[Erkki]

Often used is the argument that games are more replayable if they are non-linear. I have thought this way too, but when I start thinking what games I have actually replayed, it seems to be ... THE OPPOSITE.

Recently replayed games, all completely and utterly linear:

Max Payne (a year between plays, second time with Kung-Fu mod)
Max Payne 2 (3 times in a row)
Prince of Persia: Sands of Time (2.5 times almost in a row)
Splinter Cell (1.9 times in a row, then got bored)
etc.
Also most of the old LucasArts (and other) adventures.

Non-linear not (yet?) replayed:

Thief 2
Baldur's Gate series
Fallout 2
Deus Ex
Grand Theft Auto 3, Vice City
etc.
(I've tried to start but have quit near the beginning)

Non-linear, but replayed:

Outcast (many times)
GTA 1 (was involved in the modding community)
(those seem to be the only exceptions)

-----------------------------------

The conclusion (for me at least) seems to be:
games are replayable when they are short (full stop).

[mag]

Well, you can replay any game. That's not really what they mean when they talk about replayability. They're referring more to things that you can do that are new or different when you play again. Just because you happen to replay linear games more often doesn't make them more "replayable." I too tend to prefer linear games, but even they wouldn't exactly be hurt by adding a little more replay value.

mag

[Ninja Dodo]

I agree with mag that the fact that you replay linear games more often does not make them more replayable. As you point out yourself, the only real pattern is that short games are more replayable, simply because they don't take such an insane amount of time to complete. People simply don't have time to replay 50-hour epics, which is why I think games should be shorter on average.

What would be interesting to see though, is a relatively short non-linear game. I would love to play that.

i find that games that are two linear are not that fun, i tryed getting into marrowind and i did'nt like it becuase there was no direction in the game. that is the same with the GTA series, it was fun at first but the story line was to linear and i could do anything i wanted aslong as i complated the mission. i never felt a drive to keep going

[ysbreker]

I sometimes fire up gta:VC just to drive around town for a bit and fool around, doing weird stunts or trying to get as many cops after me as possible and still stay alive, stuff like that. next to that I think I finished it 3 times or something...

[Jake]

The fact that GTA 3 and VC are in fact about 40 games in one is what makes them replayable for me. Like you said ys, you can drive around and go flying off a cliff, or enter a race, or accept one of the many many funky side missions like the vigilante cop missions in GTA3...

[Wormsie]

Originally Posted by mag

Well, you can replay any game. That's not really what they mean when they talk about replayability. They're referring more to things that you can do that are new or different when you play again. Just because you happen to replay linear games more often doesn't make them more "replayable." I too tend to prefer linear games, but even they wouldn't exactly be hurt by adding a little more replay value.

And that makes absolutely no sense, making replayability mean something else than what it would suggest. This world is a strange place.

[remixor]

Originally Posted by guybrush_guy

i find that games that are two linear are not that fun, i tryed getting into marrowind and i did'nt like it becuase there was no direction in the game. that is the same with the GTA series, it was fun at first but the story line was to linear and i could do anything i wanted aslong as i complated the mission. i never felt a drive to keep going

I think you mean you find that games that are too NON-linear are not that fun.

[Moron Lite]

The idea that more linearity = less replayability is just a stupid dogma coming from folks who are reacting to BAD (or badly) linear games. In the struggle to understand games, people often jump to rash conclusions. This is one of them. (We all do it at one point or another, though.)

[remixor]

Originally Posted by Moron Lite

The idea that more linearity = less replayability is just a stupid dogma coming from folks who are reacting to BAD (or badly) linear games. In the struggle to understand games, people often jump to rash conclusions. This is one of them.

Well, not necessarily. Some people simply value the "freshness" of a game, and don't enjoy playing it again if they already know things are going to happen a certain way. This might be true even if the game is excellent. I'm not saying it applies to you, or any other specific person, but it's definitely a viable mentality.

[Moron Lite]

I just don't think that anyone could non-arbitrarily fail to "enjoy playing [a game] again if they already know things are going to happen a certain way," or because they "value the "freshness" of a game," unless they also happen to feel this way about all other forms of entertainment, such as books and movies. There is no essential feature of games that is somehow going to make a person care more about freshness or not knowing what happens next for games than he will for movies and other truly linear media. And, regardless, the proportion of people that actually value freshness or not knowing what happens next to the point where they just won't experience a game or book or movie over again, even if it's excellent, is going to be very, very small, which defeats the whole point of the argument behind "more linearity = less replayability".

There are a bunch of factors that go into how replayable a game is, and there's no way you can simply take an abstract feature like 'linearity' and thereby say something about the game's replayability. The actual content, and how the linearity is used is far more determinative than the simple property of being 'linear' when it comes to replayability.

[AGA]

Deus Ex is linear, but it sort of fools you into thinking it isn't. You can explore each area quite a lot, but you can only explore that area as long as you're on that particular mission (mostly anyway, there are a few places like Hell's Kitchen and UNATCO that you revisit). The game's story means you can only visit each mission-area once though.

[Jackal]

I'd think replayability should refer to any game that inspires you to play it again. A short, linear game that's a blast to play and motivates a replay is certainly more replayable than a lousy game of any nature.

