Support NeoGAF

[V2Tommy]

Replaying games is for poor people. You wouldn't eat the same food twice, would you?

 

[Roman Empire]

Hard mode is designed for a close to max level player with numerous maxed out Materia. That is why it isn't available at the outset. It isn't like Hard Mode was designed for a level 1 onwards player.

Yeah, if you go to hard right after finishing the game you're probably getting your ass beaten by chapters 5 or 6 and will see that you need to grind at least your health and prayer materias.

 

[Roman Empire]

Replaying games is for poor people. You wouldn't eat the same food twice, would you?

Then we should raise a charity to all speedrunners out there. Obviously, I'm joking.

 

[Faenrir]

The main issue with your reasoning is that if you've beat the game and are happy then everything is fine.
Why do you take issue in the fact you haven't seen everything if you don't want to experience everything ?

 

[Sushen]

Most games I buy nowadays, I don't even finish them. So, even if there is no ending, I'll never know, haha

 

[MrRogers]

I'll play through certain games a 2nd or 3rd time if they are a reasonable length and I really dig em, so REmakes, TLOU, Ace Combat 7, Luigis Mansion 3 etc.. games that run anywhere from 8-25hrs on a playthrough I tend to go through again. Now games like the Witcher 3 or BOTW? not a chance in hell! even tho I think they are great games, I don't got time to put another 100 to 150 hrs into them and really who does?

It's why I prefer the shorter more linear experiences of the past, modern bloated open world games just aren't as memorable because I don't play through them 5 or 6 times, like the 16 or 32 bit generation gems, ive played through the link of the past SNES, like 10 times and do it almost yearly cause it only takes me 5 hours, I know every sequence in that game by heart, where as BOTW is a blur and couldn't tell you all the steps I took between the beginning and the end.

 

[saintjules]

I've been playing games since I was 6 on the NES (1989) and alot of the games I played when I was younger were always about being able to replay them. This is mainly because when you're young, you don't have a job, thus making it hard to buy new games. So unless your Parents bought you a new game, it was back to replaying the ones you had.

As the years progressed I was getting heavy into JRPGs, which usually meant for me, having tons of content and story. But then I started feeling a certain way about going back for a 2nd playthrough. This feeling didn't really start to hit me until the PS3 era. I started finding myself semi-retiring games, but then buying new ones to continue that cycle. I now have this backlog that I'm not sure when I'll ever get back to and finish. A bad habit that you don't want to have trust me.

I think the younger me would love to play something like AC: Odyssey and go back to it two or three times. Same goes for Persona 5. I hear people doing that and I'm like how can you go through that again? Another round of playing Persona 5 after I just spent 130 hours on it. It's why I didn't get Royal, despite the new content. The genres I'd say have the highest replayability are fighting and FPS multiplayer titles.

The first experience is usually the definitive experience for me when it comes to games. I'd love to go back to the above mentioned titles or a Horizon Zero Dawn for example, but the journey is so long with sidequests and all. Thankful for all the content provided for sure. When I think of going through that journey again though... I just can't lol. Maybe it's just me getting older, but definitely, more power to the people who can.

 

[Jeeves]

If you put yourself in the shoes of a kid who only gets 2 games a year, it's a great thing.

While I do like to revisit games, I tend to do so at least three years later to it feels "fresh" again. Although I don't mind it in Nier games because the extra runs are expedited and/or different throughout.

MGS1 and RE4 are examples of games that I just turned around and dove right back into as soon as I finished, though. NG+ stuff was a part of that, but honestly the games are so fun I probably would have done it with no incentive, too.

 

[Trogdor1123]

I'm trying to think of a game where this was actually a problem that I have played. I'm not thinking of any where it was a negative at all.

Games in generations past did this all the time but it was a bit different. Any thing with something missable falls into this category.

 

[Omali]

So exactly how video games have been designed since the 70's?

 

[entremet]

It all depends on the game. Some games are a joy to replay.

 

[Dr. Claus]

Yeah, if you go to hard right after finishing the game you're probably getting your ass beaten by chapters 5 or 6 and will see that you need to grind at least your health and prayer materias.

Yep, but thankfully any "grind" is negligable thanks to the massive increase in Exp and AP gains. Maybe spent 2-3 hours of "grinding" materia and levels, and even then that was mostly just me trying to find some good strategies and team comps.

 

[Dolomite]

Replay value is a huge purchase factor personally. The saddest thing is enjoying a great game a solid story and just being...done with it. You'll try the slapped on multiplayer until you go back to PUBg or warzone

 

[AeonGaidenRaiden]

I rarely replay games, especially RPGs that I loved. Its such a long trip all over again and its not the same as when you play it for the first time and discover all the secrets of the story. For me, if it has MP thats what will get me hooked longer. Games are like a book, im not gonna read the same thing twice in a row. Only time I replay is if there is a drought of good games and I want to replay something short and sweet like COD campaign. I loved Horizon, Spiderman, RDR2, Days Gone, Death Stranding...have zero reason to play them again.

