"Replay value": the most overrated criticism against games

[shintoki]

It is a valid comment, because replay indicates a lot about the game's depth. You play God of War once, you played the entire game. You played DMC3 once, you probably didn't even open up all the skills to try, much less master. It takes about 2-3 playthroughs to unlock everything, more to be effective with it.

The two aren't always linked, but in many cases it does prove to be true. Titles I have the desire to replay are ones that don't allow you to really master them the first time through.

 

[Incendiary]

I never pay attention to "replay value." Most often times, I play through it once. If I like it, I go back and play through it again later. I don't replay it on harder difficulties just to get achievements or unlock new stuff. And honestly, who gives a shit if there is replay value in anything? All those DVDs I own, the movies don't change between viewings. Neither do the books I've read and reread just to experience the story again. If a game is good at its core, I'll play it again because it's enjoyable. I don't need added incentives to make me play it a second time.

I wouldn't mind more games with New Game+, though. I like being able to tear through a new game with all my abilities just to see how far I've come. But it's not necessary and won't affect my opinion of a game.

 

[Retro_]

$60 is a lot of cash for 4 hours.

This is something that bothers me :x

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

instead of judging the game itself


Kind of related to the topic

 

[NewFresh]

I feel replay value is only needed for some games. I do not have to experience something multiple times to enjoy it more.

 

[Grayman]

To me if a game is not fun to play repeatedly it is questionable if it is fun the first time. To me if it was not fun to play again it must have been some type of a lightly interactive movie.

I usually do rewatch my movies and replay my games though. I would consider "not going to play/watch/read/experience again" a very bad review on a work.

 

[Neki]

This is something that bothers me :x

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

instead of judging the game itself


Kind of related to the topic

because to most people, money is much more scarce than their time.

 

[gdt]

If I love a game, I'll replay it. I usually replay it before the sequel, or just when I feel like it.

When I finish a game, and I love it, I immediately know if I wanna play it again. It doesn't really have much to do with actual, or perceived, replayability.

 

[Kai Dracon]

The example of Red Dead Redemption is interesting in that, if one did want to replay it, there'd be a lot of meat there to make a replay interesting. Alternate ways of fighting enemies, finishing missions, hunting animals, and the order to perform missions in.

The trick I think, is that when it comes to longer games, what "replay value" actually means is that the game has rich content. It's not simply a scripted "monkey push button" corridor that makes a show of entertaining the player. You don't HAVE to ever replay a "replayable game" to greatly enjoy the benefits of it having that kind of content. Your first and only playthrough will feel richer because you know there's depth to it and the agency of the player actually makes a difference.

We really do have to bear in mind the different kinds of games too, with this subject. We still replay classic games, such as a 16-bit platformer, because those are essentially "arcade" games by today's standards. As such the enjoyment is in the activity itself, not just seeing the end credits or "finishing the story".

A good example of a rich "replayable" game genre today is the 3rd person brawler / action fighting game. Devil May Cry, Ninja Gaiden, etc. These games have long, meaty campaigns that would satisfy a person on one pass. They offer many difficulties and rewards for playing them again though. People who want that can benefit from it. People who don't still get to enjoy playing through a game that has rich mechanics and content. Enough that one could play through it again and feel refreshed.

I think some of the most disappointing, dull games I've played in the last generation or two have been games where the designers went into it aiming only to make a disposable, one-shot experience. IMHO that's a bad mentality. It encourages laziness in most kinds of games. You end up with a Heavy Rain - a game where the vaunted choices don't matter because there's only one real ending, one true killer, etc.

Edit:

Wanted to add that comparing games to movies, by saying "well, movies don't change when you watch them again, so games don't need replay value" is misinterpreting what the rich content of a good film is. A good film, one you want to watch over and over, has meat on its bones. There's something to enjoy, consider, analyze, think about, each time you see it. Good movies do have "replay value".

Think about it. How many films would you never care about seeing again? In fact, are turned off by the thought of watching again? Why's that? I'd bet odds are, that those films are a shallow, hollow experience.

 

[Madao]

replay value is the basis of speedrunning and getting my money's worth so i need my games to be very replayable.
games that i don't even play twice make me feel i wasted my money.

i will never undestand people who don't replay their games/rewatch their movies. i replay/rewatch them because i liked them. the ones i didn't like are the ones i never replay.

 

[Callo Merlose]

$60 is a lot of cash for 4 hours.

You pay more to skydive.