I think the standard here is design. (Doesn't EVERY discussion on this board come down to that word? ) In a non-linear game, replay factor is an intentional part of the design. By offering multiple options, paths, characters, etc., you're provided all the tools to replay the game again for a somewhat different experience. By making something too long or unfocused, though, developers can shoot that incentive in the foot. Linear games don't have replayability as one of its goals, but I'm sure developers still see it as a byproduct of a quality game.

I disagree with ML about the cross-media thing. I don't replay games, but I do watch movies again and even re-read some books. I'd say that "essential feature" is a game's interactivity. Passive entertainment tends to be far far richer in terms of narrative, which can be enjoyed on multiple levels, though the basic premise is only new the first time. The goal of interactive entertainment is to put the gamer in the driver seat to compel the story forward. Much more of a give-and-take relationship. The narrative is shallow (relative to other media), and there simply isn't enough NEW to motivate me to invest myself in it again.

The question, then, is why the hell I once sank so many quarters into Pac-Man... Ha!! Nah, THAT kind of design is another beast entirely.

[Moron Lite]

Originally Posted by Singer

I disagree with ML about the cross-media thing. I don't replay games, but I do watch movies again and even re-read some books. I'd say that "essential feature" is a game's interactivity. Passive entertainment tends to be far far richer in terms of narrative, which can be enjoyed on multiple levels, though the basic premise is only new the first time. The goal of interactive entertainment is to put the gamer in the driver seat to compel the story forward. Much more of a give-and-take relationship. The narrative is shallow (relative to other media), and there simply isn't enough NEW to motivate me to invest myself in it again.

See, while interactivity is an essential feature of games, 'shallow' narratives are absolutely not. In fact, I can point to a bunch of games off the top of my head that have *much* richer narratives than many movies I've seen (The Last Express, Wing Commander 2, 3, 4, Grim Fandango, System Shock 1, 2, Metal Gear Solid, tons more). Also, if you don't think that a game narrative can be enjoyed on multiple levels, a la "passive entertainment", you aren't trying hard enough. I.e. you may be treating game narratives more 'passively' than you do 'passive' entertainment.

[Jackal]

Seems I wasn't very clear. I said... "tends to be". Certainly there are exceptions, but they are few and far between (I'd argue against "tons more"), and the rare ones that succeed at strong narrative are all (rightfully) highly regarded.

I certainly didn't say shallow narratives were an essential feature of games, or that a game narrative COULDN'T be enjoyed on multiple levels. It's just a generally weak area to date that has plenty of room for improvement. Until it does, I doubt I'll be replaying any games, as it simply isn't worth it to me. I can see where it is for others, of course.

[Jake]

"Nonlinearity is God" is just a trend anyway.

[Phantom]

Originally Posted by Jake

"Nonlinearity is God" is just a trend anyway.

The real challenge is to find the perfect balance between non-linearity and a great storyline. Those 2 don't go together well and some of the best games ever have given up non-linearity completely in favor of a gripping story.

I think Fallout 1/2 is one of the best examples of a game that manages to have a LOT of non-linearity and yet have a compelling storyline.

[Erkki]

Originally Posted by Singer

By offering multiple options, paths, characters, etc., you're provided all the tools to replay the game again for a somewhat different experience. By making something too long or unfocused, though, developers can shoot that incentive in the foot.

I disagree with that.

Actually I really like non-linearity, but most of the non-linear games I've played are really long and I think I also play them even slower than the average gamer. So no matter how much I'd theoretically like to replay them (or only parts of them), I just won't ever find the time or interest, except in a few rare cases.

But I really like the fact that the games do give me choices. This way they provide a "personalised" experience for me, and I don't feel like I'm being led on a leash through the game. So I don't think that incentive is wasted, but I do think that it doesn't really help replayability in most cases (and by replayability I mean the likeliness that individual people will play it more than once, not a design paradigma).

[Moron Lite]

Originally Posted by Singer

Seems I wasn't very clear. I said... "tends to be". Certainly there are exceptions, but they are few and far between (I'd argue against "tons more"), and the rare ones that succeed at strong narrative are all (rightfully) highly regarded.

I certainly didn't say shallow narratives were an essential feature of games, or that a game narrative COULDN'T be enjoyed on multiple levels. It's just a generally weak area to date that has plenty of room for improvement. Until it does, I doubt I'll be replaying any games, as it simply isn't worth it to me. I can see where it is for others, of course.

Right. And I wasn't misinterpreting you--I was just bringing out conclusions that someone else could plausibly bring out of your discussion. The thing is, what you're saying here really doesn't bear on the "more linearity = less replayable" argument, or at least what I take that argument to be, which is actually about essential features of the medium of games, and not mere circumstance.

Addressing your other point, though, re: design and replay factor, I don't think that non-linear design automatically indicates an intention to promote replay. Non-linear design can be just as much about making the player feel that he *really* has a choice to make, and not just a superficial presentation of choice. And someone who makes a linear game could easily intend to make his game so good that people would want to replay it over and over again.

[Jackal]

Erkki, ML, yes, quite true. Good points. Non-linearity can serve a benefit of its own even in a single playthrough. I never replay games, but I love choice!! I was referring solely to its benefit on replayability.