What makes a game replayble and stand the test of time?

I'm not much of a replaying fan. I barely replay games from like 10 years ago and I barely replay the games that i've just finished, honestly in a lotta cases I don't want to, but overall it's just a matter of time and me having a huge backlog and prefering new experiences, but now that I'm playing Bayonetta i find myself saying "I can't wait to play this game for the second time on Hard difficulty", this is a real surprise to me because i don't recall the last time i've said such a thing during a game, for instance, The Witcher 3, I simply love this game but no way i'd replay it just to see a different branch on the story, I know many ppl do but I don't, it's not justified for me to pour in another 100 hours to see a little different path or ending.

Now the reason that I'm itching for another playthrough with Bayonetta is not its story, it's the goddamn gameplay, to be more precise, its combat, I mean Jesus there's a shit ton of nuances and varieties to the whole combat scenario, the game is legitimately rewarding, it's punishing to the amount that it should be hence encouraging, it relies so much on your skills, when you get a Platinuim you actually feel like "yeah i fuckin' deserved it!"

I can go on and on about this game, but overall, a game from 2009 managing to capture your attention and offering a fresh novel experience is a HUGE deal, it should be appreciated and we need more of these games, where gameplay is so good that it can live on forever, so my opinion on the question is "a compelling gameplay", not the story not the graphics, but a compelling gameplay.

And btw, speculate the games of this gen which you think will stand the test of time.

Damn that's a loaded question. I'll have to get back to you on that one.

Most of the time for me it is story that gets me. Like Final Fantasy 9 or Wing Commander games. Like a great movie or book sometimes u just wanna revisit the story snd the game becomes secondary. Unless it's Wing Commander then the gameplay is intense lol. Btw just started Fast Rmx today. Dayyuuuum this plays good on switch!

Look into Snes games and you'll find the answer. I've never replayed more games than those from the Snes. Engaging/challenging gameplay plus graphics that always look decent.

1) SHORT

I do replay a lot of classics, but I don't wanna put in 30h.

2) Great feeling gameplay.

Don't wanna drag myself through some story more than once.

3) No grinding.

Don't wanna unlock a bunch of fluff twice. NG+ can help here.

Examples: Vanquish, MegaMan, Mario World etc.

I think the "standing the test of time question" is a bit easier to answer. Games that stand the test of time were always just well designed from the start and didn't depend on flash or gimmicks to get by.

Back in the day I liked Mortal Kombat 1 almost as much as I did Street Fighter 2. These days I can still have a blast with Street Fighter 2, but I wouldn't even consider wasting my time with Mortal Kombat 1. Reason being is because I liked Mortal Kombat 1 for its "realistic" graphics, the blood, the fatalities, etc. whereas Street Fighter 2 is just a legitimately great fighting game and that will never change. It has tight mechanics, and while it lacks the complexity of modern fighters, it still has depth for days.

The replayability thing is a bit more subjective though. People have all kinds of reasons for going back to a game over and over again.

For me, the games that I typically find highly replayable tend to have some of these qualities about them.

• Tight responsive mechanics
• Depth to their systems. This isn't always true. There are plenty of platformers that I love to revisit even if they have the depth of a puddle. But often times a highly replayable game needs some systems I can really dig into.
• A pick up and play quality. Easy to learn, hard to master. I want to be able to jump right into the fun.
• Short. Again, not always true, but I find that shorter games tend to fall into my list of highly replayable games. Even if the game isn't short, it needs to be minimal as can be with the padding. No major time wasters, no grinding, just a compact quality experience.
• Skill based. Most games that depend on leveling, looting, etc. just won't cut it.
• Scores, grading, etc. Not necessary of course, but it's nice when something grades you on your mastery of its systems.
• Player agency. Give me the tools and the breathing room to tackle situations how I want, and I'll likely be more compelled to revisit your game.

Most of the games that I find highly replayable typically fall into genres like beat 'em ups, platformers, action platformers, fighting games, stealth games, and some roguelikes. Though of course you have FPS games like Doom 1, TPS games like RE4, and a whole variety of racing games that just never get old. I think replayability tends to suit some genres more than others, though just about every genre is capable of delivering a game like that.

Oh btw, glad you're digging Bayonetta man, game is ace.

