Longevity of game play - Grind vs Replayability

[KIAman]

I'm at a point where I see little quality games to play on the PC. Once I do find a game I'd like to play, I find that the developers were faced with a dilemma; how to give the gamer his money's worth.

So far, it seems newer games favor the grind to extend gametime while a few games favor replayability.

I personally can't stand "meaningless" grind where the grind is simply a time sink and does not advance the game or story and the only purpose is to attain a game state that allows you to continue on.

Some games, for example Dragon Age, favors replayability. But the replayability focuses on in game choices and not much on the differences of gender/race/class to progress the story.

What are some of your thoughts? Do you like games to have a grind or replay to take up your time?

 

[Chiefcrowe]

Personally i like games without grind and that have more differences when you play them again.

 

[JTsyo]

It's rare that I replay games. Once I play through a game, I kind of figure I got what I needed out of the game and move on. The only games I recall replaying are Alpha Centauri (think I played 3 different factions), Starcraft, FF7 and FF8.

 

[MJinZ]

I'm at a point where I see little quality games to play on the PC. Once I do find a game I'd like to play, I find that the developers were faced with a dilemma; how to give the gamer his money's worth.

So far, it seems newer games favor the grind to extend gametime while a few games favor replayability.

I personally can't stand "meaningless" grind where the grind is simply a time sink and does not advance the game or story and the only purpose is to attain a game state that allows you to continue on.

Some games, for example Dragon Age, favors replayability. But the replayability focuses on in game choices and not much on the differences of gender/race/class to progress the story.

What are some of your thoughts? Do you like games to have a grind or replay to take up your time?

Grinds are horrific if you need to grind to beat a boss or something.

The way "grinds" should be done is Diablo II esque, where the grounding makes you more powerful in order to get new skills or abilities, which actually make the grinding more and more interesting and fun (but most of it had to do with achieving different PvP and PvM builds and amassing awesome items).

 

[ChaoZ]

I don't even look for replayability in single player games; I look for multiplayer games to fill that requirement. The only games that I've played that really force you to grind are RPGs, but at least they're sort of moving away from that.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

MMOs can be decent with grind in them because they have that whole integrated community carrying it along. However, single player games are absolutely awful when they try to incorporate grind style progression. Borderlands is the most prominent one I like to point out. When I first started playing, thought it was pretty promising. Then I got to the first town and first quest and it was like kill 10: this thing... Hmm, then I got the second and third and was just like FUUUUUUU; it's WoW with only 4 players and guns. That there was only like 5 kinds of enemies in the game didn't help either. They should have dumped the "side quests" and focused on putting more enemies in the game; more abilities with more effect on the game would have helped a ton too.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

I don't even look for replayability in single player games; I look for multiplayer games to fill that requirement. The only games that I've played that really force you to grind are RPGs, but at least they're sort of moving away from that.

If you play them well you can usually get through RPGs without grinding. When I was young, I'd have my friends tell me x game is IMPOSSIBLE to beat without grinding, and then I'd go ahead and beat it anyway. Usually can't kill the optional ultra side boss though : (

 

[WhipperSnapper]

Online multiplayer games have the best replayability, especially FPS and RTS. It also helps if the games are amenable to custom maps and mods.

The problem with Dragon Age is that it was consolized in those regards--no online multiplayer, and, I think, no custom content allowed.

In contrast, one of Dragon Age's non-consolized predecessors, Neverwinter Nights, had an active online multiplayer scene as of one year ago when I last loaded it up.

Many older FPS games still have rabid and enthusiastic fans. People still play the original Unreal Tournament (1999), for example, and still regard it as the greatest FPS of all time. Many people are still playing Counterstrike and UT 2004, and presumably people are still playing Quake III. People are also playing Starcraft and Warcraft.

So, if you're looking for a game with replayability, look for a high quality game that allows for online multiplayer and custom content. Ideally such a game would be PC-only.

 

[HardcoreRobot]

i find myself attracted to games with unlocks and longer term achievements. stuff to work toward too, a game within a game. im also a fan of multiplayers... rts + fps. those games stay fresh because the competition does

 

[zebano]

When I was young grind was ok: FF1/2/3 (US versions) and eventually Diablo 2 which at least had the treasure hunter component to it. Nowadays except for things like LoL, TF2, CSS when I finish a game, I'm done with it. That said, multiple endings such as Chrono Trigger was always a decent reason to get me to replay a game.

 

[Dekasa]

That said, multiple endings such as Chrono Trigger was always a decent reason to get me to replay a game.

CT had multiple endings? Awww man, now I have to go play it again. (Actually, that's not a bad idea).

