quote:
Originally posted by olf_le_fol:
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.
I don't pretend to know what the general populace thinks. There are way to many different people and different opinions to label something like this as the general definition of replayability. I DO write reviews and HAVE read many reviews. Not everyone considers replayability to only be the ability to replay the game and achieve a different story/ending. Replayability is the desire to play through a game again, whether that desire be to achieve a different ending or to just play the same game one more time. So a game with multi-endings and storylines might have more replayability than a single path game but to say that a movie/book/single path game has zero replayability is wrong. Also I have been a avid gamer for a damn long time, worked at a video game store for awhile, and competed on a professional level in quake 2, and now in Warcraft 3. So yes I do understand the "game world" as you put it....
[This message has been edited by Bigdog (edited 11-22-2002).]