Too many to list. I know gamers like to bitch about modern gaming a lot, but the industry has overcome a lot of growing pains. A lot of design and development do's and don'ts have been sorted out. There are shitloads of well executed games that will still be plenty playable years from now. I think the new problem is that a lot of games are well executed and completely dull, things aren't as exciting and new as they used to be.

Anyways, here are some of the ones that I'll definitely continue to revisit over the years:

• Bayonetta 2
• Street Fighter V
• Shovel Knight
• ... maybe Doom 4.

It's funny. Doom 4 isn't in my top 5 for this gen. Probably not even my top 10. But it does have the qualities of replayability that I value. Do I like it as a game more than stuff like Bloodborne, NioH, or Breath of the Wild? Nah. But it's definitely something I'd be more willing to jump back into. I just feel they squandered its potential by pursuing snapmap instead of allowing the modding community to thrive. And then wasting their time on multiplayer content when we're all hungry for more single player content was kind of dumb.

Still, I doubt I'm done with that game. It won't have the same legs as Doom 1 + mods, but I do still get the itch for Doom 4 every now and then.

Quality is obvious. If a game isn't generally entertaining overall, well then people just won't want to replay, simple as that.

The most obvious ways a game can stand the test of time, and be replayable, is by offering solid incentives to replay. I love SOMA, but I have little reason to return to it now that I've played through, it's very story based with puzzles I now know the ways to solve.

Games with high replayability have to give you the incentive to go back. This can come from score and time challenges. Or games can do different unlocks in further sessions. For better or worse people replay the shit out of Diablo because there's always the chance to grow stronger and get something a little better each time. Platinum is the real standout though, they offer both new and interesting unlocks in multiple runs as well as the score and time challenges.

Barring that, the mechanics have to be strong enough and flexible enough that you can set your own goals. For instance, I go back and play OoT at least once a year, and every time I can try to do something different. 3 heart run, dungeon scramble, master quest, no bottled fairies, minimum sword attacks. The game doesn't have many roadblocks that impede you because you won't play the way it's intended.

For multiplayer the same rules largely still apply. The only difference is that your scoring and unlocking are personal or in-game marks of your competitive skill level. Multiplayer also has the sense of community that plays a large part in why people replay. If you like the people playing the game, you will want to play more than you would otherwise.

Basically what @ConanTheStoner said. I prefer to replay games I feel that I can improve at. With tight controls and fun mechanics, it's also helpful if the game's level can be played in quick succession. A jump in quality is a big help. :)

I tend not to replay play too many games that are long or story-driven although there are exceptions.

Nostalgia = test of time

Content / communities-friends / Multiplayer-Online = replaybility / test of time

Different Game genres count as well. For example im still playing Path of Exile since its BETA and having great time but i had an epic time with Resident Evil 7 as well though its genre and how game is build up , is not something i would like to finish over and over , constantly.

Another great example is Street Fighter 2. I dont even know how many hours i put into the game till i could beat it with almost all characters. But for sure i put more into Street Fighter 4 because of its online/competitive nature and more difficult curve in order to master it.

Then , above all is individuals taste and preference. I know friends of mine that love to beat the hell out of games like METAL SLUG ( find all secrets , dont die at all , do high scores etc !! ) , some others are die hard Counter Strike GO fanatics and others taking too seriously games like Witcher 3 or Final Fantasy type of game and want to do and see everything in game before they stop playing without guides from internet etc

Sometimes when I'm watching a loading screen I'll just find myself wishing that every game could be as snappy as Super Meat Boy or Hotline Miami when it comes to getting back in the action. I know it's unrealistic, but damn it'd be great lol.

It's amazing how down time (or the lack of it) can greatly effect how willing I am to stick to a challenge, but more importantly, how willing I am to revisit a game.

Pretty much. I'm not too big on rpgs anymore, but there was a time when I loved them. Even back then though, no matter how great I thought the game was, it was usually a one off experience. And if I did revisit a rpg it had to be years later.

Games that depend a lot on story, leveling, or single solution puzzles just don't do it for me on replay value, even if they're awesome the first time through.

@ConanTheStoner: The problem is the length at which the story needs to be retold.

