Am I in the minority here?

[NinjaDeathSlap]

Spoiler

As you can see, I chose my words carefully with "Am I in the minority here?" and not "Am I the only one who...?" You see? You see what I did there? Now nobody has cause to derail the thread with lecture posts about how "YOU ARE NEVER THE ONLY ONE!" Boy, that was easy wasn't it? People should do this more often...

Anyway, in what feels like most discussions about games that I get involved with or lurk round the edges of, the words "replay value" are almost certain to come up. Now, my views on this particular subject seem to be pretty much in line with Jim Sterling's from when he covered the subject, i.e. The only criteria a game needs to meet for me to want to replay it, is me having enjoyed playing it the first time around. Sure, extra game modes like online multi-player are good for giving me extra incentive to keep playing (so long as they're done well), but I'd never say that I 'needed' more game modes to keep my interest in a game I enjoyed. As a result, I have ended up keeping the vast majority of games that I have bought outright. Some of them I revisit more than others, but I still keep them. However, I get the feeling that this is not, or at least no longer is, common behaviour when it comes to games. From what I see it seems that the average gamer (if there is such a thing) will only keep a game rather than trade it in if a) they are a big fan of that particular game or the franchise it belongs to for various reasons, or b) They can get a regular stream of 'new' experiences from the game, usually through multi-player.

While I understand the reasoning behind it (games are expensive after all, so it makes sense to trade in a game you don't really see yourself playing to frequently, even if you liked it, to get some of that money back rather than have it just sit on your shelf doing nothing but taking up space for most of the time), it also kind of ticks me off, as it can often lead to really shitty multi-player modes in games that were there not because anyone gave a damn about making them, but because 'must have multi-player' is now on the publisher's check list (bonus rage points if time spent developing this unnecessary and underwhelming arm of the game is time taken out of the game's main focus, meaning that the whole experience suffers for the existence of the multi-player).

So, do you tend to keep the games you enjoy playing the first time around, even when it may be months before you go back and revisit it; or do you trade most of your games in, even good ones, after you first play them unless the existence of extra game modes can keep you entertained?

 

[Eddie the head]

Most if the time I keep most games I buy, but if I just got something like Fallout:NV ultimate Edition why would I need just Fallout NV? I'll trade it it then. For the most part yeah I keep most of my games. And when they are on the PC I don't have a choice.

 

[piinyouri]

I used to trade in games once I was certain I'd exhausted all the replay value from them.

Nowadays I don't, as I know that 1-2 years down the road, I will want to play a game again.

 

[tippy2k2]

It is very very very rare that I replay games.

For whatever reason, I generally can't replay games and get the same enjoyment out of them. The only exceptions to this rule are usually the "customize RPG" (IE Mass Effect, Fallout, etc) where you create a character and have options during the game. Generally, I will play myself the first time and then become the most evil person I can be for the second time. Once in a great while I will play through a game on it's highest difficulty for achievement whoring purposes but that's very rare.

However, usually I only replay when I'm in a "new game lull" (no new games) and it will only last until my next game is purchased.

All in all, I don't think I've ever replayed a game to the end except for a handful for achievement whoring purposes.

 

[AD-Stu]

PC gamer here, so I don't have the option to trade in games after I've played them.

That said, it means that the only games I tend to buy for full price at release are ones that I'm pretty sure I'm going to get a lot of value / replay value out of. Games that I know I'm probably only going to play once and then leave on the shelf forever more (the Assassins Creed games, for example) I wait until the price drops way down.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

With the exception of two games, I've kept every single game I've ever bought and as well as given to me as a gift.

I've replayed most of the games I have and in those cases it was a few years, like more than two, but there are a few games I replay a lot just because I love them so much.

 

[Tanis]

I don't normally trade or sell, my games.
I used to trade, but most places screw you over so I stopped that.

IF I can sell a 'regular' version of a game at a decent price, I'll do it so I can get the UE/GOTY.

Even then...I've got two copies of DMC3.

 

[Dirty Hipsters]

I feel like there are 2 types of games, "story games" and "gameplay games."

Story games are the ones that you play through because you just have to know "what happens next?!" These are games like Red Dead Redemption, or Bioshock. Games with average gameplay but a story compelling enough to keep you playing and make you want to finish.

Gameplay games are the ones that you play because the core mechanics of the game are really fun, and you want to keep playing the game because the fundamental gameplay elements are interesting and entertaining. These are games like Vanquish, or Borderlands.

