Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Linearity versus Replayability

Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.

Watch Video
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
0
0
Agreed 100% with this point. I both tend to enjoy linear games more than non-linear ones, and can replay any game I enjoy (just finished playthrough #13 of Mass Effect. Hell, I've even played Enslaved: Odyssey to the West more than once, and people tore it down for its lack of "replay value"). Any game that is good has infinite replay value for me.
 

cynicalsaint1

Salvation a la Mode
Apr 1, 2010
545
0
0
Couldn't agree more.

I'm really sick of the trend of shoehorning multiplayer into every single game that doesn't need it.
 

DigitalAtlas

New member
Mar 31, 2011
836
0
0
Finally! Tired of having this argument with people. Now I can just send them to this video. That also insults them!
 

drisky

New member
Mar 16, 2009
1,605
0
0
All brains are mental, I don't think you had the best choice of words there. But yes all a game needs to be is good, and it can achieve replay value with or without out extras. The Escapist is pretty heavily pro single player so I doubt you'll get many arguments.
 

Moffman

New member
May 21, 2009
113
0
0
Nice video, your becoming one of my favourite contributors to the Escapist.
 

Sylocat

Sci-Fi & Shakespeare
Nov 13, 2007
2,122
0
0
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.
 

Valate_v1legacy

New member
Sep 16, 2009
1,273
0
0
I agree! I do miss those fun platformers of yore.

As always, excellent video.

Now time to go play some Super Meat Boy...
 

the spud

New member
May 2, 2011
1,408
0
0
To me, the best way to add replay value is to create a world with many optional easter eggs and quests, that way on your second time through you may find something you didn't catch the first time around. It isn't necessary, though.
 

uberhippy

New member
Apr 28, 2011
61
0
0
Terrific, well done Jim!

Eg: crowning Jem of my childhood, Rachet & Clank, the charming wonder of Insomniac games has been inclining more and more to multiplayer & hub-based cheap thrills instead of the happily explorative, richly comediac, FUN single player joy. (don't get me started on all 4 one)

I miss Rachet and clank :,(
 

Dr-Sock

New member
Jul 23, 2009
20
0
0
I completely agree with the points made. Although the story was ridiculous ace combat 4 distant thunder was an all time favorite game when I was young and I've replayed it countless times (It did have incentives e.g. more planes).
 

GamemasterAnthony

New member
Dec 5, 2010
1,009
0
0
Definitely agree. It almost seems that people forgot what "replay" means. Not "play beyond" but "play again".

Oh...and I also have replayed FFIX a few times as well.
 

the_maestro_sartori

New member
Nov 8, 2009
246
0
0
So true, and wow, I'd not considered the wider aspect such as companies diverting time/money away from the single-player to create / support the multiplayer, and dead space 2 is a damn good example of that.

Tell it, preacher!
 

Macrobstar

New member
Apr 28, 2010
896
0
0
Sylocat said:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.
When was this covered by eitherr of those?
 

Charmi the ninja

New member
May 28, 2011
72
0
0
I thought we all knew this already. Oh well, I guess there are some people out here that are still this narrow minded.
Btw, did anyone else feel like pulling their eyeballs out when the picture of "Jim Sterling King of gaming" appeared on screen?? :>

Good show - I still don't like yu very much - but good show.
 

Dastardly

Imaginary Friend
Apr 19, 2010
2,420
0
0
Jim Sterling said:
Linearity versus Replayability

Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.

Watch Video
Would be nice to also present more ways in which developers can assure their games are worth replaying. So far, you've basically just said, "Well, you listen to good songs, read good books, or watch good movies over and over, don't you?" And yeah, people do. And yeah, the fact that these don't change upon multiple experiences is notable.

So, having a great story is one way. Having enjoyable gameplay is another. Super Mario World had levels with multiple finish lines, or those goofy "collect 3 coins" that compel me to play the same level five times--because in my heart, I must have the coins. Both Spiderman 2 (Gamecube) and Just Cause 2 kept me coming back simply for the feel of the travel mechanics. Hulk: Ultimate Destruction let me level cities.

It's not that you didn't make a good point with the episode... it's just it felt like all wind-up, and no punch. Maybe talk about ways in which multiplayer can work against replayability--for instance, because the player can't be assured that the next time through will be dependably fun, if they happen upon jackasses or cheaters in online play. Or about the myriad ways in which developers can properly incentivize replaying the game--some of which were mentioned above.

You raise a good issue. Follow through with that.
 

ProjectTrinity

New member
Apr 29, 2010
311
0
0
And now, I can just spam this link on people who actually post, with mind numbing enthusiasm, about how they can't "justify" a game without multiplayer and/or co-op. The PS2 was only a few years ago, guys.

I agree, this has been an awesome episode.
 

lord.jeff

New member
Oct 27, 2010
1,468
0
0
Cool another FF9 fan, also my most replayed games are Sonic 2 and Veiwtiful Joe.
 

Lancer873

New member
Oct 10, 2009
520
0
0
The truth is strong in this one. I know I've played through Cave Story plenty of times, (at least five times with the good ending) and it's still fun. Though it is certainly nice to throw in a few scraps of items that you have to replay to get (like the three different main guns in Cave Story) it's still the game itself that matters most.
 

Woodsey

New member
Aug 9, 2009
14,553
0
0
Totally agree.

Seeing people refuse to buy games that are purely single player (and even when they're exceptionally well-received) because they have no "replay value" is mind-boggling.
 

MowDownJoe

New member
Apr 8, 2009
464
0
0
Great. I thought I had Ace of Base purged from my head. I hate you now, Jim!

(Just kidding... and I did laugh when you started singing The Sign.)
 

Moonlight Butterfly

Be the Leaf
Mar 16, 2011
6,157
0
0
I thought this episode was slipping back a little bit in style but overall I thought it was okay.

The points he made where good but I would like to add something. My friend said he can't play through multiended games more than once becuase he is decisive and he picks what he think is the 'correct' way. So even if a game has these options in it, they can still dissapoint as a replayability option.

To me what adds replayability to game isn't multiplayer (which is kind of an empty premise for me as I like story) but the ability to play through with different styles or 'specs'

Like playing through oblivion as a theif then a mage then a knight character. It's somnthing that a lot of games don't need, but somthing that helps me to enjoy the game another way without not much else changing.

PS: The use of the 'duh chin' made me laugh a lot, makes me wonder if Americans do that too. xD
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
 

orangeapples

New member
Aug 1, 2009
1,836
0
0
You know what games like Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time 3D need? Online Multiplayer.

The problem with online multiplayer is that some people are paying monthly for the service and feel cheated if every game doesn't use it in some form. Especially on 360 where most of the gamers on that console are on XboxLive, then if the Xbox 360 players get an online multiplayer then the PS3 players would feel cheated. If they don't to sell a game without online multiplayer it is either going to be really good solid campaign, or committing video game suicide.

Unfortunately Online multiplayer is not always the decision of the developer, but the publisher. They say "This game will have online multiplayer, or we will not be funding your game." Publishers do not understand that not every game is designed for multiplayer.

If you are making a game designed for single player it cannot be half-assed; gamers will know.
Conversely, if you are making a game designed for online multiplayer then who really cares about the campaign? The single player mode is just there to justify selling a new game *cough*CallOfDuty*cough
 

TheDooD

New member
Dec 23, 2010
812
0
0
I remember when cheat codes and new game plus was enough to get gamers by but now it seems that there's a need to shoot a friend in the head to validate a gaming experence. I blame to dumbass masses that seem to just got into gaming because of a certain FPS. Then fact producers are so damn spineless to their publishers to tell them no to tacked on MP because it's gonna make the game shit because it doesn't work.
 

Mikodite

New member
Dec 8, 2010
211
0
0
The problem is there are a lot of people who wouldn't read a book a second time and wouldn't watch a movie a second time regardless of quality, and therefore wouldn't reply a video game. These people are likely the minority, but they are a loud minority.

It probably doesn't help that some games have a bad single-player mode and the only thing carry them is an achievement system and the multi-player. Too many of these games exist t give many players the idea that a linear single player mode isn't enough to make someone want to play the game again.
 

Phlakes

+15 Dagger of Socks
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
0
"Timmy, what did you learn today?"

"Cuntmushroom! It's my new favorite word, mommy!"

OT: Completely agreed. I want to see a CoD game that has no competitive multiplayer, then it can go back to the awesome campaigns from 2 and 4.
 

Syntax Error

New member
Sep 7, 2008
2,323
0
0
The next one would probably be a Jimquisition edition of Jim's article titled "The Path of o Divergence", which is linear vs. sandbox.

Great video, but I could do without the permanent scarring that is Kuja's man-thong. eurghhhhh
 

Hdawger

New member
Jun 8, 2010
75
0
0
Man I look forward to this every Monday! I've always liked you Destructoid and I also love you here too! I agree with you a lot on this issue, especially when games with multiplayer tacked on lose the single player/narrative focus I'm used to. Take Assassin's Creed Brotherhood for example; it had an exceptional multiplayer with new and inventive gameplay, but the single player lacked what I expect from an Assassin's Creed game.

Thats just my 2 cents; keep it coming Mr. Sterling!
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
 

punipunipyo

New member
Jan 20, 2011
486
0
0
usually I don't comment for your shows, but this, this is good, I agreed! thumbs up for you~


but I DO have to argue, yes, I never play DeadSpace-Muti, but I think Dead space2 top the first game, and BioShock2 toped the first one (not in story, but) in gameplay! BY FAAAR! other than these... yeh totally !~
 

Rylot

New member
May 14, 2010
1,819
0
0
I definitely agree. Even when you know the story some games are just really fun to play. I've never really understood people who can play COD for eight hours a day. Sure you get matched up with different people each time but it still boils down to the same damn thing each time. It's just my opinion but with a limited number of maps and combinations of weapons and game play modes it just feels so repetitive to me.
 

pheipl

New member
Jun 24, 2010
21
0
0
I sorta agree, BUT (plz read b4 you troll)

While I love linear games with a strong narrative, I cannot play them twice. Yes most people see a good movie more than once, or listen to a good song more than once, or read a good book several times, but ... not everyone does. I never watch the same movie twice unless I have nothing better to do, and even then I lose interest about half way through. If I listen to the same song too much I lose interest in that also. A very good and complex book deserves several reads.

What I'm trying to say I suppose is that:

1) Not everyone thinks the same, some can't do repetitive tasks (go trough the same story twice)
2) Replayability is helped by being an open game, hindered by being linear (not saying linear games CAN'T be replayed just not as easily as open world games)
NOTE: Only referring to strong narrative games (not sonic or mario)

Ex: I bought Metro 2033 on impulse but I loved every single second in that game, convinced my friends to get it, tried to replay it ... couldn't. For SOME, a linear game with no variation on story (story driven games only) except maybe minor endings that can be googled have NO REPLAY VALUE WHAT SO EVER.
(P.S. I also don't like adding mutlyplayer to games that should never have mutlyplayer ... metro last light, I'm looking at you!)
 

42

Australian Justice
Jan 30, 2010
697
0
0
Sylocat said:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.
How Nintendo America, How bout Metacritic? actually, now that i think about it game localisation has been bought up in ZP, but that's only usually in a brief second or too. because ZP is a REVIEW show. i find your comment quite silly. still sterling doesn't need me defending him from the haters when his ego is as big as Godzilla

EDIT: woops forgot to quote.
 

Coldster

New member
Oct 29, 2010
541
0
0
Am I the only one who really enjoyed the Bioshock 2 online? I thought it was really creative, fair, fun, and original. I loved the campaign and I enjoyed the online enough to get to level 40. I don't understand the amount of hate it receives as somehow being the reason why some people *cough* Yahtzee *cough* didn't enjoy this sequel as much as the first.
 

Zac Smith

New member
Apr 25, 2010
672
0
0
Personally I wouldn't say that Portal 1 are 2 are re-playable. I had tremendous fun with both games, but in figuring out the puzzles, once I finished it, there is no challenge to solve. If I did play it again, I would use pretty much the same methods I did the 1st play through
 

MB202

New member
Sep 14, 2008
1,157
0
0
I don't get the logic behind "linear games have little-to-no replayability", since games have been both linear and replayable LONG before the idea of multiplayer in games... Or at least games that have actual substance in them. It's like watching and movie or reading a book. You can play/watch/read it again all you want.

Also, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was my very first video game. And I played it ALL the fucking time!
 

pilf

New member
Apr 23, 2008
143
0
0
Great as always Jim.

I've lost rack of the amount of times I've replayed my N64 and Megadrive games. As long as there's something interesting about a game I'll proably give it a second (or third) go. Afterall, I didn't replay Assassin's Creed to gain all the flags (that was far too tedious and annoying for me) I enjoyed the story.
 

silent-treatment

New member
Oct 15, 2009
159
0
0
And with the Lapel mic you have completely won me over. Now I can enjoy the episode for the jokes and good points instead of some of it being diverted to the weird sound level drops. Seriously, great episode can't wait for next week.
 

Birthe

New member
Apr 26, 2010
73
0
0
So had to laugh at Jim singing in the end, brilliant!

I agree that for me personally games can be linear and without any co-op or whatever and I still enjoyed playing some of them again, because yeah they are fun or I just notice things I didn't see the first time, or simply because I enjoyed them and I enjoy going through this experience again.


