Replayability: Does it matter?

games™ talks to the writers behind Batman: Arkham Origins, Mass Effect, Baldur’s Gate, Amnesia, Soma & BioShock about how to instil replayability in narrative-based games, and why it’s an integral part of games produciton

[skydragoonity]

Yes it matters.

[Matt666]

I agree it does matter, if it got re playability it usually means it a good game if it doesn't it means it was a bad game.

But saying that it also depends on what type of games you like weather you think it got re playability or not. Like most things it comes down to your own personal opinion.

[GribbleGrunger]

If the reason for replayability has substance then yes, it does matter. Opening new areas, playing as a different character with different ability sets, branching story lines and alternative endings are legitimate reasons to warrant a second (or even third) playthrough, but things such as new clothing or even new weapons are just not weighty enough motivation. There are exceptions to the rule of course. For instance, I played TLOU seven times, not because of any additional content but simply because of how engaging the characters, story and gameplay was.

[BattleN]

Mario kart 8 will be in my WiiU for years!

[BattleN]

I want to buy plants vs zombies garden warfare but it's always online, so if It actually had an offline mode I'd buy it. Damn EA and there DRM!

[avengers1978]

It matters, especially when there are alternate ways to play the game, it does not matter if it's just for trophies/achievements. I game has to be pretty good for me to want to play it more than once, considering so many great games are out there to play.

[hellzsupernova]

I have only ever replayed a games story twice.
Once with Mass Effect 2
and 8 times with Heavy Rain

It is nice to have a game that you can go through more then once but it is not a deal breaker

[RonRico]

I agree. If the game delivers an enjoyable experience that's of decent length and tells an enthralling story, one playthrough can be enough.

[ironfist92]

Depends what you gain from replaying it again.

New Game+ is always an encouraging factor into playing a game again.

[BattleN]

Chrono Trigger, Resident Evil are a great example of that concept!

[SixtyNine]

It does to me. There are certain games you can play times over and never get bored with it. Not all games possess this trait.

[sovkhan]

Does not matter much, depending on the game type...

While this maybe a plus for some shooters and mp oriented games...

Sp and story driven games don't relay on it much...Given a solid story and challenging gameplay.

[incendy35]

Sometimes I feel that way with really long story based games. I tend to only play Bioshock games once, even though two of them are in my top 50 of all time. I think the reason is that the gameplay in Bioshock while serviceable, isn't what makes those games great. It is the story and characters that really make those games.

Halo games for example I play over and over because they not only have great stories but also incredible gameplay. I would say the only time re-playability doesn't become important is when the gameplay itself isn't that great to begin with. : )

[authentic]

No single player only game that is story driven has good replay ability IMO because what makes the game so good is wanting to see what happens next, once you know what happens it becomes boring. The only single player games that need good replay ability are action games.

[darren_poolies]

Yeah it all depends really. I find it hard to play through games more than one the same way I find books hard to read more than once, because once you know what happens it's boring.

There are a few games I have played though more than once just because they're fun. The Infamous games, the Souls games, some of the CODs (trophy hunting more than anything) and the Halo games. The only single player game that is very story driven I have played through more than once is TLOU and that is mainly because it's a beautiful game and I wanted to experience it more than once. Something like Bioshock Inifite on the other hand, I thought it was fantastic but I'd rather put pins in my eyes than play though it again.

[Solid_Penguin-64]

To put it one way I wouldn't exactly call a game a timeless classic or masterpiece if I play it once and never touch it again. Other people may disagree saying certain experiences need only be played once to leave a strong lasting impression on you like journey. But that raises the question as to whether that's a good "game" or "experience". (maybe an "unconventional" game instead).

Cutting it short, to me replayability does matter (money doesn't grow on trees people lol).

[level 360]

Can't count the times Iv'ed played Uncharted 2.

[Master-H]

For me Souls games are the definition of re playability , i probably finished Dark Souls 1 like 6 times, plus countless hours of PvP and getting ganked.

[Summons75]

Yes, especially in an age were budgets are tight and people are hesitant to buy a game without getting their moneys worth. Trophies and achievements are good enough for replay ability, we want content, we want secrets that are super hidden and difficult to obtain. This is why a lot of news/SNES/64/psone games are still played today, not because they have achievements but because they have tons of replay ability and were still finding hidden secrets today.

[elhebbo16]

It only matter's when its supposed to be replayable. RPG's for instance, giving you the ability to play a whole new game with a different character can be fun even if you are going to be asked the same questions and do the same quest. Replayablity is not putting hidden collectibles around the game, expecting players to play the game again just to get the ones they missed, in no way adding a different alternative story what so ever. Collectibles are just for achievement hunters in no way does it mean replayability.

[ShiranaiJittai]

I think it depends on the game. If the replayability is "phoned in copy and paste then no I would I rather have an enjoyable game without filler.

If the replayability adds legitimate quest lines that divert and entertain or give a difference look at something. As long as it contributes something to the overall story or progress skill enhancement what have you then yes it matters.

Actually come to think of it the only time I am ok with a game not having replayability is if it is a small indie game that I know going into it isn't long and is one of those one off type experiences.

Most developers are smart enough to implement important extra side quests and such to do the rest tack on an online multiplayer whether the game needs it or not.

[Spotie]

Definitely depends on the game. Journey had very little replayability, in my opinion, but it was still glorious. Easily one of my favorite games of all time, even though I've never come close to recapturing the magic of the first playthrough. And I'm okay with that.

[tweet75]

oh yes it does adds so much value to games.

[Vystrel]

I prefer my $60 games to be short and unplayable a second time. Said an EA slave.

[Picnic]

I'd like to think that it matters but I tend to play linearish games (rather than, say, RPGs), and the closest I've come to playing a very replayable game is Dishonored.

But whilst I have replayed a few missions the idea of replaying the whole game again in a different way is unlikely to me. The game is simply no longer entirely fresh to you and it is the mulitplayer element that generally serves to keep people going back to the game. So, I have never replayed The Last of Us (and frankly I don't want to replay much of it as it is scary) but I always play its multiplayer. And it became clear to me that the choices available in The Last of Us were often illusions anyway. You learn through dying that there's often a best way to play. It's like reading a choose your own adventure novel where there's always only 1 choice that doesn't lead to
death.