For me, there are many many things that can factor into making a game replayable (and by replayable I mean 'making me want to play the game several more times', not just once more to see what I missed the first time, and then once again 5 years later because the urge hit me)

 

In no particular order These things are:

 

1) Meaningful build choices - And no, I don't mean "oh cool, I can make a melee mage *or* a nuker mage". I mean REAL build choice. Where talents, attributes, and even weapon choices make playing my mage on a second playthrough feel totally different than it did the first time around.

 

2)Narrative depth- discussed on this thread already. The game would need to make it so that I'm seeing something significantly new when I make different choices than I did in my first playthrough

 

3)Combat depth - Combat should be robust enough, and deep enough and filled with enough meaningful choice on its own that I simply *can't* see everything it offers in a single playthrough (for clarification, THIS is what made BG2 so mind-blowingly replayable for me.)

 

4) Something to discover - Like an overpowered build. Or an underpowered build. Or, in a party based game, a significant level advancement/difficulty difference that alters gameplay depending on party size and party makeup.

 

5) meaningful Weapon diversity - sounds superficial, but it really isn't. I felt constant Urges to replay ToEE because the type of weapon your melee guys use makes a huge difference in how combat plays out (Reach weapons vs. Daggers, Fragarach vs. a Holy mace etc)

 

6) A meaningful spell system - another thing that made BG2 so replayable. There were hundreds and hundreds of spells. And discovering the various combinations, making the best use of the dozens of different status effects can, by itself, justify repeated playthroughs.

 

 

7) Exploration - As a rule of thumb for me, the more linear and constricted a game is, the less it will lend itself to replays. Therefore, if you give me a game that's more open ended, and where going off the beaten path will actually *matter* in the long run, it will probably result in me wanting to replay the game.

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by Stun

 

Also, that's not what Josh said. Josh said his goal is "no bad builds." That is not the same thing at all as "no bad way to play."

Amen.  I have only wiped in the beta from the cheese ball encounters with the bugged guys that can one shot you when I either A: didn't know they were there yet.  Or B: my lock down tactics just had bad luck and RNG decided they all grazed or got resisted.  That said it is because I understand the underlying system of the game and I know how to play to my parties strengths.  If I were just zerging it all I would have wiped more times than I care to imagine.

 

As for Indira's OP I agree with your core reasons for replaying though not how they apply to the IE games.  In all honesty I find the combat highly repetitive in all of them, nor do you ever "have" to use different tactics.  The same basic strategy used to kill 5 goblins is just as effective against 5 plate armor wearing mercenaries.  The same plan to kill one mage is normally just as effective against every other mage.  Additionally, call me old fashioned, but when I read "character development" I don't think "leveling up, stat choices, talent points, skill selection, blah blah" I think about how their story and personality develop over the course of the game.  Something the IE games were very hit or miss on.  Some NPC's were great like how Jaheira developed from BG1 through the end of BG2: ToB.  Others made me want to punch someone in the face.... like Aerie.

 

For me there are three reasons I primarily replay a game.

 

1: I really liked the story/plot and want to experience it again, irregardless of it's linearity or lack thereof.

2: The plot had branching elements and it is impossible to see it all in one go and I want to see what else was there.

3: Tons of room of character build options and I just want to experiment with something else.

4: The gameplay, it is simply fun to play the game regardless of it's story or character/build elements.

 

To me most of the IE games only really hit on 1 maybe 2 of those points depending on the game.  So I can't say I have replayed them tons, cause I haven't, maybe 3 times for BG1-2 and 2-3 times for NWN2, the rest I only beat once and never touched again.  Personally I am hoping Eternity can top that by having a story that really is not linear and has real branching options to it (NWN2 is the only IE game I feel like managed that on any level), has more fun gameplay than the IE games did, and a stronger story.

 

Thanks for sharing your views on this!

I reckon your more story-oriented preference, married with the goal of seeing character development in CRPGs as used in literature and film (for a great example, see the characters in Breaking Bad), sheds some light on where at least some of the differences between quest-xp-only folks and combat cp stem from. To use (a perhaps bad)Lord of the Rings analogy. I preferred the light-hearted, and more combat-oriented Gimli (even doing a body count competition with Legolas) over suffering Frodo (who actually did change, going from being a pretty happy hobbit to a slightly suicidal one, at least opting out on MIddle Earth) when I play CRPGs. To me party-based, combat-heavy CRPGs work best as slow food gourmet combat (as opposed to fast-food ARPGs) steeped in RPG fantasy.