On topic, I loooove playing through games multiple times, but only those conductive to it. Things I've noticed that are conductive to multiple, fulfilling playthroughs:

Character Development: Mostly an RPG thing, but it has to be the sort where every build isn't 90% the same. Fable had this in the beginning, but halfway through all characters were the same because they had everything. Vampire the Masquerade: Bloodlines did a good job of this, every clan has 3 distinct skills that can (or may not) heavily alter your gameplay style. FF6 had this, FF7 did not (6 had long-term choices, 7 granted instant changes)

Multiple paths: Deus Ex. Three ways past every bad guy, each as valid as the others (mostly). Allows me to play the game a few times and do nearly everything differently. Which is awesome.

Side Quests: Especially more hidden ones. If you get every side quest from people you're going to encounter anyway, I'm not going to find any new ones on later playthroughs. In fact, I'm on my 4th playthrough of VtM: Bloodlines because I just realized there were half a dozen quests I had missed. Side Quests are especially awesome if they offer more info to the main story or are interesting in their own right. Generic SQs need not apply.

Multiple Endings: The Witcher. The Witcher did choices and their impact on further events right. And it was beautiful. Choices should really matter, and the ending should be different in more than just what a final boss says, exactly who you fight, and the final cutscene. I should have to do things differently if I sided with someone else, or I should fight with significantly different people if I saved/helped/killed them/others. Not a choice of a spearman or swordsman, a choice of a healer, mage, monster, or human.

Point is, if something's not going to be significantly different, it doesn't make a difference. Differences should have depth, not just the final cut scene or your final companion's name.

 

[shortylickens]

Replayability and long main quest. I HATE grinding. In this sense Baldurs Gate is FAR superior to Diablo. I dont give a fuck how many people love Diablo.

 

[Zenoth]

I have two views on grinding, one of which consists of hating it if it is forced on you, and not only that but also forced in a linear game context. The other view is that if grinding isn't forced, can be done by choice and isn't ultimately necessary and essential to complete a game, even if the game is linear, then I'm fine with it. And as for re-playability there's only two possibilities for my own tastes, the first being that it can only truly exist in a game that features a minimum or a lot of randomization (Diablo II, GTA III, Left 4 Dead, Elder Scrolls series, many RTS games, Borderlands and the likes), or can only be achieved in a linear game if the said game can be modified with either an official SDK or third-party tools (Elder Scrolls series, STALKER series, GoldSrc-based and Source-based games with the Hammer editor, or Unreal engines games for the most part, or Dragon Age Origins, and so on).

If these conditions (amongst a few others) aren't met then I will usually (with extremely rare exceptions) play a game one single time and never bother with it again. For me it's the re-playability that's the most important, because grinding is just an extra (or should be, in my opinion) and even if it's not forced upon the player it shouldn't be part of the recipe for a game that successfully achieves a status of "always being re-playable", two good examples in recent years for me are both Mass Effect games, they're both extremely story-driven, linear (I don't count side-quest and Mako or Hammerhead exploration missions being part of any form of randomization, they're just there to help immerse ourselves to the scale of the virtual universe and some of those missions do help advance side-stories as well and some of them also have repercussions in the sequel, that is linearity done right) and present no forms of grinding, but I've re-played both of them at least five times so far (from start to finish).

 

[MagickMan]

Strangely, one of the most replayable games I've encountered is Vampire: TM Bloodlines. If you played it the first time with anything but a Malkavian you're doing yourself a disservice if you don't play it again.

 

[Pia]

If I see grinding in a game, I'm likely to stop playing and never return. It's just bad design with no redeeming quality.

If you had to finish an easy/boring/repetitive game twice to see two endings, with the only difference between the playthroughs being a simple choice at the end, I'd say that's a mockery of "replayability". There is no new "play" going on, so the game essentially contains a mini-grind in which content (the ending) is held hostage.

In a game which is genuinely replayable - due to being deep, challenging, or offering significantly different playthroughs via player choice or randomness - such a choice at the end is not a problem, as a player digging the game is going to reach the end several times anyway and will eventually see the endings without grinding for them. Then the choice is just a little reward, flavor, amusement, a pat on the back before the credits scroll.

 

[Aikouka]

I guess I can't complain about grinds since I've been playing WoW for 5+ years. I also can actually have fun in Borderlands .

CT had multiple endings? Awww man, now I have to go play it again. (Actually, that's not a bad idea).

About 8 if I remember correctly... and most of them would require a New Game+ to do easily.

 

[RaistlinZ]

I don't mind grinding in MMORPG's, since there is the online community to chat with and keep me company while I'm doing said grinding.

I HATE grinding in linear single-player games when it's forced upon you. It turns what should be a fun game into a chore just so you can progress to the more interesting parts of the game.

I LOVE open ended games where I can roam around freely and have good replay value (Oblivion, Fallout 3, Grand Theft Auto series, etc.) Replay value is very important IMO, otherwise why buy a game at all? Why not just rent it? I don't want to spend $50.00 for 15 hours of entertainment only to never play the game again.

 

[coloumb]

Hmm...I don't know what you're referring to "Grinding" in a single player game - I can't recall any single player games which had an MMO grind requirement. Single player games are pretty good at telling a story and progressing it so you don't have to go "kill 10 lambs and I'll reward you with a nice cotton shirt".

