Replayability (Full Version)

All Forums >> [General] >> General Discussion



Message

sIg3b -> Replayability (6/23/2016 5:00:00 PM)

Thesis: Replayability is *THE* criterion of a classic.

Question: What is needed for a Computer Wargame to be extremely replayable?



lecrop -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:02:40 PM)

Extreme randomization



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:15:36 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: lecrop

Extreme randomization


Nah; some randomization may help, but too much of it reduces the challenge.

If everything that happens is random, whatīs the point?



MrsWargamer -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:16:46 PM)

Inability to be the same game twice even when forced on the game.

Example Commander Europe at War or Tigers on the Hunt. Too many randoms per turn to actually get the same game twice even if you try and do the same things twice forcibly.

Each roll of the virtual dice have too many variations and each turn is so many of these potential variations.

It doesn't mean you will like the game, but you can certainly play it over and over differently.

That's the definition of replayable.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:26:46 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Inability to be the same game twice even when forced on the game.

Example Commander Europe at War or Tigers on the Hunt. Too many randoms per turn to actually get the same game twice even if you try and do the same things twice forcibly.

Each roll of the virtual dice have too many variations and each turn is so many of these potential variations.

It doesn't mean you will like the game, but you can certainly play it over and over differently.

That's the definition of replayable.


Oh, sorry.

Your definition is viable, but I meant by "replayable" a game you WANT to replay countless times -a game that gets better with every new start rather than worse.

I should probably have said so.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:32:22 PM)

[image]https://4.bp.blogspot.com/-TE-ccZUtth0/V0JS5K23rSI/AAAAAAAAgHA/TT6udpSu5-08nMsDpWnUBepkpEpKl_I3gCLcB/s400/naddeath.PNG[/image]

If your answer is no, this means the game is not very replayable.



chemkid -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:36:20 PM)

.



Kuokkanen -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:44:31 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

Thesis: Replayability is *THE* criterion of a classic.

Question: What is needed for a Computer Wargame to be extremely replayable?


Lots of content = many scenarios and campaigns
Some randomization = dynamic campaigns and scenario generator
Easy to make user content = map & scenario editors, new units & orders of battle
Good gameplay

What games fill those criterias? At least every game in Steel Panthers series [8D]



wings7 -> RE: Replayability (6/23/2016 5:52:56 PM)

Must definitely have a editor (map, OOB, script, mods) for endless campaign and scenario creation. [:)]



MrsWargamer -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 1:14:52 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Inability to be the same game twice even when forced on the game.

Example Commander Europe at War or Tigers on the Hunt. Too many randoms per turn to actually get the same game twice even if you try and do the same things twice forcibly.

Each roll of the virtual dice have too many variations and each turn is so many of these potential variations.

It doesn't mean you will like the game, but you can certainly play it over and over differently.

That's the definition of replayable.


Oh, sorry.

Your definition is viable, but I meant by "replayable" a game you WANT to replay countless times -a game that gets better with every new start rather than worse.

I should probably have said so.


I'm trying to find out where you actually refuted my premise.

I own basically all the WW2 titles from Slitherine/Matrix Games, even some that are hardly what I call polished. They're still replayable. I wouldn't own them if they weren't. It's why I don't own console games measured in increments of 10s of hours to complete. If I'm paying 50-70 bucks for a game, I better be dead before I run out of replays.

If I were to consider Tigers on the Hunt the number 1 slot choice on the list, it is likely my number 50 title on the list might be a very good game, but generally speaking, you can only play one game at a time. So it might hardly ever get played all because you can only do one thing at a time. Doesn't make it not replayable though.



MrsWargamer -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 1:16:05 AM)

I think Advanced Tactics for instance is one of the most variable games ever made.

But it doesn't usually enter the top 5 status for me



jamus34 -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 2:55:30 AM)

For a game in general? I think first and foremost it needs to be "fun".

I've put hours upon hours into games I've had no right doing because I've enjoyed them. And there are ones that I pick up for 5 min and never load it again.

