So I was just looking around at the new Red Alert 3 gameplay footage on shacknews.com, and somehow something got turned into a "repetetive" argument, and one person says "all games are repetetive, it's what makes them games."

There's a lot of flawed logic in that statement, because that sounds more like a descriptio for a job and not a game, but, we can't help but admit that there are games that are just repetetive to the point where it isn't even a game, it's like you've done the same thing so much that you feel like you've watched an animated .gif for 3 hours (helgate london...and a lot of other MMORPGs but, HL was the worst for me).

Yet, games like half-life and CoD still have the repetetive "shooting the enemy, OVER AND OVER" (and Half-Life has puzzles inbetween, but anyway..) - but it can still keep you entertained by making it fast paced, or just so interesting that you even lose track of time and you look outside and the sun is gone.

So is repetition even a problem? What makes incredibly repetetive games make repetition an actual good quality of the game?

I think it's mainly with how immersed in the game you are, in Half-Life and CoD, you want to keep going, because you feel important, like you are really a part of the action, while Hellgate London is so artificial (it's a post apocalyptic setting and everyone is making jokes like they are in a horrible GTA Knock-off) that it makes the repetition feel like such a chore more than something fun or even reletavely important.

Well, it depends. Repetition is bad when it's obvious that it's repetitive. Basically, you may be doing the same thing over and over again, but if they're adding new challenges and elements, it doesn't feel repetitive.
Example: Beyond Good & Evil. In the dungeons, you basically just sneak by/ eliminate all the Alpha Sections and move on to more Alpha Sections. Technically, this is repetitive. However, it doesn't feel repetitive because each new area has a different layout and requires a different approach and strategizing etc, etc. This works with pretty much any game.
Basically, a game's not repetitive if you a) break up the same old stuff with different styles (this also applies to the above example) or b) make each new section where you're doing the same old thing feel new. On the flipside, a game will be called repetitive if it feels like it, and that is not a good thing.

NotPigeon:
Well, it depends. Repetition is bad when it's obvious that it's repetitive. Basically, you may be doing the same thing over and over again, but if they're adding new challenges and elements, it doesn't feel repetitive.
Example: Beyond Good & Evil. In the dungeons, you basically just sneak by/ eliminate all the Alpha Sections and move on to more Alpha Sections. Technically, this is repetitive. However, it doesn't feel repetitive because each new area has a different layout and requires a different approach and strategizing etc, etc. This works with pretty much any game.
Basically, a game's not repetitive if you a) break up the same old stuff with different styles (this also applies to the above example) or b) make each new section where you're doing the same old thing feel new. On the flipside, a game will be called repetitive if it feels like it, and that is not a good thing.

That is a really great point, but it made me think of Gears of War, it didn't do the exact same things over and over, but there were a lot of acts that felt like that, but it wasn't condemned for "repetition" that much because it was "fast paced" and just fun to kill the 5 locusts that popped up every few minutes, so GeOW made repetition interesting without having to change the setting or strategy except just around once in each act.

Repetition is good when it's a FUN repetition. Hell, you were basically doing the exact same things over and over again in Hulk: Ultimate Destruction, but it was still freaking amazing to play.

Quite frankly I don't see how a game could get away with not being repetitive. Let us imagine a game where each new section required you to something completely different from whatever it was you've already done. The learning curve would induce nightmares of high school calculus, precious disk space would be wasted on the futile attempt not to be repetitive, and thus the game would be incredibly short and ultimately unfulfilling. Have a gander at this list and tell me what isn't repetitive. Portal (not on the list) has so few gameplay elements it could almost be played with a Sega Genesis controller and reviewers were tossing out lofty high scores like beads at Mardi Gras. Repetitiveness isn't the problem, in fact it's a necessary evil. The problem is immersion: if the game doesn't draw you in with whatever gimmick makes it different, the illusion is shattered.

