"Replay value": the most overrated criticism against games

[etiolate]

I think the only complaint I would have about people discussing a game's value in regards to its replay value is how much they tie replay value to simply having a multiplayer. A really well made single player game will get replayed, more so than a game with a half-assed multiplayer thrown in. One of the things I'm not a fan of is unfinished features thrown in and the insta-points they get from the press.

 

[Slamtastic]

inFamous, Good and Evil+Hard mode playthroughs, and watching Scott Pilgrim VS the World 3 times are the only cases of viewing anything more than once for me.

Even if it's been years, and I've forgotten everything about it, just knowing that I've played/watched it before kills my enjoyment when playing/watching it again, so I stop.

 

[Conciliator]

Replay value is important, but I don't really think of a lack of it as making a game 'bad'. That just helps determine if should be one of very rare games that I buy at full price(Fallout: New Vegas), or a game that I should get off Gamefly or think about buying later(Portal 2, Mirror's Edge). I also want to try to speak for everyone to clarify something, so correct me if you disagree: 'Replay value' doesn't literally your likelihood or replaying the game from scratch, but is rather just a measure of how many hours of entertainment you expect to get from it. Read Dead Redemption has good replay value, because it's pretty long and relatively lean. Oblivion potentially has great replay value, cause there's a shit ton of content there.

If I had $Infinity, replay value would be of no concern to me at all. As long as I make less that, a video game purchase is, at least to some degree, a judgement of value.

 

[a Master Ninja]

For a game that mainly focuses on it's single player mode, I don't think it needs much replay value.

For games such as shooters, racers, fighters, or sports games, they definitely need a good number of modes to add on to replay value.

I believe the exact opposite is true, assuming you want to charge $50-$60 for your game.

Multiplayer games have inherently great replay value because of the unpredictability of human opponents and teammates. DotA is one map and a game like CounterStrike could have gotten away with literally being just de_dust.

6-10 hour singleplayer game with no incentive for replay means rentals or quick trade-ins for most.

 

[Fjordson]

I've yet to play any linear game with any replay value, it's a non-issue for me. I always buy with the assumption it's a single play thru situation. That's not to say I've never replayed a game, I have, but it's never been because of any inherent design intended to encourage replaying.

This is pretty much how I feel. It's so, so incredibly rare that I play through a single-player game more than once. Even ones where the game can change dramatically based on certain choices and whatnot.

Funny the OP mentions Red Dead Redemption. That's the one game that I've come awfully close to replaying in like the last 5-6 years.

But other than that, I couldn't be bothered. Even if a game is amazing.

 

[Callibretto]

How about game like god of war 3 and uncharted 1 ? Personally, I'm a bit disappointed with gow3 lack of unlockables, but I already replay it 3 times because I enjoy the game that much. Platinum trophy is just a bonus.

 

[Slamtastic]

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.

 

[Parch]

I always say that I intend to play a game again but never do. I have enough incompleted backlog from this and last gen that replayability is not a factor for me.

 

[Tawpgun]

Replay value doesn't pertain to games with like 20+ hour campaigns. It's all about getting your money's worth.

A >10 hour campaign with no replay value at $60 is a terrible value no matter how good it is.

I think all single player, shorter games need to be at most $40. I might want to buy them then. The only thing I fear is that people will start tacking on multiplayer just so it will be $60.

 

[Derrick01]

I need some replay value otherwise a game like Uncharted 2 just gets shelved for months until the familiarity wears off. I don't forget the story or anything but I likely forget some gameplay moments, or the mechanics just don't feel as old.

My problem is when there's too much replay value to the point where it hurts the first playthrough. Witcher 2 is a perfect example here. Having a completely different chapter 2 is nice, but the game just abruptly ends in chapter 3 which really tarnishes what was a fantastic experience from start to that point.

I would have preferred if they took that extra chapter and put it in the main game which would have extended it by 10 hours at least. Of course they'd have to redo the chapter to something new so the story doesn't get all weird, but if we're going back in time to fix a mistake then it theoretically wouldn't be "done" yet.

 

[Shadow780]

I don't care about replay values, as long as the experience is amazing no matter how short it is.

