Your take on "Replay-Value".

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

Higher difficulty, achievements, bonuses...etc...dont really contribute anything to me.

What does though is user-created content...and I have noticed a trend, the most Popular PC games have always been the ones with heavy emphasis on user generated content...as have my most played games....

I doubt I would have played Operation Flashpoint, Warcraft 3, Starcraft...etc as long as I did had it not been for user-generated contetn...with it, your always guarenteed to find something new whenever you play.

In fact, my most played game now, is Project Reality, a mod for BF2.

Also important is developer support, and I dont mean DLC, I mean free developer support, like in TF2...I dont think I would still be playing TF2 had it not been for the amount of free maps, weapons, etc valve releases for the PC version.

Higher difficulty, achievements, bonuses...etc...dont really contribute anything to me.

What does though is user-created content...and I have noticed a trend, the most Popular PC games have always been the ones with heavy emphasis on user generated content...as have my most played games....

I doubt I would have played Operation Flashpoint, Warcraft 3, Starcraft...etc as long as I did had it not been for user-generated contetn...with it, your always guarenteed to find something new whenever you play.

In fact, my most played game now, is Project Reality, a mod for BF2.

Also important is developer support, and I dont mean DLC, I mean free developer support, like in TF2...I dont think I would still be playing TF2 had it not been for the amount of free maps, weapons, etc valve releases for the PC version.

cobrax75

Nice take. I agree with you. User-Generated content is strictly kick ass really, I mean, variety here. Ya know? Not, "congrats! Thanks for playing! heres a new gallery of pics unlocked and hard difficulty is now avaliable!." Bull Crap.

i want a game to make me constantly think about it even when i'm not playing it. every time i play super metroid, it doesn't age. its design makes me come back and there are still lots of little tricks you can do that i haven't figured out yet. but hey, metroid is actually about secret areas.

vagrant story is linear and not that long, but has very high replay value. i think because its so deep, there are areas that were locked before and, like metroid, its well designed. so it's not just a case of 'open world vs. linear world'.

It's all about enjoyment for me. Replay value isn't about length, unlockables or ranks, it's about how much i enjoy it. Take your example Dead Space, it was a short game with little to offer after you finish it...little except to play through it again and it was more then good enough to make extra play throughs just as enjoyable the second time round for me. Yes it has trophies and a new game + which are nice additions but don't give it that value on their own.

Better to burn bright but briefly.

replay value = good online

(for me)

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

CoreoVII

Anyway, DMC would definitely be on the top of my 'replay value' list. I love how you start out with all your previously gained powers and sent through the story to fight enemies/bosses that are now more aggressive and powerful. So replay value would be the second most important thing I would look for in a game. The first is how long the SP mode is which I believe effects how good a games replay value is. Max Payne 2 is a great game with the best controls out of any console game ever made and the bullet time system is my favorite system but MP2 was too short and had no replay value whatsoever. While Max Payne 1 had a longer, more satisfying campaign with a much much better story. I'd definitely replay MP1 before 2.

I will replay a game if it was awesome and I want to do it again.

I might go for some achievements or other unlockables if they are easy, but I mainly just play the main game again if I want to.

a good question. such things as difficulties, achievements/trophies, bonuses, collectables, dlc, co-op, multiplayer, and other such gamemodes are usually considered replay value. Halo 3 is a good example, a linear campaign but tonnes of replay value through forge, skulls, theatre, multi-player, co-op, difficulties etc.

when combat is varied enough it can make some good replay value, assassins creed has pretty repeatative combat, but force unleashed is probably better in its variety of combat.

but real replay value probably comes from non-linear open world gameplay, where you can play again and again and get different results. so i'd say variety in gameplay (combat), non-linear open world story, and multi-player/co-op are the main components of replay value.

a good question. such things as difficulties, achievements/trophies, bonuses, collectables, dlc, co-op, multiplayer, and other such gamemodes are usually considered replay value. Halo 3 is a good example, a linear campaign but tonnes of replay value through forge, skulls, theatre, multi-player, co-op, difficulties etc.

when combat is varied enough it can make some good replay value, assassins creed has pretty repeatative combat, but force unleashed is probably better in its variety of combat.

but real replay value probably comes from non-linear open world gameplay, where you can play again and again and get different results. so i'd say variety in gameplay (combat), non-linear open world story, and multi-player/co-op are the main components of replay value.

