brunoafh wrote:Yeah, I don't buy the replay value is a buzz word thing... I mean I understand that technically ANY game you're willing to replay over and over again can provide replay value, but I believe there are definitely games that offer far more replay value than others.
It's like "high-definition graphics" or "realistic gameplay" or "compelling storyline", just another phrase that doesn't really say much but is tossed around like the gospel, as if it were a sin equa non part of a good game.
Gamerforlife wrote:Interesting that you say that. I feel like learderboards and online multi-player are buzz words as well.
Oh, yes! You can see reviews made of nothing but buzz words, which proves how many of them we have in game reviewing.
Last edited by Erik_Twice on Tue Feb 21, 2012 3:26 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Looking for a cool game? Find it in my blog! Latest post: Often, games must be difficult http://eriktwice.com/
General_Norris wrote:It's like "high-definition graphics" or "realistic gameplay" or "compelling storyline", just another phrase that doesn't really say much but is tossed around like the gospel, as if it were a sin equa non part of a good game.
Gamerforlife wrote:Interesting that you say that. I feel like learderboards and online multi-player are buzz words as well.
Oh, yes! You can see reviews made of nothing but buzz words, which proves how many of them we have in game reviewing.
While I don't disagree (in fact, I was originally posting to say the same thing you clarified with), I think it's also important to note that it's marketing. The back of the box bullet point "features" of a game are trying to sell it. Not every good game needs HD graphics, motion controls, open world gameplay, or FMV cutscenes with Mark Hamill, but if those are selling points for the game in question, they'll be on the box. You're not going to see a game hawking "scripted, linear gameplay" any more than you'll see an SUV ad with "handles like a pig, terrible fuel economy".
Also, while I can't say buzzwords don't get annoying sometimes, they're a natural extension of semi-specialized group communication. Most any group has them. It -is- annoying when a "review" reads more like 90% press release/product description, but that's not really a gaming-specific thing either.
isiolia wrote:While I don't disagree (in fact, I was originally posting to say the same thing you clarified with), I think it's also important to note that it's marketing. The back of the box bullet point "features" of a game are trying to sell it.
50 items! 100 enemies!
Blizzard Entertainment Software Developer - All comments and views are my own and not representative of the company.
Leaderboards are stupid unless you can get leaderboards that are specific to your online 'friends'. When it's a leaderboard for the entire world, all the top spots are often held by people that obviously had to cheat because their times are literally impossible to achieve (your best lap time in a racing game is not 3 seconds, I don't care how good you are).
Like in Jamestown, for example, I don't have a shot in hell at ever competing on the global leaderboards, but I can look at how my Steam friends did in relation to me and try to beat them. Like, right now I have a higher score than dsheinem, yoshiegg, Niode, Mozgus, and simplehumar on all levels of Jamestown, except on Croatoa where dsh has me beat.
General_Norris wrote:It's like "high-definition graphics" or "realistic gameplay" or "compelling storyline", just another phrase that doesn't really say much but is tossed around like the gospel, as if it were a sin equa non part of a good game.
If the game has HD graphics or a lot of replay value, and those are features of the game that interest you, then it doesn't matter whether or not they're considered "buzz words". They describe features of the game.
I'm more inclined to call stuff like "X-TRME ACTION" or "MIND BLOWING GAMEPLAY" buzz word marketing than things that legitimately describe aspects of the game.
isiolia wrote:It -is- annoying when a "review" reads more like 90% press release/product description, but that's not really a gaming-specific thing either.
That's another one of my pet peeves. You read five paragraphs just telling you stuff that's already been in every preview article, trailer or can be found on the back of the box. Then you get maybe two paragraphs that feel like an actual review. Sometimes you'll see cons mentioned at the end of a review that were never really covered in the review itself or you'll see a score that doesn't match up at all with what you've read
RyaNtheSlayA wrote: Seriously. Screw you Shao Kahn I'm gonna play Animal Crossing.
It's not as important to me as a games depth or length, both of which are completely different.
Not that I don't love me a game with good replay value. I think I've speed-ran Metroid Zero Mission about 20 times now, experimenting with different routes and boundaries.
I am gonna say i like most of my games with replay value be it unlockable goals or just something i can play with my buddies cause we enjoy it like goldeneye i will admit i have a few games i have beat that i will most likely never play again but they earned a spot in my collection cause they were the first games i ever beat
There is definitely a huge difference between that advertised "replay value, new game plus, over 100 hours!" gimmic and a game that actually has replay value.
Sure, if you liked the game enough, you might replay it at a different difficulty or a 2nd playthrough to get more endings, but to me that is not replay value, that is just a game with a lot of content.
However, when you take score-based gaming into account, there really is a different kind of replay value. As an example, I have already cleared Shmup A. I could then attempt to make a clear of this game on one credit, which would keep my score intact throughout the game. This would take much more effort, and would bring more satisfaction, while still not making any changes to the core game. If I can manage to clear this game on one credit, then I can call it quits, or I can try to improve on my score. Most likely, there is score than can be gained in each level, which may adjust the rank and make the game slightly more difficult, but still, I am playing the same core game.
Sure, this also requies the player to WANT to keep playing, but to me this is a true replay value. The game might be 30 minutes long, but I could try as hard as possible to get as high a score as possible, and it would take me years. However, there is still no gimmicky "New Game Plus" or "30 hour long endgame dungeon", just that same game that you thought you understood when you first cleared it using 6 or 7 credits.
