are games essentially useless once you have finished them?

[Vault101]

I've been thinking about the Idea of "replayability"

some games are definetly more replayable than others, though people dont seem to treat the replayability of a game like they do the re-watchability of a movie

I'm gussing this has somthing to do with the time-comitment games require

I mean with stuff like DLC and multipalyer suposed to "add" to replayability, gaming I guess is a little more fickle than films or books, its al focused on "the now" more or less

 

[zehydra]

For me, I usually judge whether or not a game was good by whether or not it would be fun to play again from scratch. Sure, the story is never the same after you've played it once, but that's the same with movies too.

What this basically means is that a game, for me, cannot stand on its own by story alone. If a good story is the only thing that the game has done really well, then I'll probably only play it a couple times.

 

[KarlMonster]

I've been thinking about the Idea of "replayability"

some games are definetly more replayable than others, though people dont seem to treat the replayability of a game like they do the re-watchability of a movie...

Well, they are and they aren't, it depends on the game.

I played Rare's Goldeneye on the N64 for-frikkin-ever because of all the nifty unlockable stuff. Rockets, proximity mines, it was like a blow-everything-up playset.

Like movies, I find myself wanting to play certain games over because there was this favorite part of the game that I remember fondly. I keep going back to Half-Life 2 because I really like the overheard-dialogue-as-story in "Arrival", but by the time I'm halfway through "Sand Traps" I find myself wondering why the heck I was playing this game again...

A month ago I played Crysis for the first time. It was pretty cool until I fell through the aircraft carrier. Then Crysis got uninstalled. That one crappy moment is going to poison me against playing the game again. I expect difficult moments in other games have the same effects on other players.

I specifically look for re-playability in games, so I'll avoid murder-mystery adventure games unless they are shockingly cheap on Steam or something. Historically the last game that I got a lot of mileage out of was Battlefield:1942 because of all the different mods developed for it.

 

[TehCookie]

I always replay games since the first time through I just play it quickly for the story. I like to play the second time slower to do all the extra side quests or level up my characters to insane levels. Not to mention if it has multiple endings I'm one of those people who like to play and get them all (but I love the new game+ so I don't have to worry about grinding again and just polish my characters).

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

Not necessarily. Many games have fun mechanics or interesting stories that can bring you back to the game a while after finishing it, and games with branching storylines and oodles of unlockables can keep you playing them again and again. Even if you've fully finished a game many times, there's still some value in it. You could introduce the game to your friends or family members, or even sell it for cash to buy more games.

 

[coolkirb]

Well I mostly just like to say I have them I rarely play a game more than once, its just the way I am, Games like pokemon, advance wars and firemblem are an exception though

 

[StormShaun]

*looks at gameshelf*

I tend to keep all the good games I have...which is all of them I guess...damn

I think they retain their usefulness until another console comes out.

 

[Savagezion]

Hell no, I have played the Uncharted series plenty and it is linear as hell. I have beat it enough times that anymore I play through it the same way someone might decide they want to watch Batman Begins and The Dark Knight over the weekend. The difference is, in 2 sequels I get about 20 hours of entertainment as opposed to 4. Ditto with Ghost Recons (pre-Advanced Warfighter), Force Unleashed (the first one), Batman Arkham Asylum, Earthbound, and Red Dead Redemption. All linear games that would be said to have low incentive for replay.

A good game is not disposable for me. Even without any "new game plus" type stuff or bonuses for having beat it. I actually prefer starting over fresh with no bonuses on a replay.

 

[Moontouched-Moogle]

*looks at gameshelf*

I tend to keep all the good games I have...which is all of them I guess...damn

I think they retain their usefulness until another console comes out.

Some even tend to retain their usefulness long after the next console is released. Just look at the PS2...

 

[Stealthygamer]

I've played AC 2 about 5 times now and it's still amazing. Mass Effect 2 i need to play again, and Scott Pilgrim i just got Nega-Scott (which you get for beating the game at least 4 times)

 

[Screamarie]

If I really loved a game it stays on my shelf for years. I don't care if I can't replay it. It will stay there till I die (or it's a choice between selling them and not even being able to afford ramen) like a trophy that says "I've played this!" It's the same thing with my books. Yes, I know I've read it 50 times, but I DID read it and I want to show it off. ^_^

 

[teebeeohh]

i like collecting.
all my games are organized alphabetically on shelves and i have never sold a game.
i also like replaying games i like but what stops me is that almost every game has one part i don't want to do twice and the anticipation of that part spoils the fun for the rest of the game. for example in ME2 i could never enjoy the game because i knew that at some point i would have to scan planets. until i notices that i could just save-edit my way out of that deathtrap.