 

[LordKasual]

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

It's because games are more numerous and easier to access than ever before.

I used to spend so much time on singular games before because i didn't have that many and they were difficult to beat.

If you were to remove someone's access to the internet FULLY (no multiplayer games) and restrict them from obtaining new games, by month 5 I bet a significant amount of everyone's backlog would be cleared out pretty fast.

 

[GV82]

Huh, I only buy my main games for Replay Value, they can be so damn expensive.

yeah I buy games in sales for cheap but they're still in the backlog it tbh.


So long as the extra value is not shitty side quests but instead decent I don't mind replayability.

I learned from when I had to save up half the cost of the first Mortal Kombat when I was 12 & it cost £50, you better believe I played that game to Death, god knows how many matches, this was with no dlc, 7 characters, no patches, no goty etc back then.

 

[JediLink]

I only read the first page, but did the OP ever actually give any examples of what they're talking about? I agree that substantial, permanently-missable content is lame (e.g. Dragon's Dogma has a lot of sidequests that get locked out if you progress too far in the story without meeting certain conditions), but if it's just minor extra dialogue or bonus content that you can't see in one playthrough, I don't think it's a big deal. It gives you something extra if you do want to play the game again, but you're not really missing much if you don't.

 

[BusierDonkey]

If the content is good enough to make you go back I don't see any harm in it.

Saves me money buying a new pile of games if I can be happy playing the same one all the time.

 

[DragoonKain]

The main issue with your reasoning is that if you've beat the game and are happy then everything is fine.
Why do you take issue in the fact you haven't seen everything if you don't want to experience everything ?

That's the thing, replaying games don't usually offer new experiences. The experience for the most part is typically the same, you just get special things to "unlock" usually just from the simple fact you complete the game it will unlock something you can get in a section of the game. If the experience in itself was different I'd be fine playing it again. For example, on a second playthrough you explore entire new areas, get entire new characters. That would make it worth doing, because it wouldn't be redundant. But when it's like "Oh, play through the game again, but this time on a different difficulty, or this time choose this dialogue choice, but nothing really changes minus some minor story alterations where a character says something different to you 10 hours later" then I don't consider that worth it.

In was fine replaying RE2. Because it was short, because you go to new areas, the story changes based on the character, because you get new weapons, etc.

I only read the first page, but did the OP ever actually give any examples of what they're talking about? I agree that substantial, permanently-missable content is lame (e.g. Dragon's Dogma has a lot of sidequests that get locked out if you progress too far in the story without meeting certain conditions), but if it's just minor extra dialogue or bonus content that you can't see in one playthrough, I don't think it's a big deal. It gives you something extra if you do want to play the game again, but you're not really missing much if you don't.

I did, and some others I've thought of since are Tales of and Mass Effect.

 

[Whitesnake]

I'd actually argue the opposite. Devs are designing games without putting any thought into replayability.

Hour-long tutorials, "100+ hours of content", not letting the player use all of the fun mechanics until 15+ hours into the game, unskippable dialogue or story scenes, etc.

And then there's the issue of poorly-made difficulties/NG+'s. Devs need to understand that literally just tweaking the enemies to have higher health attack is not what difficulty is, and if I beat a game and see a NewGame+ notification and I find out it's literally just the same but with lazily tweaked stats or some obtuse uninteresting gimmick, I immediately think "yep, never playing this shit again".


One my favorite games series is Devil May Cry and those games are designed from the ground up to be replayed multiple times, they're rather short if you skip all the cutscenes, and all of the cutscenes are skippable. Each new difficulty you unlock has different enemy placements and all of the enemies have different attack patterns and speeds, meaning you can't just kill them the same ways you could previously. And the games always feel satisfying even when you just start the game have no items and few moves, and when you get those things it just makes the combat more satisfying, so if you start the game over again the prospect of progessing to rekindle that fuller move-set is a motivation rather than a discouragement.


Too few games are like that these days.
No, developer, I do not care about your unskippable exposition dump that is the length of a feature-film.
No, developer, I do not care about your tutorial that you seem to have made for the world's dumbest creatures.
No, developer, I do not agree with your idea that making the game boring and tedious at the beginning and forcing the player to earn the fun part counts as a "progression system".

Just shut up and let me get to the good part.

 

[10000]

I agreed with you, I hate missables

 

[Kagey K]

If devs are smart they will shift to the campaign + rewarding endgame content (especially in open worlds) vs start new game plus in a harder difficulty to get more rewards.

Instead of forcing people to replay what they just did, give satisfying modes and content to people who choose to keep playing the game past the main credits.

