Mass Effect,

Maxing out the weapons has nothing to do with the story, though. Maxing out the weapons is also unnecessary to unlock any additional content. It's the same mechanic as level grinding - it's there to get even stronger than you already are.

The simulator battles also do not require a full game replay. Just go to the chapter they're in.

FF7R has "chapter select" - a QoL improvement that is designed specifically to deal with the specific complaints you have. You don't need to play FF7R all over again to do the simulator battles. You do need to complete every chapter, but that's because there's hidden stuff in every chapter.

I guess your main questions would be - "Why didn't they just let you get all the manuscripts in the normal playthrough?". Well, that would make you too strong. You don't need to max out your weapons in a normal difficulty run. You don't need to in a hard mode run either, but it's there if you want to. Because hard mode is hard. That's sorta the point. They could have easily just capped the max at the number of manuscripts you get in normal mode and be done with it. Functionally, it makes no difference.

I leave you with this thought experiment:

Game A - You beat the game, and the game lets you persist in the world so that you can revisit old towns, get any equipment you missed, complete any minigames/sidequests you missed, and engage in difficult post-game content. This is the type of game that you are okay with, right? If I'm understanding your point of view correctly.

Game B - You beat the game, and the game lets you warp to any time or place in the world so that you can revist old towns, get any equipment you missed, complete any minigames/sidequests you missed, and engage in difficult post-game content. This is the kind of game design you have a problem with in FF7R?

Functionally, I don't see how that is a significant difference. Game B isn't "forcing" you to play the game again any more than Game A is.

My complaint isn't even that you can't get the manuscripts in normal. It's why not allow you to jump into specific points in the chapter so you can just play for a few minutes, do what you need to do and jump to another? For example, jump to the various autosave checkpoints throughout the chapter. This way you can jump to a part mere minutes before you approach the task that gives you the manuscript instead of going through the entire chapter.

I think getting "the best" of anything is what I'd consider a major aspect of the game. Best weapons, gears, spells, items, etc. I get annoyed when to get those, you have to play another playthrough of a game. And even if it does create an instance where you're overpowered, then make the gamer earn it in terms of difficulty on the first playthrough, and if they're skilled enough to acquire these items, then I feel they've earned the right to blow through the game with god-like domination over your enemies or what have you.

In FF7's case they weren't the best weapons, but they were the best versions of those weapons with the best abilities, which is the same premise. Why not just include more difficult battles in the combat simulator on normal and get the manuscripts that way? And if you earn it, you can blow through the final chapters if you want. And if you don't want to, you don't have to upgrade your weapon, if you still want it to be difficult.

As a completionist, I'm sitting here wanting to be strong enough to fight the hard mode new battles, know that I likely need the best versions of the weapons to give me the best chance, and instead of it being a 2-3 hour task of getting the manuscripts and beating the new battles, it's likely 10-15 or more hours.... just to be able to fight a few new freaking simulator battles. That's insane.

 

[RPS37]

I think Eternal Sonata did this with the Score Pieces.



Even with an Insane backlog, I find myself replaying games I love. I just rolled credits on my 3rd play through of Shadow Of Colossus (I can finally reach the secrete garden).

I mean, I DID just finish replaying the Nate Drake collection (it was my first time playing those games on PS4) and funny you should mention SOTC.
It's my current backlog game. Just finished the fourth colossus.

 

[Rentahamster]

My complaint isn't even that you can't get the manuscripts in normal. It's why not allow you to jump into specific points in the chapter so you can just play for a few minutes, do what you need to do and jump to another? For example, jump to the various autosave checkpoints throughout the chapter.

You can actually do that, though. You only need to complete a chapter to save story progress. You don't need to complete a chapter to save gear/inventory progress. The only time you "need" to complete a chapter to get a manuscript is if the boss of that chapter is holding that manuscript. If you missed a particular materia, just play the game until you get that materia, and then you can save and quit. You'll still have it without completing the chapter.

You can't jump to autosave checkpoints, but if you did, that would probably end up with you being able to jump into over a hundred different spots, which would be a UI mess, and hard to QA test. I think dividing the entire game up to 18 chapters is a reasonable demarcation of progress.

