Replayability has to do with the value of the game itself to revisit it. All games of any form can have it, but you are right that certain aspect of a game can contribute. Just from me perspective it looks too short sighted on what replayability is simply because of game content…
My point again, No Mans Sky has Poor Replayability - even though you said it has Infinite Replayability.
Infinite Replayability is not a solution to a problem, but it is indeed a development aspect that effect player retention - that falls on value.
EDIT: Reminder that No Mans Sky failed due to being bland more than not meeting up to expectations. It has much replayability has DayZ. Yet you see a big difference.
I’ve only watched No Man’s Sky on youtube, I’ve never played it. The fact that it has procedural planets, animals, etc should theoretically make it have infinite replayability, but it still failed. I have it under infinite replayability because its a great example of procedural gameplay.
It would be great if you highlighted when and where to use “infinite replayability” mechanics. Game modes would be an example of “Infinite Replayability” because a new mode starts all the time. Being so broad as to call a game with procedural generation “infinite.” There is pros and cons to using it, both on the game and the developers creating it due to time and money.
It is not a one size fits all solution - and I think it’s something you should highlight here about issues to avoid, what’s appropriate, and what’s not in most cases.
There is no theoretical way to make a game infinite or the replayability unless a 0.1 value difference for another new planets size is the only thng making you determine that games value for replayability.
correction sir minecraft does not have replayability explain why everyone who owns a copy of minecraft says “i played it for a while but i stopped cause it got boring”
smh cause they grew out of it, and this isnt about whether the games are good or not, its more so about creating infinite replayability, which is only theoretical since no one is ever gonna play it forever
Soccer and chess are hard ones. However, some of what I wrote can actually apply to those. Soccer and chess have replayability due to them never being the same game (gameplay variation). Soccer games are never the same game twice, and chess is near impossible for a game to repeat move for move. This makes different scenarios that the player has to react to and adapt to in order to win. They also have player to player interaction (except for computer chess) which means you come across people with different skill levels that change the gameplay and difficulty. Leaderboards and competition are apparent here as well, where teams compete for trophies. There are also plenty of external things effecting replayability of sports, like gambling, etc.
While having infinite replayability is a huge strength for a game, I think that a lot of times it might be even better for a game to be short and memorable.
For example:
I have way more hours in Terraria (an open sand box game)
than Wuppo (a linear platformer)
but i love Wuppo way more because of the “one time” nature of it. It makes the game feel special and allows it to have rich story elements, something that’s harder to do in a game that you’re expecting to be played again and again.
Sure, if the main focus of your game’s development is to make money, then you’ll definitely want infinite replayability, but if you want to create a memorable experience, infinite replayability is kinda a hindrance.
I believe your reply here is more inline with the title “Achieving Infinite Replayability”. I really like the concept of your article and many of the great insights you shared. Thanks for taking the time to put it all together!
If you are looking to improve the main article, I would suggest that infinite world mechanics are not equal to infinite replayability. I think that style of world/game design one might choose in hopes of achieving infinite replayablitiy, but it no more defines replayablity than having witty NPC characters and narration; beautiful graphics can also make (or break) a game’s infinitely replayable, imo. It’s a good article, because it invites thought, opinions, analysis, and most important, better game design. I look forward to seeing how you refine this.
Bad tycoons have limited/no replayability. Good tycoons, like Roller Coaster Tycoon, don’t. The problem is current tycoons do not have scenarios or variables that make replaying it interesting, or they lack rewarding the player for learning how the game works.
I really love that you’ve created this thread I wanted to reply but at the same time I wanted a topic to start on my new blog, so I thought… Hey I’ll post this there so even developers outside of the Dev forums can see!
I’d like to point something out from my personal experience, it doesn’t truly matter if the game-play itself isn’t linear, in place of that can be a skill curve - take games like bhop by @Quaternions.
This seems backwards. Minecraft and terraria are so replayable because each playthrough is unique. It has nothing to do with their progression systems. AR and PF are highly replayable for the same reasons. Progression systems are inherently not replayable. Once you’ve bought a car in Jailbreak you can’t buy it again, for example. You have to start working toward another car, and eventually that content stream will run out.
The key to replayable content is to design a content stream that doesn’t run out. Roblox does this with UGC games. Skyrim does this with mods. Minecraft does this with a good procedural world generator. Youtube does this with UGC videos. Google does this with UGC everything. This is why these games and platforms have existed and remained popular for over a decade. Games with limited content streams (undertale, half life, pokemon, 2048, flappy bird) fade into obscurity once the content runs out.
I wanted to reply but at the same time I wanted a topic to start on my new blog, so I thought… Hey I’ll post this there so even developers outside of the Dev forums can see!