 

[Faenrir]

That's the thing, replaying games don't usually offer new experiences. The experience for the most part is typically the same, you just get special things to "unlock" usually just from the simple fact you complete the game it will unlock something you can get in a section of the game. If the experience in itself was different I'd be fine playing it again. For example, on a second playthrough you explore entire new areas, get entire new characters. That would make it worth doing, because it wouldn't be redundant. But when it's like "Oh, play through the game again, but this time on a different difficulty, or this time choose this dialogue choice, but nothing really changes minus some minor story alterations where a character says something different to you 10 hours later" then I don't consider that worth it.

In was fine replaying RE2. Because it was short, because you go to new areas, the story changes based on the character, because you get new weapons, etc.


I did, and some others I've thought of since are Tales of and Mass Effect.

But that's the point!! You made a choice and thus chose this story. Count that as your story. A choice only has impact if it means something...if you make a choice and can still access everything, it's not a choice.

 

[DGrayson]

best feeling is finishing a game and unistalling it with the quickness. No time to replay that shit.

 

[scalman]

Yes devs should do more more and more options for all kind of gamers so we could choose ourselfs how to play how to replay it if we want.

 

[Majukun]

there's nothing inherently wrong with that

 

[jufonuk]

Too many game devs are trying to shoehorn in grindy multi player with micro transactions or loot boxes ban this sick filth

 

[AV]

The worst is releasing "most" of a game and then finishing it off further down the line, even if it's free. I want to beat a game and move on, not keep track of which games I'm still "playing" 3 months after I start them.

If GTA VI really is going to be a dripfeed of content as rumoured then i'm out.

 

[HaveButOneLife]

Replayability is only a good thing, as you said.

The intent is to love that game so much that you play it again immediately after. If that's not possible, then they want to make it memorable enough so that you have the urge to replay it weeks or months later.

 

[Killer Sakoman]

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

Yes, I hate these long 50 hours games ( 20 hours traveling across the map, 20 hours of missions collecting items and hunting animals, 5 hours story, 5 hours pushing left stick walking with another character while they are talking).
Developers should go back to the 15-25 hours. They can go longer with RPG games of course.

 

[Reficul]

As long as they don't do some Ghost'n'Goblins type of shenanigans, I'm totally for the replay multiple times scheme.
If you're done with the game after one playthrough just uninstall and be done with it. If you want to find all the hidden stars/gems/treasures or want to see the "true" ending you can do it.
Its the gamers choice.
If you just want to see the "true" ending, just look it up on YouTube or something.

 

[ROMhack]

I took a defensive line earlier in this thread but part of me does sympathise with the OP's point now I've had time to think about it.

I've had to take a break from Death Stranding this week as I felt the bloat creep decreasing my enjoyment. I can't remember who mentioned it but there is an argument to make that developers are too concerned with value over vision. A lot decisions being made to pad out games and I'm not always convinced it makes for the best design. Second, it does indeed detract from replayability value.

I suspect if you were to ask developers like Hideo Kojima then they'd probably own up to the idea that they're making one and done experiences now, whereas earlier in their careers it would have been about replayability.

By a rule of thumb, if the main content of a game is over 10 hours then it's probably not got much replay value.

 

[Oddvintagechap]

I just finished Dreams. Im currently doing a second play through

 

[Melubas]

I'm totally in agreement with the OP here. I mean, when I was a pre-teen / teen I loved a replayable game since I could afford maybe two per year, but nowadays when I can afford to buy every game I want and my backlog thus contains almost 20 games I want the game to end when I reach the end. I have zero patience for wasting a players time with padded dialogue, shitty sidequests (that I always do anyway since I'm damaged from my younger years) or locking big chunks of content behind new playthroughs, It can, however, be done in a good way, and I have two examples: Nier Automata and Re2 Remake. Nier Automata is one playthrough, one very similar playthrough, then two almost completely new stories. Re2 Remake feels fresh the second time around, would have felt even fresher if they went with the design of the original.

 

[DrAspirino]

Hohoho.... OP is gonna love the Mass Effect saga then...

In all seriousness though, a VERY important part of a videogame is its replayability. If a videogame has poor replayability and/or doesn't offer anything new, then its not a very good game to begin with. This has been the norm since the inception of the media (Pong and Tetris being the prime example of replayability).

 

[SegaShack]

The best games to me to replay are ones that are short but fun/high quality:

Kirby's Dreamland
Streets of Rage
Sonic Genesis Series and Mania
Super Mario Bros 1-3 and World
Contra 1-4
Sin and Punishment

I don't like how people value having their time wasted to make 60 hour games. I value having such a great experience with a short game that I choose to play it again.

 

[EverydayBeast]

You save yourself on the second playthrough refining the experience.