I think getting "the best" of anything is what I'd consider a major aspect of the game. Best weapons, gears, spells, items, etc. I get annoyed when to get those, you have to play another playthrough of a game. And even if it does create an instance where you're overpowered, then make the gamer earn it in terms of difficulty on the first playthrough, and if they're skilled enough to acquire these items, then I feel they've earned the right to blow through the game with god-like domination over your enemies or what have you.

Perhaps my failure to agree with your point is because I don't share a matching frame of reference for the positive case. What game in recent memory, is an example of a game that handles endgame gear acquisition perfectly to your tastes?

In FF7's case they weren't the best weapons, but they were the best versions of those weapons with the best abilities, which is the same premise. Why not just include more difficult battles in the combat simulator on normal and get the manuscripts that way? And if you earn it, you can blow through the final chapters if you want. And if you don't want to, you don't have to upgrade your weapon, if you still want it to be difficult.

Sure, they could have done that, but I'm assuming they wanted to save those rewards for players who choose to tackle hard mode.

And if you earn it, you can blow through the final chapters if you want. And if you don't want to, you don't have to upgrade your weapon, if you still want it to be difficult.

Probably to preserve the pure experience of normal mode. A normal playthought is a very streamlined experience that is carefully curated. Everything after that is optional and much more free form.

As a completionist, I'm sitting here wanting to be strong enough to fight the hard mode new battles, know that I likely need the best versions of the weapons to give me the best chance, and instead of it being a 2-3 hour task of getting the manuscripts and beating the new battles, it's likely 10-15 or more hours.... just to be able to fight a few new freaking simulator battles. That's insane.

I don't think it's insane. Like I've been saying, it's all optional. You don't necessarily need to max out your weapons to beat the training simulators. I was speedrunning the boss fights after only completing 2 hard mode chapters. I think you might not realize how optional this optional content is. You don't need to play 10 more hours to fight a few new freaking simulator battles. You can do that 5 minutes after you beat the game the first time.



As a "completionist", don't you have to accept that getting a 100% is going to take effort? I guess I just don't see the logic in feeling like you need to complete everything and then complaining that it takes too long. I mean, that comes with the territory, dude. At the end of the day, this is all optional side content.


What I still have trouble understanding is your criticism that devs "expect" players to replay the game and that gamers are "enabling" it, as it relates to your critiques of FF7R.

Hey I'm all for replayability. I think there should be more content once you finish a game. But to expect that everyone is going to jump for joy to not go back and do side missions or finish tasks or do other things in your game, but to replay the entire damn game multiple times... sorry I'm 100% out on designing games that way. So many games now don't even allow you to experience all the game has to offer unless you play through the main story multiple times.

The design of FF7R does not expect you to play hard mode. There is no new story content gated by hard mode. There are like, 7 unique battles that can be accessed 5 minutes after beating the game the first time. There are mechanics to help you go back quickly and get stuff you missed, and there is a log that shows you exactly what you are missing and where it is. Saving inventory progress is not tied to chapter completion, and you really don't need to "play through the main story multiple times" to unlock major content. As a completionist, I would think you appreciate these QoL design choices?

P.S. I'd also make the case that a hard mode playthrough of FF7R is arguably different enough to be considered a different experience. There are some design changes in hard mode that still give the player surprises and challenges. It's not like they're making you play the exact same thing all over again.

 

[Animagic]

Back in the day the mark of a good game was how fun it was to play through over and over.

Now that games are so long I don't usually replay them unless I absolutely adore it or something, or most likely, I love it and it's a shorter replayable experience.

I see what you are saying but there have been missable things on first runs in games for a long time now... did trophies/achievements expose this as inconvenient?

 

[Potato Chip PRO]

I don't know what kind of magic Team Ninja did with Ninja Gaiden(2004) I keep on playing it way too much, even after all these years.

 

[DunDunDunpachi]

It completely depends on the game for me. Sekiro and Bloodborne, for instance, don't offer a ton of variety nor payoff when it comes to the story epilogue and the ending cutscene. I've replayed both of them several times, though, not to see the different endings but because I love the game. If they didn't have multiple endings, I'd still replay them. However, I can understand if someone played through them once and never felt the need to replay it. As a standalone playthrough, both games offer a solid return on the sticker price.

