The more replayable a game is the more lean it is, less filler. I'm fine with filler in service games, that's kind of what they are all about, but for single player buy once games I expect zero filler.
Resident Evil 4 is one of the most replayed games ever, for sure, because none of it is waste. At no point are you fricking around, you are always engaged in in the game. good luck getting somebody to greenlight a 10 hour game today though.
I'll give you Resident Evil Village though, it's about the same length, but, a sequel. Devil May Cry 5 is a traditional PS2 game as well, a sequel. The only games allowed to be this way are sequels or remakes.
Who the frick is we?
I've always heavily advocated for shorter games.
I've finished 100 PS2 games and there is not one good one longer than 15 hours.
ContentBlack folk are a plague.
The more replayable a game is the more lean it is, less filler
This really is one of the biggest things that does it.
I think that's why I hate replaying three houses, when the gba fire emblems were some of my favorite games to replay of all time.
Why I get bored making new builds in elden ring when replaying dark souls was as natural as breathing, I like having a longer game, but make it as lean as you possibly can, anything that doesn't actively improve it should be axed.
"Replay value" used to mean "this game was so fun I wanted to play it again."
Now it means multiple difficulties, unlocks, achievements, and other bullshit to make you feel obligated to play a game more than once without actually doing it just because you want to.
replay value is only worth it if it doesnt diminish from my first play through. Games like Skyrim turning everything into procedurally generated shit just so i can "play it infinite times and see something new every time" makes me not want to finish playing it once.
Yes, having a game that has good replay value is good. This is most often best for relatively short games in the first place, of course. No one cares if your game has replay value if it's 10,000 hours fricking long slog in the first place.
>replay value
I'll never understand people who replay games that are longer than an hour or so. Sure, sometimes I want to go for another 1cc Time Crisis run or play R-type again, but a 10 hour game? A 50 hour one? I'll never understand that shit. It's one and done.
>NEW
See, here's your problem. A 40 year old game is still new if you haven't played it yet.
I'll work my way through everything that interests me, and then maybe in 50 years I'll have sunk low enough to play something like God of fricking War. Doubt it though, there's a LOT of 6/10 shovelware that's still better than most modern titles.
honestly if I was a game developer I would love if my game also got reviewed by people who despise it on a fundamental level
they would be entirely unforgiving comparable to the fans of the specific genre and maybe give some useful outside perspective regarding issues fans might overlook
assuming that the reviewer was professional and good at their job of course
which is less likely than me being the next hideo kojima
>honestly if I was a game developer I would love if my game also got reviewed by people who despise it on a fundamental level
No, you wouldn't. You would be forced by your superiors to make fundamental changes for the next game just to placate journo who don't even play video games.
a game being fun/good enough to replay every once in a while is a good thing.
Games like Neir:automata where you are forced to 'replay' the whole thing like 5+ times to get the 'true' endings are absolute dogshit since it makes the game Drag on for fricking ever and impossible to truly replay
only if they dont put in new content after beating the game 5 more times
i dropped rogue legacy 2 after beating the ng+ 1 revamped first boss because one other new revamped boss only appear after you beat each consecutive full run
only if the game is about an intimate relationship between siblings or is halo 2.
yuh-huh
yes, rapelay is very good
Stop lying, the game runs like ass.
what kind of shit computer do you have that can't run a game from 2006?
The more replayable a game is the more lean it is, less filler. I'm fine with filler in service games, that's kind of what they are all about, but for single player buy once games I expect zero filler.
Resident Evil 4 is one of the most replayed games ever, for sure, because none of it is waste. At no point are you fricking around, you are always engaged in in the game. good luck getting somebody to greenlight a 10 hour game today though.
>Good luck getting somebody to greenlight a 10 hour game today though.
RE3make is even shorter than RE4.
A remake.
I'll give you Resident Evil Village though, it's about the same length, but, a sequel. Devil May Cry 5 is a traditional PS2 game as well, a sequel. The only games allowed to be this way are sequels or remakes.
>The only games allowed to be this way are sequels or remakes.
