Jimquisition: Linearity versus Replayability

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT
 

usually I don't comment for your shows, but this, this is good, I agreed! thumbs up for you~

but I DO have to argue, yes, I never play DeadSpace-Muti, but I think Dead space2 top the first game, and BioShock2 toped the first one (not in story, but) in gameplay! BY FAAAR! other than these... yeh totally !~

I definitely agree. Even when you know the story some games are just really fun to play. I've never really understood people who can play COD for eight hours a day. Sure you get matched up with different people each time but it still boils down to the same damn thing each time. It's just my opinion but with a limited number of maps and combinations of weapons and game play modes it just feels so repetitive to me.

I sorta agree, BUT (plz read b4 you troll)

While I love linear games with a strong narrative, I cannot play them twice. Yes most people see a good movie more than once, or listen to a good song more than once, or read a good book several times, but ... not everyone does. I never watch the same movie twice unless I have nothing better to do, and even then I lose interest about half way through. If I listen to the same song too much I lose interest in that also. A very good and complex book deserves several reads.

What I'm trying to say I suppose is that:

1) Not everyone thinks the same, some can't do repetitive tasks (go trough the same story twice)
2) Replayability is helped by being an open game, hindered by being linear (not saying linear games CAN'T be replayed just not as easily as open world games)
NOTE: Only referring to strong narrative games (not sonic or mario)

Ex: I bought Metro 2033 on impulse but I loved every single second in that game, convinced my friends to get it, tried to replay it ... couldn't. For SOME, a linear game with no variation on story (story driven games only) except maybe minor endings that can be googled have NO REPLAY VALUE WHAT SO EVER.
(P.S. I also don't like adding mutlyplayer to games that should never have mutlyplayer ... metro last light, I'm looking at you!)

Sylocat:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.

How Nintendo America, How bout Metacritic? actually, now that i think about it game localisation has been bought up in ZP, but that's only usually in a brief second or too. because ZP is a REVIEW show. i find your comment quite silly. still sterling doesn't need me defending him from the haters when his ego is as big as Godzilla

EDIT: woops forgot to quote.

Am I the only one who really enjoyed the Bioshock 2 online? I thought it was really creative, fair, fun, and original. I loved the campaign and I enjoyed the online enough to get to level 40. I don't understand the amount of hate it receives as somehow being the reason why some people *cough* Yahtzee *cough* didn't enjoy this sequel as much as the first.

Personally I wouldn't say that Portal 1 are 2 are re-playable. I had tremendous fun with both games, but in figuring out the puzzles, once I finished it, there is no challenge to solve. If I did play it again, I would use pretty much the same methods I did the 1st play through

I don't get the logic behind "linear games have little-to-no replayability", since games have been both linear and replayable LONG before the idea of multiplayer in games... Or at least games that have actual substance in them. It's like watching and movie or reading a book. You can play/watch/read it again all you want.

Also, Sonic the Hedgehog 2 was my very first video game. And I played it ALL the fucking time!

Jim Sterling:
Final Fantasy IX

image

More on topic, Jim made some good points today, even if it wasn't exactly the most challenging subject.

Great as always Jim.

I've lost rack of the amount of times I've replayed my N64 and Megadrive games. As long as there's something interesting about a game I'll proably give it a second (or third) go. Afterall, I didn't replay Assassin's Creed to gain all the flags (that was far too tedious and annoying for me) I enjoyed the story.

And with the Lapel mic you have completely won me over. Now I can enjoy the episode for the jokes and good points instead of some of it being diverted to the weird sound level drops. Seriously, great episode can't wait for next week.

So had to laugh at Jim singing in the end, brilliant!

I agree that for me personally games can be linear and without any co-op or whatever and I still enjoyed playing some of them again, because yeah they are fun or I just notice things I didn't see the first time, or simply because I enjoyed them and I enjoy going through this experience again.

Yeah as Jim says no one ever complains about movies not having any kind of multiplayer to have a rewatch value there... unless you make a drinking game out of it when you watch it the 2nd time

Good games make people want to play them again? I never knew that. THANK GOD FOR THE JIMQUISITION!

Am I immature because i laughed at "Cunt Mushroom"? :-P

I do agree with him on this one. But I still found him rather annoying to watch.
Maybe tone down the patronising talk eh jim.

