What constitutes a game for "replayability?"

[Stalkerkain]

With the countless number of games out there, some of them have made it into our personal halls of fame. But there are certainly some games that stand out more than others, and games that you'd definitely play more than once.

We recommend so many games to other people, but how many of them would we actually just sit down and play through again?

Is it the challenge? The journey, despite knowing all the plot points and twists? The gameplay?

Chrono Trigger and SMT: Devil Survivor come to mind as games that I've played through more than once.

But something like Fire Emblem: Awakening which I have ~80 hours on, I may never consider doing another playthrough (at least for the present).

What are some games, and their aspects that make a game "replayable"?

[drevance]

For me games that I find really fun and that I want to experience again are the main source, but some games have rewards for repeat playthroughs. Plus if the actual gameplay is fun.

Take the Ratchet and Clank series for example.

When you beat the game you can either reload right before the final fight to grab the collectables or you can enter Challenge Mode, which starts you over with all your weapons and some upgrades you've acquired (Nanotech for example) and you can get upgraded weapons, armor in later games, and a bolt multiplier to cover the increased cost of weapons by getting up to 20x currency for not taking damage.

I believe the first in the series, Ratchet and Clank have my lowest playcount at 10 playthroughs on the same file. While Deadlocked and A Crack in Time have over 20, Deadlocked being around 45 since it's Co-Op and there are separate difficulties. I've always loved the aspect of a Challenge Mode.

Champions of Norrath is probably the only game (it's sequel not so much) that I have replayed more than the Ratchet and Clank series altogether. 4 Dfficulty modes that you need to progress through each to access the next and with better loot, more EXP, and stronger foes in each difficulty. Not to mention there are more than one class and you pick and choose your playstyle. So alone getting each class through the game 4 times at the least to max them out, plus Co-Op playthroughs with others that can be 1-4 players with the PS2's multitap, it had huge replayability.

Something like Dragon Age: Origins though, for me at least, has limited replayability. The first run through is all about the story and learning mechanics, and the subsequent runs are on the higher and higher difficulties until you reach The Fade area on Nightmare and once you have been through it you never run Nightmare again. But I think Dragon Age offers similar replayability to Champs due to having different classes and your race determines your prologue which is a bit different and people react to you differently etc. So branching storylines help with that.

That's for me though, I just tend to look for fun, quick, and fluid gameplay. If it's up to my standards then I'll play it until the disc reader in the system stops working (RIP PS2) or a sequel is release. I still have my copy of Champions of Norrath with me and my ps3 which I play it on with some guys I grew up with. Maybe once or twice a year we get together for a day or two and just run through the game.

[Tartar]

The most important aspect that makes a game replayable is the depth of its gameplay. And here I mean the possibility to approach the same scenario from different angles or use different tactics. Were you to play through the same game doing the same exact thing you did on your first playthrough, then that means that game had no depth to it, since there was only one optimal way of doing things, and you had already found it. But in games where deeo mechanics and you're given the option to explore the game's systems and can thus can learn from your mistakes and improve your gameplay and do things differently than the first time. That's what constitues a system that can be replayed. This is also why games like Fire Emblem and Pokémon are so replayable, since each and every playthrough is unique from the last.

Though this doesn't mean that every game with deep mechanics is worth replaying, just that it CAN be replayed.

Naturally another way to provide replay value for a game is by restricting how much of the game can be experienced every playthrough, and thus force the player to play again to experience all the game has to offer (think Star Fox 64). And also this post disregards the replayability that comes from branching stories, as I tend to not replay those games even if they have branching paths through the game.

[Omega_Ra1der]

Fossil Fighters series had been always decent for replay ability, specifically at Champions where you could go through the story multiple times but the gameplay and collecting aspects were well made. There was only one place where you could get Trifecta (?) and it was story locked so NG+ helped me a lot.

The other games that I would turn on my PS3 for were Payday 2, Army of two the devil cartel, Battlefield 3, NHL 14 and that is all. But all of them were very enjoyable in their times.

PC. TF2 was the shit. Enjoyable and it's multiplayer reeled me in. Before my steam account got both blocked and hacked, I was a legit god at heavy.

[Tartar]

On a sidenote, how did you play Awakening for 80 hours and only did one playthrough?

I haven't played any of the 3DS Fire Emblem games, but I've played game besides Geneology and Gaiden. And the longest was Radiant Dawn which was 45 hours long while every other game was 25 hours long.