Looking at it from a wargame aspect it gets tougher...especially if you only consider SP. If it's a historical sim (WIT series, DC series, etc) then really all you can do is either add content (such as scenarios for say the PanzerCorp series) or create alternate AI paths for the game to utilize. MP makes these types of games almost infinitely "replayable".

For a more grand strategy game (DW:U, Paradox games, to a lesser extent Sid Maier games) then really they need to be fun and capture your attention. Right now I am ears deep in HOI4...because i wanted to try something ahistorical (take a run on USSR with Japan) I failed in glorious fashion tonight...but tomorrow I will load it up and try something else.

I've had AT for years and their UI would give me fits. I think it's a damn good game...but I would constantly make errors fighting with the UI so I quickly lost interest. Maybe it's time to try it again.



GaryChildress -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 9:00:35 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: wings7

Must definitely have a editor (map, OOB, script, mods) for endless campaign and scenario creation. [:)]


+1 Moddability is an enormous key to a lasting and successful game. However, sometimes editors can be not so player friendly and I have seen games where I lost interest just because modding required just too much of an investment in time, software and or ingenuity. It's best when even an average player is able to mod a game.



Zap -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 9:48:27 AM)

Surprised, I did not see it mentioned in the responses so far. Live opponent or Pbem opponent. Add that to the mix of reasons a game is replayable.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 1:01:37 PM)

An AI worth playing against. Random Maps and a buy point system for different challenges from 1000 to 5000 buy points.

My replayable game would be Steel Panthers save for the AI. Great random maps and buy point system though.

For me it has to be ever changing. Something I haven't seen before. Static scenario games just won't do anymore.



wings7 -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 2:01:33 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Surprised, I did not see it mentioned in the responses so far. Live opponent or Pbem opponent. Add that to the mix of reasons a game is replayable.


Good point!



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 4:31:34 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer


quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

quote:

ORIGINAL: MrsWargamer

Inability to be the same game twice even when forced on the game.

Example Commander Europe at War or Tigers on the Hunt. Too many randoms per turn to actually get the same game twice even if you try and do the same things twice forcibly.

Each roll of the virtual dice have too many variations and each turn is so many of these potential variations.

It doesn't mean you will like the game, but you can certainly play it over and over differently.

That's the definition of replayable.


Oh, sorry.

Your definition is viable, but I meant by "replayable" a game you WANT to replay countless times -a game that gets better with every new start rather than worse.

I should probably have said so.


I'm trying to find out where you actually refuted my premise.

I own basically all the WW2 titles from Slitherine/Matrix Games, even some that are hardly what I call polished. They're still replayable. I wouldn't own them if they weren't. It's why I don't own console games measured in increments of 10s of hours to complete. If I'm paying 50-70 bucks for a game, I better be dead before I run out of replays.

If I were to consider Tigers on the Hunt the number 1 slot choice on the list, it is likely my number 50 title on the list might be a very good game, but generally speaking, you can only play one game at a time. So it might hardly ever get played all because you can only do one thing at a time. Doesn't make it not replayable though.


I didnīt try to refute your premise. [:)]

Your premise is perfectly ok, but I wanted to clarify that I mean by "replayable" a game you both CAN and WANT to replay often. The variance you point out makes for the CAN, not necessarily for the want. But the mistake was mine, I should have given my definition of replayability at the outset.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 4:39:41 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: jamus34
For a game in general? I think first and foremost it needs to be "fun".


Absolutely.

However, fun is necessary, not sufficient.

Imagine an otherwise excellent game that has only one scenario (maybe a long one), only one difficulty level and little or no randomness.

Once you have won it there is no point in replaying. Like with most RPGs.



Orm -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 4:44:12 PM)

quote:

Like with most RPGs.

Yet some MMORPG games gets the player to do the same thing again, and again, and many times more.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 5:08:52 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Like with most RPGs.

Yet some MMORPG games gets the player to do the same thing again, and again, and many times more.