Some devs seem to intentionally "split" the content across a few playthroughs, something they can put on the back of the box. RPGs are the most guilty of this trick. I love a good RPG, but it better be something really special to warrant me replaying replaying 80% of the same content for 10% new content on a replay or New Game+.

So for me it has less to do with the dev baking in replayability and more to do with how engaging the game is. I don't care if there are 50 endings if the experience reaching those endings isn't fun, to put it another way.

Seems like you're bothered that you can't 100% (or get close to 100%) the game in one playthrough. Personally, if the game isn't good enough to be worth replaying, then it isn't worth 100%, either. Some games are just too much of an investment. Wonderful 101 must be played a second time for it to really click, and its magical. But that's a tall order when many people don't even finish a game campaign once.

 

[Lethal01]

You'll love Nier automata.

Personally I agree. Replayability is just a 'feature' devs implement so some people can feel like they got more value out of their purchase (by getting more playtime). And honestly, the blame rests on gamers I think. Lots of people are obsessed with squeezing as much playtime as possible out of every single game they play and complain when games don't have replayability.

Good, give me all the blame, I'd be proud to to be the cause of this "problem"

 

[drotahorror]

I'd MUCH rather games be made shorter, with all the BS padding removed with the hopes people do multiple playthroughs. Those games are actually fun to replay every time. Resident Evil PS1 games were like this.

Trying to make sure players see everything in a single playthrough usually results in me being ready for the game to be over long before it actually is.

RE7 was pretty good for this. You could do a playthrough in 3 or 4 hours. It's the last game I remember playing multiple times because I actually enjoyed it. Before that was probably Bloodborne.

Oh, Doom Eternal. I beat that twice.

 

[Alexios]

These devs are wrong about what it means. Old, short arcade games are some of the most replayable just because they're fun and make you wanna get better. The opposite of adding a NG+ to a drab cinematic pos with no gameplay depth. Real replayability is good, it means there's gameplay.

 

[Vawn]

RE7 was pretty good for this. You could do a playthrough in 3 or 4 hours. It's the last game I remember playing multiple times because I actually enjoyed it. Before that was probably Bloodborne.

Oh, Doom Eternal. I beat that twice.

Yeah, it's nice to have shorter games. But I miss things like multiple stories and characters that we got in RE1 and 2.

 

[Moogle11]

I just long ago stopped caring about seeing or doing everything in games. If there's are secret endings etc that are time consuming or annoying to get I'll just YouTube them.

Variety is the spice of life to me when it comes to hobbies. I'd almost always rather move on to something new than replay a game.

 

[DragoonKain]

You can actually do that, though. You only need to complete a chapter to save story progress. You don't need to complete a chapter to save gear/inventory progress. The only time you "need" to complete a chapter to get a manuscript is if the boss of that chapter is holding that manuscript. If you missed a particular materia, just play the game until you get that materia, and then you can save and quit. You'll still have it without completing the chapter.

You can't jump to autosave checkpoints, but if you did, that would probably end up with you being able to jump into over a hundred different spots, which would be a UI mess, and hard to QA test. I think dividing the entire game up to 18 chapters is a reasonable demarcation of progress.


Perhaps my failure to agree with your point is because I don't share a matching frame of reference for the positive case. What game in recent memory, is an example of a game that handles endgame gear acquisition perfectly to your tastes?


Sure, they could have done that, but I'm assuming they wanted to save those rewards for players who choose to tackle hard mode.


Probably to preserve the pure experience of normal mode. A normal playthought is a very streamlined experience that is carefully curated. Everything after that is optional and much more free form.


I don't think it's insane. Like I've been saying, it's all optional. You don't necessarily need to max out your weapons to beat the training simulators. I was speedrunning the boss fights after only completing 2 hard mode chapters. I think you might not realize how optional this optional content is. You don't need to play 10 more hours to fight a few new freaking simulator battles. You can do that 5 minutes after you beat the game the first time.