For me the former of these two has less replay value, because once you've finished the story, that's it, there isn't much there to hold your attention during a second play through. You already know what's going to happen, and the gameplay isn't engaging enough to make you want to keep playing. After you already know what's going to happen, it's not as much fun to play through again and again.

 

[BreakfastMan]

I tend to be like you. Unless a game is really crappy, I will keep it. I never trade games in, really. I think I have only did so once and that was with a bunch of crappy X-Box games I never really liked. I won't say that I replay all of my games, I just kind of like to collect them (in addition to playing them).

 

[Kalikin]

I rarely replay my games, but I will never trade them in. Not even the occasional bad one I've bought on a whim. They're an expression of myself, even if all they do is sit on display, and I like the idea that I am able to revisit them if I ever feel I ought to. I'm the same way with books.

 

[Inconspicuous Trenchcoat]

I've only traded in two games, Pikmin and Final Fantasy XII/12. I hated both, and wished them gone from my life. I keep almost all of my games, and once in a while I'll revisit them. Usually I'll just play through the first fourth to half of a game, when I revisit them. Replaying a game in its entirety is a rare event. I've never beaten Half-Life all the way through, but boy have I played the first third of it a lot--can't get enough of dat tram ride.

I keep games because I value them, even if I'll never play through them again. I consider most trade in offers insultingly low, anyhow. Wish my brother hadn't sold my copy of Earthbound behind my back; I'd rather have the game than the $50 my brother made (that I insisted he hand over to me when I discovered the truth--my mother kept yelling at me about how I should share my video games and let this go... how is my brother selling a video game I bought for full price, brand new and then keeping the profit for himself and never telling me "sharing?!?!") It's okay guys, I got a petty childhood experience off my chest. I can stop ranting now.

 

[Moonlight Butterfly]

I never trade games but I did lose a few when I split with my ex which made me really depressed D:

 

[Arfonious]

You are never the only one etc. etc.

Well, I have replayed most of my games at least once, often too try it on a harder setting
I however mainly play single player because people online are dumb and demanding (present company exepted of course)

I often try to play differently when playing through the second time, try to make a different approach

 

[Signa]

I can't say I've ever been inclined to trade in, at least not when I hear the prices stores like Gamestop will credit you. I might be willing to do it if anyone offered me a sum that was greater than the value of the time spent reacquiring it, should I want it again. That value is usually too high.

Once, when I was a kid, I tried trading in some games, and I've regretted it since. Thankfully, the biggest loss was Super Mario World, but I ended up with a copy that included Mario Allstars too.

 

[fletch_talon]

I have a limited time on this earth and I want to experience as many different things as possible.
That's not to say I never replay/read/watch my games books and visual media, but I generally lean towards playing something I've never played before, and very very rarely go back to something I've already completed.

Ironically though, I never trade in sell or even rent games/books/movies, I collect them, not sure why. Its rather counterproductive considering my aforementioned stance on replaying things.

I guess maybe it ties back to the whole limited life thing. I figure that the things I accumulate during my life tell a story about my life. I want to keep them to remind myself of what I enjoy and to show others who I was, even after I'm gone. They also increase in value in some cases but that's meaningless considering I never intend to sell them.

 

[NiPah]

I'm certainly in the same boat as you, I'll just randomly pick up a game I beat long ago and start playing it again. What I don't agree with is being annoyed at the so called tacked on multiplayer. I always judge a game from what it is, not what it could have been, would such and such game really been that great if assets were redirected instead of being used in multiplayer? Well I'd say no, it shows shit directing and shit management when a game sucks. I guess what I'm trying to say is that even if multiplayer was taken out it would have been a shit game anyway, no amount of manpower can fix horrible game development.

But thankfully that isn't the case, most games (like Mass Effect 3, sans ending) were amazing games and still multiplayer tacked on.

 

[A.A.K]

Do I reckon you're in the minority? Probably; but I'm with you!
I keep all of my games, and over half of them are single player...and I play them all frequently. Frequently as my gaming goes anyway.

Alone I've already played the first two Mass Effect games something like 13 times. Replayability to me just means fun and choice. I've played more of the single player in CoD games than I have the multiplayer. Why? It's fun...I like the 'mission' feeling rather than just running around with a bunch of people better than me playing the same game every time.

 

[Lieju]

I don't play multiplayer, so that's never something I keep the game over.

As for replay-value, it depends on the game.
"Eternal Darkness; sanity's requiem" is one of my favourite games ever, but it has very little replay-value, since what made it so great in the first playthrough (the plot, the suspense, the scares) won't work as well if I know what's coming.

But games where the fun comes from the gameplay, and where you can play it in different ways and have different choices for plot have much more replay-value.