Yeah as Jim says no one ever complains about movies not having any kind of multiplayer to have a rewatch value there... unless you make a drinking game out of it when you watch it the 2nd time
 

Redlin5_v1legacy

Better Red than Dead
Aug 5, 2009
48,837
0
0
Good games make people want to play them again? I never knew that. THANK GOD FOR THE JIMQUISITION!
 

Calico93

New member
Jul 31, 2010
566
0
0
I do agree with him on this one. But I still found him rather annoying to watch.
Maybe tone down the patronising talk eh jim.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Multiplayer does potentially increase it's replayability though. So I really don't see the point you're making.

Speaking of Metro. It's one of the few shooters that's story I've played more than 3 times. And I'm seriously looking forward to 'last light'. The multiplayer aspect is only adding to that.
 

twm1709

New member
Nov 19, 2009
477
0
0
Jim's choice of games are very similar to mine actually. Bioshock and Portal in particular.
 

SoopaSte123

New member
Jul 1, 2010
464
0
0
By far your best video, Jim. Hilarious this time. Also, as a mainly single player mode person who loves replay value, I completely agree with your statements. I've struggled to find many games on this console generation that have strong enough single player for repeated playthroughs, while last generation I had a bunch. Maybe it's just my personal taste.
 

V8 Ninja

New member
May 15, 2010
1,903
0
0
I learned the "Linearity =/= Replayability" lesson when I sank 20+ hours just playing "Vanilla" Portal and another 12+ hours into playing the single player portion of Portal 2. Also, the ironic thing about multiplayer is that generally you don't experience new content, you just experience slightly different scenarios in that content.
 

BrotherRool

New member
Oct 31, 2008
3,834
0
0
I agree with this so much. Some of my favourite games, the games I've replayed the most, are very linear (Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2,3,4, Uncharted 1,2 etc)

I think non-linearity hurt the story of Final Fantasy XII a bit.

Then again, I reread books far more than most people do
 

Vaco Deus

Model of Apathy
Aug 10, 2009
18
0
0
I agree with this video 1000%. I'm sick of developers catering to the ADD generation and shoehorning multiplayer into games that don't need.

Dead Space 2. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, etc. It takes away time and resources from the single player for an aspect of the game that will be dead within 6 months to a year and you're left with a SP that is a pathetic 4-6 hours long.
 

Thaluikhain

Elite Member
Legacy
Apr 4, 2020
14,665
613
118
Eh...yes, he's right, because the point he was making was fairly obvious, and din't need 5 minutes of padding out. On the other hand, the cuntmushroom picture was sorta funnyish, likewise Ace of Base mention.
 

ThisNewGuy

New member
Apr 28, 2009
315
0
0
I really think it does take someone as pompously idiotic as Jim Sterling to assume that quality equates replayability.

As with almost everything in video games, it's simply not that simple. While, yes, a great title is incentive in itself to be replayed, the blanket value of "great title" is just a stupid thing to equate to replayability since "great title" pretty much equates to everything in video games. That's the most cop-out answer I've ever seen. That's like saying what makes a book worth reading? Oh, because it's good. Why should you avoid this film? Well of course, it's because it's bad.

Thanks for wasting my time captain obvious.

To me, replayability more specifically comes from both the narrative and the design of choice. Narrative is obvious in that it works the same as with other medium. If you enjoy the narrative, you'd want to enjoy it again. Choice is more specific to games. A game with multiple choices per action warrants more replays, and a game with high replay value is one where choice directly matches mechanics in that the game challenges the player to choose his or her action to overcome the challenge by manipulating the mechanics.

For example, people like to replay Mario because the player can choose where to jump, how far to jump, how high to jump, etc, all to accomplish some challenge presented by the game. This creates a large variety of consequences per choice, and the player may discover different methods to overcome different challenges. Also, the player feels rewarded since upon replays the player inherently becomes better at the game, whether it is more understanding of the challenges and outcomes or improvement in the skill of the mechanics.

Another example is Pac Man. The choice is whether to go up down left or right, or when to eat those orbs, etc. The mechanics is easy enough to master, but the replay value comes from the player's choice to improve on his or her understanding of the game (movement of enemies, timing, etc).

Therefore, really, replay value ultimately boils down to rewards. Is it still rewarding for the player to replay a game? If the answer is yes, then there is replay value. And rewards comes in all forms and flavors, not simply "oh this game is good, so I'll replay it."

PS. Not all games with high replay value are great. For example, Cow Clicker is specifically designed as a joke to make fun of how bad games can become addicting on Facebook by applying a face value of points.
 

leviadragon99

New member
Jun 17, 2010
1,055
0
0
Starting to come across as a little smary and ill-composed there, instead of the usual arrogance.

Regardless, setting aside the delivery of the argument, I find that you have a damn good point, I've replayed a bunch of my old games in the past, and probably should get back to some I've neglected for a time.
 

UNHchabo

New member
Dec 24, 2008
535
0
0
I think there's one genre that inherently has less replay value than others: puzzle games.

Once I finished Braid, I had no interest in going back through the game again, since I already know how to solve all of the puzzles. Maybe I'll go back in 3-5 years, when I'll have forgotten most of the solutions.

I think Valve did an excellent job with Portal and Portal 2 though; each one had extra challenges that you could attempt after finishing the main game. Portal had the explicit Challenge Levels, while Portal 2 had the "Smash TV" achievement.
 

pluizig

New member
Jan 11, 2010
175
0
0
pheipl said:
What I'm trying to say I suppose is that:

1) Not everyone thinks the same, some can't do repetitive tasks (go trough the same story twice)
How is multiplayer not repetitive? There is only a limited number of scenarios you play over and over again.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video

Sylocat said:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.
I like how people always bring this up but never provides links to when it has been covered before.
 

personion

New member
Dec 6, 2010
243
0
0
I just watched a guy called Total Biscuit rant for 20 minutes about games not having replay value because they have no mulitplayer, and this was like a breath of fresh air. Thank you.
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
 

intheweeds

New member
Apr 6, 2011
817
0
0
It's simple linguistics really:

re·play (r-pl)
tr.v. re·played, re·play·ing, re·plays
To play over again: replay a tennis match; replay a tape; replay history.
n. (rpl)
1. The act or process of replaying.
2. Something replayed.
3. An instant replay.

Anytime you are playing something you haven't played before (dlc, multiplayer after the main campaign) is inherently not 'replay'. You haven't played it before. It's new. Replay in my eyes is only playing the game you already played - again.
 

Xanadu84

New member
Apr 9, 2008
2,946
0
0
I think Jim is rather horribly ignoring something important here. Its not that a game needs multiplayer for replayability, or that lack of multiplayer means no replayability. But it sure as hell HELPS. Games are all about learning and experiencing new things. The saddest thing in the world for me to see in games is someone who has played Counterstrike 1.6 every night for the past decade, or someone who has never stopped playing Starcraft or WoW in order to try something new and different. Sure, I love Lord of the Rings, for example, but I don't consider someone who has read the entire LotR trilogy 48 times NEARLY as enriched as a person who has read a breadth of literature. Yes, I played Portal a second time. After about a year. And it was absolutely not as fresh and intriguing an experience as the first time I played it. We, as a community, will rail against publishers for releasing a redundant sequel, and then support replaying the same game again, experiencing a mostly similar experience? The problem here is not to insist that Multiplayer doesn't helps replayability: Is absolutely does. The problem is that we need to realize that memories and experience from a truly fantastic single player are more worthwhile then a thousand hours worth of tacked on multiplayer. Think about it, which game are you more glad to have played: Portal, or a random game that lasted 8 hours?
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
So you're all mad and snarky because he said something that made sense?

What he was getting at was that majority of the gaming industry believes that adding multiplayer gives a game more replay value than making a quality singleplayer, and that this isn't entirley true.
 

Hitman Dread

New member
Mar 9, 2011
140
0
0
I think Jim is missing the larger problem here: we rate games as if they are a product of practicality. No matter how much a video games enhances your life, it will never be practical, so when we rate games high or low based on things like the amount of time that can be spent on them in relation to the amount of money earned, we are selling are medium short and placing them along aside lawn mowers and tool shed equipment.
 

AgentBJ09

New member
May 24, 2010
818
0
0
Jim Sterling said:
Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.
I vote for Jim singing, and dropping a mic if he can, at the end of each episode. That would be truly epic and enjoyable.

------------

In all seriousness though, I do agree with your points about multiplayer getting shoehorned into games that didn't need it, and that it's taking time away from the reason most folks buy games: The Single Player.

As for the idea of replayability, having played through The Warriors maybe 8 or more times in total, I do agree that even if a game is linear, if it's fun, who cares? I go back to that game because I want to punch the puke out of other gang members, toss them through debris, or enjoy the story that Rockstar made around the story of the film, which I have seen maybe ten times already because it's just an awesome movie.

However, that game wouldn't have been complete without the Rumble Mode or even the Co-Op gameplay, so at times, multiplayer makes the game work better as a whole. The thing is it's up to the developers to make the best call on that, but they can be influenced in the wrong directions if they are not careful.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
Sylocat said:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.
Can't tolerate content that isn't new?
 

Kahunaburger

New member
May 6, 2011
4,141
0
0
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
So you're all mad and snarky because he said something that made sense?

What he was getting at was that majority of the gaming industry believes that adding multiplayer gives a game more replay value than making a quality singleplayer, and that this isn't entirley true.
I ain't even mad - just disappointed. He's actually a good writer on Destructoid, but seems to prefer to go for the low-hanging fruit on Jimquisition. It's easy to make an argument that makes sense without having it be completely milquetoast - just look at Extra Punctuation, Extra Credits, or even some of Jim's Destructoid articles.
 

Epona

Elite Member
Jul 29, 2020
4,221
0
41
Country
United States
So he showed NSMBW as an example but didn't wasn't NSMBW designed around the multiplayer mode and isn't that multiplayer mode irritating as all hell? Doesn't that game fit the "it didn't need multiplayer" mold? Well, atleast not simultaneous multiplayer.
 

Callate

New member
Dec 5, 2008
5,118
0
0
Le *sigh*

I've played and replayed many of the same games Sterling mentions, and hell yes, I'm all for devs putting their time and effort into making good, solid single-player campaigns with tightly written stories and deep, enjoyable gameplay. Heaven knows it can be hard enough finding a handful of people to play a multiplayer game with, let alone people who will be enjoyable to play a multiplayer game with, without the game you're trying to find those players for being Cooking Mama 6: Decorative Frosting Cannon Free-For-All.

But I really don't feel this kind of vitriol is remotely warranted for people who feel they get more out of their games for having multiplayer or multiple endings or New Game+ modes. When all is said and done, this is a matter of taste and opinion, not something that one can simply sneeringly say "you're wrong" about without looking like a total wanker.

It's fair to point out to people with this mindset if they demanded multiplayer in Bioshock 2 and then griped about it or never played it; it's certainly not unreasonable to wonder if the inclusion of multiplayer diverts resources that would have been better allocated to the "real" game if such seems to have been the arrangement. But while we're on the subject, we might spare a thought to the developers who decided to spend their time and money that way, and recognize that there are other factors in play than just a certain kind of message board complainer. Extending gameplay by these mean is also one more hedge against the bugbear of the used games market, and in the case of multiplayer one more excuse to get players online, and thus one more way to collect information about the player base.

More thinking, less sneering, Jim.
 

Zhukov

The Laughing Arsehole
Dec 29, 2009
13,768
0
0
Uhh, well I agree.

...

Except I have never once heard someone say a game lacked replay value due to linearity.

Next week: the sky is actually blue!
 

Stabby Joe

New member
Jul 30, 2008
1,545
0
0
Metro 2033 was a brilliant and criminally overlooked game because like a good film it had great progression and atmosphere.
 

Lullabye

New member
Oct 23, 2008
4,426
0
0
You basically could have just showed a copy of SotC for 5 minutes and made the same point.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Metro last light will get MP? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It doesn't need one. It was one of the best game last year because it have such a good sp.
 

Fiz_The_Toaster

books, Books, BOOKS
Legacy
Apr 8, 2020
5,498
1
3
Country
United States
Good episode, even though it was rather obvious. Also, cuntmushroom is now my new favorite word for this week.

I won't thank God for you Jim, but I will thank God for that lavalier mic you got. I was getting rather annoyed with the occasional audio drops.
 

Zersy

New member
Nov 11, 2008
3,021
0
0
I love playing The original metal gear soild. My only complaint is how hard the final boss was it made playing through it a pain.
 
Jun 7, 2010
26
0
0
i totally agree, iam still playing the original mario on the GB and i wasted so many hours on [prototype], heavy rain and manhunt 1 & 2
 

Thunderhorse31

New member
Apr 22, 2009
1,818
0
0
Phlakes said:
I want to see a CoD game that has no competitive multiplayer, then it can go back to the awesome campaigns from 2 and 4.
I... what... you...

*aneurysm*

...

You do realize that 2 and 4 both had multiplayer right? Like, hugely successful multilplayer... right?

OT: I don't mind when games have strong single player and multiplayer portions (like Halo or Gears, etc.), but like Jim I find it maddening when devs pump out a sequel to a single player game/story that has tacked on multiplayer. Seriously, why? Why?

We already have enough MP games competing for our time, so when a new Bioshock/Dead Space/Resident Evil game comes out, chances are I'm buying it for the story/atmosphere/characters, and not for some hypothetical derivative skirmish mode that NO ONE will be playing in 3 weeks.