I will sometimes re-watch a movie or re-read a short book but that's because the story only takes between an hour and two hours to tell. Video games with a focus on story at least take 8 hours to play and can even be up to 80 hour affairs (if you skip side content). That's too long for the sake of a story for me. Even with dialog choices, I typically go for the one I would naturally pick. It's fine because lots of these big RPGs are long experiences as opposed to one designed to be replayed.

Still, there's something to be said about a fun game-loop, tight mechanics and engaging level design that keeps me coming back.

It's my third playthrough of Dark Souls 3 and I'm still discovering areas and items I'd never come across in my first two tries (no, I'm not talking about the DLCs lol). And I guess that's about it. I almost never 'replay' a game unless it had a really solid atmosphere and music to go along with. A great atmosphere is what renders nostalgia a genuine experience; it feels like it's the first time you're playing it because it really just absorbs you. Games like that are far too sparse.

This atmosphere theory applies to movies and anime too. Even books, actually.

I'll try not to be lazy and just quote vaas n conan and go with what they said, but I doubt I'll type up anything all that different from what they wrote. So whatevs. So I'll probably write a novel -_-

But I am someone who thinks replayability or at least me wanting to replay the game is important for the game to be great. If I feel the game is a one and done, then it's not great. It's like any other medium. The best things should be something you aren't afraid to revisit. I've seen The Wire tons of times through, it's like a yearly tradition for me. And The Godfather? Probably lost count on how many times I've seen both of those movies (yes, both of those movies, because there are only 2 of them).

#1 - You Must Be Good: Any game can be built to be replayed, but the game has to be good enough to be worthy of another playthrough. Halo 3 for instance has enough things about it that would make the campaign replayable, personally it's not even good enough for a one and done. Likewise DmC is built to be replayable like any other DMC game, but it's the worst devil may cry game, because I'm matrix sequels ruling DMC2. Shit doesn't exist. You're gonna replay games you love, not games you think are aight or just good.

#2 - Shorter games have an edge: A lot of it has to do with time commitment, gaming is inherently a longer and more involving medium. You don't just really sit back and watch the experience.That's not to say a longer game isn't worthy of a replay, because they totally are. But it's a you "gotta be in the mood" for it. Going back to the film similarity, it's kind of like how The Godfather is my favorite, but it's probably not the movie I've seen the most, that's probably Space Jam...nah I'm kidding, but I've seen 40 Year Old Virgin, a lot, and that's because I can throw that movie in at any given time and laugh my ass off. Those one liners are fantastic, ditto anything Mel Brooks.But I'll still rewatch The Godfather or something like Lord of the Rings or Apocalypse Now. They are more involving films and demand more of their audience, so you sort of have to be in the mood for it. Because you basically dedicate like a good chunk of your day to those movies lol.

That's how I would compare wanting to replay a long ass rpg. You might not do it all the time, and certainly not with the succession you can do something like Mega Man, but you'll do it for your favorites. And it helps that rpgs, the best ones, are by their nature built to be replayed.

#3 - What does built to be replayed even mean: Simplest terms the game can't feel static and samey every time I play it, that's part of what makes shallow games, shallow. First and foremost the game needs depth. And lets define that by Champ's definition is the only correct one, ahem: It is about the player making meaningful decisions in the game's possibility space, with the amount of non-redundant states possible specifically. Some times games mistake complexity with depth. Complexity isn't necessarily "omg this is so hard to learn" though sure, it's more like ....it's more like when the game has too much of the same shit and your choice doesn't really matter.

Using one of the simplest examples I can work with. In Halo 1 there is a meaningful choice you make in the campaign when you go with your two weapons. Each individual gun has its pros n cons, and uses against your enemies. The Assault Rifle is stronger and carries more ammo at once, but the Plasma Rifle is much quicker at ripping through shields (especially jackal shields), the Pistol is a jack of all trades and wrecks hunters, the plasma pistol has its own obvious advantages, ditto the needler. In something like Call of Duty's campaigns, yeah there is a difference between a mp5, a p90, and a m16, but it's marginal and not a meaningful choice in the campaign. You point, you shoot, they drop quickly. It doesn't really matter which gun you're using. Those rifles feel superfluous in a game like that. Tons of guns, is just more content, more complexity to the games gun roster, but Halo 1's more selective roster has gameplay depth. Notice how Doom 1 and 2 have stood the test of time, notice how they handle their gun roster. So as far as what gun you use Halo 1 and Doom have depth, Call of Duty doesn't.

