• Introducing Image Options for ResetEra 2.0! Check the left side navigation bar to show or hide images, avatars, covers, and embedded media. More details at the link.
  • Community Spotlight sign-ups are open once again for both Gaming and EtcetEra Hangout threads! If you want to shine a spotlight on your community, please register now.

Have games outgrown "replay value"?

Jan 2, 2018
653
#1
Also, why is this applied exclusively to video games? Movies and books inherently lack any replay value whatsoever and yet we rewatch and reread well-loved classics over the years. What's the difference?
 
Last edited:
Oct 27, 2017
1,292
#3
Also, why is this applied exclusively to video games? Movies and books inherently lack any replay value whatsoever and yet we rewatch and reread well-loved classics over the years. What's the difference?
In the early days it was because video games were expensive and targeted at children. Children have less money to spend and a lot more free time than adults, so it was important for a game to last a long time.

These days it's because games make money through microtransactions, so keeping people playing increases their revenue. Whereas if you buy a book, the author doesn't get paid if you read it a second time.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,894
Spain
#4
It's according to genre and duration. A game like Star Fox needs good replay value because you can complete it in 2 hours. A game like Persona 5 is not because it lasts 90 hours and has an important narrative factor.
 
Oct 25, 2017
694
#5
Cause the major target audiences have grown up and so have the people making those games. Our tastes have evolved a ton since gaming became a thing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,785
#6
As I've gotten older, "replay-value" has lost any consideration for me. I barely find the time to complete what I do have. I will sometimes go back to play some beloved classics, but only because I love them, not because they've got an artificially-incorporated replay system designed within them.
 
Oct 29, 2017
3,011
#7
I never cared about replay value in my life. If I like a game a lot im gonna replay it eventually , even tho it might be same content beat by beat . I re play it because i want to experience that similar feel again not because I want something different
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,397
#8
Most people don’t replay their games. Most people don’t even finish them. They’re not the same people playing stuff like Fortnite and Destiny.
Not to mention that publishers don’t care about what stands the test of time, they care about making money for months and even years on end in one game. Someone replaying a game doesn’t help them.
Games aren’t movies or tv shows. The fact that they’re interactive fully changes them. You’re not watching the same episode on repeat when you play Fortnite with your friends. It’s always different and that’s where the fun is.

At the end of the day, not everything is for us.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,350
Ireland
#9
I get the sense that you're talking more specifically about open world western games padding with side objectives than gaming in general but personally I love things like new game+ or post game bonuses when replaying a narrative driven rpg, it's nice to have those little advantages to make a second playthrough go a bit quicker and feel different.
It's odd that you use "outgrown" as well as if player choice and greater value is some kind of bad thing.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,202
#10
Yes and no. It's true that games tend to go the DLC or GaaS route as opposed to having intrinsic "replay value" but replaying games never had huge appeal to me anyway. I will, very occasionally, replay a game I love but that has very little to do with the design of the game. Many say games like The Last of Us have no replay value but I have replayed that more than any other recent game.

Generally, I prefer new things though and that's probably why things have shifted, along with being easier to monetise. I don't really play GaaS games or buy a lot of DLC but whether it's moving on to the next game or getting more content from a game you love I think it's just more exciting to play something new than a slightly remixed version of the game you just played. Games had to go for "replay value" because, outside of expansion packs, DLC wasn't a viable option in the not so distant past.
 
Oct 25, 2017
1,998
#11
yeah, replay value means little. Nowadays I play a game as much as I can stomach and then trade it in for the Next Big Thing.
 
Oct 25, 2017
2,407
#12
I really don't think so, 2019 has barely started and so far we have:
RE2
Ace Combat 7
and hopefully DMC5
All prove that short but replayable is still a very strong method of designing games.
I would much rather have short games meant to be played many times over for chasing high ranks, unlocks and extra content to 120 hour behemoths.
 
Nov 10, 2017
2,889
#15
Aside from certain aspects that target replayability,I think the best recipe for replay value is having great content nonetheless.

For example I can't say Ocarina of Time had any particular gameplay aspect that targeted replay value,but I've played this game countless times.

So replay value is a bit relative in my book
 
Oct 27, 2017
3,395
#16
Some publishers like to think so, but I don't go by that logic at all. I'd like to think there will always be a market for shorter, replayable games.
 
Oct 25, 2017
17,977
#17
I replay my favorite games still, so I guess its a factor, but since I have the money for new games and buy stuff monthly, can't say its that important.

But as kid, I played the same stuff over and over again anyway, so everything had replay value by default unless I didn't enjoy it period.
 