Multiplayer does potentially increase it's replayability though. So I really don't see the point you're making.

Speaking of Metro. It's one of the few shooters that's story I've played more than 3 times. And I'm seriously looking forward to 'last light'. The multiplayer aspect is only adding to that.

Jim's choice of games are very similar to mine actually. Bioshock and Portal in particular.

By far your best video, Jim. Hilarious this time. Also, as a mainly single player mode person who loves replay value, I completely agree with your statements. I've struggled to find many games on this console generation that have strong enough single player for repeated playthroughs, while last generation I had a bunch. Maybe it's just my personal taste.

I learned the "Linearity =/= Replayability" lesson when I sank 20+ hours just playing "Vanilla" Portal and another 12+ hours into playing the single player portion of Portal 2. Also, the ironic thing about multiplayer is that generally you don't experience new content, you just experience slightly different scenarios in that content.

I agree with this so much. Some of my favourite games, the games I've replayed the most, are very linear (Final Fantasy X, Metal Gear Solid 2,3,4, Uncharted 1,2 etc)

I think non-linearity hurt the story of Final Fantasy XII a bit.

Then again, I reread books far more than most people do

I agree with this video 1000%. I'm sick of developers catering to the ADD generation and shoehorning multiplayer into games that don't need.

Dead Space 2. Assassin's Creed: Brotherhood, etc. It takes away time and resources from the single player for an aspect of the game that will be dead within 6 months to a year and you're left with a SP that is a pathetic 4-6 hours long.

Eh...yes, he's right, because the point he was making was fairly obvious, and din't need 5 minutes of padding out. On the other hand, the cuntmushroom picture was sorta funnyish, likewise Ace of Base mention.

I really think it does take someone as pompously idiotic as Jim Sterling to assume that quality equates replayability.

As with almost everything in video games, it's simply not that simple. While, yes, a great title is incentive in itself to be replayed, the blanket value of "great title" is just a stupid thing to equate to replayability since "great title" pretty much equates to everything in video games. That's the most cop-out answer I've ever seen. That's like saying what makes a book worth reading? Oh, because it's good. Why should you avoid this film? Well of course, it's because it's bad.

Thanks for wasting my time captain obvious.

To me, replayability more specifically comes from both the narrative and the design of choice. Narrative is obvious in that it works the same as with other medium. If you enjoy the narrative, you'd want to enjoy it again. Choice is more specific to games. A game with multiple choices per action warrants more replays, and a game with high replay value is one where choice directly matches mechanics in that the game challenges the player to choose his or her action to overcome the challenge by manipulating the mechanics.

For example, people like to replay Mario because the player can choose where to jump, how far to jump, how high to jump, etc, all to accomplish some challenge presented by the game. This creates a large variety of consequences per choice, and the player may discover different methods to overcome different challenges. Also, the player feels rewarded since upon replays the player inherently becomes better at the game, whether it is more understanding of the challenges and outcomes or improvement in the skill of the mechanics.

Another example is Pac Man. The choice is whether to go up down left or right, or when to eat those orbs, etc. The mechanics is easy enough to master, but the replay value comes from the player's choice to improve on his or her understanding of the game (movement of enemies, timing, etc).

Therefore, really, replay value ultimately boils down to rewards. Is it still rewarding for the player to replay a game? If the answer is yes, then there is replay value. And rewards comes in all forms and flavors, not simply "oh this game is good, so I'll replay it."

PS. Not all games with high replay value are great. For example, Cow Clicker is specifically designed as a joke to make fun of how bad games can become addicting on Facebook by applying a face value of points.

Starting to come across as a little smary and ill-composed there, instead of the usual arrogance.

Regardless, setting aside the delivery of the argument, I find that you have a damn good point, I've replayed a bunch of my old games in the past, and probably should get back to some I've neglected for a time.

I think there's one genre that inherently has less replay value than others: puzzle games.

Once I finished Braid, I had no interest in going back through the game again, since I already know how to solve all of the puzzles. Maybe I'll go back in 3-5 years, when I'll have forgotten most of the solutions.

I think Valve did an excellent job with Portal and Portal 2 though; each one had extra challenges that you could attempt after finishing the main game. Portal had the explicit Challenge Levels, while Portal 2 had the "Smash TV" achievement.

pheipl:
What I'm trying to say I suppose is that:

1) Not everyone thinks the same, some can't do repetitive tasks (go trough the same story twice)

How is multiplayer not repetitive? There is only a limited number of scenarios you play over and over again.