So by extension the best games and most replayable games should also have mechanical depth. Bayonetta fits, ditto other beat-em ups considered excellent: DMC3, Ninja Gaiden Black, or even things like NG2 and DMC4 (for their combat at least). It's the same thing the best multiplayer games (dota 2 versus other mobas, competitive Starcraft and Warcraft versus other rts games) Counterstrike has stood the test of time, especially 1.6, because all its different mechanics have a level of depth that its equivalents don't have on PC.

Beyond that, a variety of modes that fit the mechanics (beyond deathmatch, the excellent Unreal2k4 also had Onslaught, which was amazing), some sort of reward or reason for mastery. Beatem-ups usually use the arcade principle of scoring systems, leaderboards, medal systems, Hotline Miami uses a grading system for instance, stealth games have a ghost playthrough, and the deeper stealth games make ghosting excellent (Thief, MGS3, Chaos Theory), where as lesser stealth games make ghosting feel like a chore (Good game, but Dishonored fits this description for me).

There are also things like Mercenaries mode in RE4 or Bloody Palace in DMC4, where it's just pure fucking game. Mercs mode in RE4 is the greatest highlight of how exceptional the combat is in that game, and DMC4 is well a much better use of DMC4 dante, than the 2nd half of that game's campaign. It's pure, unadulterated gauntlet of dmc action where you just let loose as Dante and go ham learning the character. It's seen as an extra, but it's a pretty significant one. Say Conan n I want a Bayonetta fix, instead of replaying the game, we can just do Angel Slayer.

RPGs for instance are built to be replayed through build variation, or meaningful choices (IE what New Vegas allows you to do versus say, Fallout 3's choices allow you to do) that have meaningful impact to the player (not some story shit, like whoa you might feel bad, maybe), and what have you. Although even in story driven cases, I'm sure how flexible The Witcher 3's branching paths are do help make replaying it enjoyable, you probably won't waste your time doing every monster's nest n side quest on each subsequent playthrough tho.

As for

#4 - Being Timeless: Listen it's the same as anything else, have good, strong, core design, and do you not age, ever, even if they figure out a better way to do the thing you do. Controls that the players can adapt and get comfortable with might have a learning curve years later, but as long as the game never asks for anything the controller isn't built for, it's a non-issue, it's on the player at that point for not wanting to adapt. Tight mechanics n level design are ageless. Mario 64 is to this day an exceptional platforming experience. It's presentation leaves a lot to be desired, and I get there are valid reasons to appreciate the eye candy, the music, and all that jazz, but I still would argue if you value that stuff over core playing it part, you're a bit vein n shallow.

If it's a story driven experience, good stories are timeless, period. Shakespeare's plays are still to this day worth a read and watch, A New Hope and Empire Strikes Back didn't get worse because a bunch of things reference it, and Alien is still perfect even if it's the most influential scifi movie of its era. Likewise, Planescape didn't suddenly become less good of a story, neither did Silent Hill 2, neither did Mother 3. So if you have a story you really like be it Uncharted or Mass Effect or Halo or whatever game you like, don't tell me the story aged, because I'm gonna ask exactly what the **** could have possibly changed in all these years?

Don't get me wrong the presentation stuff can always only get better, this mediums cinematography can only get better, ditto voice acting.

@jg4xchamp: Why would preferring the story or graphics over the gameplay make a person shallow?

Not the story (though I naturally don't value it the same), the graphics n stuff yeah. If a game being a little fugly to you is your turn off to not try the game or why you can no longer play the game, I question whether or not you actually like games. It's one thing to dislike a game that isn't coherent visually, which yes will impact the gameplay, because visual language is pretty important to how a game works. But I'm judging mother fuckers for dismissing Undertale because it looks like a nes game or saying some shit like Mega Man is unplayable becaue of how it looks. Not liking Undertale for the gameplay or meta humor? Cool, the visuals bother you? Come on, get real.

Had this same talk with Greyseal, and he foolishly compared to the aesthetic qualities of music, which doesn't fucking make sense. The melody, the tune, the rhythm all that stuff is inherent to what makes music, music. The visuals? Mate shovel knight is proof enough that a clean n simple aesthetic is all you need when the gameplay is there.