Stick with crafting a memorable narrative, and don't water it down. :)
 

rsvp42

New member
Jan 15, 2010
897
0
0
I remember replaying Breath of Fire 3 & 4 quite a lot. Hard to argue with this. I think Multiplayer is a business thing a lot of times. Games like Modern Warfare 2 have become blockbuster hits almost entirely due to multiplayer, so it's an appealing addition for any investors who want to see decent returns. Replayability through multiplayer and the social pressure to keep pace with friends can help drive the purchase of DLC. Even though it doesn't really make sense for all games, I don't mind it if the core game is still solid. Unless the multiplayer is really fun and attracts a lot of players, I don't want to sense any compromises in the single-player experience.
 

Korten12

Now I want ma...!
Aug 26, 2009
10,766
0
0
Vaco Deus said:
I agree with this video 1000%. I'm sick of developers catering to the ADD generation and shoehorning multiplayer into games that don't need.

Dead Space 2. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, etc. It takes away time and resources from the single player for an aspect of the game that will be dead within 6 months to a year and you're left with a SP that is a pathetic 4-6 hours long.
Wait wasn't Brotherhood praised for a good long SP and a good Multi?

MacNille said:
Metro last light will get MP? NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO! It doesn't need one. It was one of the best game last year because it have such a good sp.

Well their other games: STALKER all had multi, and those games were longer then Metro.
 

Prof. Monkeypox

New member
Mar 17, 2010
1,014
0
0
I really liked his point this week- and he doesn't irritate me as much as he once did- but please tone down the gimmick, and childish name calling. These distract from, rather than enhance, the overall experience.
 

Faux Furry

New member
Apr 19, 2011
282
0
0
You entirely forgot about Achievements and Trophies, Jim, therefore your argument is invalid.
Seriously,though, that Jimquisition was thoroughly agreeable and as such, not nearly as brutal as anything invoking the Spanish Inquisition should be.
It's enough to make one suspect that you're going soft!
 

Poisoned Al

New member
Feb 16, 2008
109
0
0
What, no mention of the most "I want to replay that" game of all time, Deus Ex? You fail good sir. You fail hard.
 

BloodRed Pixel

New member
Jul 16, 2009
630
0
0
Jim, you got my 100% backup on this one!

I was a little bit sad cause Steam Summer Camp ended (thankfully) but this episode totally cheers me up, spotting on the mark what is wrong with with gamers who don´t have a clue what replayability means and tech jerks that put great games down because the FSAA is not state of the art in 2011.7 anymore, or similar irrelevant shit.

Esp. the body language totally fits the presentation.
 

gbemery

New member
Jun 27, 2009
907
0
0
DigitalAtlas said:
Finally! Tired of having this argument with people. Now I can just send them to this video. That also insults them!
I too have tired of arguing with people about this, so finally I too can redirect them to this video.

OP: Thank you Jim! I couldn't agree more. I have always tired in the arguments with people who seem to think everything would be better or can only be played more often if it has some form of multiplayer mode etc. You even used the examples I love to use such as the how one can reread a book with out have to have something like a co op reading, and how you can rewatch movies. Thank you again Jim.
 

ManupBatman

New member
Jun 23, 2011
91
0
0
FF9 love! RPGs are a great example of non-multi replay value. Running through a game without healing, or magic, or if it's an action game leveling up. Good times.
 

notmyday2009

New member
Mar 14, 2011
4
0
0
You do know that your suppose to laugh at his over the top elitist asshole persona. His pretty much a caricature of how the common man sees critics and other supposed elitist assholes. I mean how can people take him so serious when he says stuff like"Your brain is mental" and not laugh at how ridiculous his persona is in his video. He is a satire in snobby elitist asshole that think there opinion are the law that there fan most follow or they are just dumb moron that don't understand there greatness. In his newer videos he has crank it up to eleven to make it easier on people to see that his persona is caricature to be mock for how he think is clever witty and charming when is obvious he is not. Which fit perfectly with his character as sadly many people think that are so clever and think they understand sarcasm and irony when in truth they have no what so ever. I guess is true what they say great satire is pretty much unrecognizable from what is mocking or some shit like that.
 

Btoken

New member
Mar 19, 2009
10
0
0
Thank you Jim, for putting the argument in a suitable framework of insults, sarcasm and insight! I personally enjoy your persona as I'm not a knuckle-dragging man ape, so let the haters choke on hate and do your thing, my brother from another mother!
 

owbu

New member
Feb 14, 2011
55
0
0
you replayed portal?
its a puzzle game..why would you want to play a puzzle game, if you already know all the awnswers?

I guess i wouldnt say that a game will get replay value just by being good. I personally do not see the point in playing a linear game again, which i enjoyed mainly for its atmosphere or its story - There a lots of good games/movies and books out there, that i havent tried yet

A game doesnt have to have replayable value to be good, though.
Im okay with playing it just once, as long as it is a great expirience
 

mental_looney

New member
Apr 29, 2008
522
0
0
Awesome point, ive played the prince of persia sands of time like 15 times and it's basically a straight line from beginning to end but its the story that you come back for
the bioshock multiplayer is ok but it's really not vital and more content like the main game or minerva's den would have been better
 

Orinon

New member
Jan 24, 2010
2,035
0
0
The old score systems some games have scream replay Value. get a high score
MAKE IT HIGHER to me that's work for some of the sillier games, that are trying to use humour.
 

Casimir_Effect

New member
Aug 26, 2010
418
0
0
If you hadn't bashed The Witcher 2 then I would fucking love you man.

As it is I like you in a purely platonic way. Also, kudos for the Joe Abercrombie reference. Excellent author.
 

JasonBurnout16

New member
Oct 12, 2009
386
0
0
I disagree. I like games having multiplayer. I like getting online in a new game, such as Bioshock 2, and playing with my friends. Guess that makes me a ****-mushroom?

In my eyes the length of the game and the quality decides if it has replay value. A game such as Oblivion can be enjoyed over and over because it's a massive game where you can always be doing something different. A game like Hunted: Demons Forge, which is short, and of bad quality does not have replay value.

Also I want to point out that you mentioned films, books and music as something that have replay stupid, yet I think that argument is flawed. All of these are much cheaper than the price of games, so people expect games to have replayability and to entertain them longer. I can read a book and finish it then come back to it 6 months later and repeat the cycle. With a game however I am going to remember certain parts, so I won't enjoy the second playthrough AS MUCH, as I already know what is going to happen. Not such a big deal with a £5 book, but with a £40 game, I expect something a bit different. Again Oblivion solves this through it's size, in which I can always do something different.

Besides, adding multiplayer to games can sometimes be very rewarding. The Assassins Creed multiplayer was great, as it was something new and different.

But then I know the escapist is very heavily single player based, so I know I won't have many people agreeing with me.
 

mjc0961

YOU'RE a pie chart.
Nov 30, 2009
3,847
0
0
Yeah, this is why I'm happy that Volition has given up on competitive multiplayer for Saints Row the Third and is just focusing on the single player and co-op. The MP in Saints Row 1 and 2 both sucked and I never bothered with them for more than a day or two. I've replayed both games for the single player though, because they are fun.

Now if only Naughty Dog would take a hint.

uberhippy said:
Eg: crowning Jem of my childhood, Rachet & Clank, the charming wonder of Insomniac games has been inclining more and more to multiplayer & hub-based cheap thrills instead of the happily explorative, richly comediac, FUN single player joy. (don't get me started on all 4 one)

I miss Rachet and clank :,(
U mad, bro? Ratchet and Clank are "gone" and you "miss them" because All 4 One has constant co-op available? Yes, certainly. I know my copies of Tools of Destruction and A Crack in Time vanished from my shelf as soon as All 4 One was announced, damn you All 4 One!! Oh wait.
 

Alphakirby

New member
May 22, 2009
1,255
0
0


You're getting better Jim,you're getting better.
To think that all the way back at the first episode,people were harkening to burn you on the stake...you're gonna go far kid.
 

Alphakirby

New member
May 22, 2009
1,255
0
0
JasonBurnout16 said:
Ummm,this wasn't a rant on multiplayer. This was a rant on people who believe that the only replay value in games is some sort of multiplayer function,or some other post-game gimmick. Nobody is saying multiplayer sucks.
 

Lt. Vinciti

New member
Nov 5, 2009
1,285
0
0
Oh Jim....You sit firmly on my 50/50 of Good/Hate bar

Last week you cried because USA/Europe wont be getting some JRPGs

You did a stunning episode about Passwords and having many of them

This week was a goody too....

Thumbs Up

10.1/10
 

JasonBurnout16

New member
Oct 12, 2009
386
0
0
Alphakirby said:
JasonBurnout16 said:
Ummm,this wasn't a rant on multiplayer. This was a rant on people who believe that the only replay value in games is some sort of multiplayer function,or some other post-game gimmick. Nobody is saying multiplayer sucks.
Yes, but what I'm trying to say is that the multiplayer function is a totally valid form of replay value. I know I didn't say it very well.
 

Phlakes

+15 Dagger of Socks
Mar 25, 2010
4,282
0
0
Thunderhorse31 said:
Phlakes said:
I want to see a CoD game that has no competitive multiplayer, then it can go back to the awesome campaigns from 2 and 4.
I... what... you...

*aneurysm*

...

You do realize that 2 and 4 both had multiplayer right? Like, hugely successful multilplayer... right?
But the emphasis was on single player. After 4, the games are basically MMOs with a little single player thrown in.
 

Thyunda

New member
May 4, 2009
2,955
0
0
mireko said:
Great episode, also oh god I forgot how hot Kuja was.
I'll be honest. Despite playing FF9 and knowing that Kuja is a guy, I totally mistook those hips for a woman.

As for the episode - Yes. Good points and it made me laugh. I chuckled at the 'idiot noise' he made and then laughed out loud when he said "That's what you sound like because you're stupid."
 

Scrustle

New member
Apr 30, 2011
2,031
0
0
Great stuff. So right. Pretty much all the games I've played through more than once have been solely single player and pretty linear, stuff like Zelda and Okami etc. But although I've enjoyed games like Halo or Bioshock 2 I've never felt like I wanted to play them over. I did play the Halo 3 multiplayer for a while but got bored of it. Only ever played a few matches on Bioshock and wasn't impressed at all. I've never even played an online match on AC:B, never felt the urge, but I'm playing through the first game a second time, and aim to do the second as well. This obsession with obligatory multiplayer needs to stop.
 

feycreature

New member
May 6, 2009
118
0
0
Once again I'm suckered in by an interesting topic only to have to stop the video two minutes in because a little voice in my head is going "Shut up shut up shut UP you obnoxious man!" Even when he's making a good point, even when I agree with him, the delivery is so sloppy and self-important that I honestly don't care if it's supposed to be a joke. What's the phrase, ah yes, thank you Yahtzee: "Intentionally annoying is still ANNOYING!"

It's just really frustrating because I want to be able to listen to the whole argument without starting to twitch but I just can't do it. It's almost physically painful and that makes me especially sad since this week's topic is one I would love to hear a new viewpoint on.

Well, guess I've learned my lesson.
 

verylost

New member
Jul 30, 2010
10
0
0
JasonBurnout16 said:
I disagree. I like games having multiplayer. I like getting online in a new game, such as Bioshock 2, and playing with my friends. Guess that makes me a ****-mushroom?
Not at all he was saying games don't have to only use multiplayer to have replay value in a game and it doesn't need to be shoehorned in because of a trend. While multiplayer is a good idea you wouldn't force the next Silent Hill game to have online multiplayer because it is said to lengthen replay value correct?
 

Radioactive Kitten

New member
Nov 16, 2009
45
0
0
I agree completely with this episode. I've replayed single player games like Half-Life dozens of times, and often I still end up finding little secrets or tidbits of the story that I missed before.

Also, thumbs up for mentioning FF9. I can't say I care for most Final Fantasy games, but I loved FF9. I even still have a Vivi plushie sitting next to my monitor.
 

DeadCoyote

New member
Feb 1, 2011
31
0
0
Jim, you are not right. Replayability is not about your feelings to the game, it's about new expirience, that the game can provide each time you'r playing it. It's a game-mechanich feachure. Just a characteristic of a game, like shader version. If it hase ways to have different expirience (dificulty level changing, random generated locations, different classes of playeble characters) - it hase replayabiliti, if not - it hasn't.
A lot of people like crapy games, that you woud be sick of in 5 minutes. So... what? Have those games replayability? I liked Bad Company, but will never play it again, and my friend played it 4 times. So have this one replayability? For me - no and for him yes? That just doesn't make sense.

Sory, Jim, but you were talking about personal preferences, not about replayability.
 

iron skirt

New member
Oct 24, 2009
35
0
0
he's right... the games with multyplayer and mods and s*** licke that are usualy the ones i don't play that much
 

ZiggyE

New member
Nov 13, 2010
502
0
0
Fuck yeah, Final Fantasy IX

That being said, this is something I've been trying to get across for awhile, ever since Final Fantasy XIII was criticised for being "too linear". I'm glad someone gets it.
 

Avistew

New member
Jun 2, 2011
302
0
0
Watched this video because MovieBob plugged it in his GO blog.
I agree with the message but I really can't get over the way it's presented. I mean I realise it's an act and all, but if someone was punching me repeatedly, I wouldn't listen much to what they're saying, even if it was the most enlightened thing ever. It's the same thing with verbal abuse. It's hard to focus on what you're saying in between being called a moron for no reason.

