Poll of the Day > is it weird that i put a lot of importance on replay value in video games?

(+) Yeah! (+)

to the point where if i can beat a game in one weekend and there's little to no post game content i won't get it

collectibles just for the sake of collecting do not phase me it's why i prefer online games or games that have a hefty chunk of playtime in them

as opposed to short single player games that don't offer anything once you beat them

these days it can be hard to find a game i can truly sink my teeth into without breezing through it
---

What kind of games do you typically buy?
I love The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.
There is so much content.
---

SusanGreenEyes posted...

What kind of games do you typically buy?
I love The Elder Scrolls and Fallout games.
There is so much content.

rpgs and fighting games sometimes but I'm open to anything of quality

last game i got was mvc infinite

but i was looking into getting super mario odyssey until i discovered that the game can be beaten in 15 hours or less with the minimum amount of moons collected

there are more moons to collect but the consensus seems to be that the post game content is lacking and the reward for getting all the moons isn't worth it

i have enough time to beat any game that is 15 hours or less in a single weekend(or close to it)

so replay value is key to me
---

jesus christ
---

Eh, a little. Most people prefer quality over quantity, but there's something to be said for the other way around.
---

No, average gamers prefer quantity. That's why there are so many bland ass open world AAA games with a bajillion side distractions.
---

The definition of "Replay Value" kinda changed over the years. I remember people saying that Mario 3 had a ton of Replay value, because it's fun to play again. But nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.
---

Lokarin posted...

The definition of "Replay Value" kinda changed over the years. I remember people saying that Mario 3 had a ton of Replay value, because it's fun to play again. But nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.

i see replay value as in lots of quality content i don't see little trinkets or stupid achievement hunting as replay value
---

That's not overly weird, you just measure cost effectiveness differently. I won't buy anything at 'AAA prices' anymore unless i think it's going to run me a good 50-100+ hrs of gameplay or it'll be particularly fun/innovative.
---

Haven't you posted this topic like 5 times now?

shadowsword87 posted...

Haven't you posted this topic like 5 times now?

He makes sure his topics have repost value.
---

Id pay $60 for a really good 15 hours.
---

HelIWithoutSin posted...

shadowsword87 posted...

Haven't you posted this topic like 5 times now?

He makes sure his topics have repost value.

Ding!

I'm lucky to find time to play, so replay value has gone way down for me over the yrs. It has taken me up to 3 weeks just to beat a Bioshock game and most Bethesda and Rockstar games will be in the system for a couple months or more.
---

Yea TC, I only buy games where I can expect one hour of gameplay per dollar spent on the game, at least. Terraria and Minecraft got me the biggest bang for my buck. Minecraft I bought when it was $12 back in the day. Terraria was about $10. Divinity: Original Sin 2 I am currently playing, 230 hours in on my second playthrough as an undead this time. Planning on a third playthrough at the highest difficulty. I mean if I'm going to spend $60 on it, I don't want to be done with it in a day or two. That's out of the question. I don't care how highly rated it is.

Even though Odyssey can be beaten quickly doing the bare necessities, I'm still going to get it because I plan on getting everything. Mario 64, Sunshine, Galaxy 1 & 2 were amazing and just collecting all of the stars was fun even if the reward was lackluster. I would be surprised if I can't get 60 hours out of it, and I will be in no rush either, as always.
---

DirtBasedSoap posted...

Id pay $60 for a really good 15 hours.

Same, I prefer story based games like Metal Gear or Uncharted or Tomb Raider etc and those are great to come back to and play through again for a few days without having to worry about grinding for stuff or collecting things for hours on end with little reward.

I never thought "100 percenting" games, getting all the trophies etc were ever worth the hassle. I can get a satisfying playing experience in a short time and move on to the next game. This is why I particularly dislike this popular shift to open world mechanics because a lot of the time it unnecessarily pads and lengthens the game to ridiculous levels with useless quests and item collecting and distracts from the story. Never understood why people find that so appealing.
---

Lokarin posted...