Cause the last time we got a shorter game we complained with "4 HOURS!!!!"
Who the frick is we?
I've always heavily advocated for shorter games.
I've finished 100 PS2 games and there is not one good one longer than 15 hours.
ContentBlack folk are a plague.
based
btw can you name a couple i could emulate
I dunno man that last island with the gun ganados is pretty shit
Because it goes full blown Rambo Evil.
The more replayable a game is the more lean it is, less filler
This really is one of the biggest things that does it.
I think that's why I hate replaying three houses, when the gba fire emblems were some of my favorite games to replay of all time.
Why I get bored making new builds in elden ring when replaying dark souls was as natural as breathing, I like having a longer game, but make it as lean as you possibly can, anything that doesn't actively improve it should be axed.
It is. I used to randomly beat Resident Evil 2 Remake all the time during COVID.
I only play games that are less than 4 hours long and are highly replayable
"Replay value" used to mean "this game was so fun I wanted to play it again."
Now it means multiple difficulties, unlocks, achievements, and other bullshit to make you feel obligated to play a game more than once without actually doing it just because you want to.
Soulsgay mad that Nioh 2 has replay value beyond pvp, go back into the thread
replay value is only worth it if it doesnt diminish from my first play through. Games like Skyrim turning everything into procedurally generated shit just so i can "play it infinite times and see something new every time" makes me not want to finish playing it once.
If a game is fun I'll replay it.
If a game has different endings, I'll youtube it.
what if it's fun AND has different endings?
Yes, having a game that has good replay value is good. This is most often best for relatively short games in the first place, of course. No one cares if your game has replay value if it's 10,000 hours fricking long slog in the first place.
>replay value
I'll never understand people who replay games that are longer than an hour or so. Sure, sometimes I want to go for another 1cc Time Crisis run or play R-type again, but a 10 hour game? A 50 hour one? I'll never understand that shit. It's one and done.
>why would you replay Ninja Gaiden 2 and Ninja Gaiden Black instead of playing a movie about a numale "god" who can't even jump
I don't know.
The question there is "why would anyone play the latter to begin with?". You know you don't have to play shit games, right?
I only play good games, though. Still don't want to play them again.
>I feel like playing a good NEW action game right now
>check
>nothing but absolute shit
>in before "play a different genre"
That's not how it works.
>NEW
See, here's your problem. A 40 year old game is still new if you haven't played it yet.
I'll work my way through everything that interests me, and then maybe in 50 years I'll have sunk low enough to play something like God of fricking War. Doubt it though, there's a LOT of 6/10 shovelware that's still better than most modern titles.
honestly if I was a game developer I would love if my game also got reviewed by people who despise it on a fundamental level
they would be entirely unforgiving comparable to the fans of the specific genre and maybe give some useful outside perspective regarding issues fans might overlook
assuming that the reviewer was professional and good at their job of course
which is less likely than me being the next hideo kojima
>honestly if I was a game developer I would love if my game also got reviewed by people who despise it on a fundamental level
No, you wouldn't. You would be forced by your superiors to make fundamental changes for the next game just to placate journo who don't even play video games.
>having "superiors"
>having anything
that's because you only play bad games
I don't know, why would you do something you enjoy again?
Sounds like a terrible idea, better to just sit here on Ganker and hate your life, right?
a game being fun/good enough to replay every once in a while is a good thing.
Games like Neir:automata where you are forced to 'replay' the whole thing like 5+ times to get the 'true' endings are absolute dogshit since it makes the game Drag on for fricking ever and impossible to truly replay
I've replayed FF5 at least 10 times and consider it one of my favorite games.
So I'm in favor of it, myself.
If you didn't replay the DMC games at least 5 times on each difficulty you didn't beat them.
Yes, absolutely. Solid 5-10 hour games that make you want to replay them over and over again have become a lost art.
only if they dont put in new content after beating the game 5 more times
i dropped rogue legacy 2 after beating the ng+ 1 revamped first boss because one other new revamped boss only appear after you beat each consecutive full run