 

[Phaethon0017]

You know, it's difficult.

A) There have been times when I've rated games high because they had an amazing first play through, but I didn't want to touch them again. (LA Noire)

B) Then there are games I've replayed a few times that never reached the pinnacle of the amazing first play through, but were just fun games to play for longer. (Infamous 2)

C) Then there's games that are great overall, and provide reasons to stick around if only just because I might have missed something. (Portal 2).

I'm not sure which is better. Better experience for less hours or more enjoyable for more hours. I'm just not sure. It's a trade off. One of the most interesting points of this industry.

 

[ElFly]

Let's limit ourselves to singleplayer games. Obviously replay value is increased and important in multiplayer centric games.

I think that, even if you were to play each game once (as I grow older, I find less and less time to play games), it's better when games have the depth necessary to have replay value. It shows when you can raise your character in different builds in a RPG, instead of just leveling to the max level your predetermined class. A gamer will really notice the difference, between, say, the crystal system from FFXIII, and the class system of Tactics.

The Tactics system is more enjoyable, even if you play the game only once. It's because it has that depth that we sometimes call "replay value".

So, no, replay value is really important, even today.

 

[Neki]

I don't care about replay values, as long as the experience is amazing no matter how short it is.

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

 

[Slamtastic]

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

something something hooker something something

Serious: I suppose, if he enjoyed that hour enough, sure.

It's a personal decision to make, balancing price and enjoyment. And it's subjective in the latter.

Also quantity/quality and such.

 

[Uchip]

so many games to play
I dont want to be replaying the same one

 

[Foxtastical]

I hate the idea of replay value as some sort of standard of video game criticism. It's retarded (as a standard). Sometimes length and replayability might matter and other times those feelings might be opposite. Game criticism is so ridiculously subjective when it comes to what we expect, desire and demand from games.

And even if I did, I'd still go with the idea of quality over quantity.

 

[Unknown One]

I don't care about replay values, as long as the experience is amazing no matter how short it is.

That's how I think of it. I replayed the Uncharted series so many times despite how short it was and I still replay it after I got everything.

 

[kunonabi]

My issue with "replay value" is that I use a much different definition.

I don't consider grinding, tacked on multiplayer, or collecting a hundred dead pigeons to be replay value. When I think I think of replay value I think of how likely I am to play a game again because of how fun it is to just play. I've beaten FFIV well over 50 times because the game is just fun to play. I would constantly pop in Shadows of the Empire to play the Hoth stage or the skyhook stage just to do daredevil stunts or playing with the cinematic camera. I played the older RE games several times just to shave a few minutes off a speed run or to do knife runs. I played Eyeshield 21 on the ps2 everyday for hours for like 3 years straight because I liked trying new card setups or to breakdown the mechanics and do theory fighter. I'll pop in No More Heroes because I just want to play the bosses again. Replay value has never been a series of bullet points or achievements to me. If a game is really awesome I'll play it again because it was too much damn fun. This is part of why I hate modern games. Everything is about being cinematic, and being immersive, and proving that games are art. Certain genres certainly benefit from these things but some times I just feel like popping in Elevator Action Returns and kicking some ass.

 

[Seraphis Cain]

I go with the $1 per hour cost to playtime ratio scale when buying games.

If a game isn't going to last me 60 hours, or at the very least 50 (and only if it's something I really want to play), I don't buy it for full price.

If I'm only going to get 5-6 hours of playtime out of a game, I either rent it or wait until it's obscenely cheap before buying. Gamefly helps in those cases as well.

 

[Christine]

My opinion is that if a film, book, or game isn't worth experiencing a second time, it wasn't worth it the first time.

 

[(._.)]

Personally, I'm glad many of the games coming out these days don't have replay value (crap games).

 

[Conciliator]

Sure, if there were a video game that could resolve in clear terms all my ambivalence about every philosophical, political, scientific, epistemological and ethical issue, I would pay $60 for that. Hell, I'd pay $65. Throw that Blizzard $5 on top.

 

[Drkirby]

Replay value is only really useful when talking about Multiplayer games.