The definition of "Replay Value" kinda changed over the years. I remember people saying that Mario 3 had a ton of Replay value, because it's fun to play again. But nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.

I still go with the older definition I never knew it changed. just recently played and beat the original kid icarus for the first time. since then i've beat it 4 more times. so to me it had good replay value.

games that have a lot of content and take a long time to beat, generally don't have much replay value to me, as I see replaying the whole game as a daunting task as i've already experienced it. like I tried replaying metal gear solid V from scratch I ended up getting bored half way through(and I loved that game so much I put 1000 hours into my first file). elder scrolls is an exception as there is many ways to go about things differently, different races, and classes to choose from. so many things that make each play a bit different.

basically put when I think "replay" I think starting from the beginning and doing it all over again. or even just a game I will be throwing back in the disc tray on a regular basis despite i've already beaten it.
---

Snake posted...

I can get a satisfying playing experience in a short time and move on to the next game.

Costing you more money!

VeeVees posted...

so many bland ass open world AAA games with a bajillion side distractions.

Lokarin posted...

nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.

Snake posted...

grinding for stuff or collecting things for hours on end with little reward. I never thought "100 percenting" games, getting all the trophies etc were ever worth the hassle.
...a lot of the time it unnecessarily pads and lengthens the game to ridiculous levels with useless quests and item collecting and distracts from the story.

There are good games out there that don't have a bunch of shitty side content guys. Side content that is enjoyable does exist.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

it's why i prefer online games

Yeah. Spawn, Die, Spawn repeat is always fun!

I don't mind if a game has no replay value but these days I tend to go for long games over short games so it really doesn't matter. The best of both worlds is long games with replay value such as Witcher 3. This doesn't mean I don't buy games like Uncharted or God of War though.
---

NightMareBunny posted...

Lokarin posted...

The definition of "Replay Value" kinda changed over the years. I remember people saying that Mario 3 had a ton of Replay value, because it's fun to play again. But nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.

i see replay value as in lots of quality content i don't see little trinkets or stupid achievement hunting as replay value

for me replay value means that there are different ways to play the game. usually this will be mostly RPGs, where playing it in different ways is the point. the best games like this, you will be thinking "I can't wait to try playing <other way>" on your first playthrough, and the best of the best games like this you'll still be thinking it on your 5th or even 10th playthrough (Dark Souls).
---

NightMareBunny posted...

Lokarin posted...

The definition of "Replay Value" kinda changed over the years. I remember people saying that Mario 3 had a ton of Replay value, because it's fun to play again. But nowadays replay value is measured in tricky achievements and grindier activities that you wouldn't ever do a second time.

i see replay value as in lots of quality content i don't see little trinkets or stupid achievement hunting as replay value

It's a good thing you don't decide what actually is replay value then.
---

SilverClock posted...

Snake posted...

I can get a satisfying playing experience in a short time and move on to the next game.

Costing you more money!

That's if you were buying new games all the time which I'm not. Instead I'll go back and play older games that are good to replay which also don't take an eternity to get through, then get a new game later. I'd rather have some variety than spend hundreds of hours of a single game.

Metal Gear is one of my favourite game series for example. Phantom Pain was the worst out of the lot because of how boring it was playing the same thing for 70 hours despite the actual gameplay mechanics being the highest quality. I have never and will never feel the need to replay it unlike every other game in that series.
---

Sahuagin posted...

for me replay value means that there are different ways to play the game. usually this will be mostly RPGs, where playing it in different ways is the point. the best games like this, you will be thinking "I can't wait to try playing <other way>" on your first playthrough, and the best of the best games like this you'll still be thinking it on your 5th or even 10th playthrough (Dark Souls).

I'm in the same boat. Fallout games provide these different approaches.

When it comes to JRPGs, I've found myself investing about 4500 hours on Disgaea 2 (combining the original and the PSP version).

