Replayability

Visual Novel Community Archive, 2000-2009
#21

replay

n 1: something (especially a game) that is played again [syn: rematch] 2: (television) showing again some action (especially sports action) that has been recorded on video tape [syn: action replay] v 1: reproduce a recording on a recorder [syn: play back] 2: play again, as of a melody 3: repeat a game against the same opponent: “Princeton replayed Harvard” 4: play again: “We replayed the game”; "replay a point"

I disagree, I think replayability is the ability to enjoy replaying the game/movie/book etc. Not whether or not it provides you with a different ending or different storyline.

#22
quote:
Originally posted by Bigdog:
replay

n 1: something (especially a game) that is played again [syn: rematch] 2: (television) showing again some action (especially sports action) that has been recorded on video tape [syn: action replay] v 1: reproduce a recording on a recorder [syn: play back] 2: play again, as of a melody 3: repeat a game against the same opponent: "Princeton replayed Harvard" 4: play again: "We replayed the game"; "replay a point"

I disagree, I think replayability is the ability to enjoy replaying the game/movie/book etc. Not whether or not it provides you with a different ending or different storyline.

If I'm taking your definition at the word, there isn't any notion of "enjoyment" in the redoing. Just the redoing. In that case, all games are infinitely replayable, thus wondering about their "replayability" is a moot point as well...

#23
quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
How much for instance is a console/PC RPG game replayable?
...

Overall length may (spending $80.00 on a half-hour game is a bit too much for instance), but not replayability. If it takes you 20hrs to complete a game once, would you want it to have 10 paths (total = 200hrs)?

[This message has been edited by olf_le_fol (edited 11-21-2002).]

Console RPGs have plenty of replayability. I'm replaying Tactics for...umm...the second time? Third time? I can't keep track.

And as for 20 hours times ten paths? It would depend. For a really good game, my general reaction would be "hell yeah!" but for something like...oh, I dunno.

SaGa Frontier I is a perfect example of this. It sucked, but it had 7 main characters and had "stories" for each of them. Problem was that the stories were...very laughable, and who wants to play the same plotless game 7 times?

#24
quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
So, what about "Ruby Weapon" and "Saphire Weapon" in FF7? They are in my top ten of most annoying opponents, I ever met in RPGs and finally gave up on them. Did you actually beat them?

What? They suck, they both have easily exploitable weaknesses.

#25

Heh lots of philosophy and dictionary definitions in this post. But here’s my .00002 worth :stuck_out_tongue: replayability or the definition that Ole is using for it is not that important to me. It’s more important to have a good story and good character development. Because if those things are good it’s a good chance that when you finish the game you are happy that you spent however much money you spent purchasing that game.

#26

Since almost everybody has written something, I guess I will throw in my $0.002, too…

Replayability involves playing the game again without getting bored, or keep you busy enough until the next game/book/movie/next entertainment. So, basically, this depends on each player.

Said that, I find that most b-games released so far aren’t that replayable (to me, at least), just because I am not inspired to play it over and over once I finished it. One of the few exceptions is True Love due to it’s randomness. It won’t surprise me if there were anyone who memorized Snow Drop dialogue’s after replaying (not by choice) the game’s first part…

#27
quote:
Originally posted by wanfu2k1:
Heh lots of philosophy and dictionary definitions in this post. But here's my .00002 worth :P replayability or the definition that Ole is using for it is not that important to me. It's more important to have a good story and good character development. Because if those things are good it's a good chance that when you finish the game you are happy that you spent however much money you spent purchasing that game.
My name syndrome stroke again... It's "OLF" or "Olf"! "OLF, i.e. Olf Le Fol"! Not "Ole"!!! (^^;;;;;;;
#28

What if we were to leave the definition of “replayability” open (admitting that it could either be replayable for game differences, or enjoyment, or understanding)? Then is replayability good or not? I’d hope so, since if a given game is good for one time through and that’s it, I guess I’d be a bit warier about spending money on something. Now, some games can get away with being played through only once, and replayability isn’t a necessity by any means, but I do think it is almost always a plus.

You buy a dvd mainly because you like the actual MOVIE on it, but if it has extras and what kind are frequently something that influence alot of peoples’ purchasing decisions.

#29
quote:
Originally posted by Faust:
(...)
You buy a dvd mainly because you like the actual MOVIE on it, but if it has extras and what kind are frequently something that influence alot of peoples' purchasing decisions.
Actually, AFAIK, it depends... on where you are from! Western people tend to crave for those extras, while Eastern people tend not to... Thus you will find lots of extras in the western countries DVDs and almost none to none in the asian countries DVDs!
#30
quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
If I'm taking your definition at the word, there isn't any notion of "enjoyment" in the redoing. Just the redoing. In that case, all games are infinitely replayable, thus wondering about their "replayability" is a moot point as well...

After the dictionary post, I stated that I thought replayability is the ability to enjoy replaying the game/movie/book. I only posted the definition to state that replayability had nothing to do with the game being different the second time through. The arguement technically is moot since it is so opinionated. I could enjoy the exact same story 5 times while you on the other hand would never play it a second time. But the way I rate replayability is by in my opinion would alot of people be willing to replay this game. In that light I figure that a game like "Chain" actually has more replayability than a game like "Kango Shicyauzo". Kango may be multi-pathed, but I think Chain's story was much better and more people would replay chain over the long haul than they would Kango.

