Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

[Stammer]

At first I was pissed off that Jim was a douchebag.

Now I'm pissed off that I'm suddenly into his videos. Stop making good videos, Jim! Not really, of course. Please keep it up.

It's definitely true that a game simply being good is worth playing over and over again. Heck, that's something that games of the past relied on. Games like Sonic and Mario, and pretty much every game before the invention of save states.

Though admittedly giving the player some incentives to play through again and again are always nice. Adding a few options to the player character, having New Game Plus, or having alternative ways to enjoy the game are always welcome. But it's definitely NOT MANDATORY.

 

[Tax_Document]

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.

Replayability is whenever or not you replay it.

 

[DustyDrB]

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.

I don't think there's a way to say it without sounding dickish, but you have missed the point. Focus on the "Replayability" aspect of the video.

There are a lot of people who view any single-player game as having no replay value. It has less replay value if the game is story-focused, and even less if it is a linear game. So even though these people might enjoy the game, they think it not worth playing again and therefore not worth buying.

What results from this is games shoehorning in a half-baked multiplayer mode (that may or may not divert attention and resources away from the single-player. That's a debatable point). EA has said things like "Single-player games are finished' " [http://www.wired.com/gamelife/2010/12/ea-single-player/]. This kind of talk worries people like me who tend to only play single-player games.

That established, Jim's point is that any experience that you (Not a critic. Not your friends. Just you) really enjoy is replayable. Even though the experience may be almost exactly the same every time you play it, you can still enjoy it just as much as the first time. It's not uncommon for people to see a movie or read a book more than once, but for some reason a lot of people seem to have it in their head that even a great game isn't worth playing more than once.

The point of the video isn't "good games are good" . It's that linearity doesn't kill replayability.

 

[DeadCoyote]

Replayability is whenever or not you replay it.

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.

So any game has replayability, that is just willing of gamers to play it again? Ok, let it be this way. But then... what games are replayed more times: single or multiplayer? I guess the answer is obvious. And Jim's point of view is screwed again - multiplayer games are replayed more than single ones; so if developers want to make a game, that will be played as many people, as possible for as much times, as possible - they should make multiplayer game. If realy, then they need to make a MMO game - that is what people play for years every day! No any game with just 1 single campaign can beat WoW in replayability.

 

[dosp5]

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!)

I agree with you. I loved portal 2 to death, deserves every award conceived and more. But I just can not replay it. I know all the puzzle solutions and funny storyline. If i want to replay a game, I will wait several months so I can forget most of it and have fun with rediscovery.

 

[Polarity27]

To me replay value is one of two things:

"I wonder what happens if I...." Try weird combinations of things, try different strategies, this can make the same game fun for a long time for me.

Co-op play. It makes me a sad panda that so many games concentrate on online PVP and neglect the idea of splitscreen co-op for the entire single-player campaign. I buy games I can play with my husband. If it's fun to try a new strategy by yourself, it's even more interesting when you add the variable of another player. I get so frustrated when I'm told "no, it doesn't have co-op, but it does have multiplayer". Yay? I like PVE, sometimes I want to team up within the comforts of my house without having to deal with online players.

The best thing in the world to me is Halo Reach's Firefight mode. It's so customizable, we can co-op forever with grueling custom mob and layout combinations and have a ton of fun without ever signing on to XBL. (Dirty secret? At the moment I don't even *have* XBL, right now I can't afford it. So a replayable co-oppable game? Is manna from heaven.)

 

[Terminally Chill]

It was a good enough video before he started singing "The Sign"... and then it just became a unique breed of wonderful.

 

[faspxina]

Things I don't like about this show:
- the guy tries too hard to be funny.
- why... does he... talk so slooowly... maybe... afffraaaaid, weee... don't undeeeerstaaand... whaaat... he's saying?

Things I like:
- I usually agree with him.

Maybe if he told his jokes or funny sentences really fast with drawn semi-animated representations of himself and what he's saying, I would enjoy it a lot more.

 

[Aureliano]

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.

I don't think there's a way to say it without sounding dickish, but you have missed the point. Focus on the "Replayability" aspect of the video.

The point of the video isn't "good games are good" . It's that linearity doesn't kill replayability.

Seriously. I said that I was focusing on something other than the main point of the video. In the part that you quoted, no less. The criticism I made, in brief: Jim's examples are by and large trite. For those of us who both enjoy playing classic single-player games and understand that contemporary titles that boast 'replayability' often do so at the cost of story or even gameplay, the video was just time wasted. To make it more worth the time, Jim could at least bring up some interesting examples we might not have thought of. That is the criticism. To say nothing of working a little harder at making jokes rather than just trying to be edgy.