I have to say I'm confused about the format you've picked. People generally don't listen as much when you insult them. It seems like you could make people who originally agreed with you start to disagree. Isn't that the opposite of what's you'd want?

Either way, I absolutely agree, although multiplayer can be nice too. I bought Portal 2 only for the co-op and I've played it a few times, although I guess here the co-op IS linear too, and yet quite replayable.

I don't think I'll keep watching your vids though. I would feel masochistic to do so when I can just ask someone else what you said and get the point without the insults.
 

Althus

New member
Sep 24, 2010
52
0
0
Holly crap, you must be a mind read Jim ,just few hours ago I was thinking something very similar to this Subject .
When I was younger I could play one Game for months and have the fun of a life time whit it.
When I finally stop playing it, I did it whit a real sense of accomplished, I had play it to the fullest and enjoyed the ride, now whit so many games and different systems to play on, and whit less time then before, because we have to work and live and so on,It seams I play more in quantity then in quality .
But don´t get me wrong today we have excellent games, I have fun ,but its seams we are in a race to go tho the next big hit game and we sometimes (most of the Times ) left the games "half played" for a lack of better word.
 

iron skirt

New member
Oct 24, 2009
35
0
0
if you play something else every time then it's not called REplay is it? it's just playng something new so it's not REplayebility! it's just playebility
 

Hitchmeister

New member
Nov 24, 2009
453
0
0
It's a sad state of affairs when Game A doesn't sell because all it has is an entertaining and engaging single player experience, but Game B sells millions because it's lackluster and uninspired single player campaign is backed up with a similarly lackluster and uninspired multiplayer mode which allows 12-year-olds to scream profanities at each other over voice chat.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Oh god, he's gone back to trollish "I'm a Fascist dick" routine. Not endearing.

I want him like he was last week, the real Jim: Jim Sterling, not Jimquisition

Jim Sterling said:
Linearity versus Replayability

Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.

Watch Video
I don't think people ACTUALLY say that.

I think what they say is effectively "It has very little replay value and TO ADD it doesn't EVEN have any multiplayer modes"

Because every time a critic says it has no replay-value, the PR people/fanboys always respond with: "but the multiplayer modes, such great value, blah blah blaaaah"

Critics say the "no replay" AFTER they say the game is barely above average. Games like Bioshock, Half Life 2 and other game that are THAT good are very few and far between, most games that critics are going to review if they are linear then they are not good enough to be worth playing through again.

So inevitably you will hear them say:

"It's linear. It has no online. It has NO REPLAY VALUE!"

This is a big problem for a games like:
-Wanted: Weapons of Fate
-Singularity
-Wet
-Condemned
-Velvet Assassin
-Zeno-clash
-Shank
-Wolfenstein

these are "good" game (not great, not Amazing, just above average) but lose a heck of a lot of their appeal as value wise they are hard pressed to be worth $60.

I agree with you that it was a travesty to waste valuable time on a bioshock 2 multiplayer, if they were worried abotu lasting appeal and value they had many many more options:

-drip feed extra content for FREE (Bioshock 2 did this, but the bonehead decision of charging)
-Sell it at a lower price though the only options on consoles are $60 or $20 on XBLA. Steam is much more flexible could be any price between $3 and $60
-Include a "morality system" that is usually much more an "alternate path" system
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
0
0
Kahunaburger said:
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
He's saying anything good is worth replaying. Come on, you can't have been on the internet for a day without hearing the tons of people who say "No multiplayer? No buy". Maybe you have miraculously avoided all these people, but I assure you: they are LEGION.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
Absolutely true, excellent and also the best Jimquisition show to date.

Seriously. Replay value is right there in the word: RE-PLAY. As in PLAY AGAIN. How can someone be so thick to think that to REPLAY means some shitty multiplayer tack-on?
 
Apr 28, 2008
14,634
0
0
Agreed Jim. I can't tell you how many times I replayed the Halo games. They're just so damn fun to play.
 

K_Dub

New member
Oct 19, 2008
523
0
0
I love multiplayer. But it's not the reason I pick up games. I buy games because I'm interested in the story, or the gameplay aspect of it all.

Perfect examples would be, for me anyways, God of War (the first), Okami, Resident Evil 4, Tales of Symphonia, and Halo: Reach. And even if the story of the game isn't all that good I'll still play through the campaign over and over again because the atmosphere is strong, or there are easter eggs or hidden collectibles that I missed on my first or second playthrough.
 

Raso719

New member
May 7, 2011
87
0
0
I'd accuse you of being privy to some lost arcane or super advanced, alien knowledge but realistically this is just common sense.

Why must most people be so dumb?
 

Dana22

New member
Sep 10, 2008
1,274
0
0
"To me, replay value comes in whether or not I want to play the game again".

Which is bit illogical, it would make more sense if you would add 'Right after I finish it' or 'In short term' at the endor something similar.

Because replay value is not 0/1, its a VALUE. Modern Warfare 2 (SP) will have lower replay value because of its linear gameplay and scripted encounters, then say Baldurs Gate 2 which has more open gameplay, mechanics and non-linear storytelling.

imho.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
iron skirt said:
if you play something else every time then it's not called REplay is it? it's just playng something new so it's not REplayebility! it's just playebility
Yeah, but with multiplayer, don't people fight in the same maps with the same weapons over and over again?

Black ops came with 14 stock maps and 10 minutes per match there is only about 2 hours and 20 minutes of actual "new play" before you start REplaying the same maps, just with different rules and weapons.

If you play through the single-player with different weapons and tactics then that is definitely replay.

But that's not a problem, it is all-right to replay a map in competitive multiplayer as there are so many angles to discover with it. This is just ACCEPTABLE replayability. Still replaying the same old shit. Yeah there are map-packs, 12 new maps for $45 is pretty poor value. That's the price of a whole new game for effectively only 2 hours of new content.

Only a game like minecraft can claim infinite playability with randomly generated world and content that is limited only by your imagination.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
DustyDrB said:
Kahunaburger said:
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
He's saying anything good is worth replaying. Come on, you can't have been on the internet for a day without hearing the tons of people who say "No multiplayer? No buy". Maybe you have miraculously avoided all these people, but I assure you: they are LEGION.
Yeah, well those are idiots. And could you give me a couple of examples of post that say that in these forums, because i seem to have missed every single one.

Jim is talking about the critics and they never say that half-life 2 is a no-buy because of lack of online (thought there actually IS an online mode with HL2: Deathmatch).

They say that about games like Wanted: Weapons of Fate have no replay value and they really lack that. After playing through the short single player you might as well use it as a coaster.
 

emeraldrafael

New member
Jul 17, 2010
8,589
0
0
I've always thought it was odd when people would tell me I'm weird for replaying persona 3 fes just cause there was no co-op/online and yet those same people would usually spam the same ten songs and say its different. Or how they would basically play the same game on online and either just be better or suck more then the people they're playing against.

How is playing the same class, with the same weapons, with minor upgrades, really that different if its online then if its in a story driven single player.

and usually the answer is just a blank stare and pointing saying it has other people.
 

Gitty101

New member
Jan 22, 2010
960
0
0
Well, it seems that Jim has turned a corner from his first videos - now he is making sense consistently. Congratulations Jim! Keep it up!
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
0
0
Treblaine said:
DustyDrB said:
Kahunaburger said:
Warlord Timmy said:
Kahunaburger said:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim. [http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XAT15I-QnBY]
>missing the entire point of the video
That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!
He's saying anything good is worth replaying. Come on, you can't have been on the internet for a day without hearing the tons of people who say "No multiplayer? No buy". Maybe you have miraculously avoided all these people, but I assure you: they are LEGION.
Yeah, well those are idiots. And could you give me a couple of examples of post that say that in these forums, because i seem to have missed every single one.

Jim is talking about the critics and they never say that half-life 2 is a no-buy because of lack of online (thought there actually IS an online mode with HL2: Deathmatch).

They say that about games like Wanted: Weapons of Fate have no replay value and they really lack that. After playing through the short single player you might as well use it as a coaster.
I wouldn't call them idiots. They are just misguided, and probably hypocrites (I'm willing to bet most of them have single-player only games that they've replayed at least once). But they are the reason we see some single-player games get half-baked multiplayer modes (that may or may not divert development time away from the main game. I'm not sure about the validity of that statement, so I won't use it as an argument).

I'm not gonna go hunting for posts, but I can remember some of the games that I heard it for most often here: Enslaved, LA Noire, Portal (and Portal 2), and Mafia II. There are others, but my memory isn't that good.

I did do a Google search (I put in this, so you can follow up if you like: "replay value" site:escapistmagazine.com) and came across this thread [http://www.escapistmagazine.com/forums/read/9.291004-games-with-zero-replay-value]. The guy I quoted here even mentions Portal as a game with no replay value in that thread (and I hope this doesn't seem dickish calling him out like that. It's not my intent).
 

TStormer

New member
Aug 24, 2010
112
0
0
Every episode he makes is 20X better than the last. I am really starting to love this guy. Also his voice is far less whiney nowadays.
 

owen4evr

New member
Feb 11, 2011
60
0
0
I agree I was displised to here of Metro:Last Light's multi-player but there is a lot of space to inovate in multi-player.
 

Pinkamena

Stuck in a vortex of sexy horses
Jun 27, 2011
2,371
0
0
Good points. I've replayed half life 2 so many, many times...
 

Swifteye

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,079
0
0
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
That's his character. he's not a new guy who is getting his start here this character previously existed elsewhere. Besides Jim is narcissistic while yahtzee is the cynic and Daniel is the nice smart guy.
 

Aprilgold

New member
Apr 1, 2011
1,995
0
0
the spud said:
To me, the best way to add replay value is to create a world with many optional easter eggs and quests, that way on your second time through you may find something you didn't catch the first time around. It isn't necessary, though.
This, seriously, just... This. This is why I play Saints Row 2 so much is BECAUSE of the secret islands, outfits, areas, cars, all that, its just all there waiting for you to come back and enjoy. Also linear gameplay can BENEIFET a game if the games main mechanic is good enough. Also, while on the subject, companies, stop tossing all your love into multiplayer, get some singles out there or your just a bad underground band, its starting to make our community a little too bitchy..
 

Aerograt

New member
Jan 7, 2011
212
0
0
The thing that pisses me off about shoehorned, underdeveloped multiplayer it that it gives me glimpses of what could have been excellent. Bioshock 2's campaign was great (Drill Dash > Anything the first Bioshock has to offer gameplay wise) and Dead Space 2 was okay on its own. Now, these games didn't NEED these multiplayer portions, but those rare, lag free moments in Bioshock 2's multiplayer where I was able to charge into someone with Aerodash and then shoot them point with the Auto-Shotgun were some of the best moments I've ever had in a multiplayer game. Yeah, the balance is overall overly reliant on stuns, slows and instant kills (elephant gun and crossbow, oh how fucking cheap you are), but the cool abilities and variety of weapons made all the crap worth bearing for a while. Dead Space 2's multiplayer just needed some balance tweaks(/a total fucking overhaul since the humans are insanely overpowered) and better connections. The objectives and maps were fairly interesting. The Necromorphs are kind of fun to play, and obviously the humans control fine they work just like Isaac. Honestly, I want a polished, multiplayer only Bioshock game. I've wanted a good multiplayer shooter with magic or special abilities since I first played Morrowind.

Oh, and I've recently been playing through Resident Evil 5 over and over for the past month even though I'm playing the exact same levels over and over while unlocking absolutely nothing new, although it's obviously because I'm racist.
 

Not G. Ivingname

New member
Nov 18, 2009
6,368
0
0
Jim Sterling said:
Linearity versus Replayability

Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.

Watch Video
Jim, I have two suggestions for you so your series looks a little more proffesional and doesn't look like a low end youtube project.

1. Get a better camera.

2. Get somebody else to draw for you, their will be plenty who will do it for free.

Trust me, half the trolls will shut up if you actually make this look on par with Extra Credits and ZP.

I do see your point, and yes, I fully agree. I played the first three Spyro games much more than any Call of Duty.
 

Korne

New member
Nov 30, 2009
66
0
0
This was my first time watching this show... and I don't like it. Mainly, Jim sounds like a complete twat. I agreed with most of what he had to say, yet wanted to disagree because he is playing such a dick. At least Yahtzee comes across as endearing when he is ripping apart his fanbase/industry/himself.
 

MatsVS

Tea & Grief
Nov 9, 2009
423
0
0
Things more important than an opportunity to being yelled at on the internet by random people:

Ambiguous subtexts
Deep and challenging themes
Visual and auditory design that is intrinsic to the game world
Morally, psychologically and culturally interesting characters
A narrative arc that is tuned to resonate with the genre and tone and genre of the game


That said, Joe Abercrombie, yay.
 

Royas

New member
Apr 25, 2008
539
0
0
Pretty much put into words exactly how I feel about gaming today. I can't stand MP, I don't even notice if there is a MP mode or not in any game I buy. However, I've replayed more than a few games I've really liked many, many times. I can't even count how often I've run through Diablo 2, Max Payne 2, Deus Ex and Fallout (all of 'em). Replay value is replay value, and it's amazing how many people don't quite get that.
 