Though a game with great replay value is, well, great. But it tends to be shorter games, like Platformers, that Replay Value comes into play. I can play Mega Man and Kirby Games tons of times over and not get board.

 

[Shadow780]

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

Sure, I have no problem paying 60 dollars for something like Flower, which was an amazing experience. I never played again but it stood out from so many other 60 dollar full retail games.

 

[Conciliator]

Sorry that was meant to be 'in one hour' on my last post.

 

[tiff]

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

I wouldn't pay $60 for most games.

 

[Aeana]

I didn't know that people actually rated criticisms.

 

[Uchip]

My issue with "replay value" is that I use a much different definition.

I don't consider grinding, tacked on multiplayer, or collecting a hundred dead pigeons to be replay value. When I think I think of replay value I think of how likely I am to play a game again because of how fun it is to just play. I've beaten FFIV well over 50 times because the game is just fun to play. I would constantly pop in Shadows of the Empire to play the Hoth stage or the skyhook stage just to do daredevil stunts or playing with the cinematic camera. I played the older RE games several times just to shave a few minutes off a speed run or to do knife runs. I played Eyeshield 21 on the ps2 everyday for hours for like 3 years straight because I liked trying new card setups or to breakdown the mechanics and do theory fighter. I'll pop in No More Heroes because I just want to play the bosses again. Replay value has never been a series of bullet points or achievements to me. If a game is really awesome I'll play it again because it was too much damn fun. This is part of why I hate modern games. Everything is about being cinematic, and being immersive, and proving that games are art. Certain genres certainly benefit from these things but some times I just feel like popping in Elevator Action Returns and kicking some ass.

what the fucking shit?
and i thought my beating OoT 16 times was excessive

 

[gokieks]

Any game that is actually good will have intrinsic future replay value down the road when the player no longer remembers the experience (or at least not clearly).

As for short term replay value... I agree with those who only care if there are any, only if the game was good. Ico, for example, has effectively no replay value, is quite short, yet is my most beloved game in well over a decade.

 

[Mr Killemgood]

I think replay value and value proposition get merged together, when the latter is vastly more important than the former.

It doesn't matter if you go through a game once, twice, or a million times. It matters if the price was worth what you got out of the game. Generally, adding more content to the experience either via open world or multiplayer is a good way of achieving it. Without it, the game usually falls on its face and sells horribly, as used copies flood the market. Its why one could argue a strong correlation between sales data and the prevalence of used copies of a given game. You rarely see a glut of game copies for titles that sell over 5 million units, but the game that only sold 1 million copies that had no reason to keep floods the market, as there is no additional experience(s) to keep ownership of the title.

 

[MrOogieBoogie]

I didn't know that people actually rated criticisms.

This is GAF. Anything goes.

Anything.

 

[bloodforge]

Replay value means very little to me, I rarely replay games.

The value of a game to me is whether or not I enjoyed my time with it, even if it is a short game.

 

[okenny]

Never in your entire gaming existence?

I bet you he replayed Solitare

 

[Fewr]

there are too many games out there to play to waste time on playing one twice. no matter how long.

I'd rather play a good game twice, than 5 different terrible games in a row. That is why I bought Link's Awakening for 3DS.

 

[Tain]

I can play something well-designed over and over with the same exact parameters and enjoy it.

There's merit to hour counting in the sense that if I get five hours out of a game and wouldn't be able to stomach a replay, it's probably not a very good game. Maybe some elements are compelling enough to see to the end, but it's certainly nothing great if I'm bored the second way through.

 

[Anduron]

My opinion is that if a film, book, or game isn't worth experiencing a second time, it wasn't worth it the first time.

Pretty much this.

 

[Slamtastic]

My opinion is that if a film, book, or game isn't worth experiencing a second time, it wasn't worth it the first time.

2=1?

 

[kittens]

Replay value is one of the most important aspects of a game to me. I buy about four to six games a year, and I want them to offer depth and hold my attention.

 

[tokkun]

there are too many games out there to play to waste time on playing one twice. no matter how long.