@jg4xchamp: Sorry. I was more thinking of games where people enjoy them more for their visual and story qualities than their gameplay rather than being turned off by games because of their lack of visual fidelity.

I think those that ultimately enjoy the gameplay but value the other elements of the game, while not the reason I play games, is reasonable.

It's fine in the "play what makes you happy, who the **** am I to tell you what to do with your time?" right....but I do probably philosophically disagree with any of those games like Gone Home or Abzu being good. But that's another rant for another day, or well, I guess it's a rant I've done a thousand times lol.

@jg4xchamp: I dunno. I found titles like Journey to be a good lesson in game-feel when compared to a similar title like Dear Esther. I can't speak on behalf of Gone Home or Abzu. I know these non-challenging games are a post-modern idea but there are still many ways in which interactivity can be positively exemplified in these types of titles. Those non-games are definitely a weird one.

On topic of what games from this gen I think will be replaying and coming back to

1. Rocket League - I love the mechanics, and maybe one day I'll actually bother learning how to do aerial shit with any regular consistency so I can actually play Rocket League on a high level. Until then Ben and I are happy playing like scrubs.

2. Bayonetta 2 - I mean I'll probably still play 1 more, but Bayonetta 2 has better weapons, and better and more varied enemies, and those witch trials, and oh my god some of those boss fights.

3. Street Fighter V - It's fucking Street Fighter

4. Overwatch - I don't know if I'll play it as much as TF2, but it's Blizzard so through the sheer power of Blizzard support I'll probably play this game a shit ton

Games that are built to be replayed, are timeless good, and will still have merit, but I probably wont play like that

Guilty Gear Xrd, King of Fighters 14,

Those I'm pretty sure on. After that maybe

1. Rainbow Six Siege - The game is kind of fucking amazing, and gun to my head I might actually side with Siege over Overwatch. But the Ubisoft hammer is always around the corner

2. The Witness - I fancy myself a fan of puzzle games, and I didn't really complete the Witness, just beat it. And while I do love the game, I don't like LOOOOOOOOOVE the game quite like I love Braid (which I replayed a lot) or SpaceChem (which is amazing).

3. Bloodborne - The game is dope, but I might probably just replay Demon's Souls n Dark Souls whenever I need a souls fix.

4. MGSV: The Phantom Pain - Love the mechanics, love the sandbox, but it's been awhile since I've actually had the urge to reinstall it. So currently in maybe category. As flawed as the game, it's definitely replayable.

5. The Wonderful 101 - LOVE THIS GAME, it badly needed a bloody palace equivalent.

6. Ori and the Blind Forest - Maybe with the definitive edition. Maybe. I still don't like some significant sections of that game though, but what's a man gonna do in a world with very little Metroid, ya know?

Otherwise I still gotta properly finish Hitman 2016, Deus Ex Mankind Divided n Doom 4. And The Witcher 3, but that's probably gonna be a "I did everything, I'm never touching this again"

@ConanTheStoner: Thanks. yeah Bayonetta is amazing, to the point that it's made to play less of Mass Effect Andromeda lol

I'm pretty much in line with you, and yeah subjectivity matters here

That's actually a good way to describe it

True that

Here i'm more focusing on single-player games as the MP games usually have a lot going on beside the game itself, like the community, I mean I might replay a game just because of my friends.

Well I've never gone that far and went with non-game. I don't think that term is necessary

@jg4xchamp: I think that was the longest post I've seen from you :D , thanks, you pretty much covered everything.

That's actually a good criterion for choosing one's Top 10, I mean to see if you'd really replay them or not.

That Halo 1 example was great, now I know why I don't have any urge to replay any of the CoD games lol

This is too rigid and binary but for the sake of discussion, can we say being Timeless is sth and being Replayble is another? i mean, let's say we have a game with a great story, but the mechanics/controls have become so clunky, for someone who has played the game already it might not be replayble anymore, but it can be considered timeless as many would play it for the first time for its great story.

Not sure that I agree with that, I mean we do have our memories of all sorts of games, but do we bother to replay them? or do we have the urge to replay them? Take CoD games for instance, I don't wanna replay them but they're nostalgic for me.

Sure, depends on the person's criteria. As someone who fundamentally believes video games are at odds with story telling, the story being good doesn't mean anything to me if the game isn't good, but for someone who values that stuff and does believe in this mediums potential, why not?