May 5, 2010
4,831
0
0
Swifteye said:
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
That's his character. he's not a new guy who is getting his start here this character previously existed elsewhere. Besides Jim is narcissistic while yahtzee is the cynic and Daniel is the nice smart guy.
*sigh* Yes, I KNOW it's just a character he's playing. I'm saying his character isn't very entertaining, and I think he should stop playing it.
 

bootz

New member
Feb 28, 2011
366
0
0
wow so to be a good game it has to be good.

Amazing insight. My life has become easier knowing this.

Oh is fire hot jim, I Can't tell
 

Swifteye

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,079
0
0
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
Swifteye said:
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
That's his character. he's not a new guy who is getting his start here this character previously existed elsewhere. Besides Jim is narcissistic while yahtzee is the cynic and Daniel is the nice smart guy.
*sigh* Yes, I KNOW it's just a character he's playing. I'm saying his character isn't very entertaining, and I think he should stop playing it.
That's not going to happen. For one thing his character exists as an antagonist so when you show disdain for him and his ways that's only fire to the fuel. Second I believe he is entertaining in a strongbad sort of way which is a classic "jerk" archetype which often lends itself to being a more popular and entertaining archetype than say the nice guy (not how I would write things but nobody ever asks me to write anything) you can see it all over the net and especially in a lot of comedian routines that being a giant ponce is considered the way to go if you want to be successful. and seeing that so many of them are I kinda wish that wasn't the case because yes. Many of them aren't funny.
Jim sterling exists because most people have forgotten the joys of lighthearted humor saddled with forms of in depth entertainment.
 

K V MAN

New member
Sep 20, 2010
67
0
0
bravo jim,

i agree playing multiplayer is a totally different experience, and the level of it's replayability is judged by how long are you playing it before you move on to another game.
now i am a sony fan (not a fanboy), and to me the king of multiplayer replayability is Halo Reach, that game alone makes me want to buy an XBOX

so good job jim and no i will not thank god for you :)
 

SlugLady28

New member
Feb 24, 2011
95
0
0
There are two things i can't stand to hear in game reviews:

1. Insulting a game because it's linear and therefore has no replayability

2. Insulting a games graphics even though it still looks good and doesn't cause any problem for the actual game play.

Thank you so much for talking about the first one! It's about time somebody did! I hope you'll talk about the other soon, please ^_^
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Swifteye said:
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
That's his character. he's not a new guy who is getting his start here this character previously existed elsewhere. Besides Jim is narcissistic while yahtzee is the cynic and Daniel is the nice smart guy.
It's not like we are going to mix him up with anyone else.

I loved him last week when he took off the black coat, discarded the shades and talked to us as Jim Sterling, not "Jimquisition". That was him being his own passionate self and be was effective and distinct.

He doesn't need a "gimmick", this isn't prime-time TV where everything must make sense to the dumbest guy in the room.

What is Movie-Bob's angle? He doesn't have one, he does not need one. He's just Bob. Same with Jim.
 

vxicepickxv

Slayer of Bothan Spies
Sep 28, 2008
3,126
0
0
Charmi the ninja said:
I thought we all knew this already. Oh well, I guess there are some people out here that are still this narrow minded.
Btw, did anyone else feel like pulling their eyeballs out when the picture of "Jim Sterling King of gaming" appeared on screen?? :>

Good show - I still don't like yu very much - but good show.
Me too. I was quite impressed with his voice. I wish I could sing in something that resembles a tune.
 

The Lugz

New member
Apr 23, 2011
1,371
0
0
( any rts you care to mention, i like supreme commander and wc3 personally ) portal, magicka, minecraft, terraria, THOUSANDS of hours of re-playability here nothing wrong with singpleplayer games, when did anyone say there was?
 

ProfMike789

New member
Nov 18, 2009
10
0
0
Here's my personal replay list:

RE4 Normal, 4 save files, ~20 plays
RE4 Pro, 3 save files, ~7 plays
Lost Kingdoms II, ~7 plays
Portal, 3 plays
Portal w/ commentary, 4 plays
Zelda: OoT Normal, ~10 plays
Zelda: OoT Master Quest, ~5 plays
Zelda: MM, 2 plays
Zelda: WW, 6 plays (3 each normal and "second quest")
Zelda: TP, 3 plays
Paper Mario TTYD, 5 plays
Super Mario Sunshine, 3 plays
Luigi's Mansion, 3 plays
Kirby 64, ~5 plays
Okami, 3 plays
Sonic 3 & Knuckles, who the fuck knows

Honestly, if the 1-player mode isn't replayable, and it's not Pokemon or a specifically multiplayer game (like WoW, Smash Bros, some shooters) I'll just rent it rather than buy it.
 

JasonBurnout16

New member
Oct 12, 2009
386
0
0
verylost said:
JasonBurnout16 said:
I disagree. I like games having multiplayer. I like getting online in a new game, such as Bioshock 2, and playing with my friends. Guess that makes me a ****-mushroom?
Not at all he was saying games don't have to only use multiplayer to have replay value in a game and it doesn't need to be shoehorned in because of a trend. While multiplayer is a good idea you wouldn't force the next Silent Hill game to have online multiplayer because it is said to lengthen replay value correct?
What i was trying to say - quite badly worded - is that I don't see why multiplayer cant be a decent way to add replay value? It has worked before and just because some gamers do not enjoy games such as Bioshock having multiplayer, other people may enjoy the experiance multiplayer brings.

And I wouldn't pretend to know about Silent Hill as I've never bothered to play it - but with games like Assassin's Creed it worked. So I can understand why other game companies are trying it.
 

Shoggoth2588

New member
Aug 31, 2009
10,250
0
0
Great show Jim and very true. Love Final Fantasy IX as well but there's also the plethora of Bioware RPGs which have almost exclusively been single player (and awesome)

Loved the singing at the end too!
 

Aureliano

New member
Mar 5, 2009
604
0
0
So, to recap: FF9, Portal and Bioshock are all good games?!?! Holy crap! It's not like there are video game critics out there by the hundreds who could have told me that, so I never would have known without you. [/sarCASM]

Seriously though: telling me that time-honored video game classics are good is like telling me that swearing in public is a bad idea. Not only does every functioning member of society over the age of ten know that, but you are also going to be wrong sometimes.

Take a risk, show us some video games we might not have tried before that are awesome and linear. Defend games commonly considered to be bad and show why they're awesome and game critics are stupids. But I really don't care that you think Mario is fun.
 

ultimasupersaiyan

New member
Dec 9, 2008
457
0
0
Brilliant! Just brilliant! Seriously I have the same arguement with losts of people. Sure I own over 100s of games but I always have a bunch I replay more then once. I've actually played the Halo campaign modes more then once. I've played every Final Fantasy made during Hironobu Sakaguchi's time dozens of times(That's 1 through to X-2 for those who don't know). I replay Super Mario titles more often the I use the toilet. Actually I've played every game that I own that isn't an FPS or 3rdPS more then once(Halo being the only FPS I've played more then once), even Mobile Suit Gundam: Target in Sight(Crossfire to the USA). I've played that 4 times

Replayability to me as a gamer who's been playing for 21 years is the ability to enjoy the game more then once. Sure I count New Game+ modes as well into replayability like what Crono Trigger first introduced(not sure if it's true but that's where I first experienced it) but it's not used very often and to be honest some games are better without it like the good Final Fantasy's(I,II,III,IV,V,VI,VII,VIII,IX,X,X-2).

I honestly wish the game developers would realise that there is a market for single player story driven narratives that aren't JRPGs. I love JRPGs for that reason and would love to see more games like Metal Gear Solid and LA Noire come out instead of Gears of Halo Duty: Battlefield.
 

Simalacrum

Resident Juggler
Apr 17, 2008
5,204
0
0
Nnnnnno. I completely disagree with what has been claimed in this video.

I'm sorry, but it is an obvious fact of life that repetition is boring, and that, especially in this day and age where people are so used to constantly changing entertainment that this natural irk from the same old is extended even further, that any type of entertainment, not just games, have limited replayability.

Sure, playing a game once, twice, or more times can continue to be fun - but after a while it will inevitably get boring.

You know why games continue to be fun? BECAUSE THEY'RE CONSTANTLY CHANGING. good games are good partially because they lack repetition - under the argument that the 'same old' is a good thing, then games wouldn't change; it's BECAUSE people get bored of repetition and entertainment in general lack complete (as in, you never tire of it) replayability that people keep churning out new and different things.

The reasons why multiplayer games often (note OFTEN, not always) have more replayability than single player games is because the unpredictable element of humans means that you end up with constantly shifting scenarios; while with NPC's you can eventually work out where they will come out of and how they will fight you (in violence games at least, that's just one example), in multiplayer games you never know where the next guy/gal will be; which increases the replayability.

Sure, eventually you can begin to predict where people will be in games and whatnot ("he's always in the plane cockpit..."), but a) I'm arguing that no game has total replayability, and b) it still adds significantly to how long a game can be played without the encroachment of boredom.
 

FallenMessiah88

So fucking thrilled to be here!
Jan 8, 2010
470
0
0
You hit the nail on the head with this one Jim. I would take a well crafted singple player campaign over multiplayer any day.

Granted, if the multiplayer is good I will probably end of spending some time with it. If it feels tacked on or just sloppy, I'll mostly lose interest after a few rounds.

I would also have liked to see some of your suggestions as to how we could perhaps solve this unfortunate situation, but still you raise a good point.

Keep up the good work!
 

xAtomicHero

New member
Dec 17, 2009
2
0
0
You heard it here first, if you like multiplayer games, you're brain dead. Maybe you should come up with some intelligent arguments instead of spending your time trying to be funny, while even doing a poor job at that.
 

SonofaJohannes

New member
Apr 18, 2011
740
0
0
I agree with you completely. In fact, I always get a new game primarily for the single player. And that FFIX cutscene made me a bit nostalgic. I had forgotten how hot Kuja was.
 

Swifteye

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,079
0
0
Treblaine said:
Swifteye said:
Frozen Donkey Wheel2 said:
OK Jim, here's the thing: I agree with you about 95% of the time, but....listen carefully here...YOU DON'T HAVE TO ACT LIKE A DICK TO BE ENTERTAINING. It's not like if you stop ripping off Yahtzee we'll all just lose interest, OK? You're a smart guy. PLEASE start acting like one.
That's his character. he's not a new guy who is getting his start here this character previously existed elsewhere. Besides Jim is narcissistic while yahtzee is the cynic and Daniel is the nice smart guy.
It's not like we are going to mix him up with anyone else.

I loved him last week when he took off the black coat, discarded the shades and talked to us as Jim Sterling, not "Jimquisition". That was him being his own passionate self and be was effective and distinct.

He doesn't need a "gimmick", this isn't prime-time TV where everything must make sense to the dumbest guy in the room.

What is Movie-Bob's angle? He doesn't have one, he does not need one. He's just Bob. Same with Jim.
Movie bob does have an angle. On that particular show it's being a movie snob (although how much of it is genuine and how much of it is theatrics for humorous effect is to be discerned) in his big picture and the overthinker he gets to show off the primary nature of his character which is him being a giant nerd. When jim took off his jacket and spoke frank that was a special moment but it wasn't really like he changed his character really he was just a bit more direct and bit less sarcastic but he still used all the insults and the funny little photoshop pictures just like every other video he's made.

The act of making a show for the sake of entertainment is a little more complex than "make this pap enough to where the mindless drolls get it" although I understand how you might think that given that this is a rather snobby place which holds such beliefs to be self evident. It requires looking at what sort of audience you want and how you wish to approach them. This is the style that Jim has chosen, one that irks and annoys people but that's exactly what the character is supposed to do. Be irksome and annoying but also show a level of intelligence that makes one think (oh this guy is pretty smart but I wish he'd stop acting like a jerk) which I find amusing cause to be honest a lot of people on this website are like Jim. Really smart people who's arrogance and ego are really off putting but they do deserve credit for what they say.

And that is the core of Jim's character. He represents the egotistical bravado that infest places like the escapist where one can get so full of themselves that they can think they are better than everyone else and show it by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot.
 

RobfromtheGulag

New member
May 18, 2010
931
0
0
I agree with the points brought up, but I wonder if there isn't some other reason for superficial added features. It is a highlight for people that are perhaps more casual.
-
"You'll notice he's listening to Ace of Base" -South Park, The Prehistoric Cave Man
 

KhakiHat

New member
Dec 28, 2008
116
0
0
Good point Jim. You still sound like a prick, but at least your a prick with a point.
Wait... Urm...
 

Alcamonic

New member
Jan 6, 2010
747
0
0
I always enjoyed the FEAR series. The feeling you get by executing squads of enemies and hearing them shout "No fucking way!" as you trample over them is great.

Combat is fun, story is alright. Have not tried multiplayer on Fear 3 yet, but the co-op seems... well alright I guess, but it really ruins the atmosphear of the game.

I fully agree on certain other games like Bioshock 2. Story was really lacking.

Edit: I thank God for Jim every Sunday, and every Monday he blesses me with another episode.
 

Hugga_Bear

New member
May 13, 2010
532
0
0
Aureliano said:
So, to recap: FF9, Portal and Bioshock are all good games?!?! Holy crap! It's not like there are video game critics out there by the hundreds who could have told me that, so I never would have known without you. [/sarCASM]

Seriously though: telling me that time-honored video game classics are good is like telling me that swearing in public is a bad idea. Not only does every functioning member of society over the age of ten know that, but you are also going to be wrong sometimes.