[Cepheus]

I have over 100 hours in my FE Fates: Birthright run... I did all the grinding xD

The thing is in Awakening and Fates you have access to a world map with Random encounters for grinding purposes (Fates: Conquest route excluded - it is more classic)

Replayability... most of it comes in form of Multiplayer games, or games with Multiple Classes to choose from like Diablo.

Multiplayer you can always go back to to have fun with friends.

Games with a class-system you can always choose a different class, or the same class but with different Abilities (Diablo 2 - the only way to play a different Character build was to start from scratch... screw up in talenting your abilities, well tough luck)

Some games I replay because I just really like them - like Sonic Adventure 2, Final Fantasy 7 - god, I played through some of them so many times...

Pokemon obviously has the different starter, and the ability to do it with a completely different team composition.

[Lugruf]

For me replayability comes from multiplayer as well. A PVP scenario makes the number of possible options you can encounter in a game much bigger. Let's compare a pokemon game and Showdown for example. In the Pokemon game, you play it, you finish the story (including the post game) and the game ends. There's nothing else for you to do since you've beaten everything, read everything, done everything. In Showdown however there's always another game, another opponent, another team. It will take you ages to try all possible combinations, and by then, there'll be new pokemon and items to play. Same for League of Legends or Magic: The Gathering for example. Just by having a shifting metagame you ensure that your players will never run out of things to play, and so the game is almost infinitely replayable.

[Hect]

The most important aspect that makes a game replayable is the depth of its gameplay. And here I mean the possibility to approach the same scenario from different angles or use different tactics. Were you to play through the same game doing the same exact thing you did on your first playthrough, then that means that game had no depth to it, since there was only one optimal way of doing things, and you had already found it. But in games where deeo mechanics and you're given the option to explore the game's systems and can thus can learn from your mistakes and improve your gameplay and do things differently than the first time. That's what constitues a system that can be replayed. This is also why games like Fire Emblem and Pokémon are so replayable, since each and every playthrough is unique from the last.

Though this doesn't mean that every game with deep mechanics is worth replaying, just that it CAN be replayed.

Naturally another way to provide replay value for a game is by restricting how much of the game can be experienced every playthrough, and thus force the player to play again to experience all the game has to offer (think Star Fox 64). And also this post disregards the replayability that comes from branching stories, as I tend to not replay those games even if they have branching paths through the game.

My opinion isn't much different, so I won't be wasting my time writing it all over again. Furthermore, it seems like everybody here has similar opinions, kappa.

Now, for my personal input on the matter: Games with great replay value, hmm..

1.) Skyrim. Procedural quest and event generation take the cake, along with a nice story line and carefully crafted lore to top it off. Very delightful. And it actually has DLC worth getting. Back when Bethesda was still good..

2.) Insert Starbound or any other game that has procedural generations of quests and/or other things. You'll get an unique experience everytime, depending on how you look at it. Of course, the gameplay won't be much different. But hey, there's still roleplay for things like that..

Side note: No, I didn't forget Minecraft. It's just that I'm not too fond of it. Not because it's a bad game, but because of it's reputation. Many people have moved on, including me. I tried getting back into it, but I just couldn't. Kinda killed the replay value for me, tbh..

3.) Simulation/Sandbox games! (Think ArmA series. I doubt that anyone here plays it, though. I simply grew up with it. Otherwise, think about DayZ, a Survival Sandbox. Probably more popular. Either way, you get the point.)

Now, I get that all the things that I mentioned are sandbox games in their own right, but that's not the point. (Ah, well. One can hardly consider Skyrim a sandbox game. But if you try hard enough, you may just be able to..) However, I'm talking about dedicated sandbox games that got advertised as such. ArmA 3, for reference, can be almost everything. You just need the right scripts, mods and/or a nice community. DayZ on the other hand has randomly generated loot, interactions between players and a vast, beautiful map. There are times where you will survive, get lots of food and generally be happy and might even make new friends along the way, but there may also be times where somebody catches you, puts handcuffs on, steals your blood, puts a burlap sack on your head and releases you in a zombie infested town without any weapons, food or anything else to defend yourself or to survive. (Based on a true story. Not sure if I ever got my revenge, but I'm pretty sure I got someone who looked similar and had similar gear. I'm just going to pretend that I had my revenge because it's more satisfying that way. Anyway, you see? Unique experiences like that can make a multiplayer-sandbox feel so rewarding and exciting everytime you play it. Enough about that..

4.) Story-based games! The most popular example for this is probably Fire Emblem. Great games, really. Very unique and enticing. I played a lot of the games.

Playthrough count: Fire Emblem 6: 1.

Fire Emblem 7: Probably 3, maybe even 4.