Like even by my criteria Titanfall is still a good game a decade from now. It is timeless, it just isn't all that special, which is fine, you don't necessarily have to be great to be timeless.

Same here, you know the story already so it's not that great of a reason to spend dozens of hours into a game again, and honestly, I can find way better stories in other mediums like Cinema.

To me, it really comes down to having great gameplay / being fun to play.

@jg4xchamp: I was just using a commonly used term, not one that I necessarily agree with. :P I probably should have used quotations there.

For me, here is what makes a game re-playable:

1) Variety of characters/classes - I might play as a ranger on my first playthrough, then as a barbarian on my next. Path of Exile is the perfect example of this - there are so many classes and builds its completely insane. Type in "Path of Exile character builds" in Google and you will be amazed by the hundreds of builds there are!

2) Rich storyline that deserves a second time to experience it

3) Good humour that makes you want to listen to the dialogue again.

4) Variety of different companions and romance partners that make you want a different companion on your next playthrough.

5) Loads of secret areas that make you want to replay and catch all the secrets you missed on your first playthrough.

@jg4xchamp: Btw, I'm so curious to see how Bayo 2 is gonna be more varied that Bayo 1, as Bayo 1 is like one of the most varied games I've ever played, each encounter feels so fresh ...haven't finished it yet tho, so it might recycle at the later parts.

And I hope they've gotten rid of those one-time QTE sections in Bayo 2, where if you don't push a button at a very certain moment, you'll die, it's like my only gripe with the game so far.

Being really good at what it tried to do, while not many more games have been made doing it way better.

I guess..

Take Ocarina of Time, for example. Very old game. Still great fun to play today, since what it did - it did really good. So good in fact, that many similar games even today aren't as fun to play. You kind of have to look for another game in the same series if you want something that can compete.

@mjorh: From what I remember, there aren't quick-time events in Bayonetta 2. It has been a while since I played it. Speaking of which actually, I think I might do that pretty soon. :)

oh glad to hear that!

Yeah you should, I hope they port it for Switch (or PC, which is unlikely) so i can play it as well :(

I play very old games to this day that i used to play out of nostalgia alone . Some of these games are games like Street Fighter 2 , Raiden , Metal Slug , Sunset Riders , Snow bros and some "newer" like FF7 , FF9 plus many more. I got a huge collection of retro/old/indie games

If there wasnt any nostalgia , beleive me i wouldnt even care to play those game after so many years when i already finished them so many times plus most of 3D ones look terrible plus some of them even playing decent at best gameplay wise.

I agree with you though that it depends the person , taste and all. But i disagree that all of these games i care to play from time to time after 20+ years is because all of those games were/are great. Some are great , some decent some plain mediocre with mediocre gameplay at best. So nostalgia kicks in right there for sure.

To me though plays a big role to replay an old game i used to beat all day long in the past and i know everything about it already. Talking about old games though that stand in time for my taste.

In the case of games like those in the Soulsborne series, I definitely don't play those games for the gameplay alone.. Especially Bloodborne...I dig the victorian/gothic london architecture in that game which adds to its amazing atmosphere and aesthetic. I guess the gameplay also keeps me engaged but I don't think of the gameplay when I think "Bloodborne."

But games like Bayonetta, some of the DMC's I've played, all feel so flow-y and enjoyable to play. That alone makes me come back to them. But the reason I bought the games wasn't because of its great combat but rather the similarities they share with (at least in my head) with those Legacy of Kain games.. Action Adventure setup with powers and swords and monsters. I tend to replay games like these A LOT.

Same with Ratchet and Clank games from the PS2 days... or Jak and Daxter games... especially Jak 2. I played them when I was a lot younger but I sure did milk them dry.. I still get cravings for those games every now and then.

Same, discovered a lot in second walkthrough. Which ending is your favourite of DS3?

Well if you pop in a game from say 20 years ago and you still find it as fun and engaging as it was when you first played it then I guess it passed the test.

The End of Fire. It's the only true ending.

I'd say that it's mainly graphics and controls. For 2D games I don't mind replaying a lot of games from the SNES and up. There are some games from the NES I don't mind replaying again but it gets pretty sparse and there is zero games from the Atari 2600 that I have any desire to play again. For 3D games I find those from the PlayStation 2 and up to be highly replayable still, less so for those that came earlier.