As a "completionist", don't you have to accept that getting a 100% is going to take effort? I guess I just don't see the logic in feeling like you need to complete everything and then complaining that it takes too long. I mean, that comes with the territory, dude. At the end of the day, this is all optional side content.


What I still have trouble understanding is your criticism that devs "expect" players to replay the game and that gamers are "enabling" it, as it relates to your critiques of FF7R.


The design of FF7R does not expect you to play hard mode. There is no new story content gated by hard mode. There are like, 7 unique battles that can be accessed 5 minutes after beating the game the first time. There are mechanics to help you go back quickly and get stuff you missed, and there is a log that shows you exactly what you are missing and where it is. Saving inventory progress is not tied to chapter completion, and you really don't need to "play through the main story multiple times" to unlock major content. As a completionist, I would think you appreciate these QoL design choices?

P.S. I'd also make the case that a hard mode playthrough of FF7R is arguably different enough to be considered a different experience. There are some design changes in hard mode that still give the player surprises and challenges. It's not like they're making you play the exact same thing all over again.

You can actually do that, though. You only need to complete a chapter to save story progress. You don't need to complete a chapter to save gear/inventory progress. The only time you "need" to complete a chapter to get a manuscript is if the boss of that chapter is holding that manuscript. If you missed a particular materia, just play the game until you get that materia, and then you can save and quit. You'll still have it without completing the chapter.

You can't jump to autosave checkpoints, but if you did, that would probably end up with you being able to jump into over a hundred different spots, which would be a UI mess, and hard to QA test. I think dividing the entire game up to 18 chapters is a reasonable demarcation of progress.


Perhaps my failure to agree with your point is because I don't share a matching frame of reference for the positive case. What game in recent memory, is an example of a game that handles endgame gear acquisition perfectly to your tastes?


Sure, they could have done that, but I'm assuming they wanted to save those rewards for players who choose to tackle hard mode.


Probably to preserve the pure experience of normal mode. A normal playthought is a very streamlined experience that is carefully curated. Everything after that is optional and much more free form.


I don't think it's insane. Like I've been saying, it's all optional. You don't necessarily need to max out your weapons to beat the training simulators. I was speedrunning the boss fights after only completing 2 hard mode chapters. I think you might not realize how optional this optional content is. You don't need to play 10 more hours to fight a few new freaking simulator battles. You can do that 5 minutes after you beat the game the first time.



As a "completionist", don't you have to accept that getting a 100% is going to take effort? I guess I just don't see the logic in feeling like you need to complete everything and then complaining that it takes too long. I mean, that comes with the territory, dude. At the end of the day, this is all optional side content.


What I still have trouble understanding is your criticism that devs "expect" players to replay the game and that gamers are "enabling" it, as it relates to your critiques of FF7R.



The design of FF7R does not expect you to play hard mode. There is no new story content gated by hard mode. There are like, 7 unique battles that can be accessed 5 minutes after beating the game the first time. There are mechanics to help you go back quickly and get stuff you missed, and there is a log that shows you exactly what you are missing and where it is. Saving inventory progress is not tied to chapter completion, and you really don't need to "play through the main story multiple times" to unlock major content. As a completionist, I would think you appreciate these QoL design choices?

P.S. I'd also make the case that a hard mode playthrough of FF7R is arguably different enough to be considered a different experience. There are some design changes in hard mode that still give the player surprises and challenges. It's not like they're making you play the exact same thing all over again.

Well, I wanted to get another Force Bracelet and I had to do like 75% of Chapter 17 all over again to get it. Just bored out of my mind the whole time. It was brutal. Just annoying as hell. I have zero patience for this kinda crap, but the OCD completionist in it is bothered when I don't complete most things in a game, I don't care about trophies.

I don't think the chapter selection helps at all. So far of all the things I've tried going back to get, not one of them went by fast. At least an hour per chapter I've had to play and to me that is really irritating. I'm sure they could've figured out a way to make it easier than force people to play through all the same crap over again.

