Replayability

I've wondered this at length before, but never came up with a particularly good answer.

The best I can say is that having lots of options is a good start. Not giving people more than one way to play through a game is going to severely limit your replayability.

That can be abstracted to a few dozen things: different characters to play, alternate story paths, different character progression options, secrets, etc.

1. Fun design. This is pretty subjective, but a game that is fun is one that I might play again regardless of other factors.

2. Skippable sequences. Nothing pisses me off more than trying to play a fun game and being forced to watch a long crappy video or dialog sequence. Being able to play helps when I want to play again. And game cinematics and dialog sequences seem to have gotten longer than they used to be, so they're worse than ever to have to sit through.

3. Variable plots. Even when I was younger (plots were exclusively linear in those days) I would make up my own stories when I re-played games, because I'd already done the actual story one or more times.

4. Play options. This was mentioned above, but having choices in what to do, where to go, how to approach obstacles and goals, and so on are hugely important for me for replay value.

5. New Game+. This mainly applies to RPG games, though other genres can use it as well (like God of War and the different costumes you can unlock). If I want to play a game again, I probably don't want to spend time grinding towards goals I accomplished once. For players who would rather experience the bald challenges of the game itself, they can use weaker equipment or start a normal new game.

So I guess my overall design for a re-playable game is to allow the player to allow the player to experience any aspect of the game that they choose while skipping non-play aspects like movies and level-grinding. Variable plots and approaches to obstacles provide extra incentive to play again, allowing the player to have a different play experience than they did the first time.

More choices.

More eye candy.

Small learning curve (this is why I quit The Sims on Facebook. Actually, it was because I hate the sims because there's no point to it. So, my next point...)

A way to master the game that doesn't require endless amounts of time spent playing it, like if you had a unique idea or strategy. Actually, I'm not sure if that's possible. I was just thinking of the MMORTS I am working on.

More eye candy.

Small learning curve (this is why I quit The Sims on Facebook. Actually, it was because I hate the sims because there's no point to it. So, my next point...)

These are not about replayability but about features of a good game. You definitely don't need eye candy for replayability (the player saw it the first time already) also small learning curve is probably a bit bad for replayability (you play next time because you learned new tricks during your first play and want to test it or because this time you will understand what you are doing).

I think replayability is promoted by:
- short playing time (roguelikes)
- high difficulty OR hidden hard to find secrets OR multiple paths to victory
- non obvious winning strategy

- A steady learning curve, with rewards for small progresses, like Counter-Strike, where you gradually learn maps and pick up strategies.

I don't know, I'm bad at this.

Things that are designed to be played repeatedly, like multiplayer matches.
Still you would need good gameplay to get people to keep playing it.

Age of empires II is still played, and I think it's still bigger than many realise. It's a typical game that's played on lans (atleast in my experience).
-The gameplay is good.
-Everyone has a good enough pc.
-You can play it on other computers by just copying the game file map (very easy setup), or someone has made such a version.
The legality of this may be disputed, but that's how it is.

Having some levelling system in multiplayer mode seems to keep players to keep playing it (especially teens). CoD and Halo are good examples of that.

Gothic 2 is the game that has consumed most hours (for me), and that's a single player rpg. I've replayed it quite a few times. There's some unique story/quests to one of the three different guilds you can join. This helps replayability. However the game needs to be fun. I didn't even finish Dragon age because I thought the linear hours long corridors you had to fight your way through to get to the next cutscene was incredibly boring. Gothic 2 is an (mostly) open world game, so you have a lot of freedom. Most of all the game world is very immersing. Now there's many who didn't like it (gave up quite early), and some who found it to difficult (didn't understand how to play the game). Those who did often praise it very highly.
The devs last game was "Risen", and now they're making Risen 2. The world in Risen pales in comparison to the world of Gothic 2, but I still played through it a couple of times.

I believe many have replayed oblivion aswell, which is another open world rpg game. Two other examples are Zelda ocirina of time and Star wars knights of the old republic.
A more linear game I've replayed quite a few times is Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

I think it's most about making the game really good.
Some leveling scheme gets players to stick around for longer, but it's important to be on an even playfield in strategy games (unless it's a persistent world mmorts).

I believe many have replayed oblivion aswell, which is another open world rpg game. Two other examples are Zelda ocirina of time and Star wars knights of the old republic.
A more linear game I've replayed quite a few times is Star Wars Jedi Knight: Jedi Academy

I'm glad you brought up Ocarina of Time. It is a game that I have repeated multiple times. And I think you are on to something with it being open world.

Most of the replies thus far have had a common thread for replayability that being "multiple ways to win." And I get that and I think it is becoming increasingly popular with games now a days and is a very valid answer. However, this becomes less feasible when you are a one-man band (coding, doing the art, ect.). So what I wonder is what made games like Zelda ocarina of time so worthy of being beaten played through twice. This goes for other older games as well.

How many of us have gone back years later and replayed Super Mario World?

Is it the story? or is the game play?

It's a good point, first you have to make the game fun. If the player does not want to finish it once then the whole replayability won't matter. Replayability can be considered only after the player finished the whole game.

Zelda, and all other story based games have very low replayability (even if you are a maniac you will play these twice or three times, but not ten or hundred). These are bad examples of replayability, also, these games don't really need replayability.

Take a look at Diablo, Starcraft, Civilization, these were designed for replayability.


I think you might want to narrow the topic to a specific genre (becasue it is hugely depending on the genre, an average RTS will beat an awesome RPG when it comes to replayability, that's the nature of that genre).

I think you might want to narrow the topic to a specific genre (becasue it is hugely depending on the genre, an average RTS will beat an awesome RPG when it comes to replayability, that's the nature of that genre).