Or is this more about replaying the game and "grinding" to get to various plot points that change depending upon your decision and/or what character or character class you choose to play?

If a game has impressed me enough the first time through and had multiple plot paths with multiple endings - then I might go back and replay through it again. If the game really wasn't interesting, I'll just watch the movie file [most games today use movies for endings] or fire up youtube and search for the ending.

However, most of the time I will save the game before a plot choice and then watch the different outcomes of my choice. I did this in ME2 - without having to replay through the entire game, I was able to see various outcomes of my decisions.

As with others - once I've completed a game - it usually ends up in the delete pile or gets resold/given to someone else to enjoy.

 

[MJinZ]

Hmm...I don't know what you're referring to "Grinding" in a single player game - I can't recall any single player games which had an MMO grind requirement. Single player games are pretty good at telling a story and progressing it so you don't have to go "kill 10 lambs and I'll reward you with a nice cotton shirt".

Or is this more about replaying the game and "grinding" to get to various plot points that change depending upon your decision and/or what character or character class you choose to play?

If a game has impressed me enough the first time through and had multiple plot paths with multiple endings - then I might go back and replay through it again. If the game really wasn't interesting, I'll just watch the movie file [most games today use movies for endings] or fire up youtube and search for the ending.

However, most of the time I will save the game before a plot choice and then watch the different outcomes of my choice. I did this in ME2 - without having to replay through the entire game, I was able to see various outcomes of my decisions.

As with others - once I've completed a game - it usually ends up in the delete pile or gets resold/given to someone else to enjoy.

Final Fantasy 13 has segments where you basically have to grind to proceed.

 

[KIAman]

I guess I should have asked a different question. How long should a non-online single player game last? 12 hours? 16 hours? How long is that $50 worth?

 

[AstroManLuca]

The only kind of grinding I can put up with is the kind where you have to do side quests in order to level up. Borderlands (got it during the Steam sale) is like this. It's still sort of grinding but it's not the same kind you see in a lot of games.

Typical grind game: "Oh, you're not high enough level to continue yet? Go run around in the overworld and kill a bunch of random enemies as they pop up. Repeat for several hours until you have leveled up enough."

Borderlands: "Hmm, this quest is way beyond your abilities right now. Do all these side quests and you'll level up naturally."

Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2 are also sort of like this. It would probably be pretty hard to do the entire main quest while skipping all the side quests because you wouldn't get enough XP, but if you just take side quests and actually do them, it'll give you enough experience to do everything. Sure, a lot of the side quests in those games are pretty simplistic (fetch quests and the like), but at least you get some guidance.

 

[AyashiKaibutsu]

The only kind of grinding I can put up with is the kind where you have to do side quests in order to level up. Borderlands (got it during the Steam sale) is like this. It's still sort of grinding but it's not the same kind you see in a lot of games.

Typical grind game: "Oh, you're not high enough level to continue yet? Go run around in the overworld and kill a bunch of random enemies as they pop up. Repeat for several hours until you have leveled up enough."

Borderlands: "Hmm, this quest is way beyond your abilities right now. Do all these side quests and you'll level up naturally."

Fallout 3 and Mass Effect 1 and 2 are also sort of like this. It would probably be pretty hard to do the entire main quest while skipping all the side quests because you wouldn't get enough XP, but if you just take side quests and actually do them, it'll give you enough experience to do everything. Sure, a lot of the side quests in those games are pretty simplistic (fetch quests and the like), but at least you get some guidance.

Borderlands went too far into grinding for me. All the "side quests" are just go here and kill/collect x number of things. I can beat FF6 without grinding as long as I do the all the side quests, but FF6 side quests involved retrieving characters/furthering character development with a lot of story tied in. Borderlands is just a bit of text and an assignment to kill 10 dogs in x location.

 

[zebano]

I guess I should have asked a different question. How long should a non-online single player game last? 12 hours? 16 hours? How long is that $50 worth?

As long as it takes to tell the story well. That said if it's 5 hours for $50 I'd be pissed. I expect 12 hours as a minimum but I don't pay full price for games anymore since I"m perfectly content to wait a year and get them at massive discounts.

 

[kalrith]

I only like grinding if it's in addition to the main story line rather than required for it. An example would be all the extras like ultimate weapons in the Final Fantasy games. Replayability for me are in games like Diablo 2 or Oblivion where playing different classes makes a major difference in how the games are played.

 

[coloumb]

So it seems RPG's are basically the only types of games which "require" you to run the extra areas/missions/quests? I personally don't see that as grinding - I enjoy searching for everything I can do in an RPG game.

As for what $50 should buy you with regards to game time? I've never really thought of it like that - I'm more concerned about the quality of the game vs price. RPG's, strategy games, city building games, adventures, etc will of course take long to finish due to game mechanics where as FPS games will take less time.