 

[Deleted member 81567]

This mentality directly links to the multiplayer component most devs implement nowadays. If the dev's resources are shifted to another category of the game other than length, and ultimately benefits it and makes it an overall better game then I honestly don't care about replay value.

Alan Wake for example. The game could've been longer but then the impact of the story would wear off and the gameplay would get more tedious than what it already is so its 7-8 hour singleplayer is completely satisfactory.

 

[luka]

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.

I came in here expecting to write a elaborate and likely messy dissertation, then I saw this post and realized it was unnecessary.

Games that revel in simply being games, and not glorified cinematic experiences, are always worth replaying many times by their mechanics and design alone - even if the experience is always the same. I've replayed games like Gradius Gaiden, FEAR, or Nights into dreams more times than I can count.

 

[Kai Dracon]

replay value is the basis of speedrunning and getting my money's worth so i need my games to be very replayable.
games that i don't even play twice make me feel i wasted my money.

i will never undestand people who don't replay their games/rewatch their movies. i replay/rewatch them because i liked them. the ones i didn't like are the ones i never replay.

A great game is built so that the player agency (such as represented by skill) has room to grow and expand. If speed running, for example, can be turned into a sport with a particular game, you know that game's fundamental design is good.

 

[Ra1den]

I hate this as well. And I'd extend it to game length as well. I'll take 6 extremely fun hours to 30 mildy fun hours any day.

But I have to say the absolute worst criticism is...

"It's not innovative"

As though it's not enough for a game to be GOOD, it has to INNOVATE, or else its getting chastised! Movies, books or whatever don't have this requirement. It's enough for a movie to just be well-made. Not for games though! ugh

 

[L00P]

Replay value varies from person to person, I think. I doesn't really matter to me, but it's nice to have a selection of games that I wouldn't mind going through again. The only time I consider a game a waste of money is when I never bothered to finish it and multiplayer games that are fun for like ten minutes.

 

[stuminus3]

I beat the original Portal in around 3 hours. Those 3 hours will stay with me forever. I've never bothered (nor felt the need) to replay it. I would however quite gladly pay $60 for another evening like the one I spent with Portal. OP speaks some truth here.

 

[kinoki]

I re-play all of my games. I also re-watch all of my movies dozen of times and re-read my books.

I'd like to add that my ideal for replayability differs somewhat from the "game journalist" view in that I thought Uncharted 1 had excellent re-playability. Finished it 4 times.

 

[Nocebo]

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

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

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

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

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

Ironically most of the games you mention here have tremendous replay value. lol And also most of them are indeed long fucking games.

I'm surprised, too, that you wouldn't want to replay Oblivion for instance since there's so many styles of play you can get into with that and there's so much content you're bound to have missed something.
I'm currently replaying Oblivion with my recently bought Shivering isles copy. I had never joined the thieves guild nor the dark brotherhood. Heck I never even touched the main quest before (not even sure I'm going to with this character), at any rate there's a ton of content I haven't experienced yet (not even counting Shivering isles). It would be a shame not to replay.

I do think that "replay value" is probably misused and can not actually be quantified beyond a basic level anyway. I mean noone would say Phoenix Wright: Ace Attorney has replay value looking at its features. The story is linear and once you solve all the cases, what's there to "play" a second time? I've replayed these games countless of times, though.

 

[Koyuga]

I usually only play a game once if I don't like it all that much. I replay most of the games I like, so added extras like new game+ are a pretty nice bonus.

 

[zoukka]

Replay value is good for the poor folk. Games as a medium can offer tremendous amounts of content and replayability.

Not all games have to be like that, and yes all homogenization from journalists end is bad.

 

[JohngPR]

If it's a series I really enjoy, I usually replay the last game of that series leading up to the release of a new game.

 

[shaowebb]

Replay value is code for "multiplayer" in gaming journalism. If it doesn't have a deathmatch you versus your bros then they automatically use this replay value line to get away with taking a shit on your score.

Not every game needs a multiplayer, but gaming journalist are either bought by exclusive rights to early review copies & footage or they are just bro gamers so you can't really trust what they say in most instances due to the strength of their bias and motivations.

 

[Cousteau]

People pay $20 for a 8 second blowjob.

No replay value there either.

Moral - Money well spent is in the eye of the hooker.

 

[NullPointer]

Give me a meaty singleplayer campaign thats good for one or maybe two playthroughs, or give me something shorter that is fun and rewarding to replay many times over. Don't give me something short with no replay value - not at anywhere near full price at any rate. My $60 doesn't come that cheaply, and yeah, I expect a good many hours of entertainment from my gaming dollar.