Fire Emblem 8: 3.

Fire Emblem 9: 1.

Fire Emblem 13: I seriously don't know. Perhaps 5-7.

Now, needless to say, I've spent most of my time with Fire Emblem: Awakening. Not because it was good, also not because it had replay value, but simply because you had a lot of variety in the character cast. I had fun letting certain characters be classes that really didn't suit them. Archer-Chrom, for example, or War Cleric-Lissa without a Bolt Axe. (Seriously, without her magic stat, she's been absolute and utter trash. Her annoying, cringeworthy lolilike personality didn't make it any better.) To get to the point, Awakening did not have a great story, nor did it have much going for it, besides the OST and the endless possibilities that one had regarding gameplay. Especially with the StreetPass-Characters. Anyway, don't even get me started on Fates. While it may be better than Awakening in some regards, I still won't be buying it. I quite frankly do not like the direction in which the series is going. Too much fanservice for my taste. Still, there's people here who absolutely adore the game and I don't feel like judging or blaming 'em for liking it. Take it with a grain of salt and consider that it's just an opinion before starting to hate on me, alright? Thanks. Though, my opinion appears to be quite common. My favorite game in the series probably has to be Fire Emblem: Path of Radiance. Since it's replay value is pretty much non-existent, I won't go too much into detail. But it's safe to say that this game had made me feel emotions that I never felt before. Such as incredible anger against a fictional character. Said character has black, blessed armor. If you don't know who I'm talking about, then go play the game and see for yourself. Rest assured, I'll play the remaining Fire Emblem titles eventually. Not including Gaiden. I don't like Gaiden. xD

5.) Repetitive, boring games! Feel free to insert your own. I feel like my post has been long enough already. I'm thinking about stuff like Super Mario, though. I know that there's some variety, but most of the games are side scrollers. They may have their charme, but other than that, there's not much to it.

Anyway, this concludes my weird.. "list" thing. Keep in mind that it's just my humble opinion that is purely objective and by no means important. I actually didn't feel like answering, but now that I did, I come to realize that I really am too talkative.

Edited August 12, 2016 by Lagspike

[Tartar]

I have over 100 hours in my FE Fates: Birthright run... I did all the grinding xD

Why would you ever want to grind in a FE game? The whole point is that your team is supposed to be thoroughly underpowered and underleveled and you have to play smart to overcome overwhelming odds.... Pardon me if this is a bit brash, but doesn't grinding invalidiate the whole foundation of the gameplay of the series?

Playthrough count: Fire Emblem 6: 1.

Fire Emblem 7: Probably 3, maybe even 4.

Fire Emblem 8: 3.

Fire Emblem 9: 1.

Fire Emblem 13: I seriously don't know. Perhaps 5-7.

*Sees the absence of Fire Emblem 10 on the list*

You should get on to playing Radiant Dawn pronto, its the best game in the series. (From someone who's played every game in the series but Awakening and Fates)

Edited August 12, 2016 by Tartar

[Felicity]

In the end it comes down to variation. Repetition sucks, as the many anti-grinding fans will cry to the heavens. A game becomes replayable when you find a way to play that is just as engaging as the first time and typically that comes from a difference in the gameplay or the story. Maybe the difference in gameplay comes from us, we get better and more experienced as we play and so refine our techniques, providing an evolving way to play the game, see most fighters/mobas. Sometimes we take on a completely different playstyle that we use to get through the world, see bethesda RPGs which are renowned for the amount of time people can put into the game on multiple profiles or Fire Emblem games which feature a variety of unique units to take into each mission at your choice. Maybe a game provides extra content, again see bethesda games for the various mods you can use or the Binding of Isaac and Spelunky which feature daily challenges to bring you back to the game. Those same games are stacked with variety to begin with through the use of systematic randomisation, another popular tactic to ensure people face different situations and challenges in their games.

On the story side, we can see how vital variety is to the experience. The Telltale games are renowned for their stories... and that's it. I've never heard of anyone replaying any game from a telltale series because a lot of the time the game is full of false choice. Whatever happens in those games, as much as they flaunt the effects of their choices you still end up at the critical choices in each episode. You still get the same general ending (with the notable excption of the walking dead season 2). On the flipside, let's look at Visual novels, another genre of games that are hugely centred on story. Most that use choice within their stories often have people coming back to see what happens in each individual route, the most obvious one I can think of being Fate/Stay Night. The story in each route is incredibly different and to get to each route you have to make specific choices achieve it. What the novels lack in gameplay they make up for with varying takes on an interesting story.