I do value replayability over mostly anything, because I like to dwelve into a game's different systems.
---

I find most modern games have no replay value.

Typically open world games that can be played through multiple times w diff angles and putcomes are the longest.

Maybe- among a group of friends who play competitively amongst themselves then a sports game or fighting game can have the most replay value though also.
---

Conner4REAL posted...

Typically open world games that can be played through multiple times w diff angles and putcomes are the longest.

Maybe- among a group of friends who play competitively amongst themselves then a sports game or fighting game can have the most replay value though also.

yeah games with really good replay value seem to sit at both extremes of the content/game length spectrum. either its a really short super fun game you'll keep playing and playing just cause its fun and isn't a major investment of your time to replay it. or its like elder scrolls where its just addicting due to all you can do. and all the different variations you can go with.
---

Replay value is important, but I don't agree with the way you define it. Pac-Man has replay value. Tetris has replay value. The Sims has replay value. It's all about the fun you have playing the game, and the fun you can keep having in playing the game multiple times, regardless whether or not you "beat" the game.
---

SilverClock posted...

There are good games out there that don't have a bunch of shitty side content guys. Side content that is enjoyable does exist.

Games with shit side content sells well anyways. Ubisoft lives off shitty side chores.
---

Golden Road posted...

Replay value is important, but I don't agree with the way you define it. Pac-Man has replay value. Tetris has replay value. The Sims has replay value. It's all about the fun you have playing the game, and the fun you can keep having in playing the game multiple times, regardless whether or not you "beat" the game.

They are all not story driven though. It's very hard to keep someone hooked on a story they know so a story driven game needs post game content to avoid replaying too soon.
---

Yes! I don't find story driven games with cut scenes to have replay value. Games you can just jump into seem to have more longevity, at least for me.

NightMareBunny posted...

the game can be beaten in 15 hours or less with the minimum amount of moons collected

So... about the same as prior 3D Mario games? Mario games have never been particularly long. I beat Sunshine in two days, and I was 13 at the time. I still had a delightful time, and there were many more hours going after trickier Shines, but merely beating the game was pretty quick and easy. SM64 can similarly be beaten with 120 stars in a few hours if you know what you're doing (let alone the 70 that's the actual minimum), even without seriously trying to speedrun it.

That said, it's still fun to replay SM64, and I'm thinking I should replay Sunshine as well some time soon. That's what replay value actually means: Being fun to play it again after you finish with it. Mario games have always been pretty good for that. I see no reason to expect anything different from Odyssey. I do think it's weird that you claim to place a lot of importance on replay value, but are fixated on how long it'll take to beat the game once with minimal completion, as though you intend to spend as little time as possible playing it and don't plan on ever replaying it.
---

Just because a game can be beaten fast doesn't mean it has less replay value. I beat Tales of Symphonia 10 times and have 200 hours in it. That averages 20 hours per playthrough which isn't that much more than a playthrough of super mario odyssey.
---

JOExHIGASHI posted...

Just because a game can be beaten fast doesn't mean it has less replay value. I beat Tales of Symphonia 10 times and have 200 hours in it. That averages 20 hours per playthrough which isn't that much more than a playthrough of super mario odyssey.

I actually played tales of vesperia 3 times back to back. i've never done that with a Jrpg before. usually there is a year or two before i'll consider playing it again.
---

Replay value was important to me years ago...but now with my huge digital backlog I never beat a game twice
---

BobToxsick posted...

Replay value was important to me years ago...but now with my huge digital backlog I never beat a game twice

you never find a game so fun you wan't to play it again? or do you just have some drive to work through your backlog no matter what? I have a relatively small back log of games that haven't even been played once yet but haven't gotten around to them because I keep replaying other games.

to be clear not bashing your stance. just wondering the reason.
---

I don't find it weird. The more you play a game, the further your dollar goes.
---