 

[kyogen]

Games are like books or movies for me: endless replayability if I really like them, but I maintain that by not overplaying any one game and making myself sick of it. Keeping them going through hardware updates is a bit of a trick, but game publishers are catching on to lingering interest in their games and finding ways to extend their lifespans. And now we have GoG, too, so I'm a fairly happy camper.

The PS2 lineup could stand some better hardware support, Sony, just in case you're wondering...AHEM...PS4 needs some serious backwards compatibility...AHEM

 

[Something Amyss]

I've been thinking about the Idea of "replayability"

some games are definetly more replayable than others, though people dont seem to treat the replayability of a game like they do the re-watchability of a movie

I'm gussing this has somthing to do with the time-comitment games require

I mean with stuff like DLC and multipalyer suposed to "add" to replayability, gaming I guess is a little more fickle than films or books, its al focused on "the now" more or less

Games also come from a more disposable origin.

Early games didn't have much in the way of narrative and even those that had a story were limited to things like "Plumber X must rescue Princess Y from Badguy Z."

Sure, moving pictures didn't exactly get a huge narrative start, but they did develop.

It's mostly, I think, the advent of multiplayer that has taken us away from the concept of replayability. Stories are becoming less important because all people care about is how many random noobs they can headshot then teabag.

Games became marketed more down that road, so they developed that way.

It's easier for the devs. Why? Well, as Extra Credits put it: Users are content. Multiplayer can potentially provide far more variety because humans are predictable.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the stories in movies and books hold the same weight these days with a lot of people. I mention re-reading a book to people and they look at me like I'm buts.

Unless it's Harry Potter. It's amazing how people who otherwise hate literacy seem to flock to that series and flock to each title like 9,000,000 times. Not that I haven't, it's just that I do this a lot with any book I enjoy. And some I don't. As long as it's not a chore.
I also personally replay games a lot. As long as they're not a chore.

 

[ChupathingyX]

I still replay some of my PS1 games, so....no.

Pretty much every game I still own I own because I have the intention of playing it again.

 

[Vault101]

I've been thinking about the Idea of "replayability"

some games are definetly more replayable than others, though people dont seem to treat the replayability of a game like they do the re-watchability of a movie

I'm gussing this has somthing to do with the time-comitment games require

I mean with stuff like DLC and multipalyer suposed to "add" to replayability, gaming I guess is a little more fickle than films or books, its al focused on "the now" more or less

Games also come from a more disposable origin.

Early games didn't have much in the way of narrative and even those that had a story were limited to things like "Plumber X must rescue Princess Y from Badguy Z."

Sure, moving pictures didn't exactly get a huge narrative start, but they did develop.

It's mostly, I think, the advent of multiplayer that has taken us away from the concept of replayability. Stories are becoming less important because all people care about is how many random noobs they can headshot then teabag.

Games became marketed more down that road, so they developed that way.

It's easier for the devs. Why? Well, as Extra Credits put it: Users are content. Multiplayer can potentially provide far more variety because humans are predictable.

To be honest, I'm not even sure the stories in movies and books hold the same weight these days with a lot of people. I mention re-reading a book to people and they look at me like I'm buts.

Unless it's Harry Potter. It's amazing how people who otherwise hate literacy seem to flock to that series and flock to each title like 9,000,000 times. Not that I haven't, it's just that I do this a lot with any book I enjoy. And some I don't. As long as it's not a chore.
I also personally replay games a lot. As long as they're not a chore.

well to be fair I think multiplayer may be a large trend BUT there is still the demand for a rich single player exerpience, as there should be (because thats how we push the medium forward and all that)

I dont often re-read books, and I think this is the same thing with games, you could say that the amount of time/investment in a book/game makes you think "well why re-read when there ALWAYS a new experience wating for me?"

the only book Ive read over and over is Misery, by stephen king....shit that book is AWSOME!

 

[Nieroshai]

I replay all of my games. After purchase I play it twice, then I give it a short break. Then I play it and another game alternately. Then I play it whenever I'm in the mood for that genre. Silent Hill is a game I pull out about once every other month. I play one of the Metal Gear Solid games monthly.

 

[headbanger97]

The JimQuisition did a whole episode on this one. If a game is good you should be able to play it again, just give it enough time that you forget bits, then try replaying. Maybe go through once again and explore the world more? Endless options.

 

[Breywood]

Many of the games I bought will definitely rate playing more than once I have a bunch of games I've played over and over again. Classic DOS stuff like "Master of Magic" or even "Eye of the Beholder." Windows stuff like SSG's "Warlords," "Black and White" and even "Lionheart: Legacy of the Crusader" was worth playing through three times for me, and it was a game with plenty of room for improvement. I'm happy to say that I have few games that I wouldn't play again.

The oddities for me were "Brood War" and "Warcraft III." I've never played either to the end.