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by IndiraLightfoot

For me, there are many many things that can factor into making a game replayable ....

 

 Very nice list Stun. I have replayed BG (1 and 2) more times than I can count and I think the reason is that (unlike IWD, for me) the story is engaging enough that I wanted to beat the game the first few times around and then there was enough variation in game play to keep me coming back. That is, when you play with a different build or different party you have a different experience.

 

 This is more true for BG2 but, even for BG1, in addition to 'normal' playthroughs (picking up NPC party members) I have also done everything from rolling (sometimes very OP) full parties to soloing the game with a bunch of different builds (some of them extremely under powered). Each time the game play is different.

 

(I also enjoyed playing through BG1 and 2 with the same character both for role play purposes and because the progression is interesting.) 

 

One BG2 game I particularly remember is the first time I played a paladin. I thought that I had exhausted any of the role play value of the game by then but, since the dialogs are mainly (A.) Lawful Good (C.) stupid Evil and (B.) none of the above, the paladin seemed especially in character with the good options and I found myself really thinking about what the character would do in a given situation.   

Edited September 1, 201411 yr by Yonjuro

I think the character development system would be better if there were boatloads of talents and players picked one every other level (a talent one level and then a character based special ability the other - to make leveling more exciting). One could even make the case for a talent every level. That way, there could be more build variety and, therefore, even greater replayability.

I think the character development system would be better if there were boatloads of talents and players picked one every other level (a talent one level and then a character based special ability the other - to make leveling more exciting). One could even make the case for a talent every level. That way, there could be more build variety and, therefore, even greater replayability.

Or, more realistically, you'd just get loads of bland and boring talents that do little for variety.

 

The more talents you have, the less time and innovation can go into each and the harder it becomes to balance the whole thing, so the talents become more simple and uninteresting.

The perks in Fallout were made over about a week (or was it a weekend?) and they were great. It doesnt take long to add this stuff.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Shevek

Thanks for sharing your views on this!

I reckon your more story-oriented preference, married with the goal of seeing character development in CRPGs as used in literature and film (for a great example, see the characters in Breaking Bad), sheds some light on where at least some of the differences between quest-xp-only folks and combat cp stem from. To use (a perhaps bad)Lord of the Rings analogy. I preferred the light-hearted, and more combat-oriented Gimli (even doing a body count competition with Legolas) over suffering Frodo (who actually did change, going from being a pretty happy hobbit to a slightly suicidal one, at least opting out on MIddle Earth) when I play CRPGs. To me party-based, combat-heavy CRPGs work best as slow food gourmet combat (as opposed to fast-food ARPGs) steeped in RPG fantasy.

I love that you mention Frodo because he and Sam are classic examples of good character development.  Frodo starts out happy about life, adventurous, maybe a little sly but honest and forthright....  By the end though he is basically a walking shell, withdrawn, anti social, and just wants to leave life behind and move on with the elves to wherever it is they go.  At the critical moment when it was all on the line he even fails and actually gives in to the ring. 

 

Sam on the other hand started out as a good natured but maybe a little naive gardener who was just along for the ride and had no clue what was really going on.  At the end of it all though he found his courage, even though they fail to show it in the movie he resists the rings influence at one point, becomes pretty smart himself, and in many ways is the real hero of the group.  Once again in the sadly cut part of the book it is Sam who organizes and leads the shire in rebellion against Sauruman who took over after his defeat at Helm's Deep.  In my opinion it is Sam who is the real protagonist of LotR not Frodo.

Karkarov: That has always been my opinion as well, and we have to give Jackson cred for picking up much of that, though, in his screen-adapted trilogy.

I love that you mention Frodo because he and Sam are classic examples of good character development.  Frodo starts out happy about life, adventurous, maybe a little sly but honest and forthright....  By the end though he is basically a walking shell, withdrawn, anti social, and just wants to leave life behind and move on with the elves to wherever it is they go.  At the critical moment when it was all on the line he even fails and actually gives in to the ring. 