Take a risk, show us some video games we might not have tried before that are awesome and linear. Defend games commonly considered to be bad and show why they're awesome and game critics are stupids. But I really don't care that you think Mario is fun.
I get the feeling you may have missed the point. It wasn't "good games are good lolol" it was good games don't need multiplayer/cheap gimmicks to have replayability but have the replay value by virtue of being good.

I liked the video but I would love to see a multiplayer Bioshock done well. When Bioshock 2 worked it worked really well but it would often descend into cheap shots and same tactics over and over. Some aspects were brilliant though and some of the plasmid/weapon mixes worked really well. If they went to town on it with nice dedicated servers and a good population playing it I reckon it would be an amazing multiplayer game. Unfortunately I doubt the customer base is there and it would be costly, difficult too, especially with balancing.

Anyway, FF9 rocks ass. I have probably spent more time on single player games but it's quite close, between MAG and CoD4 particularly I've amassed a lot of hours online...still, good game is a good game. Much time spent on FO3 and New Vegas and so long spent on FF7 and 9 that I wonder how my younger self found the time.
 

NerfedFalcon

Level i Flare!
Apr 3, 2020
6,526
160
68
Gender
Male
Jim, your show tends to be pretty hit-or-miss, but this was cutting-the-arrow-already-in-the-bullseye-in-half hit. Wanna go for a hat-trick?
 

PunkRex

New member
Feb 19, 2010
2,533
0
0
My God FF9 was fun, not to mention its aesthetics. Its story was as batshit bonkers as any other FF but definatly fun timez, FF10-2 aswell... except for playing Shinra at that crappy sphere break game... little prick.
 

internetzealot1

New member
Aug 11, 2009
1,693
0
0
Okay, just because you can replay a game does not necessarily mean that it has replay value. It just means that you didn't fully exhaust to entertainment value present during your first playthrough. For example, I've played through Dead Space 1, an exceptionally linear game, four times. Each playthrough was less enjoyable than the previous, and by the fourth playthrough I had to struggle to finish (only did it to get the achievement for beating it on Insane). Why? Because with each playthrough, the game became less organic and more rigid. It fell into a recognizable pattern. Now, I'd say that replay value is the ability of a game to disrupt that pattern. A game like Dead Space does very little to disrupt the pattern, therefore giving it little "replay value," even though there may be alot of potential "entertainment value" to be gained by replaying the game.
 

ZexionSephiroth

New member
Apr 7, 2011
242
0
0
Normally the times I replay a game (or do anything again) is when I have spent some time away from it and have a dulled memory that's packed with emotional content, and I want to remind myself what it felt like.

...Call it...Nostalgia.

Of course that's just about all I feel strongly nowdays: Nostalgia. That's why I'm now dedicated to makeing new experiences, so I can dig them up in a year or so and feel the strong emotions I rarely feel day to day.

Seriously, I watched six whole seasons of Digimon in the last few months just because it was the first anime I watched... And doing so made me realise just how much I loved it. I'd do the same for kingdom hearts but then I'd have to find it... and stuff I lost has practicaly flung off the face of the earth.
 

CardinalPiggles

New member
Jun 24, 2010
3,226
0
0
I have to point out a flaw in your logic here, Portal 2 was an amazing game for me, but yet I never played it more than once, played the co op only once through too. I just can't be bothered to play it again, however much I liked it. Puzzle games (or puzzles in general) have no replay value. Once you have finished them, they are redundant.

Also, I find him more annoying now than before, why are people taking a shine to someone who is trying his hardest to insult them? It doesn't make sense. He's also just trying to say what people are already thinking subconsciously, thus making people think he is smart.

Thank God, for me :/
 

McMarbles

New member
May 7, 2009
1,566
0
0
When Jim's right, he's right.

I've always thought of online multiplayer not as replayability, but the illusion of replayability.
 

bombadilillo

New member
Jan 25, 2011
738
0
0
I maintain the world would be a better place if games were SP or MP only. I hate getting watered down nonsensical SP games because 3/4ths of the resources went to the multiplayer. Have your COD MP game. Go for it. Just dont pretent its a standalone game s well.
 

camazotz

New member
Jul 23, 2009
480
0
0
Ah, the voice of cold hard reason! Totally agree as usual. All of my favorite games became such for their single player campaigns, not their multiplayer--Mass Effect, Fallout 3, RE 1-4, Silent Hill (all of them), etc.

Thank god for Jim!

;)
 

camazotz

New member
Jul 23, 2009
480
0
0
CardinalPiggles said:
I have to point out a flaw in your logic here, Portal 2 was an amazing game for me, but yet I never played it more than once, played the co op only once through too. I just can't be bothered to play it again, however much I liked it. Puzzle games (or puzzles in general) have no replay value. Once you have finished them, they are redundant.

Also, I find him more annoying now than before, why are people taking a shine to someone who is trying his hardest to insult them? It doesn't make sense. He's also just trying to say what people are already thinking subconsciously, thus making people think he is smart.

Thank God, for me :/
Whether he intends it or not, Jim Sterling is falling under what I call the "Kaufmanesque" brand of satire and comedy. I can't take umbrage with him, because I know he's hamming it up, making it outrageous and (amidst all the showmanship) making a good point. It's apparently something the internet has a hard time recognizing for what it is: putting on a good show, sometimes at the willing expense of the audience.

Think of it like this: you go to a stand up comedy show, and the guy on stage is integrating jokes with the audience, making fun of some individuals. It's part of his act, and most of us recognize it. It may not seem so obvious here (thus why I liken him to Andy Kaufman, who had a habit in his shows of blurring the lines between reality and performance) but attacking im for doing what he does is comparable to getting pissed at the comedian on stage and attacking him with a beer bottle.

There's a place for this in comedy and stage, and to be honest Jim and Yatzhee both do variants of it, and it works.
 

Metalrocks

New member
Jan 15, 2009
2,406
0
0
i agree strongly with him. i always get sick when i hear people say that the game sucks just because it has no MP.
"oh, this game is not good because it has no MP and therefor not worth the money". so f***ing stupid.
damn, how many times have i replayed the half life games. mass effect 1+2. doom games (besides part 3), assassins creed 2 and brotherhood.
damn, even mirrors edge i have replayed so many times because i have simply fun playing it. how many people said there, it is not worth the money because of the lack of MP.
im not even fond of MP. the only MP game i really enjoy is TF2.
 

Strain42

New member
Mar 2, 2009
2,720
0
0
Y'know, I actually had an argument about someone about this just a few days ago. We were debating whether or not Persona 5 would improve the series if they jammed in an alignment meter that some of the other MegaTen games have which could lead to Lawful, Neutral and Chaos endings.

I argued against it and tried to explain that there is nothing wrong with a game being linear, and I did basically quote Jim exactly and said that games just needed to be good.

Oddly enough he did pull out the "but it'll add replayability to it" but the newer Persona titles already do a pretty good job of that with their NG+ option.

So...thanks Jim, I guess. I admit, I was a bit thrown by your show at first, but after seeing this one and last weeks, it's really growing on me.

Keep it up.

EDIT: For some reason I did let out a small nerd squeal of excitement when you mentioned Final Fantasy 9 under the good games list. I'm not sure why I was surprised since I was already happy you use music from it for your show...
 

Aureliano

New member
Mar 5, 2009
604
0
0
Hugga_Bear said:
Aureliano said:
So, to recap: FF9, Portal and Bioshock are all good games?!?! Holy crap! It's not like there are video game critics out there by the hundreds who could have told me that, so I never would have known without you. [/sarCASM]

Seriously though: telling me that time-honored video game classics are good is like telling me that swearing in public is a bad idea. Not only does every functioning member of society over the age of ten know that, but you are also going to be wrong sometimes.

Take a risk, show us some video games we might not have tried before that are awesome and linear. Defend games commonly considered to be bad and show why they're awesome and game critics are stupids. But I really don't care that you think Mario is fun.
I get the feeling you may have missed the point. It wasn't "good games are good lolol" it was good games don't need multiplayer/cheap gimmicks to have replayability but have the replay value by virtue of being good.
Nope, don't think I missed the point. I was focusing on what I consider to be a problem with Jim's videos writ large that shows up again this week: a lot of his time gets spent telling people how games that critics liked are good games. They get used as examples in various arguments he makes, but what's the challenge in using critically acclaimed games to explain your point? How about some indie titles that do something really well, or even a shitty game that has one bright spot in its favor?

Fact is, I worry sometimes that his show really is pitched to the viewer of average intelligence.
 

Jailbird408

New member
Jan 19, 2011
505
0
0
Egocentric bell-end has a point.

You know, when I was eight, I would play Spyro the Dragon for four hours straight, get to the end credits, quit, lose my data, and start all over again at a later date. And I didn't mind, because the game was EXCELLENT!
 

Grabbin Keelz

New member
Jun 3, 2009
1,039
0
0
Lemme try to remember here:

Half Life 1+2+both episodes
Pokemon
Bioshock
Metal Gear Solid 3
Mother 3 (Earthbound 2)
Earthbound (Mother 2)
Every single Mario platformer ever and a few rpg ones
Batman Arkham Asylum
Katamari
Star Fox 64
Every 3-D Zelda game
Braid
Portal 1+2
Fallout 3+New Vegas
DeadRising
Several Kirby games
and Just Cause 2...

Not all of them, but most I can think of at the top of my head. I guess you got a point there Jim.
 

Andy of Comix Inc

New member
Apr 2, 2010
2,234
0
0
Oh man, Jim can sing! I mean, his voice is somewhat angelic!

I mean, um, good manly episode there, Jim! You sure a man... OHH GOD SING AN OPERA FOR ME JIM STERLING <3
 
Jan 27, 2011
3,741
0
0
Yup, Agree with him 100% with him.

If a game is just plain FUN, then that alone offers incentive to replay it. I've replayed Sonic 3 and Knuckles so many times I know many of the levels by heart. I spent over 20 hours beating Sonic colors the first time around because I was too busy replaying some of the really good levels over and over for high scores. I replayed Kingdom hearts because it was so freakin good and......ok fine, so I also got to experience the awesomeness of playing a mage-centric hero instead of a melee-focused one, but the point still stands.

If a game is really fun, that offers replay value. If it's got extra incentives, like more classes to try, or branchinc story arcs, or co-op or whatever, then great. But it's not like it's NEEDED. And in some games, throwing in online is stupid. Did Dead Space REALLY need a crappy multiplayer mode?
 

Luke5515

New member
Aug 25, 2008
1,197
0
0
Haven't really enjoyed any of the other episodes, but this one I liked.
One thing about dead space two, I don't think it was the inclusion of multiplayer that started depleting the story(I really enjoyed the multiplayer), it was the fact that they ran out of vents for the necromorphs to hop out of when you're near them.
 

MiracleOfSound

Fight like a Krogan
Jan 3, 2009
17,776
0
0
I agree 100%. It's just weird seeing all these great single player games adding in these pointless, tacked on multiplayer modes when everyone is just going to go back to COD after 3 or 4 hours on it.

Put more time into getting the single player right... looking at you, F.3.A.R. fa-three-er.
 

Redd the Sock

New member
Apr 14, 2010
1,088
0
0
The fact this needs to be said makes me weep a bit. Back in the SNES and NES days we didn't have multiple modes for 30 hours games in a large library. We often had only a few games we played the shit out of to kill time between going out to rent something new for the weekend. There was a time I could make it through some levels of Mega Man 2 blindfolded because I played it so much. If we needed something new we invented odd challenges, ie: beat A Link to the Past with no optional sword, sheild and armor upgrades and no bottles, Beat Super Mario Bros always tunning, or beat Final Fantasy with a party of white mages. There was always something new because we could always better our game. And the previous generation went further. Rent King of Kong and see how many hours people have gotten from a game with four fucking screens, even after 25 - 30 years.

Then there's the story aspect. I used to love playing Ninja Gaiden on the NES for the cinematics, even after seeing them seeral times. I must have been through Final Fantasies 4 and 6 20 times each over the years and still read the dialog each time. Same with the Metal Gear solid games and their cinemas. Even camp like the Resident Evil games is a lot of fun to re-experience. Heck, that's when you really know is you got something good. Any story can be iteresting the first time when you keep going to findout what happens. It's a realy strong story you still enjoy after it's all been revealed.

Then again, I'm not surprised game companies appeal to this new ADD generation. They make their money off new game sales, so it's best to foster the mindset that needs something new every couple of weeks.
 

Zing

New member
Oct 22, 2009
2,069
0
0
Last two weeks were better. I believe this issue is subjective. Call me whatever you want, but I find repeating single player games pretty boring(unless they have a sandbox world/alternate options).

As long as it doesn't affect the quality of the product...bring on the multiplayer/replay value.

I mean look at Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood. Some of the best sandbox/single player ever. But also a masterfully unique multiplayer mode.
 

NaramSuen

New member
Jun 8, 2010
261
0
0
Second week in a row that Jim completely nails it. Down with shoehorned in online multiplayer!

The 9/11 first responder of video games line is absolutely classic!
 

ManInRed

New member
May 16, 2010
240
0
0
Of all the ways you could have argued this, you pick the simplest. Brilliant! Usually these arguments boil down to defining what is linear, showing that in some ways every game is linear and non-linear: you follow one path from beginning to end and you have freedom to play that path differently each time you play. But you skipped over the hassle of arguing what is linear and simply acknowledged that linear entertainment has always had replay value. That's pretty hard to argue against.