You mean they create an unhealthy addiction? [:'(]

I donīt play MMxs, they sorta bore me, since you canīt really win them. [>:]

I guess I donīt consider them replayable, since I donīt even find them playable. [:D]



Moltke71 -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 5:22:12 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Matti Kuokkanen

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

Thesis: Replayability is *THE* criterion of a classic.

Question: What is needed for a Computer Wargame to be extremely replayable?


Lots of content = many scenarios and campaigns
Some randomization = dynamic campaigns and scenario generator
Easy to make user content = map & scenario editors, new units & orders of battle
Good gameplay

What games fill those criterias? At least every game in Steel Panthers series [8D]


I agree with Matti but would add PBEM/'Net play and several levels of difficulty.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 5:35:35 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Bismarck
...several levels of difficulty.


Ideally many levels of difficulty, and the upper ones having names like "mean", "painful", "cruel", "destructive" and "devastating" and they should be just that.



Kuokkanen -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 5:41:01 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Tesuji

Imagine an otherwise excellent game that has only one scenario (maybe a long one), only one difficulty level and little or no randomness.

One game review about TOAW1 said that Korea scenario alone (comes with the demo) would qualify for a full priced game on its own right. Speaking about which, how many scenarios come with Korsun Pocket & sequels?

quote:

Once you have won it there is no point in replaying. Like with most RPGs.

Why the Hell not? One scenario with set units can be played 2nd time with the other side. Likewise many RPGs have number of character classes and thus given RPG can be played through multiple times with different characters/classes for different kind of experience.

For sake of clarification: RPG = Role-Playing Game



Moltke71 -> RE: Replayability (6/24/2016 5:45:29 PM)

+1 to Matti and Tesjui.



aaatoysandmore -> RE: Replayability (6/25/2016 3:52:46 AM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Orm

quote:

Like with most RPGs.

Yet some MMORPG games gets the player to do the same thing again, and again, and many times more.


Like RIFT does day to day and weeklies. It's the same ole boring mess but I can't stop. I want my new toy at the end of all the same ole same ole. At least it is different.



wodin -> RE: Replayability (6/25/2016 4:18:44 AM)

Immersion, be able to still throw up a surprise after hours of play, create tension and excitement again even after hours of play (game like football manager can do this..watching the match biting your nails can never get boring) an editor and also great mod support.



sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/25/2016 5:02:10 PM)

Modders, please donīt kill me now. [:)] I know moddability is a #1 priority for many and I do understand and respect that. But: I donīt think it qualifies as a *necessary* condition for replayability. I for one like to play with all factory settings, and I want my games to be replayable without the *need* to mod them.

Add to this that moddability is sometimes used as an excuse for bad balance and other unpleasantries in the game as delivered.



altipueri -> RE: Replayability (6/25/2016 10:17:12 PM)

Random scenario generator - e.g.:

Combat Mission
Civilization
Sid Meier's Gettysburg
Advanced Tactics
John Tiller Campaign Series








sIg3b -> RE: Replayability (6/26/2016 5:06:17 PM)

I would agree. Some sort of scenario generator is a must for me.

Scenarios shouldnīt be entirely random, though.

Ideally you get a random map *AND* a lot of choices to make for the setup (or leave to randomness if you wish).

Examples:
-CivIII+ -choose your Nation, mapscript, map size, # of opponents etc. etc.
-Master of Magic -best of all in this regard; choose magic books of one or more colours, special abilities, starting spells, starting race. Literally 1000s of possibilities, practically all are playable and need different tactics.
-Steel Panthers III/SPWAW -choose nationality, opponent, year/month, engagement type, force size, then buy your force. Buying system isnīt perfect, though. AI buys should be more varied and less predictable, player otoh should be somewhat limited to a halfway plausible force composition. (Usually many options are good, but sometimes they should be pruned to keep the game somewhat historical and, most importantly, balanced.)



Hattori Hanzo -> RE: Replayability (6/26/2016 6:07:24 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Zap

Surprised, I did not see it mentioned in the responses so far. Live opponent or Pbem opponent. Add that to the mix of reasons a game is replayable.


agree



Page: [1] 2   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.4.5 ANSI
1