It depends on what you mean by effort though. I'm ok with it being difficult if that is what you mean by effort. I'm not ok with it taking a lot of time. An acceptable amount is what I'd say, and obviously that is arbitrary, but when certain games require like hundreds of hours of grinding, I'm sorry that's bad game development. They just want people grinding away at their game, there's no skill involved in grinding or doing mundane tasks like rare drop hunting. They can't come up with any better or more clever ideas so they jack up the "effort" by just making it take tons of valuable time. I think they get satisfaction seeing people spend like 300 hours on a game to get things.

Now FF7 doesn't really have rare drop hunting in this, but the tasks are mundane. I'm fine with high difficulty. But I want it to be fun or an experience getting these things. When it gets tedious and repetitive is where I draw the line. And I think having to do a second round of a playthrough qualifies.

 

[Alter_Fridge]

The only games I'll replay are sports games. There's so many freaking new games to play I just don't get the appeal of playing something over again once you're done with it. Once I'm finished with it's straight to ebay

 

[ScarletSpider]

.

 

[D3SCHA1N]

I've literally never played a game where I felt like one play-through justified paying for it. Any game I've had that I only played once or didn't even finish I considered a bad purchase. I can understand being frustrated about the feeling of missing out if you do not like to replay games though, but I think it's a little weird to actively dislike the idea of games being designed for replayability...

 

[Hawking Radiation]

I don't mind it OP, as long as the new game modes are worth the time and effort.

 

[Rentahamster]

It depends on what you mean by effort though. I'm ok with it being difficult if that is what you mean by effort.

Well, all the extra manuscripts are on hard mode, so yes, it is difficult

Now FF7 doesn't really have rare drop hunting in this, but the tasks are mundane. I'm fine with high difficulty. But I want it to be fun or an experience getting these things. When it gets tedious and repetitive is where I draw the line. And I think having to do a second round of a playthrough qualifies.

If your personal experience was mundane, then it is what it is. I thought the new coat of paint that is hard mode is different and challenging enough to be a fresh experience, but if it's not your cup of tea, then it's not your cup of tea.

Maybe my standards are outdated, but from my perspective, the QoL improvements in FF7R are things that we'd call carebare shit back in the day lol.

 

[Gavon West]

Even worse, too many devs are designing games expecting that gamers will play them endlessly and gamers are enabling it.

It gets even worse when devs develop games and just expect people to play them, period, and gamers are enabling it. Sick of this shit....

 

[DragoonKain]

Well, all the extra manuscripts are on hard mode, so yes, it is difficult


If your personal experience was mundane, then it is what it is. I thought the new coat of paint that is hard mode is different and challenging enough to be a fresh experience, but if it's not your cup of tea, then it's not your cup of tea.

Maybe my standards are outdated, but from my perspective, the QoL improvements in FF7R are things that we'd call carebare shit back in the day lol.

If they would have added new areas or perspectives to play as in post game like RE2 does then even that I would have been cool with. As long as I felt I was experiencing something new.

But I'm literally playing through the exact same stuff I just did a week ago, it's putting me to sleep. Granted, I have little patience so I could see how someone who has more could tolerate it more. Whatever I'm playing I just want it to be fun and I don't find the repetitiveness of it fun.

And also I think it depends on the time/reward. Even though I'd still hate it, if putting in all this extra time to get something incredible... maybe I could understand. Like beat it on hard mode to unlock playing as Sephiroth for the entire game. Even that I'd think you should be able to do on normal mode somehow as just as really difficult challenge rather than making me waste my time, but at least the reward would be worth the time.

But 15+ hours tacked on for manuscripts? 4 hours for dresses? C'mon, SquareEnix! You should be able to get those dresses in about 20 minutes, the time far outweighs the reward.

It just feels like such a waste of time replaying things I just did when I could be playing a whole new game right now, at least add in things to keep it interesting and fresh, and I mean in terms of areas, exploration, and story. Not just making the difficulty harder with the same everything else.

 

[Bkdk]

I love the idea of multiple story branching system. However I also would love to tweak some stuff for second playthroughs, that's why mods are so important to me and I simply won't play many console games. Simply can't stand many games without any modding capabilities. There is always at least one or two things I'd like to change to make me from hating to loving the game. Games with high modding capabilities almost guarantees 2+ playthroughs for me.