I think repetition is one of those things that is "cool to hate" at the moment and people needlessly bitch about it. Seriously, unless it is obvious repetition, I don't have a problem with it. Oblivion, which has provided me with months of entertainment, really only boils down to - talk to this person, find this location, kill this guy, collect certain artifact, rinse, repeat.

Every game is repetitive to a point. The key issues are whether you:
a) originally enjoy the element of the game that is being repeated
b) the number of times said element is repeated (even shooting Nazis can get old on the 1,000,000 time)

Programmed_For_Damage:
I think repetition is one of those things that is "cool to hate" at the moment and people needlessly bitch about it. Seriously, unless it is obvious repetition, I don't have a problem with it. Oblivion, which has provided me with months of entertainment, really only boils down to - talk to this person, find this location, kill this guy, collect certain artifact, rinse, repeat.

Every game is repetitive to a point. The key issues are whether you:
a) originally enjoy the element of the game that is being repeated
b) the number of times said element is repeated (even shooting Nazis can get old on the 1,000,000 time)

This is pretty much my view. So when someone says "repetitive" they don't so much mean "the same things over and over again" as "I didn't like those things" or "I didn't like them enough to enjoy how many times the game made me do it".

For me repetition in gameplay doesn't bother me when I'm having fun. Tetris, WoW, Rome:Total War are all horribly repetitive when you think about it, but they're fun. What annoys me are repetitive sounds, graphics, or other generally non-gameplay elements. The beggars and retards in Assassin's Creed drove me nuts. The guys in Baldur's Gate saying "Get me out of this hell-hole," over and over and over was annoying.

Yes, every game has it, and it's bad only when the game designers fail to hide it: not enough variation in the levels, not enough new puzzles/challenges in the levels, not enough new items or powers, etc.

"Repetition, repetition we'll sing it again, repetition, repetition It'll drive you insane"

All games have repetition in some way, either it is killing the similar looking terrorist or driving around a track, repetition is a base for games.

Although to tell you the truth everything is based around repetition in some way. Especially an office job.

Iori Branford:
Yes, every game has it, and it's bad only when the game designers fail to hide it: not enough variation in the levels, not enough new puzzles/challenges in the levels, not enough new items or powers, etc.

I'd say the true problem lies within the fact that most developers try too much to hide that their game is repetitive with stupid gimmicks instead of making it fun enough to make you want to do it again. As long as it the basics are good there shouldn't be a problem, but too many developers want to put something extra to distract you on top of the basics that they have laid down for you. Either they think that it makes their game more complex or they are afraid that the core elements that made the game are not good enough.
Either way the games that really feel repetitive to me are the ones that try to hide the fact that they are repetitive. While games like Tetris or heck, Serious Sam can stay fun for hours.

iamnotincompliance:
Quite frankly I don't see how a game could get away with not being repetitive.

Crysis was pretty damn close to achieving that goal - it relied less on cutscenes, puzzles, whatever, and more on the player creating their own way to get through, so if you weren't unimaginative on how to accomplish things, then the game could be classified as "not repetitive" (although, that is saying a lot, since the objectives were practically the same thing, but hey, it's a start), for a game involving being stranded on an island, it was great at switching things around, until it became a little "rail-ish" near the end.

My two cents aren't worth much... Maybe a grain of rice what with the shortage...

Some games revel in their repetitiveness, and are better for it (Halo anyone?) and some games are better because they vary it up (I loved the 24 game for this variation...). Some games HAVE to be repetitive but still find a way to make it fun (Rainbow Six, in any iteration) and some just get, Meh after 20 minutes (Wow, Guild Wars, Diablo 2...) And some games have variation that you can skip (I don't care for the land battles on Empire At War, so once I get the Death Star it is all space battle from there on... and I have a special file that I restart from the first mission where I get the Death Star. I don't mind THAT repetition) So in some games it is less detrimental than others... I just Dislike MMO's...

