StarDestroyer.Net BBS

The last few years brought many "next gen" games with budgets comparable to Hollywood movies. They often have beautiful graphics and well written plots. However I am worried that as games become more mainstream they are becoming interactive CGI films. Are there going to be any recent games that people will still replay 10 years from now when the shiny graphics is worn out like Quake 3 is today ?

Isn't this highly dependant on individual games? There's always been games with replayability and ones that are just linear eye candy, I don't see this as having changed all that much the last few years.

Some companies still crank them out - Paradox comes to mind as a fine example, even though they did go 3D with EU3... for action games, I think perhaps not so much. Q3 was pretty much the top and no FPS after has had any staying power. (for me)

LOL Q3 the top of FPS genre hilarious.

As Bounty says, it entirely depends on games. If you limit it to big-hit mainstream games, they are becoming more story-driven and linear, and thus less 'replayable'. There are still replayable games out there.

Stark wrote:LOL Q3 the top of FPS genre hilarious.

Q3 (esp. promode) is simple and skill-intense. It focuses on what is important for longevity - competitive multiplayer. So yes, top of the crop.

Story-driven singleplayer is fun once. Really good games twice. Non-linear and awesome games, perhaps three times. Competitive multiplayer is forever, or until something better comes along. Of course, one could argue that that is not replayability at all. If replayability is to want to play the same game (sp/coop) over and over, I'd say action games that have replayability are and have always been rare, while complex strategy games have a natural advantage.

It'd also help if you define "replayable". Are you worried that games are too linear and plot-driven? RE4 is both of those and people still play through it four or five times to get all the goodies. Are you worried that games today won't be popular in ten years? News flash, they rarely are - the games from yesteryear that are still popular today are maybe one percent (number pulled out of my ass) of what was produced, and for every hella-old game that's still being played today because it was great to begin with, there's 99 license-a-thons or hunt-the-pixel games no-one remembers. Ten years ago, twenty years ago, thirty years ago, same thing. In a decade's time someone might still be play Halo for a laugh or GC2 when they hear someone raving about it on a message board, but the bulk of games everyone's drooling over today will be a footnote at best.

Competitive multiplayer is forever, or until something better comes along.

Or until you realise how stupid it is to run around killing the same people on the same maps with the same "skills" over and over again. Multiplayer computer games inevitably become more about who is best at exploiting the abstraction the game makes of whatever activity it's simulating than the actual skill supposedly needed; not a problem if you consider some obsessed Korean's intimate knowledge of build queues the pinnacle of multiplayer bliss, more so if you actually want to have fun. The only "competitive multiplayer" game that's so far gotten around this is chess.

Meh, that is why RTS is no fun as competitive multiplayer - or at least no RTS I've found yet.

Promode, otoh, is for the bad player about reaction times, movement, and aim, and for the skilled player about teamplay, strategy and really quick thinking when things don't go your way. (I don't play anymore, takes too much time. Somewhere I decided practicing for gaming was not my cup of java.)

Strategy games that are computerized board games, such as Flashpoint Germany which I play sometimes when I find a PBEM opponent, has the replayability of a board game.

I realize I'm probably not interested in what most people call replayability at all; I can count the number of SP campaings I've played through twice on my right-hand fingers - KOTOR (twice), Quake (numerous), SMAX (if it counts as a campaign), Railroad Tycoon 3 (ditto). Most games with a campaign, I get bored with the gameplay and quit before I finish, or cheat if the story is interesting enough.

Take a game like Oblivion, every week there's a dozen new mods, quests, modes. Game changing enhancements and even the odd total conversion. It's a game you can pick back up every six months, load up with a bunch of new mods and play differently, if not totally differently than before. Then you have games like Team Fortress 2 which feature a steady rise in game-changing content by the dev's, new maps every week.


quick examples
Rock Band/Guitar Hero series(New songs every day)
The Silent Hunter series
Any major competitive multilayer only game(Team Fortress Two, the Battlefield Series and the like, Unreal)
Oblivion

Bounty wrote:
Or until you realise how stupid it is to run around killing the same people on the same maps with the same "skills" over and over again. Multiplayer computer games inevitably become more about who is best at exploiting the abstraction the game makes of whatever activity it's simulating than the actual skill supposedly needed; not a problem if you consider some obsessed Korean's intimate knowledge of build queues the pinnacle of multiplayer bliss, more so if you actually want to have fun. The only "competitive multiplayer" game that's so far gotten around this is chess.