[Tartar]

Sometimes we take on a completely different playstyle that we use to get through the world, see bethesda RPGs which are renowned for the amount of time people can put into the game on multiple profiles or Fire Emblem games which feature a variety of unique units to take into each mission at your choice.

Though really, Bethesda RPG's aren't at all replayable. Sure they've got a ton of content, but you don't actually want to replay that content. They've excelently mastered the skinner box and slowly drip feed you loot and content to keep you engaged for a lot of hours. Though I wouldn't say that this makes the game replayable, if anything the gameplay is the worst part of those games.

[Chase]

1. The game has to be fun the first time playing it. Period. - If a game developer wants to even hope that their games are played multiple times, they need to hook the player on the first time. In my experience, I'm much more likely to replay or continue playing a game if I enjoyed myself within the first 30 minutes of game-play. This point is pretty self-explanatory, but it's also mightily important because it can make or break entire franchises - at least in my experience.

The game may offer rewards that can only be obtained through multiple runs. - Not everybody is Jirard Khalil (or "the Completionist"/"That One Video Gamer" from Youtube if you have no idea who that is.), but for some people the hook comes at the finish line. This applies especially for games with great difficulty or games that have multiple endings or unlockables depending on the path the player chooses.

The game may not have a true ending and/or is regularly updated with content. - Without a doubt the game I've wasted the most amount of my life over was "RuneScape" - the early 2000's MMORPG that is -still- free-to-play and alive to this day. MMO's don't really have an ending, so the replay-ability factor comes from the content and the fact that the player has new methods as they level up to gain experience and rewards. There isn't just "one story" in these types of games too, so the various "quests" fill in this very large tree-like graph that is the game's lore as the player focuses primarily on collecting all of the resources and best gear while being the best player. As for games the are regularly updated that -will- have an ending - Hi Reborn!

The game must not make the gamer "insane". - one of the so-called "definitions" of the word insanity goes as follows: doing the exact same thing and expecting a different result every time. Video games however don't follow this principle - at least in the game-play aspect. Each league of legends round is different for example. You may choose to side with Nohr over again, but instead decided to give Nyx a lot more experience this time around. You may choose Squirtle over Charmander this time. In the end, the story has it's set ending, but you took a different way to get there. If there's all of these little variables in a game, then it really does help it's replay-ability factor a lot.

The game must ultimately find -some- way to hook the gamer. Some games aren't really so much "fun" as they are a test of endurance. Take Flappy Bird (the mobile phone game from a few years ago that Pewdiepie made extremely popular) It's game-play is hardly compelling. There is no story. And it can be EXTREMELY frustrating and may not be all that fun at first. However, I ended up playing it in virtually every moment of free-time I had while not back at the dorm my freshman year and got to 247 pipes before croaking. Some games just bring out the right reactions in us.

[Felicity]

Though really, Bethesda RPG's aren't at all replayable. Sure they've got a ton of content, but you don't actually want to replay that content. They've excelently mastered the skinner box and slowly drip feed you loot and content to keep you engaged for a lot of hours. Though I wouldn't say that this makes the game replayable, if anything the gameplay is the worst part of those games.

And yet people do play it again and again. Bethesda is known as the company who makes roadtrip games. You go play the games for obscene amounts of time then stop for a while. Maybe a few months, maybe a year. Then you go back to it once you've forgotten mst of the events, make a new character and embark on the same journey again. There's a fairly large userbase for these games that validates this despite the fact that most of the best bethesda RPGs were released almost five years ago. Besides, the fact is your point that they have a huge amount of content proves my point. It's about variation. If you've done one dungeon or quest before and you don't want to do it, you go somewhere else, do something else.

[Maelstrom]

For a lot of games, replayability comes from its multiplayer aspect. It could be a combination of coop and competitive that keeps the game exciting. Both of these are usually bolstered by different gear and attack combinations.

Look at fps's and mobas. Different kits and loadouts and encounter situations are constantly changing and challenging us in a fun way to succeed.

I really miss custom robos. There were a lot of trash combinations but there were also a lot of good combinations that promoted using different play styles. Especially when you had to do certain tournaments where you are penalized for using any part but the frame itself more than once.

Smash has all sorts of different characts that can be played in many different styles each, plus 'custom' moves.