 

[Kamina]

I get what you mean.
A game shouldn't keep content away in the second playthrough.
You should want to do a NG+, not be forced to do so in order to experience the whole game.

 

[LordKasual]

There's nothing wrong with this. Issue is that developers do not know how to do it anymore.

I always say, Sonic Team was a company that understood 100% how to stretch their games FAR beyond their lifetime.

Phantasy Star Online and Sonic Adventure 2 are examples of games that get FAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAAR more mileage out of a purchase than they ever should have.

 

[recma12]

Can't remember the last time I felt the urge to do a 2nd playthrough. I don't have enough time as it is to play games so I wonder where people find the time to play the same game several times.

Am in the same boat. When the credits roll, I'm done. Didn't even play the Claire scenario in RE2R.
Thing is, I have all the money in the world (to buy videogames at least) but time is an issue.

When people are very young or broke it's the other way around. Giving them an option to replay the games over and over again is a good thing IMO. Same goes for solid NG+ modes.

We also have to acknowledge that the "Hours played / divided by / money spent" formula is still very important to mass market.
That's why FIFA/Madden/2K, CoD and GTA always top the sales charts.
These games give you a shitton of hours for the same price as Resident Evil 3 (where the main campaign is 6hrs).
I guess Devs encourage multiple playthroughs to artificially inflate the hours so Capcom gets to say:
"Well, RE3 is actually 20 hours because you will only see all the content after 3 playthroughs and then there is Resistance multiplayer. It's great value!"

Ever since Sony and The Order 1886 got fucking annihilated on sales after "Dude, it's 4 hours" became a meme, these companies have smartened up a little.

Which isn't bad imo
If you want to do a 5 hour game, sell it for 20€/$ and we're good.
If you want my 60€/$, you gotta put more on the plate (if I end up playing the extra stuff is a different story).

 

[nkarafo]

The only game that i ever replayed for more than a few times is the original Dungeon Keeper. Every 2 years i play the whole thing. And that game doesn't have any achievements/trophies or things to collect.

 

[Valkyria]

How old are you?
If anything it's on a decline.
Things that was unlocked via completion are now paid for DLC.
The quest for that hidden item or outfit, weapon etc is now 5.99 DLC

This. When is it that this trend started? Around 1980.
If anything games has departed from the replay path many years ago. Replayability use to be something taking account on reviews 20+ years ago. I really have no idea what OP is talking about.

 

[cireza]

Good games have high replay value and I enjoy replaying them.

The real problem is how boring games have become with the ton of things they include that are just there to make the playthrough longer than needed. So many useless things to pick up, useless skill trees or crafting that are not about choices but simply here to force you into spending time doing them etc...

 

[StreetsofBeige]

I'm all for replayability. It gives me the option to keep playing. I probably played Heroes of Might and Magic 3's random map generator 100s of times where each medium/large map takes hours to beat. That's what you call great replayability.

But as for the OP's point about forcing multiple play throughs to get all the content, that's a dick move. To me, it seems like devs do this as an artificial way of prolonging the game knowing the game doesn't have legs to stand on after one play through. So they hope there's enough gamers who finish the game to do it again to max out content of achievement/trophy points.

And by doing so, it might entice gamers to buy more microtrans. Gamers can't buy more DLC if they shelve the game.

 

[The_Mike]

I never, or very rarely, replay games, but I can remember this is a thing that has been in the games for decades. New game plus or replay the game with new addition, or a tougher difficulty. Especially the last one was something I hated, as I always go with the hardest difficulty and would hate to replay the game immediately to achieve that.

 

[theclaw135]

Devs ought to know their own work well enough to find good ways to make it worth playing again. Many kinds of game have no hope of being pick-up-and-replay akin to arcade games.
If you want them to be replayable, you've got to ensure each playthrough is significantly different.

Something like Phoenix Wright provides a strictly linear story, with very little missable vital information.
On the opposite end of it all, games like Skyrim are astronomically time consuming. A casual player is likely to be burnt out hundreds of hours before they discover every piece of loot, every nook and cranny.

