Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

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.
 

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.
 

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.