And no, multiplayer does not count for replayability. By its nature multiplayer HAS to be replayable or else its a failure by design. What we've seen recently is a move towards shorter, more linear campaigns buttressed with multiplayer modes (that most never wanted or comprise the only positive aspects of the game) that rely upon a map pack DLC model to thrive. Its lazy, superficial, and greedy. These games are also not built to last, with support stopping the moment the next annual release ships.

This is why I'm for splitting single player and multiplayer into separate retail packages. That way instead of getting a half assed linear campaign with a multiplayer suite with only a handful of levels, we could maybe get the better parts of both, or else the dev could focus on one aspect of the game and make it feature rich.

Of course there are still some developers out there who provide you with both, but they get rarer by the day.

 

[Unicorn]

I've been facing this dilemma a lot lately. the "disposable-ness" of games. A great movie I'm able to re-view again and again to better pick out the tiny details that make it so great. There's only a handful of games I feel that same feeling towards. Shadow of the Colossus is the main one. Each time I play it, I find another metaphorical representation that further deepens the core of the game. I don't think every game needs that, otherwise it'd be worthless, but just like my movie collection my game collection is gradually decreasing as I only want games that have a further layer of "depth" to them.

 

[Bgamer90]

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.

I personally don't go back to play single player games once I beat them no matter how good they are unless they are older platforming games. It's just, I know what the story is about, I know what's going to happen, etc. It's just pointless to me. It's the same reason why I will rarely watch the same movie more than maybe 2-3 times.

By replayability in the other genres I don't just mean online modes. I also mean offline modes that are different from the "main" (usually offline) mode and/or the other modes in the game.

So while I get what you are saying and somewhat agree, I feel that the genres I mentioned below in the first post I made in this thread have to rely on having replayability more since they usually don't have deep immersive stories.

Plus the fact that most of the heavy focused single player games that I get now are ones that last 15+ hours somewhat influence the fact that I feel that single player games don't need much replay value (One that fits the mold that only lasts say 5-6 hours definitely needs replay value though).

 

[Monocle]

The OP may have a point about games like Heavy Rain that are made to provide a single memorable playthrough. I played Okami just once and it's one of my three favorite games of all time, even though its length and somewhat repetitive boss battles diminish its replayability. I think he overlooks a common feature of good games, though. With well designed gameplay tends to come replay value.

Take Bayonetta. Its story is a plodding tangled thing that only barely manages to justify your tour through Europe to heavenly realms and on to outer space, its art style is eccentric and probably repels twice as many players as it entices, and it has some other minor oddities that make it less accessible than it might have been, yet the game is endlessly replayable because its core mechanics, namely those that govern combat, are so deep and versatile that they stay rewarding long after you've seen all there is to see. You want to play your favorite levels over and over again not chase a glimmer of lost novelty but to dip into a bottomless well of combat possibilities and feel the low simmer of anticipation grow into a roaring boil when you bust out a stylish combo. When you know you're guaranteed to do something cool when you strap on your ass kicking boots and start freestyling, playing becomes its own reward. The unlockables and bonus content are just carrots on a stick to keep you motivated while you find your feet, and the length of individual levels or the full campaign becomes a nonissue.

Now take God of War, a game that gives the player a strong incentive to keep playing—that is, until you watch the end credits scroll for the first time. Then you look at the disk case and ask yourself, "Do I really want to plod through all those puzzles again just to see the same set pieces? How many times am I willing to kill the same boss with the same QTE?" God of War is one of those cinematic games in which every last pixel is tuned to deliver a relentless barrage of grand imagery and intense action, each salvo more spectacular than the one before. This type of game relies for its effect on the player's innocence. Experience dulls its edge. There's no way to rewind time and be newly surprised by the scale of the next environment, no way to fully relive your first glimpse of Pandora's Temple, the vast structure itself dwarfed by its titanic perch. This may not be a problem for you if money's not a concern or you have a short attention span, but if you're like me, each game you purchase and intend to keep needs to stay entertaining for longer than a weekend movie marathon. Since it's not practical to expect all games to be as long as quadruple-disk RPGs, replay value is the main quality you look for.