Oct 26, 2017
2,052
#19
I think part of it is that most modern AAA games are designed in a way that you don’t really need to replay. No missables + open world + really long mean that you can play the game and continue accomplishing all goals without restarting. And by the time you’ve done all that it’s been so long you don’t wanna restart.

I would prefer an 8 hour game with unlockable characters and whatnot, but I think big devs are putting all that work for replayability into more single playthrough content.
 
Oct 25, 2017
950
#21
I don't really understand how the title matches the content of the OP since it's clear that they have not outgrown it and are in fact more reliant on it than every thanks to wanting/needing the extra money from microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Having people come back to (and spend money on) a game you've already made sounds a lot nicer than having to make a whole new game right away.

That said, "replay value" as it's generally described isn't something I really enjoy. I just enjoy playing games that are satisfying to play. And I play them for as long as I feel like. Then stop. Then maybe go back to them. Or maybe not. I don't really care if I can get a different ending by playing with a different character or stuff like that. "True" replay value, as in games that are just so good that they're really fun to play again and again, is pretty rare.
 
Dec 3, 2018
569
#23
Only you can define “replay value”. Theres certain games I feel deserve multiple play throughs (ME2, Majora’s Mask) and it’s a very difficult thing to master as a developer.
 
Dec 4, 2018
1,278
#24
I think it's one of the few good tendencies in the industry and I hope devs keep finding out great alternatives to offer more replay value in the future as they have done so in recent times, even if said strategy is to make the most perfect linear game you could ever play, that makes it intrinsically replayable.
 
Oct 25, 2017
8,764
#25
I never cared about replay value in my life. If I like a game a lot im gonna replay it eventually , even tho it might be same content beat by beat . I re play it because i want to experience that similar feel again not because I want something different
This is exactly me. If i like a game it has replay value. Because i will replay it.
 
Feb 12, 2018
1,844
#26
I'm financially independent but I prefer high replay value games cause a lot of what we call "replay value" is due to how devs engineer in meaningful choices for players to make. Whether it's for a RPG build or combat options in BloodBorne or, for instance, doing high difficulty challenge runs in a game like Resident Evil. It's just a more interesting type of game to me even if I only play it once
 
Oct 25, 2017
9,727
#27
As I've gotten older, "replay-value" has lost any consideration for me. I barely find the time to complete what I do have. I will sometimes go back to play some beloved classics, but only because I love them, not because they've got an artificially-incorporated replay system designed within them.
This is what it has become for me over time. I just have far too little time and far too many games to really replay something. I could possibly make an exception for the really, really good ones though.
 
OP
OP
Traxus
Jan 2, 2018
653
#28
I don't really understand how the title matches the content of the OP since it's clear that they have not outgrown it and are in fact more reliant on it than every thanks to wanting/needing the extra money from microtransactions, loot boxes, etc. Having people come back to (and spend money on) a game you've already made sounds a lot nicer than having to make a whole new game right away.
I could have chosen a better title, maybe "What is modern replay value?"

I guess I just find "replay value" as a term outdated since every game is expected to have an endgame now, but the actual content is usually so cheap it's more about quantity than any sort of "value". It's been completely warped from what it used to mean.
 
Last edited:
Oct 25, 2017
950
#29
I could have chosen a better title, maybe "What is modern replay value?"

I guess I just find "replay value" as a term outdated since every game is expected to have an endgame now, but the actual content is usually so cheap it's more about quantity than any sort of "value". It's been completely warped from what it used to mean.
Sure. Understandable.
 
Oct 27, 2017
965
#30
Whould games be better off if they were to abandon this modern obligation to keep players engaged ad infinitum?
Absolutely. The truly memorable experiences for me are usually ones that are shorter and have a tightly designed campaign with little fluff. If anything it's what I tend to gravitate towards nowadays. Things like Inside, Abzu, Everything, Rime are all good examples of this. Another I tend to overpraise is Soma, perfect length and diversity in locations for what the narrative demands. It felt like a full meal. Didn't need any more.

That said...I'll probably continue to play new Hitman content till the day I die :p

That's one game where I don't mind gaas at all, that gameplay is just too satisfying. Makes more sense in this case due to the myriad encounters/puzzles you can keep plugging into various levels wrt targets.
 

Valdega

Banned
Member
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
#31
Also, why is this applied exclusively to video games? Movies and books inherently lack any replay value whatsoever and yet we rewatch and reread well-loved classics over the years. What's the difference?
Movies have far more long-term revenue streams. Box office, Blu-Ray, DVD, digital, streaming, rentals, PPV, TV, etc. Games also suffer more from used sales and trade-ins as a result.