Bad games make classics. A lot of video games are duds. Filler, time wasters, just like any other media. What makes a Classic is simply time and reference. Classics are often imitated and replicated. Some classics create an entire genre of games. Many of the games we play are not classics or re-playable once the player has completed it. The players have to feel something for the game. There has to be some kind of connection to it. Take Zelda 1, GTA 3, Super Mario World, Street Fighter 2, Final Fantasy 7, Sonic the Hedgehog 2, Metal Gear Solid. Those games are basically gateway drugs and many gamers are chasing that first hit. Which is why the gaming industry exist.

There are many users in here who have more eloquently stated what I could try to say, and with more detail.

It's just a matter of the game clicking with me, personally. The Halo series, Uncharted, Bloodborne, and Mario are games that I've found great enjoyment in replaying often.

It almost has to do with the moment-to-moment gameplay being rewarding the second time. I'm willing to play through a turn-based RPG once and really enjoy myself, or a long adventure like The Legend of Zelda or The Witcher 3. But because in each of those a focus is on the story, or the sense of discovery, I find myself becoming bored more quickly on the second time. Yet going up against pirates in Uncharted, or wandering through the atmosphere and still challenging myself in Bloodborne, or killing waves and waves of Covenant either solo or in coop, these all have a more immediate satisfaction which is somewhat necessary when it deals with something I have already seen.

If a game has secrets, easter eggs, and mechanics that are very well hidden from the player, and only discovered later, it often makes me want to go replay a game.

Just as one example, it's entirely possible to play through Final Fantasy 6, and miss several optional characters, never see the limit breaks of any character, or even know that they exist.

Not to mention a plethora of side quests and optional weapons you could totally miss your first time through.

I could write something more detailed, but to keep it short: Mainly it just depends on how responsive the controls are, and whether the level design is still engaging. Even if it's not immediate, as long as the adjustment period isn't more than a few minutes, I can still play many older games with no problem.

The older I get the less I replay games. I play them until I get tired/bored and move on to other new games. I've gamed long enough where nostalgia really isn't a thing for me. Games are just like sports stars great in their era but the game changes and passes them by. There's no denying they are greats sure, but I like seeing the next big thing.

Especially these modern single player rpgs that are just bogged down with filler stuff, I can barely finish them. By the time I do I don't want to play them again.

I dont collect games or consoles either for the same reason. Got to a point where collecting them just seemed to become a kind of obsession rather than a hobby. So I took crates and crates of stuff to the Goodwill the last time I moved, went all digital and didn't look back. Feels great to have less clutter too.

I did the same thing even with digital PC gaming. I slowly drifted away from PC gaming mostly because I was buying tons and games on Steam and not even playing most of them. Even if the games were cheap it was just a waste of money. When Steam did that thing where it shows how long it will take to finish the collection, it seemed kinda pointless to have so much stuff I can't finish it in a lifetime.

Replayability for me is more about multiplayer or RTS where the dynamics of the games change from match to match.

Gameplay. Story will rarely want to make me replay anything, because by-and-large, they aren't exactly classics. Of course, there are obviously some that will pull me back.

Hype will only get you so far but class is forever.

Rondo of Blood. Super Mario 3. Pac man. That undefinable quality that just makes them timeless. Some games are products of their time, I remember being wowed by Toy Story on the Mega Drive but wouldn't bother with it now, but regularly go back to Lunar Silver Star. It's hard to put into words, but ultimately, I think the answer lies in the mechanics of the game.

Depends on the game

• High skill ceiling. I keep replaying some games games simply put, because there is so much room to improve. In my first run of Bayonetta, I kinda... suck. In the following runs, the later runs still feel so fresh, because I keep learning new techniques, and conquer upcoming challenges with them.
• Visual Metrics for Improvement
• Multiple allowed approaches. In Fallout, I may do one run as a thief, another as a diplomat, another as a scientist, another as a gunslinger.
• Game is fun enough to warrant multiple playthroughs (Super Mario Bros)

Well-said!

I'm currently not doing so good in Bayonetta, but I feel like I'm improving the more I play, which feels awesome!

What do you mean by Visual Metrics?