So I have decided to flipflop...

[J1M]

The true value of branches and/or replayability is not that you can play the game again differently. It is in having a world with more than one narrow corridor to follow.

 

[Hobo Elf]

Was Torment not better than Bloodlines?

No.

 

[Awor Szurkrarz]

I like short games with high replay value. I don't have time for doing zillions of quests and I like to revisit games if I liked them.

 

[MasterSmithFandango]

I've replayed JA2 four or five times, despite the fact that the story is no different. I can replay EU3 with the same country numerous times. I can't think I've replayed an RPG other than Fallout 1/2 completely, although I almost did with Wizardry 8 (got burned out). Branching storylines means shit... I really l like good gameplay with different ways to build the character and playstyles. TW2's different act 2, while somewhat interesting and a good idea, it's not enough.

Ultimately, good gameplay makes a game infinitely replayable. I can play JA2 a million times because the game is fucking fun. If you want story in a video/computer game as a main point for buying a game, you're doing it wrong.

 

[OSK]

While it may not be obvious, when playing a non-linear game, that making the alternate choices would provide you with entirely different results, it is obvious when a game totally disregards a choice you make, forces your hand and plants you, Bioware style, on the only track they've decided you can travel.

You might not play through a branching story twice, but you'd have to be totally braindead not to pick up on the fact that, to and extent, you are carving out your own story on a single play through.

This.

 

[Excidium]

Was Torment not better than Bloodlines?

No.

What?

PS:T is much better than Bloodlines.

 

[King Crispy]

For me, replay value is found solely in the character-builds.

I agree. And so far, it's only been with NWN2, and in that only with new modules that I've never played before.

I'm one of those people that never, ever replays games. I truly can't stand it. I'd rather read the Wiki on a game that I've finished and learn about all its alternate outcomes than replay the entire fucking thing, and that even goes for Fallout.

 

[Antihero]

Wanting to replay a story driven game can be harder if I already have a sense of finality from finishing it once, even if the alternate path can take you on a completely different ride in parts. You know how the major events play out, plot expectations driving you forward have been dashed or realised, and maybe you chose one path because the other didn't much appeal to you half as much (or it was some unforseen consequence, but still you don't know or care if it could have been avoided).

Arguments about whether it's a true RPG or not aside, I didn't really want to choose either path with Roche or Iorveth in TW2 (where's my attempted neutrality?), but went Roche since he seemed the lesser bore. Slowly went through the game in about a month, and now on the Iorveth path it feels like almost the same thing going through the battlefield of specters, even if there's promised additional content waiting on the other side. If I didn't already know that from forums posts I might have just set the game aside for a while at that point (although I would have wondered how they'd shoe horn in the Kaedweni camp.)

It's already been mentioned, but I also find more replay value if it's through the gameplay (different options, or improving my skill) instead of the story. Or if the story was compelling enough on its own to warrant another playthrough (after you already know how much of it goes), and I just want to try things differently this time.

 

[Reptilian Shapeshifter]

Was Torment not better than Bloodlines?

No.

What?

PS:T is much better than Bloodlines.

Apples and oranges. Comparing a party-based, dialogue-driven isometric with a FPARPG in entirely different settings does not compute.

 

[shihonage]

Multiple quest solutions are good, as they cater to particular character builds and playing styles.

As for walkthrough-exclusive content, OP nailed it right in. Something I've been saying for years to the righteously offended Kkkodex - stuff it, the 5% of areas and quests you arbitrarily banned me from won't make me play your SHIT game twice. Whereas, if a game is actually good, it will replayed again no matter if it's "replayable" or not. Moreover, even if it "is", chances are, it will still replayed exactly the same way it was played the first time, since you look to *repeat* an enjoyable experience.

If anything, multiple solutions and "branching storylines" are opposites to an extent. The former gives a selection of various means to accomplish one's goal, the latter forces one to discard options in favor of others. Replayability says, "if you're a thief, you can pick that door and find a cool thingy within, if you aren't, lol you're fucked". Multiple solutions answers, "fuck you, I am a strong warrior and will break the door. I am a wizard and will magically unlock it. I am a diplomat and I will hire a crew of dwarves to tear the whole place down. Choke on this, branching storyfag".

Well now I am trying to imagine a game which does not follow this formula. What's the "branching storyfag" case here?

So, you're not a thief, you can't pick the lock, and then ... WHAT.

 

[Wyrmlord]

If you want story in a video/computer game as a main point for buying a game, you're doing it wrong.

Exactly.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

I guess you have mistaken RPGCodex for FAGCodex. A common mistake these days.

Why did you google for the game's title? My post got you interested or something?

Come out of the closet bro, it's okay

we're all friends here

Anyway, I guess that you don't come here often.

Joined: 02 Oct 2006
Posts: 326

Stay around for a while, I think your impressions of the site are kind of outdated

 

[1eyedking]

How can people beyond the age of 9 play this is beyond me. I will truly never understand.

 

[Clockwork Knight]

Well yeah, I agree that it lacks highly collectible sex cards, but the doujins almost make up for it


















almost

 

[mondblut]

Well now I am trying to imagine a game which does not follow this formula. What's the "branching storyfag" case here?

So, you're not a thief, you can't pick the lock, and then ... WHAT.

Huh?

Assuming I understood you, the branching storyfag case is "lol, replay as a thief next time, and for now, look for a super-exclusive warrior-only content".

2011 version: "lol, replay as a thief next time, and for now, preorder a super-exclusive warrior-only DLC".

Anyway, multiple solutions increase freedom in a game. Forced choices ("branching") decreases freedom. Multiple solutions good, branching bad.

 

[Claw]

...and say that I no longer regard "replay value" as any useful feature of any RPG. Or any genre in general.

