Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

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

Senior Member
Apr 23, 2008
143
0
21
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
 

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.
 

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
Jan 16, 2010
18,580
3,537
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.