• Ever wanted an RSS feed of all your favorite gaming news sites? Go check out our new Gaming Headlines feed! Read more about it here.

Traxus

Spirit Tamer
Member
Jan 2, 2018
5,188
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:

tokkun

Member
Oct 27, 2017
5,399
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.
 

Glio

Member
Oct 27, 2017
24,497
Spain
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.
 

Cenauru

Dragon Girl Supremacy
Member
Oct 25, 2017
5,940
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.
 

Menome

Member
Oct 25, 2017
6,399
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.
 

Edgar

User requested ban
Banned
Oct 29, 2017
7,180
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
 

Strangelove_77

Attempted to circumvent ban with alt account
Banned
Oct 25, 2017
13,392
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.
 

rochellepaws

Member
Oct 25, 2017
3,451
Ireland
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.
 

Brotherhood93

Member
Oct 28, 2017
2,775
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.
 

TheMan

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
3,264
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
4,714
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.
 

zombiejames

Member
Oct 25, 2017
11,918
Replay value still matters and it's important. Imagine a Souls game where there was only one way to play it.
 

DarkFlame92

Member
Nov 10, 2017
5,641
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
 

eXistor

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,274
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
26,560
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.
 

Driggonny

Member
Oct 26, 2017
2,170
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
3,529
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.
 

RavFiveFour

Banned
Dec 3, 2018
1,721
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.
 

Baccus

Banned
Dec 4, 2018
5,307
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.
 

saenima

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
11,892
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.
 

snausages

Member
Feb 12, 2018
10,337
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
17,897
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

Traxus

Spirit Tamer
Member
Jan 2, 2018
5,188
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
3,529
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.
 

wafflebrain

Member
Oct 27, 2017
10,198
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
Sep 7, 2018
1,609
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.
 

ShinUltramanJ

Member
Oct 27, 2017
12,949
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
2,048
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.
 

low-G

Member
Oct 25, 2017
8,144
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.
 

ckareset

Attempted to circumvent ban with an alt account
Banned
Feb 2, 2018
4,977
For me personally. Yes. I don't replay anything and if I do it's years later
 

MH MD

Member
Oct 25, 2017
2,014
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.
 

Cipherr

Member
Oct 26, 2017
13,422
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.
 

Natels

Member
Oct 26, 2017
860
I have too many games to play. I only replayed games when I was young and had no money to get more.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,580
No no. Books and movies can have replay value. I've watched dune like 200 times.
 

Fat4all

Woke up, got a money tag, swears a lot
Member
Oct 25, 2017
92,571
here
i replay certain games every year cuz i like them

im on my upteenth playthrough of RE4
 

BoosterDuck

Banned
Oct 25, 2017
1,681
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
 

Rendering...

Member
Oct 30, 2017
19,089
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.
 

Crayon

Member
Oct 26, 2017
15,580
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.
 

Mcjmetroid

Member
Oct 28, 2017
1,843
Limerick, Ireland
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?
 

Crossing Eden

Member
Oct 26, 2017
53,300
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.
 

monmagman

Member
Dec 6, 2018
4,126
England,UK
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.
 

Eikemo

Alt-account
Banned
Oct 20, 2018
184
I remember when lots of reviews used to score replay value as a criteria