Repetition, like everyone said, is only a bad thing when it's not fun. Remember, we play games for fun, so when it's not fun (like, when it gets repetitive), well, people don't play it.

An example of good repetition: HL2 remains a fun game throughout despite the fact that you're slaughtering the same enemies over and over because of the interesting set-pieces and gritty atmosphere.

Bad: Drakengard bores the living daylights out of you by making you run long distances. When you get to combat, it consists of pressing Square again and again with the occasional magic attack. Then the red guys who deflected magic came along and ruined what little variety there was.

I could keep going. You can summon in your allies, who have their own unique powers and weapons, but are only in for a limited time. Some of the enemies are just unfair, with attacks that keep throwing you to the ground. In most battles you can jump on your dragon and deliver your flaming wrath, but then it becomes easy and boring. And get this: the red chappies deflect dragon breath as well! Isn't that delightful?

Okay Poster Child for modern day Repetitiveness: Dynasty Warriors

Now Personally I like the game, it has that charm about it and I enjoy it more when I'm taking one side of the map and the incompetent A.I is actually taking the other half. Some people find it boring, I find it fun. The same with Dragonforce but thats another thread....

I agree with what most have said, games NEED to be Repetitive but for it to work that repitition has to be FUN in the process. Take Manhunt, fun-til-you-got-a-gun

Its not a bad thing Repetition, and I don't understand why people bitch about it. I mean take a look at Sonic and Mario, hold right and press jump every so often.

SSBB: How many people use more than 2 attacks?? and even then its "Hit player off ledge" in every match

Repetition is bad when there isn't any progress. Take Soulstorm, for instance. Almost every turn you have to fight at least one defence and as many as eight. Each time, your forces in a region are reset. No progress. No advancement. No fun. Just the same skirmish match over and over.

Thank God Incarnate released the Persistent Bases mod.

"Bad poets borrow, good poets steal." -T. S. Eliot

Repetition has it's place IMHO.

I will play the same RTS game over and over, with the same units against the same enemies, and not be bothered by it so long as I can switch up the maps. More sequels would have been better if less focus was placed on adding new features/units/etc and instead being given just a new campaign and another dozen multiplayer maps. Don't get me wrong, I LOVE getting new units, and often even a new side to play with, but first and foremost if I like the game as it was, I'd just like a way to stretch out THAT game rather than begin on a whole new one.

That is ALSO why I prefer expansions over sequels. Give me the new units, give me the new maps, and make it possible to play with these new toys in the old game. Don't do the DoW failure where expansion packs aren't integrated to the original game.

Getting away from the RTS end, repetition is also good in other genres. A FPS is all about a repeating formula... Learn how to kill X form of enemy, kill enemy, loot for ammo, kill enemy, loot for ammo, kill enemy, loot for ammo... Once we know how to defeat cloaked Covenant Elites, we don't say "Ok, I beat one, no more of them Ok?", no, we say "Bring it on Biatch! Who's your daddy? Chief's your daddy!".

I agree with the sentiment that repetition is bad when it's not fun, e.g. most MMO quests, but I also think that repetition should be looked at the same way as a Hollywood movie.

Yes, movies are all fake and we realize that, but a good movie is the one that it so interesting that, for a moment, you forget that it's fake; you get drawn into the story and experience it. The same goes for repetition in games. If I'm involved enough in the game, I won't notice that I'm killing guys over and over again.

I think variety goes a long way towards breaking the repetition. When characters all look the same and say the same things, it makes the repetition obvious. By giving them unique sounds and appearances, you don't feel like you're killing 20 bad guys, you're killing this guy and that guy and so on. Our brains are sensitive to little details like that.