MadMac132

probably more to do with depth than open-world. if a linear game has lots of depth it could offer just as much replay.

if we think replay value as completely beating a game more than once, for me, most of games dont have it but i dont care mostly, for example, except KotOR1 i didnt beat any rpg twice and except MGS games i didnt beat any game more than 5 times...

its about feelings and enjoyment i think. if it gives me extraordinary feeling, experience, enjoyment, i can play it more than once...( MGS series, Shadow of the Colossus, DMC3 )

[QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

gunswordfist

Anyway, DMC would definitely be on the top of my 'replay value' list. I love how you start out with all your previously gained powers and sent through the story to fight enemies/bosses that are now more aggressive and powerful. So replay value would be the second most important thing I would look for in a game. The first is how long the SP mode is which I believe effects how good a games replay value is. Max Payne 2 is a great game with the best controls out of any console game ever made and the bullet time system is my favorite system but MP2 was too short and had no replay value whatsoever. While Max Payne 1 had a longer, more satisfying campaign with a much much better story. I'd definitely replay MP1 before 2.

I agree with Max Pain 1 & 2. Those were very great play throughs for me. what i meant about DMC is that the very first DMC game was the only one to introduce new enemies as the difficulty progressed. All the others just showed the same but much more buffed up enemies. Which is totally fine an awesome, its just that I can't shake off that feeling I got when an unexpected new enemy came out of a group of the same boring enemies spitting fire at me. Unforgettable.

a game really only has replay value in your own opinion

cuz some people will thik a games is so awesome the could just lay the campaign forever

while others might play the first level and think it is trash

replay value is only one part of overall value. a game could have an engrossing multiplayer mode or an extremely long main story with engaging side quests and have no replay value at all, but still have a high overall value.

as for replay value itself, simply adding a new difficulty just doesnt cut it. re4 added some fun weapons to collect. mgs4 gave you emblems, outfits, music and guns to collect. games like fallout 3 can be played as a character of a different disposition. the common ground is that the insentives change the overall gameplay in a significant way. thats what i look for in a game's replay value.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

CoreoVII

Anyway, DMC would definitely be on the top of my 'replay value' list. I love how you start out with all your previously gained powers and sent through the story to fight enemies/bosses that are now more aggressive and powerful. So replay value would be the second most important thing I would look for in a game. The first is how long the SP mode is which I believe effects how good a games replay value is. Max Payne 2 is a great game with the best controls out of any console game ever made and the bullet time system is my favorite system but MP2 was too short and had no replay value whatsoever. While Max Payne 1 had a longer, more satisfying campaign with a much much better story. I'd definitely replay MP1 before 2.

I agree with Max Pain 1 & 2. Those were very great play throughs for me. what i meant about DMC is that the very first DMC game was the only one to introduce new enemies as the difficulty progressed. All the others just showed the same but much more buffed up enemies. Which is totally fine an awesome, its just that I can't shake off that feeling I got when an unexpected new enemy came out of a group of the same boring enemies spitting fire at me. Unforgettable.

[QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

gunswordfist

Anyway, DMC would definitely be on the top of my 'replay value' list. I love how you start out with all your previously gained powers and sent through the story to fight enemies/bosses that are now more aggressive and powerful. So replay value would be the second most important thing I would look for in a game. The first is how long the SP mode is which I believe effects how good a games replay value is. Max Payne 2 is a great game with the best controls out of any console game ever made and the bullet time system is my favorite system but MP2 was too short and had no replay value whatsoever. While Max Payne 1 had a longer, more satisfying campaign with a much much better story. I'd definitely replay MP1 before 2.

I agree with Max Pain 1 & 2. Those were very great play throughs for me. what i meant about DMC is that the very first DMC game was the only one to introduce new enemies as the difficulty progressed. All the others just showed the same but much more buffed up enemies. Which is totally fine an awesome, its just that I can't shake off that feeling I got when an unexpected new enemy came out of a group of the same boring enemies spitting fire at me. Unforgettable.

HAHA. Yes. Was it called the Fetish? It's been many years. So many good memories with that.

