racketboy.com

I tend to care about it more when a game is short. If I pay $60 for a game, and it's short with no replay value, I'll be pretty miffed. If there's a good amount of replay value, I'll be okay with it.

Replay value is one of those buzz-words of the industry that doesn't really make much sense. Some games are designed to be played once, others can be played hundreds of times over and over and others are based around getting a better score.

Monkey Island and Portal have little replay value and I doubt anyone would argue that they are bad games.


Personally, I don't care much.

Surely I can play a game as many times as I like regardless of what kind of game it is?

I agree with General_Norris, its kind of a buzz word that reviewers have always used to describe games with loads of collectables or non-linear branching paths. Personally neither of these will convince me that I need to play thru a game again, I only do that when I've had a lot of fun the first time.

btw, I rarely do play thru a game more than once, and then I normally wait a year before I do that. Unless its an arcade stlye skill based game, then I'll play over and over obviously

How long I spend playing a game generally isn't as important as how much I enjoy the experience while playing... however, I do feel that it is important to gauge how much time I want to spend with a particular game before no longer finding it enjoyable or worth playing. That might not be the same thing as "replay value"... but certainly creates a similar effect. Whether a game does this by prompting multiple play-throughs, or by stretching out the inital experience to great lengths doesn't matter.

I will say that increasing content and "replay value" can be an effective developer strategy to combat second-hand sales. I haven't sold my copy of Dragon Quest IX (DS) and am unlikely to in the future, because I know that game contains more enjoyable content if I decide to go back and keep playing later. Quests, collectible items and alchemy recipes, maps to secret treasures, additional trades to master... there is probably as much (or more) content remaining as what I already played to "finish" the game. Ghost Trick (DS) on the other hand was extremely enjoyable and worth playing, but not something I care about keeping once the story is over. The game was relatively short and offered no incentive to keep playing or go back and start over. In that case it's to my benefit to trade or sell the game as soon as it's finished.

Not especially, no.

I agree, the term is mostly a back-of-the-box thing meaning there's lots to collect, or alternate paths to explore. Basically, you won't (or can't) see it all in one playthrough. There's little point in that if the game isn't fun to start with - if it is fun, I might replay it regardless of "replay value", if it isn't, I'm probably not even finishing it once.

What exactly do they mean by "replay value"? If it means you have to play a game more than once to complete it 100%, that's stupid and isn't relevant to how good and/or fun a game is. If it means that it's so addictive and awesome that you would play it again regardless of the fact that there may or may not be new things to discover/unlock, then ok. I'd go with the last one, but still it's not crucial to me, as long as I can get through it the first time and genuinely enjoy it for what it is, that's all that matters for me. But if that's the case, I'll more than likely want to play it again anyway.

I don't care much about replay value... i like to have a great experience while playing, when it's over it's over...

there are games who have replay value because of the genre... beat' em ups for example...

It's not really important for me, though i can see why others seek for it...

General_Norris wrote:Replay value is one of those buzz-words of the industry that doesn't really make much sense.

It makes perfect sense to me. It means a game that can be replayed over and over again and it still provides entertainment.

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.

For instance, Game A offers one game mode that can be completed in 5 hours and features no additional content upon completion. Game B features 50 hours of gameplay, and offers additional game modes significantly different from the first one you completed. Let's say it offers new game +, new difficulties that alter various aspects of the game, gives you a new story mode/scenario to complete with a different character, and gives you new items/weapons/whatever as rewards for how well you did in your playthrough encouraging you to continue playing the game and improve.

How can it be said that Game A is no different in terms of replayability than Game B?

General_Norris wrote:Replay value is one of those buzz-words of the industry

Interesting that you say that. I feel like learderboards and online multi-player are buzz words as well. It's just one of those things they teach you to use in video game reviews 101. EVERY reviewer has to make a point to criticize any game that doesn't support leaderboards or online multi-player. Yet, many games are designed in a way that they have no use for multi-player and I'd wager that most gamers don't even care about leaderboards, but reviewers always make such a big deal about games not having leaderboard support. It's just weird the stupid things reviewers always harp on

That's what I dislike about most game reviewers. Everybody just sounds the same because they all seem to use the same review writing playbook