I also agree that a lot of game developers handle this the wrong way, by adding so many gameplay elements that it hurts. Even simple fighting doesn't need to be terribly complicated to be unique, it just needs some element of strategy -- something that requires you to think. If all you do is mash the same button sequence, it's going to be repetitive. Consider most war games, like BF2 or CoD4. Despite, for the most part, having simple gameplay, they can be fun for hours on end because no two fights are the same. You're always in a different spot, fighting a different person with a different weapon and you never know exactly how they will react. By its very nature, this sort of thing isn't repetitive.

What does get repetitive is when there are certain points that people always camp, when there are only a few ways in or out, and the game breaks down into running out and trying to hit all of the hiding spots before you die.

This is also the reason I agree that lack of progress makes for repetitiveness. Once you hit that brick wall in war games where you run out, die, spawn back and run out to die again, it takes all the fun out of it. We naturally get a small high every time we accomplish something, no matter how menial -- that's why killing a guy, taking a control point, or finishing a quest make us want to do the next one. But if we don't feel like we're accomplishing something -- if we don't see ourselves making progress -- then it gets boring and frustrating. When there's a stalemate in a war game, half the server leaves. When you hit level 60 in WoW and it takes 10 hours to get a level, people just stop playing. A good game will avoid this by making progress visible (quest completed banners, scores and kill counts) and beneficial (new items/abilities, announcing your victory to others, advancing your team's position).

In order to keep a repetitive game from being repetitive, a good game will keep the player involved in the action, constantly aware and thinking. It will keep things new and different, by giving characters different voices, different dialog, and different appearances. It will avoid falling into the traps of doing the same thing in the same way in the same place. It will do away with menial tasks which don't contribute meaningfully to the player's advancement and it will make their progress visible and beneficial.

Repetition is a problem, now more than ever. The dungeon levels annoyed me in Oblivion, there was so little variety there. The repetitive gameplay of Bioshock and FEAR also turned me off completing those games. Years ago, I had lower standards, but I also had different tastes. I'm learning that FPSs really aren't for me, but I haven't found the perfect replacement yet.

I think it's partly a technological problem. It takes so much effort, time and money to design and animate a single character nowadays that it's hardly surprising individual NPCs seem to be getting over-used. Add to that the fact that gamers are demanding more playing hours for their money, and the temptation to use repetition must be pretty huge.

I think the main problem with the constant feeling of repetition is that we are a generation that has grown up playing games, and we've spent so much time on them now that everything is starting to blend together and look the same.
The fact that the developers are making all their games look and play the same doesn't really help that much either.

Substance wins the fight, but style wins the crowd. It doesn't matter how repetitive a game gets so long as a)it can trick the player into thinging it's original, or b)it is put together in such a way that it's not completely redundant, and the repetitive bunk is marginalized by the new stuff. RPGs are a good example, in that playing through again with a different strategy, skillset, or character brings some novelty to the exact same game you just finished.
Every idea is an offshoot of some other idea at this point. Originality is immensley difficult to come by. Some newly implemented features in games have often been in prodiction for years, and discussed for years before that.

There are a million things about repetition that could be explored, but NotPigeon made a strong point that if it doesn't feel repetetive then we don't have a problem with it. However, that doesn't excuse it from being repetetive. Just because an apple doesn't taste like it usually does doesn't mean that it isn't an apple; perhaps it's more sour than you would like, or maybe you just bit into a worm. Repetition is defined as doing the same act over and over again. So, if you're gunning down rows of Nazis over and over again, no matter how many variations are being put onto it, you're still gunning down rows of Nazis.

For what it's worth, I thought the jeep levels on Half-Life 2 were although varied and interesting, I didn't like how much stop-go dang much driving there was.

TheMadDoctorsCat:
I think it's partly a technological problem. It takes so much effort, time and money to design and animate a single character nowadays that it's hardly surprising individual NPCs seem to be getting over-used. Add to that the fact that gamers are demanding more playing hours for their money, and the temptation to use repetition must be pretty huge.

Take the nostalgia glasses off for a second and you will see that older games are MUCH more repetitive than today's games.