Think anyone will get enjoyment from re-watching this video?
 

Assassin Xaero

New member
Jul 23, 2008
5,393
0
0
I'm beginning to find him a bit more enjoyable now, actually... And I can't remember how many times I've played through BioShock, Final Fantasy VII, Half-Life 2, Painkiller, Tony Hawk's Underground, and many other games. Multiplayer is ruined by campers or poor servers most the time, but a great single player game can live forever.
 

redspud

New member
Feb 1, 2011
32
0
0
DeadCoyote said:
Jim, you are not right. Replayability is not about your feelings to the game, it's about new expirience, that the game can provide each time you'r playing it. It's a game-mechanich feachure. Just a characteristic of a game, like shader version. If it hase ways to have different expirience (dificulty level changing, random generated locations, different classes of playeble characters) - it hase replayabiliti, if not - it hasn't.
A lot of people like crapy games, that you woud be sick of in 5 minutes. So... what? Have those games replayability? I liked Bad Company, but will never play it again, and my friend played it 4 times. So have this one replayability? For me - no and for him yes? That just doesn't make sense.

Sory, Jim, but you were talking about personal preferences, not about replayability.
Personal preferences directly affect re-playability.

For you friend Bad Company has replay-ability for you not so much.

Also about the things you mentioned so if a game doesn't have those things then it has no re-playability? Do you see how skewed your view is. Take Ratchet & Clank for example it has none of those things and tons of people replay it. Same thing with Chrono Trigger or any Mario game in existence.
 

shrekfan246

Not actually a Japanese pop star
May 26, 2011
6,374
0
0
Dana22 said:
"To me, replay value comes in whether or not I want to play the game again".

Which is bit illogical, it would make more sense if you would add 'Right after I finish it' or 'In short term' at the endor something similar.

Because replay value is not 0/1, its a VALUE. Modern Warfare 2 (SP) will have lower replay value because of its linear gameplay and scripted encounters, then say Baldurs Gate 2 which has more open gameplay, mechanics and non-linear storytelling.

imho.
Just for semantics...

The quote that you took out of context, from a logical standpoint, actually makes perfect sense. Replay value means you want to replay something. Why does it have to be right after you just finished playing it? I find that games get more replay value as time passes, because there is less I will remember and more I will be able to re-discover in the game world.

Also, the entire point of the video that this thread is for was arguing that a linear game (Such as CoD Modern Warfare 2) can still have replay value despite its linear story and scripted encounters, and if the story is good enough it doesn't need a tacked-on multiplayer mode.

You say "imho" so I suppose I will respect your opinion, but don't try to push your opinion on other people. Don't tell them what they should have said. And don't use a strawman argument like "Oh, it's illogical." when the quote you took makes more logical sense than a human drinking water. Realize that it is only your opinion, and many other people (myself included) are not likely to share your opinion.
 

hallow eyes

New member
Nov 19, 2009
23
0
0
I agree generally with what your saying, but people just demanding more from games and developers doesnt make them stupid. If I pay for a game I want it to be good but also worth my money. Im not gunna pay $60 for a game only a few hours long even a great game like portal came as part of a box set, games like CoD and halo do really well with short campains but endless hours of multiplayer enjoyment. games like dragon age and oblivion need things like choices and side plot because they would be kinda boreing otherwise. Some of my favorite games had a tight linear story lines and are still fun for me but those are older and cheaper games. now days gamers demand more for there money and there is really nothing wrong with that.
 

Still Life

New member
Sep 22, 2010
1,137
0
0
The new Metro game going to have multiplayer? The hell!? Who's fucktard decision was that? They couldn't even get SP properly polished first time 'round and that is the entire appeal of the title; the game was a good experience, not a good game.

I've replayed Mass Effect and Mass Effect 2 so many times. Some may say 'too many' :) In fact, if it is an engaging SP experience I will generally play it at least a half dozen times.

Thank god for Jim :)
 

CobraX

New member
Jul 4, 2010
637
0
0
....Not everyone likes to play a game over again.....so it doesn't preovide universal replay ability

Also calm down there, no reason to call people names
 

MMMowman

New member
Mar 9, 2009
318
0
0
Name one game that doesn't have extra stuff in it to make it challenging enough. Portal is repeative once you complete it so the only thing that make me play twice was the achievements. Halo has multiple difficultly levels. Even without the multilayer options games do need additional stuff added on to make them fun enough to play again.
 

Sacman

Don't Bend! Ascend!
May 15, 2008
22,661
0
0
Yes, thank you... I agree 100% just like sonic youth... and I pray to you every night... or rather I would but I absolutely hate Ace of Base...
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
Swifteye said:
What is Movie-Bob's angle? He doesn't have one, he does not need one. He's just Bob. Same with Jim.
Movie bob does have an angle. On that particular show it's being a movie snob (although how much of it is genuine and how much of it is theatrics for humorous effect is to be discerned) in his big picture and the overthinker he gets to show off the primary nature of his character which is him being a giant nerd. When jim took off his jacket and spoke frank that was a special moment but it wasn't really like he changed his character really he was just a bit more direct and bit less sarcastic but he still used all the insults and the funny little photoshop pictures just like every other video he's made.

The act of making a show for the sake of entertainment is a little more complex than "make this pap enough to where the mindless drolls get it" although I understand how you might think that given that this is a rather snobby place which holds such beliefs to be self evident. It requires looking at what sort of audience you want and how you wish to approach them. This is the style that Jim has chosen, one that irks and annoys people but that's exactly what the character is supposed to do. Be irksome and annoying but also show a level of intelligence that makes one think (oh this guy is pretty smart but I wish he'd stop acting like a jerk) which I find amusing cause to be honest a lot of people on this website are like Jim. Really smart people who's arrogance and ego are really off putting but they do deserve credit for what they say.

And that is the core of Jim's character. He represents the egotistical bravado that infest places like the escapist where one can get so full of themselves that they can think they are better than everyone else and show it by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot.
I've been following Bob since the early days on Youtube and that really is him, he IS a Nerd. Yahtzee IS a cynical critic.

Jim is not a fascist-dick, yet he dresses and acts like one for Jimquisition, why? I don't know, you may find it amusing be you cannot tell me that I should find it amusing. You haven't really explained why you do find this fascist-dick routine so interesting.

Ascorbic and opinionated Jim I like, he reminds me of The Spoony One. Noah Antwiler admits that for is spoony reviews he does dial things up for comedic effect but he doesn't take on a ridiculously irrelevant persona.

"by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot"

So you watch Jimquisition like a freak show, like a trash TV talk show like Maurey Povitch you don't give a hoot about the issues, you just like to see someone embarrass themselves going on a rant?

That's shameful.
 

Daveman

has tits and is on fire
Jan 8, 2009
4,202
0
0
1) Why do I sound like I'm taking a shit?
2) Why no mention of RPGs? They're majorly replayable.
3) Yeah, I've played through Portal a number of times. It's good because it lasts almost as long as my train journey up to uni, but it's hard to play without a mouse... though I did master it.
 

00slash00

New member
Dec 29, 2009
2,321
0
0
oh dear, i must be coming down with something because i actually agreed with jim
 

Locutus9956

New member
Nov 11, 2009
39
0
0
Sigh....

Once again another perfectly valid point ruined by the fact that it's being made by an obnoxious horrifically (and staggeringly unjustifiably) arrogant man. Jim, stop trying to be 'clever' by swearing every other word, it doesn't make you sound like a grown up it just makes you sound like you have a lack of imagination and/or a poor vocabulary.

The constant ego tripping is also frankly nauseating and makes me utterly appalled at myself that I just wasted 4 minutes of my life watching it.

But the damnable fact remains that the REASON I watched and keep coming back and hoping that 'maybe he'll learn' is that you actually make very good points that I more often than not agree with what you're trying to say wholeheartedly.

For the love of god though try to grow up and speak to your audience with some degree of respect and civility, constantly insulting us and and throwing out the sort of language I'd expect from a school kid who thinks he's being 'edgy' does not make you seem superior it makes you come across as utterly laughable and for me at least makes me far less likely to be swayed by anything that comes out of your mouth.

All that said, please take this as it is intended which is to say, constructive criticism, you have a very 'keen nose' for the issues in the games industry today and I would love to see you reach a wider audience but if you carry on this way your only going to drive most folks away.
 

Cropsy91

New member
Apr 4, 2010
56
0
0
I love this guy's (intentional) condescending attitude, it's pretty damn funny, and he makes some pretty good points (though I don't always agree with everything he says)

Also, hooray for that "Puppet Master" cameo.
 

Siege_TF

New member
May 9, 2010
582
0
0
Daveman said:
2) Why no mention of RPGs? They're majorly replayable.
Jim said:
"Final Fantasy 9"

Maybe you should watch the whole thing.

Aureliano said:
How about some indie titles that do something really well, or even a shitty game that has one bright spot in its favor?
Perhaps Awesome Possum was an indie game? Maybe if there's an indie vs mainstream episode he'll humour you, but that's not what this episode was about. I have no idea why listing games that would make a viewer go 'what the hell were those games?' instead of 'oh yeah I played those' would improve the quality of the video, but sime you seem to think that's the case perhaps you could enlighten us.
 

Swifteye

New member
Apr 15, 2010
1,079
0
0
Treblaine said:
Swifteye said:
What is Movie-Bob's angle? He doesn't have one, he does not need one. He's just Bob. Same with Jim.
Movie bob does have an angle. On that particular show it's being a movie snob (although how much of it is genuine and how much of it is theatrics for humorous effect is to be discerned) in his big picture and the overthinker he gets to show off the primary nature of his character which is him being a giant nerd. When jim took off his jacket and spoke frank that was a special moment but it wasn't really like he changed his character really he was just a bit more direct and bit less sarcastic but he still used all the insults and the funny little photoshop pictures just like every other video he's made.

The act of making a show for the sake of entertainment is a little more complex than "make this pap enough to where the mindless drolls get it" although I understand how you might think that given that this is a rather snobby place which holds such beliefs to be self evident. It requires looking at what sort of audience you want and how you wish to approach them. This is the style that Jim has chosen, one that irks and annoys people but that's exactly what the character is supposed to do. Be irksome and annoying but also show a level of intelligence that makes one think (oh this guy is pretty smart but I wish he'd stop acting like a jerk) which I find amusing cause to be honest a lot of people on this website are like Jim. Really smart people who's arrogance and ego are really off putting but they do deserve credit for what they say.

And that is the core of Jim's character. He represents the egotistical bravado that infest places like the escapist where one can get so full of themselves that they can think they are better than everyone else and show it by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot.
I've been following Bob since the early days on Youtube and that really is him, he IS a Nerd. Yahtzee IS a cynical critic.

Jim is not a fascist-dick, yet he dresses and acts like one for Jimquisition, why? I don't know, you may find it amusing be you cannot tell me that I should find it amusing. You haven't really explained why you do find this fascist-dick routine so interesting.

Ascorbic and opinionated Jim I like, he reminds me of The Spoony One. Noah Antwiler admits that for is spoony reviews he does dial things up for comedic effect but he doesn't take on a ridiculously irrelevant persona.

"by saying ignorant arrogant things as they rant about stuff they know little about or stuff they know a lot about but has so little value that in the grand scheme of things makes that person look like a big idiot"

So you watch Jimquisition like a freak show, like a trash TV talk show like Maurey Povitch you don't give a hoot about the issues, you just like to see someone embarrass themselves going on a rant?

That's shameful.
You don't get to choose how someone decides to entertain. You may like a certain style but it will not be so because you like it. I am taking it for what it is I don't understand why that should be shameful but I guess that sort of thought process is why the Jimquisition exists as it does. To be a caricature of people like you.
 

Bostur

New member
Mar 14, 2011
1,070
0
0
That episode was way too simplistic. If we look at the fun games, there are fun games with low replay value, and fun games with high replay value. The linear story driven games are definately in the lower end of replayability compared to games that are more open in their design.

Slapping multiplayer onto a game is far from the only or best way to ensure replayability. Looking at the games with the most replay value, a lot of those had no multi-player mode at all. Games like Civilization, Master of Magic, Pirates!, Sim City, X-Com, none of those had multiplayer or extra data to process for that matter. But they were made with replayability in mind.

It is a mythic struggle, you just can't make a linear game with the same amount of replayability as a non-linear one. In the same way as you can't listen to the same piece of music 50 times in a row without going crazy. But you can easily play Chess 50 times in a row without needing another game.

So Jim, maybe you should attempt to broaden your feeble mind, before you start to call your viewers stupid. You have a lot of learning to do, and a lot of games to play. :p
 

Pierce Graham

New member
Jun 1, 2011
239
0
0
WHAT?!?!? Metro Last Light is going to have multiplayer? Great. That means the Single Player is going to be so short and unsatisfying because they'll have focused solely on the multiplayer. Damnit. I loved the first Metro.
 

