Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

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
3,740
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
5,392
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 :)