Are you saying all multiplayer experiences are not "fun" because some people don't suck and others do? Play chess with enough people, and you get the same experience. I've played people who pull the same stupid tactics and lose every time, and others who try a new approach, learn and inevitably win because of it. A multiplayer FPS where people get humdrum over poor design is a game not worth bothering with. Likewise, if a game is won by someone simply tank rushing, as you allude to, then that's shit too, and was one reason the original RA didn't have the longevity of other such games. In the meantime, there are plenty of other titles that could entertain, same with RTS and MMORPGS or more niche games. A good game is where you have to get good at thinking and shooting quickly, planning a course of attack or selecting the right people for the task at hand. If it takes five minutes to beat anyone once you find a simple strategy with no possibility of failing, then that is a shit game, not a mark against online multiplayer experiences.

At the end of the day, there is only so much variation on defeating people with skills. Chess becomes quite dull because of this just as much as COD4 or WOW.

Are you saying all multiplayer experiences are not "fun" because some people don't suck and others do?

I'm saying multiplayer games eventually run into the brick wall where the difference between winning and losing isn't how good a shot you are or what clever tactics you can cough up, but how well you memorised the glitches and quirks of the engine.

Can you tell I'm bitter about how snakers ruined Mario Kart?

Bounty wrote: I'm saying multiplayer games eventually run into the brick wall where the difference between winning and losing isn't how good a shot you are or what clever tactics you can cough up, but how well you memorised the glitches and quirks of the engine.

Can you tell I'm bitter about how snakers ruined Mario Kart?

Mario Kart increases blood pressure more than eating a diet of fried Mars Bars and being over worked for a year can. It's just better not to play it.

But I have to disagree that this criticism applies to all games. The shit ones have easy methods you can exploit. The good ones require you rethink how you play every time, against different opponents. Sure, you can have a plan you go by whenever playing, but it shouldn't be rigid because no other player can dare touch you once you've earned that super hand-cannon and gotten to that little spot no one else can reach when occupied by a semi-decent shooter.

Worms Armageddon, for one, has always been a fun experience and you can't cheat the game by exploiting poor design.

Bounty wrote:

Are you saying all multiplayer experiences are not "fun" because some people don't suck and others do?

I'm saying multiplayer games eventually run into the brick wall where the difference between winning and losing isn't how good a shot you are or what clever tactics you can cough up, but how well you memorised the glitches and quirks of the engine.

Can you tell I'm bitter about how snakers ruined Mario Kart?

Holy fucking monkeyshit. Are you telling me that Chess isn't about memorizing moves, feints, attacks and all those other funny little things? It's more about rote memorization than anything--which is why the computer needs to cheat at Starcraft to beat me, but can do it straight up in Chess. There is no game on planet Earth more defined by the focus on accumulating a vast resource of pre-programmed moves, attack strategies, defenses, and historical gameplay knowledge than Chess. People wank to it like it's the god of strategy, and it's just a goddamn mutant offspring of checkers and calvinball.

It's got it's own set of aggrivating, arbitrary rules, and exploiting those are key. Same as with any RTS, for example--except without all the years of refinement and with more layers of abstraction. All this means is that they hit their peak faster, but by then there's something new you might be able to play. I'd say games are being less replayable because, as stated, the focus is now on cinematic experience and storyline twists and scripted events that scare or alarm or suprise players and can't replicate the experience on a second playthrough. Plus, we got Diablo 3 on the horizon and Spore out now. I have lots of hard words for Spore, but it's certainly replayable.

Not to mention that low replayability means the players will move on and buy a new game.

Good as it is for games in general, phenomena such as Counter Strike or Desert Combat are not seen with kind eyes by the guys trying to sell game boxes. No wonder MOD support seems to have diminished greately in recent games.

I couldn't give a shit about replayability now. I rarely have enough playing time to actually finish a game, let alone replay it.

A whole bunch different from when I was younger with a shitload of sparetime.

I honestly can't believe someone is actually defending their absurd claim that Q3 is the 'top of the crop' of FPS due to PERSONAL PREFERENCE. That's terrifying; it's the same elitist attitude that leads to hilarious online communities of blowhards. It's fast and skills intense, unlike any FPS for the last billion years BECAUSE SOME IDIOT SAYS SO lol. This is totally unlike Starcraft worshippers or CS clowns, somehow.

Ando has a point - something like Burnout isn't particularly 'replayable' once you've 'finished' it, but it takes so long to do so it's not relevant. Most SP games only last 10-15 hours these days, but a great many lunatic nerds replay them over and over anyway.