I'll have to say I agree with Wyrmlord, I strongly disagree with Wyrmlord.

I rarely replay any game with a story line of any sort. Ultima VII, Monkey Island 1+2 are some of the very few games I played "through" more than once.
I never replayed any Gothic games.

However, I like the feeling of freedom. I like to make my own decisisons and shape my experience. That's why the Gothic games are at their best when you begin, and turn into pretty much an endurance run in the end.

I'll take the 60 hr game, cause i still have too many games to play (being late to the pc scene, as far as owning one ) so i i'm not gonna be playin the same game over.

That's idiotic. I've got more games to play than time, and on top of that difficulties finishing many games. Sometimes I have a few days where I can really spend several hours playing a game, and then hardly any time at all, and that is horrible for many games.

I take the 30 hr game so I can enjoy the game, get the satisfaction of completion and move on.

 

[Kaanyrvhok]

I would rather have the 30 hour game with replayability than the 60 easy. Spagettimonster is correct. Replayability comes from good gameplay not just butterfly effects. Keith Burgun said it best. If a game is not fun enough to play twice its not fun enough to play once.

 

[quasimodo]

Yes. The game has to be worth replaying for the gameplay. I find most modern RPG's to be not worth playing once.

If DA:O had ToEE combat and good encounter design I would still be playing it. As it was I barely finished it.

 

[Andhaira]

I have found that sandbox games have the best replaybility factor. I have played Ultima 7 and Startrail many times (though I did not finish them everytime). The TES games also have tons of replayability.

 

[shihonage]

Well now I am trying to imagine a game which does not follow this formula. What's the "branching storyfag" case here?

So, you're not a thief, you can't pick the lock, and then ... WHAT.

Huh?

Assuming I understood you, the branching storyfag case is "lol, replay as a thief next time, and for now, look for a super-exclusive warrior-only content".

2011 version: "lol, replay as a thief next time, and for now, preorder a super-exclusive warrior-only DLC".

Anyway, multiple solutions increase freedom in a game. Forced choices ("branching") decreases freedom. Multiple solutions good, branching bad.

Has there actually been a game that actually functions in this way? A separate story for each "class" is an incomprehensible amount of work.

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Do you play any strategy or tactical squad games Wyrmlord?

 

[Wyrmlord]

Yes. But my tastes aren't particularly niche.

Why ask?

 

[sgc_meltdown]

Then unless you're a very special case who only plays them once, it means you aren't against replayability.

What you mean to say is that you're against a game with branching content having the unoptional core content interest you for just one runthrough regardless of player choice factors. Like fighter or mage or thief or good or evil.

Another way to look at this with another genre is a non button mash versus game on the highest difficulty that you're able to handle. Are you going to object to the notion of replaying a fighting game because you've technically seen each of the characters in action after one full runthrough, just like completing an rpg technically means that you've seen the whole structure of the core content? Do people playing fighting games with another character complain that they're going to see the same tournament story again, or do x-com players find the early game against the sectoids they're very familar with by now tiresome and discouraging?

The issue here is that narrative heavy and so called roleplaying focused rpgs don't have the necessarily complex tactical or strategic decisions for the combat that always ties up a good amount of the gameplay, and their traditionally long playtime really makes these flaws apparent because it all just ends up blending together unless you're impressed every time you see archers on high ground and mages behind the fighters. If grinding is required, this is even worse. Say in an MMO, who would roll a different character solely to grind with again unless their current grinding build sucked? Answer: someone who doesn't care about repetition.

For the rare developer that actually succeeds in the good combat route concessions still have to be made(see: KoTC, dungeon crawlers). Otherwise for western rpgs the choice of a class(or party, in the case of alignment) swap for further playthroughs stems from the inevitable need for keeping the staleness away from the combat while you reach whichever new narrative bits opened up by your new class or alignment choice.

So you're quite mistaken in saying games being replayable and taking up your time again is the problem. You just don't want to them waste the time they're taking up.

 

[Johannes]

I've replayed JA2 four or five times, despite the fact that the story is no different.

But the story IS different every time. Who will you hire and when, who will die and how, what towns to conquer and when, how will you deal with Kingpin, or hillbillies family, will you order flowers for Deidranna... Yes, the end result will be same every game (if you win at least) but the story of how it happened will change every time unless you deliberately take exact same team and strategic plan as before.

 

[Wyrmlord]

For the record, SGC, I am sort of in the same position as mondblut.

I read your whole post, and of course, no reasonable person can have an objection to it, but I was basically speaking of one very specific thing.

You know, in Fallout, it is possible, with very great diligent efforts, to be good at everything, until you are as much a good speaker as you are a good fighter and a good skillsman. Fallout is not so much a zero-sum game, where being good at one thing means definitely losing on another.

On the other hand, how many of you have managed to turn all non-Jedis into Jedis in a KotOR 2 playthrough? Very tricky - in fact, impossible. Any party member that you influence enough to train as a Jedi means that you miss on the chance to make another one a Jedi. It is strange that doing anything right in one situation amounts effectively to doing something wrong in another. It's a good representation of real life, but bad representation of how to make an interesting videogame.

You are punished for succeeding!

Tradeoffs are interesting at the beginning of the game, when you have decide an appropriate mix of (+,-), but as a reward for being a good player across the game, you really want to be an all (+,+) at the end. I was rather pleased in Torment that before leaving to meet Ravel, I was the smartest, strongest, most charismatic, wisest, most dextrous, and most enduring fighter, mage, and thief in Sigil.

To take a strategy example, in Heroes of Might and Magic, you may start with a faction that loses on magic, but has good combatants, but by the endgame, you really want to and have to be the best in magic, combat, and all else.