In some games, changing the gender of your characters adds a different perspective on characters and situations. See P3P, ME (I think), FE Awakening and Fates,

[Tartar]

And yet people do play it again and again. Bethesda is known as the company who makes roadtrip games. You go play the games for obscene amounts of time then stop for a while. Maybe a few months, maybe a year. Then you go back to it once you've forgotten mst of the events, make a new character and embark on the same journey again. There's a fairly large userbase for these games that validates this despite the fact that most of the best bethesda RPGs were released almost five years ago. Besides, the fact is your point that they have a huge amount of content proves my point. It's about variation. If you've done one dungeon or quest before and you don't want to do it, you go somewhere else, do something else.

You're right in this sense. But that's because they craft great experiences, not games with deep and immersive gameplay. The gameplay by itself isn't all to great. Imagine playing Dark Souls with the gameplay replaced by that of Skyrim, it'd simply be no fun.

I know that they're great games, I personally have 60'ish hours in Skyrim, though this doesn't change the fact that I'd rather not want to experience the main quest again.

[Cool Girl]

For me, what makes me want to replay a game are the characters and the storyline.

As for which games I replay, I always replay the pokémon and yugioh games 'cause I just love them. But yeah, that's what makes a game for me re-playable, the characters and the storyline have to be really good for me to replay a game.

[Tartar]

For me, what makes me want to replay a game are the characters and the storyline.

As for which games I replay, I always replay the pokémon and yugioh games 'cause I just love them. But yeah, that's what makes a game for me re-playable, the characters and the storyline have to be really good for me to replay a game.

Just out of curiosity. How do you justify spending a lot of time on a JRPG replaying a story you've already experienced once as compared to starting on another game?

[Cool Girl]

Just out of curiosity. How do you justify spending a lot of time on a JRPG replaying a story you've already experienced once as compared to starting on another game?

What do you mean by that? Could you clarify your question please?

[Hect]

To be quite frank, I have about 335 hours in Skyrim. So a certain replay ability is given.

*Sees the absence of Fire Emblem 10 on the list*

You should get on to playing Radiant Dawn pronto, its the best game in the series. (From someone who's played every game in the series but Awakening and Fates)

Honestly, I would play it in the blink of an eye. But it's so hard to get your hands on, really.

[Felicity]

Just out of curiosity. How do you justify spending a lot of time on a JRPG replaying a story you've already experienced once as compared to starting on another game?

Plenty of people replay JRPGs because the genre is one of the strongest examples of writing and gameplay mixed together as a subgenre of the strongest story telling genre, the RPG. The engaging gameplay in most of this genre, note these are NOT necessarily turn-based RPGs a la FF (Tales of, FE, Star Ocean etc), enables people to go through one of their favourite stories with the variation that makes games replayable.

Not to stuff words into Coolgirls mouth, just a possible explanation.

[Tartar]

What do you mean by that? Could you clarify your question please?

Well, personally I don't have a lot of time to play games, so when I do want to play something, I prefer to play something new rather than something I've already played since I find the experience more fulfilling. Just wondering whether you feel the opposite and gain more or the same amount of enjoyment from playing a game a second time over starting a new one.

Sorry if this wasn't clearly formulated the first time.

Honestly, I would play it in the blink of an eye. But it's so hard to get your hands on, really.

Wow, 60 dollars or more on Ebay. I can imagine why its difficult to get a hold of. I just rented it from my local library a few years back :/

Guess you'll have to wait until a rerelease hits the WiiU, or try to find it somewhere else.

[Cool Girl]

Well, I'm kind of the same way as you. Like, I gain more enjoyment playing a new game. But, I still have a same amount of enjoyment playing the same game again.

[Felicity]

something to note, I think there's a statistic floating around out there about how the first time we experience a story we only take in 40% of the details, or something to that effect. Going through a game again can reveal details you never noticed the first time.

[chuckles]

Variety and customization for me. I've mainly only replayed big RPGs such as Diablo, Final Fantasy, and Dragon Quest games, but in general I see a game with great replay value if one could play it twice with significant differences in gameplay. Branching stories could help, but vastly different class/equipment setups are more important in my eyes. Dragon Quest 3 exemplifies this by having you choose up to 3 additional party members and their classes at the beginning of the game, with added complexity later when they can advance or be reassigned to different classes. This affects statistics and skills, so the possibilities as well as game difficulty vary wildly.

That said, lately I find myself engrossed by games that aren't replayed because they don't really end. MMOs or other large games with frequent updates adding new content can keep me coming back, especially when it's all free.

[FraRPetO]

The game should be fun.

Player vs Player (multiplayer).

Procedural level generation. (not required, but offers more)

The game should be challenging.

More than one way to play the game.

Polished and balanced game mechanics.

I think these points are what would make me keep playing the game.

Here are some examples:

Spelunky, Super Smash Bros., Rocket League, Dark Souls.