 

[ZywyPL]

It's a double-edged sword TBH, you are either forced to replay the game at least once to get the full experience, or there is no point in replaying the game.

IMO the replayability should come strictly from the gameplay, with how you approach different sections of the game, different encounters, and so on, which quite frankly is impossible to achieve in most/all of the strictly linear games where everything is filled with repeatable scripts, everything is carefully directed, like in this part you can only use this, in that part you have only this available, and so on, and while playing the games you often think "wish I could use this right here", but you can't...

Or better yet, the gameplay simply has to be fun and enjoyable, so much that once you finish a game you/re like "I wanna do it again!", which, sadly, many modern games fail with to achieve with their sloppy, sluggish controls, slow- ass gameplay, and so on, hence the devs have to use all the mentioned forced fillers to get the players hooked for longer.

 

[Steve.1981]

Been gaming on & off since the 80s. Give me a game that I can replay multiple times (for any reason, be it to find secrets, route B, the "real ending" or just for the fun of it) over something that's dropped & forgotten the moment the credits roll, or this always online multiplayer gaas bullshit that just drags on interminably.

Give me Mass Effect any day, where I want to replay to make different story choices & try another character build. Give me Dishonoured, where I want to replay because I know I can perfect those levels & get that clean hands good guy ending. Give me Halo all day long, where I want to bump up the difficulty & replay because it's just so much damn fun & I know I can refine my tactics to beat that challenge for a satisfying sense of accomplishment. Give me NieR: Automata, where I'm compelled to play through another route because I need to see where the creative genius madman who made the game is going with all this.

Guess I've been happily enabling the creation of games like these for many years. Happy to continue as well.

 

[Clear]

When did gamers get so lazy and entitled that they complain about having to put the time in to unlock everything?

If you've had your fill, for now or forever, then play something else. What's with the obsession for being able to claim you've "beaten" games you couldn't be bothered to finish properly? Who are you trying to impress?

 

[SuperLupeRap]

Am in the same boat. When the credits roll, I'm done. Didn't even play the Claire scenario in RE2R.
Thing is, I have all the money in the world (to buy videogames at least) but time is an issue.

When people are very young or broke it's the other way around. Giving them an option to replay the games over and over again is a good thing IMO. Same goes for solid NG+ modes.

We also have to acknowledge that the "Hours played / divided by / money spent" formula is still very important to mass market.
That's why FIFA/Madden/2K, CoD and GTA always top the sales charts.
These games give you a shitton of hours for the same price as Resident Evil 3 (where the main campaign is 6hrs).
I guess Devs encourage multiple playthroughs to artificially inflate the hours so Capcom gets to say:
"Well, RE3 is actually 20 hours because you will only see all the content after 3 playthroughs and then there is Resistance multiplayer. It's great value!"

Ever since Sony and The Order 1886 got fucking annihilated on sales after "Dude, it's 4 hours" became a meme, these companies have smartened up a little.

Which isn't bad imo
If you want to do a 5 hour game, sell it for 20€/$ and we're good.
If you want my 60€/$, you gotta put more on the plate (if I end up playing the extra stuff is a different story).

It's funny you mention RE2 REMAKE because I enjoyed the game so much that I was contemplating playing Claire's campaign then I was like nah!

I think you're right and the industry should move toward flexible pricing. Hellblade is a perfect example. The game was +/- 8h long I believe and it was priced for 40$.

 

[ZywyPL]

Am in the same boat. When the credits roll, I'm done. Didn't even play the Claire scenario in RE2R.
Thing is, I have all the money in the world (to buy videogames at least) but time is an issue.

When people are very young or broke it's the other way around. Giving them an option to replay the games over and over again is a good thing IMO. Same goes for solid NG+ modes.

Some things just never change

 

[Soodanim]

My short answer is it's fine if the gameplay justifies it.

If you have enough of a variety in your game's systems, you can justify it. Whether that's unlockables by way of encouraging a particular gameplay style (use X weapon, etc) or a way of approaching the game differently (stealth vs loud, mage vs melee) then the game might just be worth it a second time.

