View Single Post

Default 

January 22nd, 2010, 18:43
I personally can't see replayability as a result of c&c. The difference of the sequence of events when replaying a game, following an alternative path, is usually limited to details - all events critical to the 'skeleton' that supports the story will remain unaltered anyway. That causes any consequences to be expected and extremely predictable (at best - at worst there will be no changes at all!). This makes sense if you consider that in order for any decision-making to be satisfying all potential consequences have to be expected by the time you're called to make your choice - ie. choosing between box 'a' or curtain '2' is the same as not being involved in any decision-making as the one and only deciding factor is chance.

It seems to me that getting around that, in order to provide true surprises the second time, effectively requires including a second plot for a second playthrough that should be completely unrelated to the first one. It might be a nice feature but I don't think it's worth the trouble.

As such I find that the games that really have replayability for me are the ones where I really enjoy their non-story related elements… such as combat for example - if I like the combat enough I'll play the game again even if it's a complete railroad… and since combat is rarely soooo good in RPGs I rarely replay RPGs

So between the two I'd go for size. Nevertheless I'd also like to point out that the comparatively short Fallout is more 'precious' to me than any hundred+ hour epic. As such (and even though it is what first drawn me to RPGs) size shouldn't be a goal - As I see it a game should be as long as it needs to shine and c&c should exist to enrich any single playthrough and not for replayability's sake.
Last edited by holeraw; January 22nd, 2010 at 18:53.
holeraw is offline

holeraw

holeraw's Avatar
V.G.A.

#31

Join Date: Sep 2009
Posts: 693