 

Sam on the other hand started out as a good natured but maybe a little naive gardener who was just along for the ride and had no clue what was really going on.  At the end of it all though he found his courage, even though they fail to show it in the movie he resists the rings influence at one point, becomes pretty smart himself, and in many ways is the real hero of the group.  Once again in the sadly cut part of the book it is Sam who organizes and leads the shire in rebellion against Sauruman who took over after his defeat at Helm's Deep.  In my opinion it is Sam who is the real protagonist of LotR not Frodo.

 

 

I hate to drag the thread further OT, but oh well.

 

Frodo and Sam's story is also one of the best and most sympathetic depictions of two friends who go off to war together and come back to their silly little soft homeland as veterans and have to face the next battle, reintegration. And Frodo just can't do it, because his wounds never really heal(and civvies are goofy). The most personally meaningful part of the books, for me. Tolkien never could have written it if he hadn't been in the trenches, and at the Somme.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Panteleimon

Yep, storytyme versus gameplay is the eternal dilemma. Maybe you can have both equally good (in fact I know you can) but let's not pretend one is more important than the other. Storytyme without compelling gameplay in a CRPG means you're left with a suboptimal platform for a.... book.

 

As currently constituted (i.e. a Beta) PoE (for me) is lacking gameplay in a big way. This is underpinned by core mechanics, not bugs. If I knew it was going to be like this I wouldn't have backed it.

 

Nonetheless, it's early days, maybe it will polish up nicely. It's too late not to be a little optimistic.

Yep, storytyme versus gameplay is the eternal dilemma. Maybe you can have both equally good (in fact I know you can) but let's not pretend one is more important than the other. Storytyme without compelling gameplay in a CRPG means you're left with a suboptimal platform for a.... book.

 

 

That's something of the Holy Grail for CRPGs. While I enjoyed PST immensely for its story, the rest of it was pretty horrific, and that remainder was no less than gameplay.

Personally, I'll have to hold up MotB as one of the CRPGs that I've played that balanced both the best. If you start that game head-on (skipping the OC), spend a fun hour in the lobby building your character, and then set out on a very cool adventure (at least if you enjoy the Forgotten Realms setting, with its lore, pantheons and history), you'll have those two sides covered pretty decently, methinks.

I agree. MotB pretty much nails it, as does FO:NV.

F:NV is fantastic. In my dreams, when I backed PoE, I had this vague hope of getting something like MotB meets F:NV (factions, freedom, coolness), with party-based combat difficulty and strategy inspired by IWD2. So, yeah, like you, I still have to keep my hopes up.

Also impressed by FO:NV although I've yet to finish it, I always get sidetracked and forget about Mr. House and his pressing concerns. It is a really cool game, with perhaps the best-executed "living" gameworld yet. As to MotB, minor niggles like the wonky camera aside, my only problem with it is that it's epic-level DnD. The pyrotechnics are way over the top, it's just a little bit silly to find a +7 scythe at a village vendor's and mounds of earth with Boots of Hardiness and what have you all over the place. It would have been sooooo much more enjoyable in the DnD sweet spot, say between levels 5 and 18. Getting that first ninth-level spell is awesome, but they kind of lose the magic when you have three guys in the party with a full battery of them.

 

But everything else about it, yeah. Some of the best and most varied encounters in any DnD cRPG, really cool setting, really cool characters, really cool curse, the most horrifyingly cool evil playthrough, brilliant thematic coherence, brilliant atmosphere, the works. Don't know what a game would look like if it merged in FO:NV's factions, but I bet that would be pretty cool too. Although I'm sure something would be lost, too; a lot of MotB's greatness comes from the relatively tight narrative which would be a good deal harder to execute in FO:NV style.

 

But if anyone can do that, it's Obsidian. I think their vision of P:E is pretty close to what you're hoping for too; the only open question is how close they'll be able to get. Personally I'm already convinced this is going to be a great game. Whether it'll turn out great "but" or just plain great remains to be seen. Getting a bit impatient about the next beta build here too; keen to see how the combat is shaping up. I'm fairly certain they'll get that at least sorted to a reasonable level; whether they'll manage to add enough pizzazz and variety to the classes is another matter. (As to the UI, if something has to be deprioritized I'd rather have it be that; if the combat is fun and the classes are varied, I can deal with a somewhat clunky UI. It's not so bad even now that it wants to make me tear out my hair, which is already better than some.)

