Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

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.
 

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.
 

Stammer

New member
Apr 16, 2008
1,726
0
0
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

New member
Mar 13, 2011
390
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.
Replayability is whenever or not you replay it.
 

DustyDrB

Made of ticky tacky
Jan 19, 2010
8,365
3
43
Aureliano said:
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.
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

New member
Feb 1, 2011
31
0
0
Tax_Document said:
Replayability is whenever or not you replay it.
redspud said:
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

New member
May 14, 2011
84
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!)
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

New member
Jul 28, 2008
263
0
0
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

New member
Jun 21, 2011
73
0
0
It was a good enough video before he started singing "The Sign"... and then it just became a unique breed of wonderful.
 

faspxina

New member
Feb 1, 2010
803
0
0
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

New member
Mar 5, 2009
604
0
0
DustyDrB said:
Aureliano said:
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.
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.