God of War is good, but that's due not to the excellence of its components but the full synthesis of combat, puzzle solving, platforming, and storytelling, heavily seasoned with novelty. If it had stayed good for longer, it would have been better, and for that to have been the case its combat would have had to be deeper, and its campaign better paced, and its difficulty more consistent. In short, if God of War had been better designed, replayability would have followed as a matter of course. While this might not apply to all games or all genres, I think it holds as a general rule for most games with poor replay value.

 

[Yurt]

It depends on the genre isn't ? WRPGs naturally have a higher replay value than other RPGs for example. Adventure and Puzzle games tend to be very low, unless you love collecting meaningless stuff I guess.

Moral - Money well spent is in the eye of the hooker

Not cool, never go for the eyes man. It BURNS.

 

[NullPointer]

This type of game relies for its effect on the player's innocence. Experience dulls its edge. There's no way to rewind time and be newly surprised by the scale of the next environment, no way to fully relive your first glimpse of Pandora's Temple, the vast structure itself dwarfed by its titanic perch. This may not be a problem for you if money's not a concern or you have a short attention span, but if you're like me, each game you purchase and intend to keep needs to stay entertaining for longer than a weekend movie marathon. Since it's not practical to expect all games to be as long as quadruple-disk RPGs, replay value is the main quality you look for.

Great post monocle, especially the quoted part.

This is especially a problem for shooters with lackluster AI. You always know exactly where the enemies will be each time you play, so while you may use discipline and tactics on the first playthrough, there is no reason for it on subsequent runs. There is no need to, and no advantage.

And why improve AI for more dynamic experiences when you put the focus on multiplayer and when you desire the game to become obsolete in time for the sequel?

Another poster put it just right. These are disposable games.

 

[Olorin]

If a game is good, I'll replay it at some point. Except for games that truly don't have any replay value. I tried replaying Zack & Wiki for instance, but I still remembered most of the puzzle solutions, and since the whole game is about solving those puzzles, it just wasn't fun anymore. But other than that, even 40+ hour games are perfectly replayable.

And then there's Civilization... I must have played through that over 100 times.

 

[CecilRousso]

If it´s a really tight story focused adventure/rpg game that´s about 10-15h long, then replay value doesn´t matter.

If it´s longer, it does. Very much so.

And replay value will always be a plus in games. It means it adds variation and depth to game. A game with replay value > a game without, in 9/10 cases.

 

[Shadow of the BEAST]

where i live games are so cheap so i dont see the point of replaying them.

There is always another game i can play for the price of a dvd movie.

 

[Net_Wrecker]

The only way I'd agree with the OP is if all games were priced, REALISTICALLY, on the amount of content they contain with a $60 maximum. As it is now, 99% of retail console games are $60 day one, so I will respond accordingly.

Replay value is a MASSIVE selling point to me. Whether that means sheer content that will keep me playing a 30+ hour experience, or content that will keep me REPLAYING a shorter experience for just as long. I WILL NOT pay full retail price on a 6 hour experience with no incentive to go back in other than "Hey, that was a good time, let me start over." Not with other games in the same genre that have shown me how much content I can have, or how to make me want to start a new campaign. I WOULD however buy that same great 6 hour game with no replay value for $20-$30.

Now an amazing 6 hour experience with tons of post-game content that will keep me coming back 3 to 4 times the length of the initial campaign is a different story. I will gladly pay $60 for that. If the game is made to support replayability with skippable cutscenes, post game unlocks, different ways of playing a 2nd/3rd/4th time around, etc. etc., you can successfully add hours to your game without padding it out.

That all applies for singleplayer games though.

Multiplayer centric games on the other hand are a bit different. I don't NEED a multiplayer centric title to have a super repayable campaign, I just need it to be high quality and at least 10-12 hours long. If the multiplayer portion is of equal quality, the game can give you a TON of value for the asking price.

It's a simple concept really. Either make your singleplayer games meaty, have a lot of content for replaying, or make it a shorter "one time experience" and PRICE IT ACCORDINGLY.

 

[scar tissue]

Replay value is important for anything under 15 hours for the campaign.
complaining that gta or rdr has no replay value (which is true) is stupid, because just one playthrough is longer than two or three other games

 

[Margalis]

The problem with "replay value" in reviews is that it generally doesn't actually mean replay value.

There are a lots of games that are too boring to finish once that get praised for replay value. Then there are games with fun mechanics that are great to replay over and over that get knocked for a lack of replay value.

I always find it funny when reviewers who quit halfway through GTAIV praise it for replay value.

I've replayed Castlevania IV about 15 times.