That's a fair suggestion. Perhaps, my focus question would be aimed at RPGs. It is my hope that in the next few years I'll publishing a simple solo-RPG with a linear story that captures a similar sense of wonder that games like Ocarina of time had.

Hidden content is always a good one. Coupled with additional options to get through levels. Deus Ex was always a good one for finding new ways of doing things or discovering new secrets even on your 4th and 5th run throughs of the game.

[font="arial, sans-serif"]Procedurally generated maps etc are always good, because then the challenges you face are always different.[/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"] [/font]
[font="arial, sans-serif"]And a killer (and lengthy) plot are useful as well. I replay Final Fantasy IX every so often even though I can more or less recite the entire script by heart, just to re-experience the story and the characters. It's not about finding something new there, it's just about getting it done and taking in every glorious moment...[/font]

some of the best mechanics for replayability are probably
-some kind of sandbox gameplay (i.e. construct your world, go smash random stuff, etc)
-lots of customizability of character (RPG's like diablo 2 work well where there's a ton of possible items randomly generated where you have to choose which to use, plus 7 character classes with limited skill points to spend in a lot of different ways)
-competitive play (RTS games like starcraft and TBS games like civilization benefit from this)
-online multiplayer (gave games like starcraft over a ten year lifespan!)

SImply being fun helps to it's what gets me to go back and play classic atari games each year.

I've replayed Tales of Symphonia for Nintendo GameCube about 5 times (or more) and spent probably 400 hours (or more) playing it. It's an RPG where you can play with up to 4 players.

Some things that I think kept me at it were:

• Action-filled, chaotic boss fights
• Intuitive and fun combat that doesn't bore you
• Skills had set levels (1, 2, 3) and to combo them, you had to use a level 1, then a 2, then a 3, which made it fun making up new combos
• 'E.X. Gems' were attached to characters, up to 4 on one character at one time, and certain combinations of these gems yielded special passive skills and bonuses (discovering and utilizing them was interesting)
• Quite a few side-quests, one of them leading to the hardest and funnest boss fight of all: Abyssion
• The story was above average, the world had an original setting, and each time you played through you learned something new about it that you hadn't known before about the lore/story/dialogue
• Character development was great and I ended up genuinely liking nearly all of the playable characters, plus quite a few of the non-playable characters
• Depending on how good you did in each fight, you receive or lose Grade. When you finish the game, you can use that Grade to buy bonuses (10x Experience Gain, 2x Experience Gain, and all kinds of other stuff) and then you'll start a new game with those bonuses applied from the very beginning. This encouraged replaying, since I could finish the game in Normal then play it in Mania (highest difficulty) with 10x experience or something similar
• Lots of decisions made by the main character affect how much other characters like you, which was interesting
  
  There were probably a few other things that I forgot to mention, too.
  
  The story in Tales of Symphonia was actually quite long, but it's only starting to become a hassle after replaying it many times.
  
  Hopefully this will help you.

The most replayable games are the ones in which every game is a new and interesting challenge, and winning doesn't mean the game is in any way "finished".
This includes:

• Difficulty, even with complete information, preventing mere humans from playing perfectly: checkers, chess, go...
• Major random influences that shift the emphasis from a repeatable (boring) detailed strategy to contingencies and general principles: backgammon, poker, Carcassonne...
• Major random or arbitrary elements that make each game different, turning one game (which could be mastered) into a vast family of related games requiring different strategies: random maps in roguelike games, Dominion...
• Tight interaction between players that shifts the emphasis from simply trying to do one's best (boring) to adapting to external factors and outsmarting the opponent: RTS and FPS games, fighting and soccer games...Note that highly replayable games tend to have many of these qualities.
  • Liero and similar games have some ballistic and acrobatic difficulty, random maps (often), randomly selected weapons, and relentless realtime combat.
  • Micro Machines has little randomness, but the different levels and vehicles are highly varied and bumping and shooting other players is both tactically deep and very fun.
  • Starcraft tends to have well-defined strategic "recipes", but they aren't detailed enough to be boring, as they need to adapt to maps and opponents, and nobody is going to issue orders fast enough to play perfectly in any case.

I think there are two (quite) different reasons why people replay certain games. The relative importance of either factor varies between people - the best games should try to target both, although these are somewhat antagonistic.

1. To get a new experience. Here are things like random maps, character customization, open worlds, emergent stories and so on.
2. To get again the familiar experience. Here are things like good story, lovable characters, romantic plots, good jokes and so on. The same reason we read some book or watch some movie again and again...

Chaging the game once it's finished, adding bonuses for the story (new guns, things like that), achievements, arcade style playing...

What about achievements? How do you guys feel about those? Do you go back and play games to receive titles in-game?

What about achievements? How do you guys feel about those? Do you go back and play games to receive titles in-game?

That's one of the things I told you. I absolutely do it, specially if they have relevance outside the game like the xbox achievements or the ps trophies. But in-game achievements are also interesting.

What about achievements? How do you guys feel about those? Do you go back and play games to receive titles in-game?

Sometimes I go back for achievements, but it's almost always a secondary thing. That is, I don't go play a game again just because there are achievements I haven't yet gotten. This is especially the case for me when so many achievements are things like "completed first level" or require grinding and not so much skill.

For me, achievements are something that can lend a little interest to another playthrough I've already decided to make, and not a major factor in my making that decision.

[quote name='kj47' timestamp='1315403930' post='4858632']
What about achievements? How do you guys feel about those? Do you go back and play games to receive titles in-game?

That's one of the things I told you. I absolutely do it, specially if they have relevance outside the game like the xbox achievements or the ps trophies. But in-game achievements are also interesting.
[/quote]

Woops! I some how missed your post. Sorry about that.