Joeshie:

TheMadDoctorsCat:
I think it's partly a technological problem. It takes so much effort, time and money to design and animate a single character nowadays that it's hardly surprising individual NPCs seem to be getting over-used. Add to that the fact that gamers are demanding more playing hours for their money, and the temptation to use repetition must be pretty huge.

Take the nostalgia glasses off for a second and you will see that older games are MUCH more repetitive than today's games.

There's a lot of difference between having 64k to work with and 10 gig though.

Repetition bothers me not, boring repetition bothers me a lot.

I think it depends on exactly what you're considering as repetitive. FPS games for example will have a constant repetition of shoot out scenes. But each is in a different location, with a different number of enemies, different weapons, different terrains, and a variety of other alterations. It's repetition on the lowest level, yes, but when you view the whole picture it provides a highly varied experience. Just like life - you eat, you sleep, you go to work most days, see most of the same people, etc, but each day is completely different (well, unless you're in a rut and just grinding at work to get +1 word processing and reach that next level of employment).

As for RPGs though, a lot of them are indeed just grinding the exact same action over and over. I guess the grind there has to be outweighed by the rest of the experience being more varied - stronger storylines, more character customisation and development, etc.

There are definitely many games which are nothing but pointless grind though, and they bring the average down. A well made game will have variation, even though the limits of what you can do will always cause a need for repetition.

Repetition allows you to get comfortable, know your controls, know the general setup of each new area and allows for more thought outside of "Oh dear god what am I doing here!!" Then again, that surprise in actions and consequences is why those 30 x 4 sec mini games games are fun at times, feeling completely out of your depth.

repetition is bad when you expect something different and you end up with the same as last time.

In your typical action-adventure game you expect the combat to be repetitive so it doesn't bother you. However when you get to the next level/part and the game has you doing the exact same thing as the last level only with the names mixed up it becomes a problem as you were expecting the reward for completing the last level to be a new original level

Lets take Assassins Creed, a game that got a lot of negative reviews about it being too repetitive. The combat was as repetitious as any game and very little was said about it sense the combat was fun . What the problem was, was that each part was exactly the same as the last only with new names

1)Leader tells you ware to go
2)Climb high point to find assassins bureau
3)Get told at hide out that your not ready to just kill the guy and need to gather info for a punishment
4) gather info in the exact same way as the last mission
5) go back to hide out tell the guy what you found out, rest some amount of time
6) make your way to the guy you need to kill
7) Kill him then get a cutsceen telling you how he's not really a bad person
8) run back to assassins bureau
9) run back to Leader, get told that the target was a liar and really was bad
10) get new weapon/ability
repeat

This pattern happens so many times I was shocked when the last 2 parts were original

I think a lot of the time when people talk about repetition as being a negative in games they're more referring to lack of variety.

Let's look at it this way: Any game you play is going to be repetitive. The programs can only focus on certain game mechanics and then craft those game mechanics into a cohesive world. For example, Gears of War. It hasn't really received any criticism on being repetitive. But, really, all you are doing is killing locust. That is really all the game is about and that's the only main gameplay mechanic; combat.

In my opinion, there are two reasons this wasn't criticized. The first is because it was fun. The gameplay mechanics and art direction made it satisfying to lay waste to your enemies. The second reason is variety. There were different set pieces, atmosphere, combatants, weapons and objectives that allowed it to be more exciting.

This is why Assassin's Creed was panned. The mechanics of researching your targets were generally not that fun. They also had not enough variety in that they felt the same each time.

Changing the small variables is what makes repitition easier to stomach and often quite fun. It's why the old Mario platformers were successful as well. A great example is one of my favourite games: Super Mario Bros. 3. You start out in the normal style levels, and they introduce enemies and the level designs are fun. Then, for each world, they throw new settings and challenges at you. Water worlds, Big worlds, Ice worlds, etc. And even though you're really only running and jumping, it makes the game incredibly fun.

Anyway, my .02.