As Bounty says, the definition of replayable is key, because as Cov says Spore is 'replayable' (ignoring that it's a pile of shit for the moment) but the 'replays' aren't really much different (since the changes you can make are almost entirely cosmetic). Most SP games are the same these days - Sims is honestly replayable, Spore fakes it, just like all the SP games with FLEXIBLE STORIES and such that really only provide 2-3 options (or, in modern games, not even that, and simply a slightly different ending). Sandbox games like HoI and Galciv are 'replayable' due to their lack of narrative, but once you played a few games you've 'seen' everything that there is to the game and you're just replaying for lols.

Damnit Stark, why did you say Burnout? Now I have to get some more Burning Routes done... And why didn't I get a fucking invite to your lovefest over the weekend?

As for replaying - aside from playing the final level of Kane and Lynch to get another of the endings and messing about in Terrorist Hunt in R6: Vegas2, there isn't a whole bunch of "replaying" of a game that I've done of late.

I have technically 'finished' Burnout and can't really 'play' it anymore aside from driving around and messing people up in multi - but it took me eighty-four hours, so I can't complain.

Are they? Probably. Games focus on graphics and flashy features nowadays and "replayability" mostly means either playing the game differently by a slightly different angle or just collectables. Somehow, in the minds of at least some developers, collectables are some kind of reason to go back and do the same shit you already did.

If I were to name a replayable game, I would pick Carmegeddon. Almost any title. No matter how the years have past, its still fun to mow down old ladies.

Or GTA, for that matter. Sandbox stuff is fun.

But even GTA excels more than most at "replayability". I'm sure Stark can tell you of his exploits in getting all 200 pigeons needed for the ultimate prize.

I'll have you know I only have like 5 pigeons!!!!!111 I don't waste my time on artificial 'make the game longer' shit like find the xyz foozles. They're just a prop to make things seem more 'replayable' than they are.

I'm not sure things like GTA are that 'replayable' though - like Burnout, once you've finished the game or achieved the goals, it's just fucking around in cars. It's fun, but once I finished it GTA4 didn't hold my attention from a 'reaping chaos' perspective, whereas stuff like HoI and GalCiv (being entirely contained games you play more than once) can be played several 'games', like several games of chess. I might keep playing Burnout (probably will, since I know heaps of people who play multi) but without any goals I'm just messing about.

It's worth noting that this is IMPOSSIBLE in very linear games like FEAR or Mass Effect, simply because there's no scope at all to make your own fun, so in this way GTA is 'more' replayable.

Like Stark said, even "open" games like GTA tend to lack replayability because of how focused they were in development due to factors like storyline. For all its claims of "sandboxy-ness" GTA is a pretty linear game. You go to a guy, he tells you to kill some other guy/pick something up/chase some stupid twat, and the mission much be played the exact same way every time. In short, GTA is only non-linear when you really aren't doing anything other than casually driving around. GTA is still pretty concentrated around it's storyline and missions though, so in reality, it isn't really that open.

And bullshit "find the 81 golden dildos" quests never work on me either because... you're playing a "serious" game right? Yet you're being asked to do something that makes precisely zero sense in the context of the world. What is suspension of disbelief again? Taking over a country in this game? We all know in the real world, Mannstein and Rommel were known for searching the French country side looking for the 20 silver braughtwurst right?

Personally the only game i've ever played with genuine "replayability" was Flashpoint, and Flashpoints scope is so wide and non-linear I almost feel bad for making other games stand up to it. Oh wait no I don't.

Well, I tend to prefer older games. Personally, I don't really care much about the fancy graphics in newer games. A game either has good story and interesting gameplay (in which case its good), or it doesn't (in which case it sucks).

While I haven't played a lot of fancy new games, I have to wonder if their's a tendency, as their seems to be with some recent films, to substitute special effects glitter for substance and think no one will notice as long as it looks nice.

If their's any new games that I'll want to replay in ten years, I haven't found them.

I always replay one part of the Baldur's Gate Saga at least once a year to test new mods or just to simply enjoy the game. None of the "sequels" or following games of Bioware have captured my attention that much, with the exception of KOTOR I. Still, I have no strong urge to replay KOTOR I.

Of course my experience with games is somewhat limited, but that is the first thing that came to my mind.

Stark, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Quake 3 the Quake that all the Quake fans hated?

DPDarkPrimus wrote:Stark, correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't Quake 3 the Quake that all the Quake fans hated?

I think a lot of the fans hated the change to arena play, yeah, but it did stick around in a LAN context for a while and it's weapons are one of the 'trademark' sets. I think all the Quake games have sucked, but that's just me - UT is better at twitch play and HL is better at story-based play for my money.