Kahunaburger:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim.

>missing the entire point of the video

Sylocat:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.

I like how people always bring this up but never provides links to when it has been covered before.

I just watched a guy called Total Biscuit rant for 20 minutes about games not having replay value because they have no mulitplayer, and this was like a breath of fresh air. Thank you.

Warlord Timmy:

Kahunaburger:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim.

>missing the entire point of the video

That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!

It's simple linguistics really:

reˇplay (r-pl)
tr.v. reˇplayed, reˇplayˇing, reˇplays
To play over again: replay a tennis match; replay a tape; replay history.
n. (rpl)
1. The act or process of replaying.
2. Something replayed.
3. An instant replay.

Anytime you are playing something you haven't played before (dlc, multiplayer after the main campaign) is inherently not 'replay'. You haven't played it before. It's new. Replay in my eyes is only playing the game you already played - again.

I think Jim is rather horribly ignoring something important here. Its not that a game needs multiplayer for replayability, or that lack of multiplayer means no replayability. But it sure as hell HELPS. Games are all about learning and experiencing new things. The saddest thing in the world for me to see in games is someone who has played Counterstrike 1.6 every night for the past decade, or someone who has never stopped playing Starcraft or WoW in order to try something new and different. Sure, I love Lord of the Rings, for example, but I don't consider someone who has read the entire LotR trilogy 48 times NEARLY as enriched as a person who has read a breadth of literature. Yes, I played Portal a second time. After about a year. And it was absolutely not as fresh and intriguing an experience as the first time I played it. We, as a community, will rail against publishers for releasing a redundant sequel, and then support replaying the same game again, experiencing a mostly similar experience? The problem here is not to insist that Multiplayer doesn't helps replayability: Is absolutely does. The problem is that we need to realize that memories and experience from a truly fantastic single player are more worthwhile then a thousand hours worth of tacked on multiplayer. Think about it, which game are you more glad to have played: Portal, or a random game that lasted 8 hours?

Kahunaburger:

Warlord Timmy:

Kahunaburger:
Wow, so replay value is replay value? Good thing we have the hard-hitting jimquisition to tell us that! Keep aiming for those challenging targets, Jim.

>missing the entire point of the video

That video barely had a point. He was saying that linear games can have replay value if they're worth replaying - i.e., replay value = replay value. Wow, video game journalism at its finest!

So you're all mad and snarky because he said something that made sense?

What he was getting at was that majority of the gaming industry believes that adding multiplayer gives a game more replay value than making a quality singleplayer, and that this isn't entirley true.

I think Jim is missing the larger problem here: we rate games as if they are a product of practicality. No matter how much a video games enhances your life, it will never be practical, so when we rate games high or low based on things like the amount of time that can be spent on them in relation to the amount of money earned, we are selling are medium short and placing them along aside lawn mowers and tool shed equipment.

Jim Sterling:
Sometimes, Jim wishes he could be you so that he'd also experience the joy of enlightenment each Monday. This week, we look at the mythical struggle between linearity and replayability.

I vote for Jim singing, and dropping a mic if he can, at the end of each episode. That would be truly epic and enjoyable.

------------

In all seriousness though, I do agree with your points about multiplayer getting shoehorned into games that didn't need it, and that it's taking time away from the reason most folks buy games: The Single Player.

As for the idea of replayability, having played through The Warriors maybe 8 or more times in total, I do agree that even if a game is linear, if it's fun, who cares? I go back to that game because I want to punch the puke out of other gang members, toss them through debris, or enjoy the story that Rockstar made around the story of the film, which I have seen maybe ten times already because it's just an awesome movie.

However, that game wouldn't have been complete without the Rumble Mode or even the Co-Op gameplay, so at times, multiplayer makes the game work better as a whole. The thing is it's up to the developers to make the best call on that, but they can be influenced in the wrong directions if they are not careful.

Sylocat:
I'm still waiting for him to make any points that haven't already been covered better and funnier by ZP and/or EC.

Can't tolerate content that isn't new?

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NEXT

Reply to Thread

Your account does not have posting rights. If you feel this is in error, please contact an administrator. (ID# 67365)