I play games to have fun, not because I need to tick off a checklist. If a game is still fun to replay, then I will do so.

what the fucking shit?
and i thought my beating OoT 16 times was excessive

I'm sure I've beaten Twisted Metal 2 well over 100 times. When that game came out my best friend and I would beat it in co-op 2 or 3 times a day for like 6 months.

 

[Cousteau]

foREPLAY value much more important.

 

[greyshark]

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.

Pretty much this.

 

[okenny]

I didn't know that people actually rated criticisms.

If it hurts your feelings then it should get a low score though I think people sometimes don't criticize enough to get higher scores. People try to pull ahead of the pack to get attention too. I actually think there's a generally acceptable amount of hurt people can take and if you skew to far outside of that area of correctness then you should get rated poorly. It's sometimes hard to figure out where the moral normalcy ground really is when to many individual opinions are out there. I think a Redit-style Karma system applied to all critical though on the internet would be a good way to make sure people with unacceptable criticisms are properly dealt with and people who can fall in line with the popular thought are rewarded.

 

[flyinpiranha]

Never in your entire gaming existence?

Not completely through. I've gone back to play levels or bosses or maybe some multiplayer. But I honestly can't think of a game since Colecovision to my HD 6870 that I've beaten completely from start to finish twice. Maybe SMB3 if you count all the warp worlds.

 

[Christine]

2=1?

Entertainment=Integer Theory?

 

[Callibretto]

I go with the $1 per hour cost to playtime ratio scale when buying games.

If a game isn't going to last me 60 hours, or at the very least 50 (and only if it's something I really want to play), I don't buy it for full price.

If I'm only going to get 5-6 hours of playtime out of a game, I either rent it or wait until it's obscenely cheap before buying. Gamefly helps in those cases as well.

I also try to see it with dollar per value, but I'm not expecting $1 for 1 hour, that's ridiculous unless I only play rpg or online games. I usually compare it to movies. $10 for 2 hour of entertainment, so I expect 12 hour or more for my 60 dollars, and if a game is really good like uncharted2 and gow3 where I played it multiple times, than it's worth the $60 I spent

 

[Dr. Kitty Muffins]

I used to replay games as a kid but now. I buy far too many games to replay them.

 

[Riposte]

I can see how it is overrated, but only really when you consider game length too. They are kind of interchangeable(you'd have to combine them to calculate the ultimate game length). I mean these things matter if you consider pricing, but price rarely ever matters to me(and matters much less to everyone 6+ months after release).

I will say this, if game makes me replay it because of the mechanics(scoring helps, so does a lack of credit feeding), then that is a good fucking game. Arcade games and relatively modern games like Bayonetta, Ninja Gaiden, Godhand, and Vanquish can make me do this.

Adding more content to the game is cool too. Like alternate modes, challenges, or mechanics, but ultimately, what matters most are how well designed the mechanics are. A lot of times extra content is just boring as hell. Like Collect-a-thons or checking boxes through grinding. (e.g. Assassin's Creed, Batman Arkham Asylum)

On the other hand some games are simply designed to be played once and are enjoyable romps for that. (e.g. Ghost Trick/puzzle games, Uncharted/cinematic games) I will say that I usually consider "cinematic" games inferior almost always. (at least some of them have the benefit of being multiplayer-inclusive.)


EDIT: I bet this post is a mess, but fuck it, I am going to sleep.

 

[AwShucks]

I've probably only replayed 10-15 games in my life. And those are definitely my favorite games.

So yeah, I don't care about "replay" value, unless the game is like Child of Eden where it's super short and replay value is something you NEED.

 

[MegaKungFuRadio]

The only games I've replayed this gen have been:

Mass Effect - 6 times
Mass Effect 2 - 3 times
Fallout 3 - 3 times
Valkyria Chronicles - 2 times

I wanted to NG+ Tales of Vesperia, but I didn't get enough points to buy enough perks to want to go through the game again. Now I don't even have the game anymore.

I don't pick up a game anticipating I'll go through it again because it's almost never worth the time unless you enjoyed the game so much you want to play it again. I played Infamous once and it was enough. Same with Heavy Rain and Oblivion. In those cases, the games weren't good enough for me to want to explore the game anymore. Achievements/additional difficulty don't even register as "replay value" to me.