Hmm, well I guess I should get down off my silent, irradiated high horse, since I've only ever, uh ... played New Vegas ... for three or four hours on ... Xbox 360. Not that I was complaining before, I just kept it to myself how little the game grabbed me. Hopefully on PC, the characters won't seem so floaty, and that wackadoodle bottlecap currency will make sense. 

PJ: Already, the obsids have most likely done a fab job at creating a pretty huge setting, a great story with plenty of branches and factions. Also, their bestiary seems better than expected. If they get the pacing of the game right, as well as the gameplay (which, let's face it, will be combat-heavy), it would be one big step towards greatness. And, for replayability, they need to give us as much character tinkering options as possible, also within classes. I still think they can turn this into a CRPG gem.

 

ManifestedISO: It actually gets better after you get a few more skills in, and have about 5-10 hours into the game. I wasn't overly impressed by it at the beginning (well, the same goes for NWN2 vanilla, as well). Also - a wild guess here - you have your location listed as San Diego in California. Perhaps that climate isn't that exotic to you, and obviously, nor is Americana. I wonder if F:NV is more popular across the pond, over in Europe.

"Wackadoodle bottlecap currency?"

@IndiraLightfoot re the classes, I'm not hugely worried about even that. All the classes work right now, relatively simple balancing issues aside. They are committed to the expansion and want to make a sequel, which means they'll be supporting this for a while. Adding depth to the classes is a pretty simple thing to do post-release, and if they keep a brisk schedule about it we'll see them get better even as we explore them.

The perks in Fallout were made over about a week (or was it a weekend?) and they were great. It doesnt take long to add this stuff.

And the vast majority of them are just simple +x of y type stuff.

In my experience I have found that story is the weakest reason for replaying a game. It's never that different when you chose to replay it.

 

The best reason to replay is gameplay, ie. trying out different classes and trying to find the best way to play a game. Sadly it seems that these things have been deemed degenerate...

I fully agree. Story can be good two or three times, but after that it usually becomes repetitive. Even DA, which had lots of different endings and the best storytelling so far, had problems after two runs, because, imho, gameplay was a bit lacking. I simply couldnt stand to grind through so much combat to get to the end.

Objection! DA did not have good storytelling. 

 

Well, not much, anyway. 

 

The dwarven noble origin was good, I admit, as were a couple of the Orzammar quests. The rest was dullsville.

DA: The origins were almost the best stuff, true. Some stuff in the deep and ancient dwarven halls were pretty cool, but lots of it was so linear that you got almost see the line when you played the game, like that spell in Skyrim or using that key in Dead Space.

 

The perks in Fallout were made over about a week (or was it a weekend?) and they were great. It doesnt take long to add this stuff.

And the vast majority of them are just simple +x of y type stuff.

You say that like its a bad thing.

Edited September 2, 201411 yr by Shevek

I can't concur about Fallout NV.  It wasn't a bad game, but it was a bug ridden mess, the Legion was almost a moustache twisting silly villain they were so over the top evil, House was just how to put it.... off his rocker and cliche, and the Enclave/Steel Brotherhood had very minor parts to play.  I liked the handling of the NCR at least.  Also I don't care for the post apocalyptic setting, it is tiring to look at and play through.  You can be post Apocalyptic and not be a desert or a burned out city with no vegetation/life in it.

 

The Last of Us did this quite well but.... oh god console game must be crap .

New Vegas is one of my most replayed games. I think partly that is because it is a fairly recent game that really tried going back to the whole "you have a lot of freedom, not just in terms of where you go but in terms of quests and who you want to attack/support". NV is one of those games where, every time I replay it, I'm like "hm, what should my character's motivations be this time?". It has encouraged me to create all kinds of character concepts which is really what I enjoy the most in RPGs I think.

 

For me, a lot of the replayability in RPGs stem down to finding new content/solving things in a very different manner than on another playthrough. Finding that content that I missed on the first playthrough.

 

From the beta, it appears that PoE will at least have different solutions to quests which is nice. But I really hope those solutions will in turn present different situations thereafter. Also, since there is a faction system in place, I'm hopeful that will really encourage the player agency.