In fact, it could even give some replay value to Jim's own videos to do either of these things.

 

[riftermcriftington]

Great Ep...I'm a bit old school so yeah, replayability used to be something unique to single player games. Nintendo power and Gamepro used to rate the replayability factor of the single player experience. (I think Link to the Past still holds one of the highest scores for it.) After beating Portal 2, I didn't go online to check out the multiplayer, I played the single player again because it was sooooooooo well put together. Too many games these days aren't even worth one play through let alone containing replay value. screw modern games and screw modern gaming if it's not going to realize that while the internet offers an infinite range of possibilities, they should not be mandatory certainties.

 

[Volafortis]

I do hate idea that single player games can't be replayed, and the shoehorning of multiplayer into games that don't need it.

I played Halo: CE countless times, Dragon Age 8 times, Mass Effect about 10-ish times, Half-Life 2 series many times, etc...

A good single player experience has always beat a generic MP experience, IMO.

 

[Vuirneen]

Moar singing!!!

 

[GeorgW]

Wow. The first time I've not just thought the Jimquisition was okay, but actually good!
I think what I liked about it was that the topic was actually something that wasn't completely obvious. Sure it was obvious, but not to most, like your usual topics. And once again, you were a gamer. Keep it up!

 

[The Harkinator]

This reminds me of a conversation I had yesterday with one of my friends (lets call him Jack because thats his name) about linearity and multiplayer.

Jack: I'm getting bored of my Xbox, theres no good games for it anymore. I think I'll focus on my PC because all the games are much better on the computer.

Me: What about L.A. Noire? Thats good on the console. I don't think there would be much difference, you don't need to spent £75 on upgrading your PC.

Jack: Yeah but L.A. Noire is linear. Linear games are just rubbish.

Me: What? Whats wrong with linear games?

Jack: I don't like them, they're boring.

Me: Why? They're linear for a reason so you see all the things they want you to see.

Jack: I like multiplayer, L.A. Noire doesn't have that.

Me: But you like single player on Halo 3 and CoD. You told Gary you liked Half Life 2, thats linear.

Jack: No I don't really like them actually. I only said that so Gary wouldn't get upset. I don't like single player because its linear.

Me: But you like GTA 4 and Red Dead Repemption. They're a lot like L.A. Noire. You can go anywhere in L.A. that you want. The main missions are linear because they sort of have to be, besides isn't the point of playing a game for the main missions? The extra stuff is nice to have but thats not really what you pay most money for. Red Dead is linear because it has to be.

Jack: Linearity is just rubbish, it restricts me.

Me: Some people cant see the cake for the candles......

 

[LITE992]

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.

This. Him being that way doesn't change or add to his point, but he's probably annoyed that everybody insists that MP is an absolute must.

OT: I've replayed my fair share of games (mainly the campaigns of CoD4 and CoDW@W) because the singleplayer is good enough to be worth experiencing another time. I don't get the "MP is the game" bandwagon more and more people are jumping on to.

 

[Jennacide]

Again Jim brings up valid points, only problem I have is his choice of examples. Not that I disagree those are all great replay games, but he sort of skirted the fact one. It's not just that they are good games, but each has multiple ways to play through it. Gears of War is a great game, with fun gameplay and acceptable story, but I've only played it twice, once on normal, once on Insane. (Yes, I'm one of THOSE people) Compare that to the 8-9 times I've played Silent Hill 2 or Bioshock. What's different? Silent Hill 2 has a handful of alternate endings, and all sorts of hidden shit to discover. Bioshock has so many build options in concerns to how you play the game. (Melee build is WAY too fun)

Being a good game is half the battle to replay in a 'linear' experience. You need diversity or flex room in how you are allowed to play the game. This is why people go back to RPGs time and time again, as most good RPGs aren't just because of an engaging story, but you can play the game again in diametrically different ways than before. For example, FF6. I've played that god only knows how many times, using a completely different crew almost every time.

 

[Antwerp Caveman]

I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.

Thank you!

Or the tedious "I'm great and you suck" comments all the time. I'm all for a little poking, but these comments are getting ridiculous. When ZP does it it's well thought out and funny. When this wannabe does it, it just comes over as sad.
Maybe I don't understand him or something, but it just seems like this show is done by a random, dime-a-dozen troll with a camera and who is subtly hinting towards taking over the country. (due to his V for Vendetta Norsefire suitcolors and background)
The only reason I watch it is to see if it's finally going to get good.

The only compliment I can give him: It's good to see his mom does his laundry, I couldn't have kept that suit and shirt so colorful without fading.