Jimothy Sterling

New member
Apr 18, 2011
5,976
0
0
I totally agree. The most linear game can have the most re-playability as long as its an awesome game. Castlevania SoTN I've played multiple times. A few shooters as well. There is only one MP I even really play, L4D2.
 

vivster

New member
Oct 16, 2010
430
0
0
probably best episode so far... for the comedy that is

but i seem to be some genius-idiot-hybrid since i won't play games a second time unless i can play them in a completely different way(or if it's very short)
still i don't like online stuff or additional content that is not part of the core experience

that's where western rpgs shine
because one can play the same game in at least 3 completely different ways
that's 300h of gameplay right there without dlc or online mode
 

Ampersand

New member
May 1, 2010
736
0
0
I'm pretty sure you've missed the point here. If a game has great story and that's all, that's fine but its the way in which the story is delivered that determines whether or not you want to go through it again, with books or films you just have to read or watch, which is easy so there's nothing stopping you from doing it a couple of times however in games the story is delivered through the game play, and if the game play isn't challenging or interesting you're not going to suffer though it more then once just so you can experience the story again (at least I don't).
This is why it's nice to have multiplayer in games, because for a start the challenge of most games tends to go away after you've played it once, because the AI no longer has anything left to throw at you that you haven't seen before so at that point you want to play against some actual people who have real brains. What's more is if there are more people other then just the player involved in the game-play regardless of whether it's through co-op or competitive multi-player then it allow you more freedom to craft a more personal experience then what is just handed to you in the form of the games story. Not to mention that video games are games and are generally more fun when enjoyed with others.
 

iron skirt

New member
Oct 24, 2009
35
0
0
Treblaine said:
iron skirt said:
if you play something else every time then it's not called REplay is it? it's just playng something new so it's not REplayebility! it's just playebility
Yeah, but with multiplayer, don't people fight in the same maps with the same weapons over and over again?

Black ops came with 14 stock maps and 10 minutes per match there is only about 2 hours and 20 minutes of actual "new play" before you start REplaying the same maps, just with different rules and weapons.

If you play through the single-player with different weapons and tactics then that is definitely replay.

But that's not a problem, it is all-right to replay a map in competitive multiplayer as there are so many angles to discover with it. This is just ACCEPTABLE replayability. Still replaying the same old shit. Yeah there are map-packs, 12 new maps for $45 is pretty poor value. That's the price of a whole new game for effectively only 2 hours of new content.

Only a game like minecraft can claim infinite playability with randomly generated world and content that is limited only by your imagination.
that's not realy what i ment... i ment when you get new maps not when you replay the old ones... i wasen't very clear on that... still you are right
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
pheipl said:
I sorta agree, BUT (plz read b4 you troll)

While I love linear games with a strong narrative, I cannot play them twice. Yes most people see a good movie more than once, or listen to a good song more than once, or read a good book several times, but ... not everyone does. I never watch the same movie twice unless I have nothing better to do, and even then I lose interest about half way through. If I listen to the same song too much I lose interest in that also. A very good and complex book deserves several reads.

What I'm trying to say I suppose is that:

1) Not everyone thinks the same, some can't do repetitive tasks (go trough the same story twice)
2) Replayability is helped by being an open game, hindered by being linear (not saying linear games CAN'T be replayed just not as easily as open world games)
NOTE: Only referring to strong narrative games (not sonic or mario)

Ex: I bought Metro 2033 on impulse but I loved every single second in that game, convinced my friends to get it, tried to replay it ... couldn't. For SOME, a linear game with no variation on story (story driven games only) except maybe minor endings that can be googled have NO REPLAY VALUE WHAT SO EVER.
(P.S. I also don't like adding mutlyplayer to games that should never have mutlyplayer ... metro last light, I'm looking at you!)
Question:

Was Metro 2033 worth what you paid for without multiplayer or other features added for replayability? Did you NEED replay value to get their money's worth?
 

jmarquiso

New member
Nov 21, 2009
513
0
0
Bostur said:
Slapping multiplayer onto a game is far from the only or best way to ensure replayability. Looking at the games with the most replay value, a lot of those had no multi-player mode at all. Games like Civilization, Master of Magic, Pirates!, Sim City, X-Com, none of those had multiplayer or extra data to process for that matter. But they were made with replayability in mind.
I think the point is that multiplayer the way publishers do now.

As what you said though, I think some of the new ways procedurally generated stuff like X-Com, SimCity, and Civ did back in the day (look at Left 4 Dead randomizing the maps slightly for each playthrough) will be making randomization a key component in replayability.
 

Bluecho

New member
Dec 30, 2010
171
0
0
Personally, if I get tired of a game that I like, it's usually because it's a really long game and I played it enough that I wanted to move on to something else. But that is why I put them back on my shelf and come back to it months later. I love my meager selection of JRPGs enough that I'll come back to them over and over.

So why can't you people just put the game away if it can't hold your attention for a second playthrough? Maybe if you've played a few games after that, you can return to the one you shelved and rediscover how good it was. Assuming you bought and played it because it was an inherently good game. If not, then perhaps you should be more discerning as to what games you'll buy in the future.

On an unrelated note, if I do play a game a second time around immediately after the first, I like to do so to see how much better I was at the initial stages than when I was first starting out.
 

geizr

New member
Oct 9, 2008
850
0
0
While I disagree with Jim's specific tone of approach in this vid, I agree 1000%(that is not a typo on my part) with the specific message. I'm old-school, and the old-school definition of replay-value is simply "do I want to play the game again purely for the enjoyment of experiencing it again". Extra elements like achievements, medals, trophies, badges, easter eggs, hidden characters, unlock modes, etc. intended to create replay-value, in my opinion, turn out to be nothing but chores, mindless hamster-wheeling, that, in actually, add no real value to the game. The only people I can see enjoying such extras are completionist, but they are doing so only because there is more to be done in the game. If those elements were not there, they would be just as satisfied with having completed whatever content does exist in the game. At the end of the day, they are just meaningless virtual merit badges.

In fact, in agreement with Jim, the effort to create these extra elements is taking too much away from the developer's ability to make a solid, compelling singular experience in the core parts of the game that gamers would willing replay based on its own merits of enjoyability. So, in some indirect sense, these extra elements actually decrease the overall worth of the game because the core of the game has been reduced in enjoyment value.

I'm not going to rant on the attention-span issue that Jim brings up, but I do have to concur that many gamers today seem to suffer from a constant need to be distracted by the next shiny object. Constantly running away from reality is not a healthy activity, in my opinion.

Addendum: Watching the video a second time(yes, I am watching it twice cause I enjoyed the point. Replay-value!), he claims that it is gamers that profess the idea that these extras are necessary for replayability. However, it has been my experience that it has primarily been the recent(last 15 years) gaming press that has been constantly pushing this idea in almost every review of every bloody game. This along with the idea that a game must be longer than some specified number of hours in order to be fun or present a good experience.

I perceive these warped views of fun and the requirements for fun as being derivative of the misguided effort to create precise, objective review scores to every game. As I've written in another post, I feel the precision of current review scores, such as 1 part in 1000, 1 part in 100, and even 1 part in 10, is completely bogus because it is impossible to have such precise judgement of creative works better than roughly 1 part in 5(excellent, good, mediocre/okay, bad, and shitty, and one could argue to separate the "mediocre/okay" qualification into two parts to make a 1 part in 6 precision). Humans can only give, at best, a qualitative assessment of the quality of a creative work because we are often going by mood and feeling. It also doesn't help that the scores are constantly being artificially compressed to the higher ranges(currently in the 70-100% range), causing a lost of meaning for any given assigned score.

Turning gaming reviewing into a mere number-crunching effort(count the number of achievements, modes, etc., count the number of polygons and the resolution of the textures, count the number geek references, and so on) makes assigning a review score much easier and objective, but it does not have any necessary alignment to the true qualities of value in determining the worth of the game to the gamer: did I have fun playing it, and do I want to play it again because I just enjoyed the experience that much? Not also, this worth will be different for different gamers because of different interests, perspectives, and mores; thus, it is simply impossible to assign a completely valid objective measure. Even a 1 part in 5 score precision would still have to be qualified with the type of gamer to which the game is likely to appeal.
 

Treblaine

New member
Jul 25, 2008
8,682
0
0
iron skirt said:
Treblaine said:
iron skirt said:
if you play something else every time then it's not called REplay is it? it's just playng something new so it's not REplayebility! it's just playebility
Yeah, but with multiplayer, don't people fight in the same maps with the same weapons over and over again?

Black ops came with 14 stock maps and 10 minutes per match there is only about 2 hours and 20 minutes of actual "new play" before you start REplaying the same maps, just with different rules and weapons.

If you play through the single-player with different weapons and tactics then that is definitely replay.

But that's not a problem, it is all-right to replay a map in competitive multiplayer as there are so many angles to discover with it. This is just ACCEPTABLE replayability. Still replaying the same old shit. Yeah there are map-packs, 12 new maps for $45 is pretty poor value. That's the price of a whole new game for effectively only 2 hours of new content.

Only a game like minecraft can claim infinite playability with randomly generated world and content that is limited only by your imagination.
that's not realy what i ment... i ment when you get new maps not when you replay the old ones... i wasn't very clear on that... still you are right
I kind of addressed that by how new maps for most games cost a lot of money for only 3 or 4 maps. Having to pay more is not value enhancing, the price of (for example) CoD map packs is ridiculous that depends far more on group migration as in "I got to get that map-pack because my friends have it".

Remember, people say "replay VALUE", not "replay content regardless of price" as in they expect a $60 to entertain them for a certain amount of time.
 

pheipl

New member
Jun 24, 2010
21
0
0
No, I did not, and that's what I said (in not so many words) wonderful game, it needs no multiplayer. However I could not repeat it for the life of me. I didn't need to, and it was worth my money yes. BUT ...

Oblivion was worth just as much money ... one singe playtrough took about 84 hours (few side mission and exploration, nothing much) but then I played trough it again for over 300 hours.

While both games were worth the same amount of money, buck / hour Oblivion was a WAY better game simply because it gave me more bang for my buck due to it's replayability.

I won't comment again why a game should be / shouldn't be / is / isn't replayable.

P.S. While some may think mutliplayer is repetitive ... you might see it that way, but the fact of the matter is: People can react differently to the same situation over and over again while AI is predictable. For example MoBA games (battle arenas, DoTA) are 5v5 1 map (but with 50-100 heroes sometimes) but even though there is only a limited number of combinations (not permutations, but combinations) different players will play in different ways making them (only some, true) INFINITELY replayable!

EDIT: Not all mutliplayers are good. OFC, like duh, why should Dead Space 2 have multiplayer -_-
 

garjian

New member
Mar 25, 2009
1,013
0
0
50 seconds in, i have to say that its rare a single player mode has replay value in my books, unless it offers some decent character creation (one that results in characters actually playing differently, e.g. oblivion) or is very fun to play, e.g. tales of vesperia...

lets watch the rest...

1:55 and im thinking...

im sure lots of disc space is taken up by these multiplayer modes that EVERY game seems to have these days that could be better used to reinforce the single player.
the issue with that is... the only reason saints row 2 is better than just cause 2 is co-op.
...also, saints row 2 to saints row 3 is down 1 competitive matchmaking, hopefully this will mean a more expansive co-op experience and help prove that the lack of such a mode can improve a game, but... its not out yet...

...continuing...
nope... thats it.
 

nikomas1

New member
Jul 3, 2008
754
0
0
My most replayed game is Project Sylpheed...
Finished it about 14 times and I still didn't get the "Down ships with a combined wiegh of 1 Gigaton" Achievement :/
 

Inkidu

New member
Mar 25, 2011
966
0
0
Exactly! Now the part that extends this so that the moderators don't give me another warning:

I dislike multiplayer on that ground. In fact, if you're talking about spastic ADD gaming multiplayer is the worst thing out there. It's usually a handful of the same game modes that people just play over and over. It takes a really revolutionary and fun-to-play multiplayer aspect to keep the crowds from not diverting to Halo.

I think the Bioshock guys learned this lesson when they said something to that effect in the feature for Bioshock Infinite in Game Informer a while back.

My problem is that I have a stellar memory for narrative and plot detail so it's often hard for me to go back and play a game over again, but I don't have high-speed, gaming-caliber internet so... you know what? I'll play my great linear game over again and try to find new stuff. You're probably not going to find new stuff in a standard multiplayer element (maybe if it's one of those aforementioned good ones).
 

Alar

The Stormbringer
Dec 1, 2009
1,356
0
0
WTB more of Jim singing.

I really liked this episode, as I'm getting to like more and more of his work as he goes along. Yes, at first he came off as a bit of a pompous prick, but you know what? That's mostly just the character, and I like people who can do characters. It's a talent.

EDIT: There's also the fact that the point he makes is... you know, a good one.
 

oathblade

New member
Aug 16, 2009
212
0
0
Arrogant to the point of nearly being insufferable...but not quite. Because the intelligence in the comments and the general humor make it an enjoyable watch.

Sadly he doesn't have the replayability of the ZP. reviews. terrible. i think Jim needs a multiplayer mode.
 

Kenji_03

New member
May 12, 2007
134
0
0
Well done Jim. You're no longer coming off as too "hyper-realistic". *Thumbs up*
 

TimMcCracken

New member
Dec 7, 2009
2
0
0
Good points. I actually get annoyed at some games that add multiple endings when they aren't worth playing twice. Most of them don't change the feel of the game or the gameplay, just the last cutscene. As if they are saying play this 8-20 hour game again and you can go left instead right, get a different cutscene and new achievement. (wish I wasn't such and achievement whore.)

And I miss the suit. Bring it back man.