From a business standpoint, GaaS just makes more sense than making multiple games. Creating content for an existing game is much cheaper than creating a new game.
 
Oct 27, 2017
5,080
#32
Outgrown replay value?? Anymore I’m noticing publishers doing little events to keep me coming back.

Diablo has it’s hooks in me with a new season. Battlefield V’s got me playing it’s little times events to unlock guns. Uplay’s covered in events with all of their games.
 

galv

Avenger
Oct 25, 2017
1,630
#33
I've found a lot of my favourite SP games are worth replaying/playing after completion, whereas the games I don't like, I easily skip the side content, rush to finish and forget about 10 minutes afterwards.

It's why I can still play (off the top of my head) The Witcher 3, Dark Souls/2/3, Hitman/2, Forza Horizon 3/4, Breath of the Wild, NieR: Automata, Persona 3/4/5, Yakuza 0, DOOM, Wolfenstein TNO/TNC, Nioh and Arkham Asylum/City/Knight regardless of me finishing them.

Whereas games like Assassin's Creed: Origins or Watch_Dogs 2 are filled with content yet I have no desire to go back and play even a little after finishing their main storylines.

I think for the most part, I don't really care about replayability being built in with a bunch of side content/NG+ stuff - if the game's good, it'll have me coming back for more.
 
Oct 25, 2017
5,776
#34
People are used to garbage, disposable entertainment they wouldn’t want to play more than once, so the responses in this thread are a reflection of that. Then, the games are developed in a response to that sentiment.

I, however, remember classics like Mario Bros and Doom, which many people replay to this day. I would prefer play one game more than once because is it actually that good and facilitates playing more than once, than to skip to another game I will play and promptly forget about, never caring if I had never played it at all.
 
Oct 25, 2017
704
#36
Also, why is this applied exclusively to video games? Movies and books inherently lack any replay value whatsoever and yet we rewatch and reread well-loved classics over the years. What's the difference?
Kinda off-topic but some books/movies/shows , do in fact, have “replay value “ , some are designed in a way that a late reveal put the rest of the work in a totally different context, making the act og re-reading/re-watching them so much rewarding and make you notice things you had no way of noticing them earlier.

On-topic, replay value is king, there is a reason why i still play sonic 3 & Knuckles like 20 years later still.
 
Oct 26, 2017
3,134
#37
yeah, replay value means little. Nowadays I play a game as much as I can stomach and then trade it in for the Next Big Thing.
I don't think this is a side effect of things changing as much as it is us getting older. We are grown now and can buy all the games we want. But when younger (at least for me) I had a very limited number of games my parents would buy me yearly. So replay value was huge. Now I have a massive backlog and hundreds of dollars in steam games I still haven't even played yet. Its just not the same.
 
Oct 25, 2017
936
#43
short games like many platformers, action games and puzzle games need replay value to justify their pricing

but with gaming as a whole moving unto more story-driven and RPG focused experiences, yeah replay value doesn't look needed there
but it'll never die because there are still genres that stay fun with replays
 
Oct 30, 2017
6,191
#45
Absolutely not--not the games I'm playing.

God of War, Nier: Automata, Bloodborne...I'm mostly into single player games and almost all of them have great replay value.

The last game I played where I thought "well, I'm done with this for good" was The Last Guardian. Once is enough to get everything the story and characters have to offer, and the controls were so frustrating.
 
Oct 26, 2017
8,097
#46
Replay value is a consistent mark of a good game. A single player adventure with good replay value is gold because it means you still want to play it by the time you get to the end. You can put time into it and it still gives back. Replayability is better. Just ask a 12 year old who gets 3 games a year.
 
Oct 28, 2017
1,843
Limerick, Ireland
#47
It's an interesting one. The more complex games get in every way including incredible action set pieces and story the less likely to I'm to replay .whereas I'd replay a 16 bit game over and over. It's not a bad thing per say just that I feel like I've had my fill and I'm emotionally drained from the game. The exception here is Resident Evil 4.

Is anyone else the same?
 
Oct 26, 2017
15,382
#48
It's a yes and no question.

Shorter games tend to prioritize replay value while longer games tend to want the player to keep playing as long as possible.
 
Dec 6, 2018
881
England,UK
#49
If I enjoy a game I'll always want to go back to it one day...........the length of a lot of open world games is making that less likely though.
I'm just finishing up ME Shadow of War and I've enjoyed it a lot,but will I go through it all again......not so sure.