#31
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
[quote] Originally posted by Unicorn:
So, what about "Ruby Weapon" and "Saphire Weapon" in FF7? They are in my top ten of most annoying opponents, I ever met in RPGs and finally gave up on them. Did you actually beat them?

What? They suck, they both have easily exploitable weaknesses.
[/quote]

Actually I found Ruby, Emerald to be challenging. But the thing that makes them so weak and 99% of RPG bosses is the fact that most people are strategy guide happy or find out through the grapevine how to beat a boss. If you actually took the time to come up with a strategy to beat a boss and had to figure out its weakness' then I consider it a job well done by the programmers. This is not implying that you used a strategy guide or anything Nandemonai, just saying that most out there do and that is what makes the bosses so easy.

#32
quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
Actually, AFAIK, it depends... on where you are from! Western people tend to crave for those extras, while Eastern people tend not to... Thus you will find lots of extras in the western countries DVDs and almost none to none in the asian countries DVDs!

Well, yes I think you are right... here in the west we are very extras oriented. A product of our McCulture(TM) I suppose. Which is exactly why I think so many people consider replayability important. (Since I doubt bishoujo games are going to end up in any Walmart ads soon).

#33
quote:
Originally posted by Nandemonai:
What? They suck, they both have easily exploitable weaknesses.

Well, that might be, but my problem is: keeping the party alive long enough to find those weaknesses.

While ruby always hit with its tentacles underground, emerald has the breathtaking underwater-effect.

Oh, I justrecalled another one of my "favorite" FF-opponents: Cactorius in FF8!

Aaargh!
Went again off-topic!
*tries to focus on bishoujo*

Didn't you think, Aerith was really cute (not to mention: powerful as a healer with her fourth limit-break)? A shame, she had to sacrifice herself...

#34
quote:
Originally posted by Bigdog:
In that light I figure that a game like "Chain" actually has more replayability than a game like "Kango Shicyauzo". Kango may be multi-pathed, but I think Chain's story was much better and more people would replay chain over the long haul than they would Kango.

Sorry, but I have to object.
I already played twice through all god-ending-paths of Kango, but still just once through Chain.

#35
quote:
Originally posted by Bigdog:
After the dictionary post, I stated that I thought replayability is the ability to enjoy replaying the game/movie/book. I only posted the definition to state that replayability had nothing to do with the game being different the second time through. The arguement technically is moot since it is so opinionated. I could enjoy the exact same story 5 times while you on the other hand would never play it a second time. But the way I rate replayability is by in my opinion would alot of people be willing to replay this game. In that light I figure that a game like "Chain" actually has more replayability than a game like "Kango Shicyauzo". Kango may be multi-pathed, but I think Chain's story was much better and more people would replay chain over the long haul than they would Kango.
Perhaps you then just don't read enough game reviews, but "replayability", as far as the game world is concerned, has a definition... which is just the one I wrote. You can review "Chain" and write "Replayability: a lot" and explain it's because the game is so good people would want to replay it again and again, even if it's everytime exactly the same thing and story, but, IMO most of your readers would comment it's not what people mean by "replayability"... So, yes, the argument is moot because you're using your definition of the word, when I was using the generally used definition of the word, applied to PC games.

[This message has been edited by olf_le_fol (edited 11-22-2002).]

#36

ARRRGGH! Here I get a fever for a day and has to stay home from school fo just a day, and when I return the next day, feeling much better, this long thread is waiting for me… T_T.

As for replayablity, I think of that as an important factor in a game, since most of the games I play are like that, in most ways. However, I could pribably play soemthing I’ve palyed with zero replayabity once again, just for the enjoyment of it or for other reasons. But I’d first have to wait until I’ve forgotten enough aboutt hat game, theough ^_^;.

But as I said, replayabity is an imprtant factor, because that if a game is replayable in some ways, that means that there’s something left that you can explore anyway. Take a game that you can paly through as different caracters, for example? In that game, the story you’re playing through might always be the same, but everything character-related and such might be different (for example, the character may be treated differently by some NCP’s than the other characters would have been treated and so on).

That’s what I like in a game, and it’s also a reason that I set my eyes on the bishoujo game industry: In most games, there’s not just one path to take, not just one outcome…

#37
quote:
Originally posted by Spectator Beholder:
ARRRGGH! Here I get a fever for a day and has to stay home from school fo just a day, and when I return the next day, feeling much better, this long thread is waiting for me... T_T.

So, I hope, you're now convinced that catching a cold is really a BAD idea.

Looking at it from another side: At least, the BBS is now alive again.

#38
quote:
Originally posted by Unicorn:
So, I hope, you're now convinced that catching a cold is really a BAD idea.

Looking at it from another side: At least, the BBS is now alive again.

He, catching a cold isn't an all that bad thing! It was thanks to it that I was able to find the best ending in Kana, right? [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img].

And if you look at it the way you said, things seems MUCH better [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/smile.gif[/img]

[This message has been edited by Spectator Beholder (edited 11-22-2002).]

#39
quote:
Originally posted by Spectator Beholder:
He, catching a cold isn't an all that bad thing! It was thanks to it that I was able to find the best ending in Kana, right? [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img].

So you're saying it helps to be full of drugs to find the best ending?!?

Just kidding. And just be happy this thread wasn't like the other monster you spawned. [img]http://princess.cybrmall.net/ubb/biggrin.gif[/img]

#40

Deleted, duplicate post

[This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 11-22-2002).]