 

[IkeGreil29]

Is Metro really going to be flawed by this? I mean, I've seen the gameplay, and it seems a lot more... in line with what they wanted to do. I dunno.

 

[KarlMonster]

... 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.

Hear, hear! Well spoken, Bruce!

Yet, I'll go a step farther. I think that Jim is making the wrong point here. Look, if you're going to tell the plain, honest, truth then go right for the Brass Ring. If you're going to put it on the line and say that Metacritic is NOT the problem, and Nintendo is FUCKING stupid (and I agree to both) then you shouldn't be afraid to make this statement either:

"Quit FUCKING up the single player campaign so that you can rush out a game with multiplayer content in time for the next product cycle. You stupid publishers are so greedy for whatever fleeting income that you imagine you may be gaining from online content, that you are creating a SUB-STANDARD - ah hell, lets just call it "shitty" - product. This is called sacrificing quality (and reputation) in the name of short term profit, which is patently stupid on its face."

There, that would be a Jim-worthy statement, and I think that it is the argument that he should have been making. [And I'll let you imagine the 'stupid face' at the end, there.]

Publishers (possibly developers too, you decide) have been straining for the perceived online revenue - and failing - at least since before Ubisoft promised (and failed) to provide ongoing MMO content that dovetailed with the release of URU.

Here's another example; remember Battlefield:Viet Nam? I sure don't. But I did play BF:1942 for a long, long time - but mostly online, because the single player "campaign" was basically a bunch of maps that were the same as used online, and the same AI bots that would be used online. Therefore I can't honestly say that there WAS a single player campaign, even though you could play offline. Although I grant you, there sure were a lot fewer armor campers offline... And BF2 was much the same way. I could play them both offline, but without a dedicated solo story, or goals, or anything, its just dull.

Now that most players have moved on other hot online titles, the Battlefield:1942, BF:V, and to some extent the BF2 servers are dead. [I would expect there is still a diehard BF2 online community] Who is going to buy a retail copy of BF:V now? What is the incentive? Lifeless single player with no story? Lifeless online servers - if there are any?

I can guarantee you one thing; people are still going to be buying retail copies of (single-player only!) Bioshock for years to come. It will continue to sell, and it should sell because it is a great game. [Actually, I think it could have been better, but I've wasted too much space here, so go see my first Escapist post for that!] And the title doesn't involve ongoing overhead costs for the publisher; like server maintenance fees. That sounds like the better business proposition to me - but hey, I'm unemployed, what do I know?

 

[Dastardly]

I can guarantee you one thing; people are still going to be buying retail copies of Bioshock for years to come. It will continue to sell, and it should sell because it is a great game. [Actually, I think it could have been better, but I've wasted too much space here, so go see my first Escapist post for that!] And the title doesn't involve ongoing overhead costs for the publisher; like server maintenance fees. That sounds like the better business proposition to me - but hey, I'm unemployed, what do I know?

You're right -- that's the bigger issue, as far as multiplayer-oriented games are concerned. It isn't a guarantee of replayability. For instance, while I'm enjoying the hell out of Dead Rising 2 at the moment, the online "Terror is Reality" game show component doesn't work for me because no one is on, and there's no way to do it without four players. Thankfully, it's an extremely minor part of the game and wasn't a major selling point for me.

I think this abuse of multiplayer does more than just cause an erosion in the quality of single-player portions. I think it also represents an erosion in effort on the part of developers (without a corresponding drop in price).

When you base a game entirely on multiplayer, you're essentially saying, "Here, community -- provide your own content." You provide characters, weapons, and a game space... but the players have to provide the opposition, both in terms of numbers and "AI" (in this case actual intelligence). The population of the game, then, determines a huge portion of the quality of the gaming experience -- which, thanks to that "online interactions not rated" disclaimer, the publisher is not responsible for.

These games allow developers to shrug off a tremendous amount of accountability for how good a game is, as well as introducing a certain amount of uncertainty to the customer. When I load up Dead Rising 2, I know I'm going to have a certain amount of fun available to me at a minimum. When I load up Frontlines: Fuel of War? If you just said, "Wait, what?" then you've proven my point: I'm only able to enjoy most of that game to the degree that other people are actually playing it.

So, I would contend that multiplayer-heavy games aren't about increasing replayability. They are about giving replayability a clear shelf life. When the new game comes out, your replay value dries up, and you're "encouraged" to buy the new one. It's entirely about the opposite of encouraging replay--it's about encouraging re-purchase. I'm looking at you EA ("EA Sports -- it's in the game... that you already bought last year...")