 

[Raide]

Most of the games I buy have some content or feature that keeps me playing. I really dislike spending money on a game I will finish once and then leave on the shelf.

 

[damn that's nice]

How nice of you to make up opinions to be angry at.

No one is bitching about lack of replay value in long games. And they most certainly aren't saying "It's great but there's no replay value so it sucks" about anything.

Can we lock this thread now?

what the fuck are you talking about lack of replay value is one of the most common complaints in reviews

 

[Foliorum Viridum]

I barely ever replay games. If I do, it's years and years after I finished them originally.

I don't consider it an important factor at all. The games that do have replay factor are nice, but it doesn't make them better than the ones that don't.

 

[MesserWolf]

I agree and given the statistics that most of players don't even finish the first play-through, I would say that it's really few people that play the same game more than once...

People that play the same games 2-3-4-5-x times, sometimes just for some stupid trophy, just have too much free time to waste in my opinion .

Of course there are exceptions.... it also depends on the type of game (strategic games for example)

 

[Data West]

Buh.. People who criticize replayability in games don't do that for open world games. It's generally related to linear games.

 

[Amir0x]

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

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

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

Most people that I know of take into account game length when discussing replay value. A game, for example, does not necessarily need replay value if it's 30 hours long.

It DOES need replay value if it's 8 hours long, costs $60 bucks and there's nothing to do when you beat it once in single player mode.

So your Red Dead Redemption argument is flawed, not to mention that it got great reviews across the board so I don't see anyone complaining about its replay value. Because it DOES have replay value: a good multiplayer mode.

In fact, most of your examples don't apply because they all have GREAT replay value. Even Mirror's Edge, which has been seen traditionally as a "short" game, is only done so because people are retards and don't understand the real game is in the time trials.

 

[Myriadis]

I like to replay most of my games.Not immidately after I finished it,but after one or more years.I just like it to begin the story anew and notice what I didn't get or noticed at my first playthrough.Or sometimes I don't use some features,items or moves until late in the first run-sometimes I don't know that these even existed.Therefore I use them on my second run and it really can change the way I play through it.
But to be honest,I never played a extemely linear corridor shooter or something similar.I think the only games that I know won't replay are +50 hours RPGs due to the lack of time,but even then I replayed Final Fantasy XII (because it is my favorite RPG after all),Paper Mario TTYD and,similar to that,Twilight Princess.
So,I don't care if anyone says that a game doesn't have replay value,because I often replay games anyway.

 

[Joseph Merrick]

I'm more likely to replay short games with excellent pacing than games that feel artificially lengthened.

yep. replay value to me isn't actually 'a ton of content' or worthless extra modes or tacked on multiplayer garbage, it's whether or not the game is even worth playing for the duration of its linear playthrough in the first place.

it's really really excellent game mechanics that will have me playing a game forever, not idiotic extraneous features. good examples are super mario bros 1 or quake 1-- I've probably played through those more than 50 times each.

or even the car driving in gta4. I fucking hate the story and single player of gta4 with it's almost unlimited amount of identical garbage missions, it's the definition of a padded single player, and I played the multi all of one time and found it worthless, but the car driving mechanics alone have had me playing that game for.. I have no idea, an extremely long time. it's the only reason I have reinstalled the game on new windows versions and still keep it on my gamesinstall hdd to this day.

 

[DigitalDevil]

The only games I have every beat more than once are ape escape, ffvii, and demons souls

 

[RooMHM]

Ironically most of the games you mention here have tremendous replay value. lol And also most of them are indeed long fucking games.

Yeah, WTF OP? The games you mentioned are those with the most replayability maybe. GTA-likes are replayable because you can mess around and do side missions etc...

 

[manzo]

Had to replay games back when I was a kid. Got about 4 games per year, so those 4 games had to have good replay value.

Now that games are cheap (hooray UK market plummets) and I have a steady income, there is no need to replay games.

 

[DigitalDevil]

Oh and nier

 

[NIN90]

I would have enjoyed Vanquish much more if it had the same amount of replay value that Bayonetta had.
That said, I have only played through Vanquish once and then shelved it.

 

[jump_button]

good games should be for life

replayed Zelda's and FF 7,8,9 god know how much

 

[V_Arnold]

Replay value is important in certain kind of games, that is it. If you do not care, be happy that the reviewer thought the biggest flaw is the lack of replay value. That means that you should intelligently realize that the pointed flaw does not affect you, and therefore, in your eyes it is a flawLESS product. Right?