I share the same feelings as the OP regarding replay value. I like it when hard mode actually changes the game in siginificant ways, and not just increase the enemies' HP or attack power. The original Zelda is one of my favourite games because the designers rewarded you with a "Second Quest" for beating the game, and that changed pretty much everything (I would love for Nintendo to do another Second Quest in their next Zelda game). How many games have done that since Zelda's original release?King9999

Thats interesting, didn't know that. But yes that was the point I wanted to get across. I'm going to have to check that out. thanks

I agree with you but in some games especially challenging games, having extras that makes it worth to replay a game isn't neccesary because the gameplay IS challenging and everytime you play it, it's as challenging as the first time. This happens to me alot when I play FPS.gamingqueen

Well then you have nothing to worry about. (a good thing). As the other posters mentioned it really is all just the opinion of the player but if its just the raw challenge the game provides that you like, then sweet. because its true both ways, if you expect too much you'll be let down.

[QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"][QUOTE="gunswordfist"][QUOTE="CoreoVII"]

I don't make topic's very often but this one I wanted some opinions from. What is Replay-Value to you? The endgame bonus? The extra difficulties? The trophies? or the Gamer points? Reading a recent post about Dead Space reminded me of what Replay-Value truly meant to me. For one, I determine the purchase of a game based ON it's replay value. I am not talking about Oblivion, Morrowind, or Fallout 3. those games are built on the method of Replay, which is a good thing.(Its makes since because their worlds are rather large and "free" to explore). What about games that dont have that advantage? Games that sacrifice freedom for a more Linear, in-depth path. Ninja Gaiden series, Devil May cry series, Stuff like Call of Duty, Halo, all of those. (I am not saying any of these games are straight up linear or shallow by any means, just trying to get my idea across).

For example: Back on the post about Dead Space, one person said, Yea. its an awesome game to play and finish ( I agree ) but theirs not much replay-value. Another responded, Get the trophies, theirs your replay-value. To me, these Ideas of points and trophies are pretty cool, but really just cheap gimicks to give you an incentive to keep playing it. (Just my opinion). Everyone is different, but for me, when I beat Dead Space, the surprise Factor is gone. If I play it again, i know exactly whats going to happen. This is simply not the case when I first played Capcoms Devil May Cry years before. I beat that on normal first. ok. Awesome game. action packed. Great. Whatever. I decided to play it on hard. So what. same thing. harder enemys. WRONG. With the harder difficulty came NEW, DIFFERENT, ENEMIES. With their own cut scenes, thus keeping the Surprise factor alive. THAT, to me, is replay value. If the game is really good, but still linear, its ok. But asking me to kill 10 enemies with the same gun for a trophy is just cheap.

Capcom added in those extra cut scenes and enemies knowing that their buyers might never see it. They took the time to reward you with interesting, harder opponents every time you cranked up the difficulty. It was such a pleasant surprise for me to discover NEW things after already beating it. Beat Dead Space, they give you rewards(not spoiling it) and let you play again. Thats it. Im not really down for the SAME EXPERIENCE. I want something new. Games like Oblivion and fallout can do that easily by giving you different options for the same quest, but more linear games like DMC cant. So they added in new surprises and enemy's for your hard work, not points...........or a trophy........to look at........(I feel some Devs may use this as an excuse to say their game has replay value. Then they wouldent have to alter the game for each difficulty, Laziness, and money.)

So I thought this was interesting to talk about. Thats my take. Whats your Idea?

CoreoVII

Anyway, DMC would definitely be on the top of my 'replay value' list. I love how you start out with all your previously gained powers and sent through the story to fight enemies/bosses that are now more aggressive and powerful. So replay value would be the second most important thing I would look for in a game. The first is how long the SP mode is which I believe effects how good a games replay value is. Max Payne 2 is a great game with the best controls out of any console game ever made and the bullet time system is my favorite system but MP2 was too short and had no replay value whatsoever. While Max Payne 1 had a longer, more satisfying campaign with a much much better story. I'd definitely replay MP1 before 2.

I agree with Max Pain 1 & 2. Those were very great play throughs for me. what i meant about DMC is that the very first DMC game was the only one to introduce new enemies as the difficulty progressed. All the others just showed the same but much more buffed up enemies. Which is totally fine an awesome, its just that I can't shake off that feeling I got when an unexpected new enemy came out of a group of the same boring enemies spitting fire at me. Unforgettable.

HAHA. Yes. Was it called the Fetish? It's been many years. So many good memories with that.