"How do you increase a game's replayability?"

Malkavian

By making it good, numbnuts.

It's not about multiplayer, or separate endings, or dialogue options. These can improve a game if called for it, but these are features that pale in comparison to one question: Is the game solid and fun? Does it tell a good story? Are you enjoying it? Do you want to play the story again? That's a more important question than if it's linear.

I mean, christ. Imagine if we made these weird demands of movies that there has to be some incentive to rewatch a movie other than being a thoroughly solid experience.

ClockworkUniverse

Definitely agreed.

Pokemon Snap, my favorite Pokemon game, got bad reviews partially for lack of replayability. I've played it...probably ten times start to finish, not counting the time I've spent in the postgame.

MoeDantes

Viagra usually helps, too.

Vorpy

RPGs are difficult to have replay value with if they have lots of luck-based (you need to have the strategy guide to even know how badly you fucked up your first file) kind of things going on in it.

RocketDude

Modding capabilities wouldn't hurt, though, but that's just me talking.

Vorpy

Oh yeah, that too.

The more a game can be expanded and fixed, the more interest it brings up. I would have quit Minecraft a long time ago if it wasn't for the updates.

RocketDude

Which brings up another thing: Continued support.

I'm looking at you, EA.

Malkavian

^^^^Yeah, but that's simply poor execution of the game, which is what ties into what I was saying. Alternate endings and multiplayer can't save you if the game is just shit.

^Oh come on, I'm sure no one is still playing those Sports games from 2010.

Vorpy

Like FFXII.

RocketDude

^^I'm not talking about NFL or FIFA, I'm talking about Command & Conquer 3: Kane's Wrath and Need For Speed: Shift.

It's not so much that they stopped updating them at all so much as the fact that there are apparently issues that persist.

Malkavian

I think we can still agree shutting down online play servers for a game that's barely a year old so everyone will buy the newest edition is pretty dickish though.

DYRE

Also dickish:  Activision acknowledging semi-serious bugs in some Guitar Hero games, and explicitly refusing to fix them (even though they could easily be fixed with a patch) so people will have to buy the next game to be able to play without such bugs (and then the next game ends up having other bugs -_-).

evilneko

Counterclock

You alright Neko Ô_Ô

Also obligatory Mario Romhack Raocow Advertisement.

Vorpy

you’re finding this reasoning weak, you’re not alone. The more
believable reason to deny players any kind of offline mode would be to
prevent piracy. I asked Alex if that was the reason.

“One of them, yes.”

Icalasari

Blizzard is not thinking that through. Most people wouldn't care if they had to make a new character for online

Yes, I am just assuming that they didn't think there. Better than the alternative

DYRE

Well, it's obvious that the whole thing is just an anti-piracy thing, at the expense of people who actually payed for the game and now aren't able to play if they don't have internet  access 100% of the time.

Vorpy

...I don't remember...but does TF2 have bot practice offline or on?

The_Edge

I love it when I discover new things each time I play through a game.

snowbull

I'm not too worried about Diablo 3, seeing as I'm not expecting it to be very good. Blizzard hasn't made a good game since warcraft 3.

RocketDude

^^^Offline.

Shichibukai

I disagree. Alternate endings and New Game Plus is a good way of keeping me interested. But that is on top of being a good game. A good game doesn't always have massive replay value. Depends on the genre. A game might have alot of first-time playability and an interactive storyline, but it can feel tedious to replay if you don't get much new out of playing it again. Phoenix Wright is a great game, but once you've solved all the cases it doesn't have too much replay value.

RedEyedAbyss

Personally, I find that the longer the game, the less incentive I have to play it again. What keeps me coming back is a feeling that I can improve upon playing the same thing, particularly rhythm games with their perfect scores, but that's personal preference.

AttObl

Multiple ways to tackle a situation and multiple endings are always a good thing for replayability. One playthrough, you're killing all the guards and enemies. Another playthrough, you're sneaking into the compound without killing anyone.

Deus Ex is a good game, and it has multiple endings, moddability, and multiple ways to tackle a situation.

DYRE

Agreed with Abyss_Worm.

Basically, for me, the most replayable games are arcade-style things, like shmups and rhythm games, where most of the replayability comes from trying to improve at the game, get higher scores and whatnot.

Competitive multiplayer games also get their replayability in a similar way, though I generally have less fun with them than with single-player games.

AttObl

And that is why I prefer Shooting Games / STGs / Shoot Em Ups. They are short, but think of the scoring and practicing! Also, they are generally harder than most games, so you will have to keep on improving until you beat (1 Credit Clear) the game.

RedEyedAbyss

For some reason, I just don't like multiplayer as much. Even with sports. I prefer trying to improve myself over dominating someone else.

LouieW

Shichibukai,
A good game doesn't always have massive replay value. Depends on the genre. A game might have alot of first-time playability and an interactive storyline, but it can feel tedious to replay if you don't get much new out of playing it again.

I agree, but I do think that kind of thing differs from person to person for the same reason that some people enjoy reading the same book over and over or watching the same film 20 times while others rarely reread or rewatch works. I think I can understand not necessarily wanting to get into some lengthy 50 hour quest again when you already know all of the plot twists though.

Abyss_Worm,
I prefer trying to improve myself over dominating someone else.


I agree with you there and I that is why think co-op multiplayer can be a pretty nice feature to have. I think it can be pretty fun to work together and improve yourself, especially when there is online co-op play. I guess that is part of the reason why games like New Super Mario Bros. Wii, Kirby's Epic Yarn, and Donkey Country Returns offer co-op play as a chief selling point.

On the topic at hand, I think that so-called "pickup-and-playability" is also a factor when considering a game's replayability. If you would rather not play through a long adventure, then I think being able to quickly start up a game and play a match or the equivalent can really add to how many times you play a game, especially if you have a lot of little moments in the day when you can only play for a bit.

Malkavian

Shichi: So you've never reread a novel or watched a movie before? Because I've played Phoenix Wright 1 and 3 about five times because I love the characters and story.

MillerCross

I think there's a difference because a game demands interaction and investment in another out of you. It demands you requirements in order to keep seeing the story. As such, you need incentives to continue. And when the only incentive a game has is, "Seeing a story I've already seen before unfold", well....the game definetly needs something else, imo.

Malkavian

But it has other things as well, being a game. Devil May Cry and Bayonetta have excellent combat that keeps me coming back. Batman Arkham Asylum has being the best 3D Metroidvania game out there. None of these lead to what's traditionally understood as replayability but they've had me replay these games numerous times.

A game has to have more than story to be replayable, but a game has to have more than story to be playable, period.