The thread premise of "Gamers are enabling it" means they're putting in extra content because people are playing said content. If they look at stats and no one is touching the extra content, they might stop. There's always YouTube for true endings, even if it feels cheap to just watch it online. In the past I've bought games and played games just for the story or ending and after giving up because the gameplay is boring, I learned my lesson about whether experiencing the whole game yourself is worth it (thanks Castlevania: Lords of Shadow, I won't make that mistake again).

I know this thread is really mad at not having free time, and that is everyone's reality at some point.

 

[Panajev2001a]

So in today's era of gaming it has become commonplace to just expect that everyone is going to replay games they just beat. I'll ask questions on gaming boards about if I missed an item or whatever and the response is always "Don't worry, just get it on your second playthrough" just assuming that I am going to play a game I just freaking beat all over again. I'm not sure when this culture of replaying games really started to become the norm, but it has.

Hey I'm all for replayability. I think there should be more content once you finish a game. But to expect that everyone is going to jump for joy to not go back and do side missions or finish tasks or do other things in your game, but to replay the entire damn game multiple times... sorry I'm 100% out on designing games that way. So many games now don't even allow you to experience all the game has to offer unless you play through the main story multiple times. And again, I'm not talking little side things. I'm talking major things like getting the "true" ending. You're just artificially bloating it, because you didn't put enough content in it in the first place.

It's one of my least favorite gaming trends going today. Not everyone has the time or patience to beat a fucking 50 hour game and then immediately after it's over start the whole thing back up again. Frankly, I'm surprised more people do. The fun in a game is experiencing something new for the first time. Especially going through story-heavy games all over again beginning to end is such a mundane chore. All the dialogue, all the cutscenes, the same areas, the same dungeons. No one ever reads a book and goes "I'm gonna reread it again starting today!"

Whatever happened to beating a game, putting it on a shelf and starting a new game... and developers expecting people to do the same? Honestly, it's more on gamers for creating a market for it and eating it up than it is the devs themselves. If more gamers would put their foot down and say "No, I'm not spending 120 hours on your fucking game beating it 3 separate times just to see what truly happens at the end of the game" this nonsense wouldn't be going on.

I know gamers who don't like replaying games are probably in the minority right now, so go ahead and rip away. It's been annoying me for a while and wanted to rant about it

How were you able to game in the 80's-90's is beyond me, but it is my time to be the older gamer yelling at the clouds. It does speak to games being in such a big supply that it seems like it we really should just hop from game to game, but sorry to say it ... it kind of speaks about gamers spending less and less time and effort with each game.

 

[CuteFaceJay]

I'm looking at Doom Eternal for the most recent example, yet it's MP is a ghost town and hardly anyone is even replaying the SP. yet the developers designed the game with replay value in mind yet it falls short on doing so.

 

[theclaw135]

How were you able to game in the 80's-90's is beyond me, but it is my time to be the older gamer yelling at the clouds. It does speak to games being in such a big supply that it seems like it we really should just hop from game to game, but sorry to say it ... it kind of speaks about gamers spending less and less time and effort with each game.

If people are spending less time with each game, it's because more and more games are padded out snoozefests.

 

[ROMhack]

This backlog cray.
Ain't nobody got time to replay anything!

You joke but in a hypothetical situation where people have a limit on the amount of new games they can buy, there would be a hell of a lot more people replaying games, regardless of length (edit: I say hypothetical, but this is precisely what it used to be like so if you started gaming before 2005 then you will have experienced it).

Personally I found DunDunDunpachi 's thread about 'no new games' really opened my eyes to how much more enjoyable gaming is where you aren't jumping on the latest trends.

 

[Panajev2001a]

If people are spending less time with each game, it's because more and more games are padded out snoozefests.

That is one of the many reasons, but I am not convinced it is the main one or close to it personally.

 

[ROMhack]

That is one of the many reasons, but I am not convinced it is the main one or close to it personally.

Nor I. I suspect it's more an attention thing, with so much choice making us lack the motivation to appreciate the games we play.

It's a phenomenon observed across industries and quite obvious with new technology trends. Books like Mind Change (Susan Greenfield) and The Shallows (Nicholas Carr) explain it in some depth.