Replayability is a measurement of how much fun a game is to play over and over again – how much new content there will be on each playthrough, how much you can vary your playstyle, how many different endings or paths the different quests/stories have for you to explore each time. It is something it is generally considered good for a game to have, especially in certain genres. Many players want to be able to play their favourite games again and again, but with enough variation that it is never boring.
However, replayability is something that cannot be (and isn’t) pursued in every game. Many story focused games are not particularly replayable, as their goal is to focus on telling one very good or in-depth story – and to focus on replayability could take away from that. There is also the fact that to make a game very replayable takes a lot of time and effort to code and design all the different playstyles/endings/quests etc. This is time and effort that may be needed elsewhere or would possibly be better spent polishing the main game. Not everyone plays again and again after all, so is it really so crucial to ensure that every single playthrough is entirely unique?
This article would delve into the concept of replayability, exploring whether it is truly important for games to be infinitely replayable or more important to create a good experience the first time round.
Video games can often be addicting, and it can be very tempting to play for long periods of time without stopping. To stop this, some games (mostly those designed with kids and families in mind) will implement features designed to stop players from going overboard and playing for too long. This can be a pop-up message noting that you’ve played for quite a while and should take a break (such as those seen in Wii games like Wii Sports) or a feature integrated into the game itself (such as the iconic phone call from your dad in Earthbound). These types of features serve a useful purpose, especially when it comes to games for kids whose parents might want to regulate their screen time but also for anyone. But of course, they also break immersion and can feel frustrating. This article would discuss the time-out features of video games, and their positives and negatives.
On flash game websites (such as Kongregate), there is an abundance of idle games, and every time I look there seem to be more. They seem to be very popular, despite the lack of gameplay (hence the ‘idle’). So what is the draw behind idle games, and why are they so prolific? Examples to consider could be cookie clicker, anti-idle, crush crush, etc.
I like the idea of investigating this further, however, I think maybe there needs to be more suggested for the discussion. A lot of these games have a psychological impact on the player of achieving and collecting so exploring these player motivation models would be a good foundation. Then building it out into a wider context with similar systems in other games. So using something like City Skylines or other sim/management games as these have a capacity of idle gameplay to support further, more active gameplay later on. – CAntonyBaker4 years ago
Expand, please? I'm not familiar with this term. You might compare/contrast with whatever the opposite of an idle game is, and define what the opposites are as well. – Stephanie M.1 month ago
In modern games, the connection between capitalism and virtual realms reveals intriguing dynamics. An engaging aspect lies within the intricate economies crafted within these digital landscapes. Many of us feel broke in the face of the allure of accumulating virtual wealth, even in the game world. How inherently capitalistic is this?
Consider the Smooth Love Potion (SLP) within the realm of Axie Infinity or the coveted PLEX of Eve Online. These alternative currencies serve as beacons of virtual prosperity, beckoning players to pursue the coveted status of rich players.
In the vast majority, if not all, modern games, players willingly invest their hard-earned dollars to acquire these alternative currencies, which can be far more valuable than traditional forms of wealth within the game. The acquisition of extravagant skins, weapons, and treasures becomes a symbol of status and achievement, driving players to strive for in-game riches.
Amidst this pursuit, it is essential to understand the motivations that fuel such dedication. What really lies beneath the surface of this quest for virtual wealth? This article will delve into the intricate ties between the virtual and the real, the motivations that propel players, and the profound implications these virtual economies have on the broader scope of the gaming industry and its connectedness with the realm of capitalism.
In 2020, Minecraft transcended the gaming sphere and became a medium through which to read banned journalism. A project started by Reporters Without Borders, the library holds work by censored journalists all across the world, with some of their most dangerous writings embedded and available to read right there in the game.
In a world that grows more and more fond of censorship and bookburning, how are video games (minecraft in particular as a recent example), and other media being used to subvert the attempted erasure of political commentary? What opportunities do video games open up which circumvent censorship in ways that didn’t exist before? What does this subversion look like in a digital landscape? Feel free to take some of these questions and run with them!
Many games are built upon several different moment-to-moment events, be it levels, cutscenes, or individual actions the player takes. But sometimes a game becomes defined by a single event, or a single moment that then becomes known as "the moment." Some examples of "moments" would be the nuke scene in Call of Duty 4 (or the ‘No Russian’ mission in Modern Warfare 2), the Scarecrow sections in the Batman: Arkham series, the "Would You Kindly?" twist in BioShock, and Lee’s death in Telltale’s The Walking Dead. They’re moments that shock, surprise, or stun players and become one of the game’s highlights.
This article would discuss questions such as: how certain games (either the ones mentioned above or others) create these "moments" and what impact they have on players. Does a game automatically become "better" if it has one of these "moments?" Does a game necessarily need a "moment" to be memorable? Does the "moment" succeed in creating the intended impact on the player, and what even is the intended impact? The article could also discuss if these moments become something of a "selling point" for the game, or just how much power they hold for getting new players into the game or get veteran players back.
Great idea! I think you could also maybe discuss some of the "mini-moments" that also feature in some of the most well-known games. For example, the tanker mission opening of Call of Duty 4, or even the ending of the game. I think many of these games have "The Moment" but the players decide on it out of a selection of "moments." Very interesting idea! I look forward to reading it! – SetLaserstoFun9 months ago
Interesting thought, and I think some games are indeed defined by moments. I agree with the questions raised - does a game automatically become better with a defining moment, or can it still be memorable without one? Personally, I believe these moments can elevate a game and make it more memorable, but they shouldn't be the sole measure of its quality. It's also fascinating to consider how these moments can serve as selling points, attracting new players and reigniting the interest of veteran players. As a game mania myself, when a new game releases and I see reviews that say there's "the moment" that really took the game to a whole different level, it becomes hard for me to fight the urge to not download the game - so I'm interested! – Cienna5 months ago
Turn based rpgs were at one point the height of video games. Dragon Quest and Final Fantasy are some of the most well known, as their success lead to huge franchises that continue today, but there were also many more inspired by them or experimenting on their format. Turn based rpgs still exist today – just look at the sweeping success of Undertale, or at strategic turn based rpgs like XCOM or Darkest Dungeon. But turn based rpgs are no longer at the forefront of gaming, instead primarily being a genre used by nostalgic games or indie projects. Even Final Fantasy, a game that was once synonymous with the turn based rpg, no longer uses that play style. The popular Fallout series did similar. This article would discuss the turn based rpg, why it was so popular in its heyday, and why many major studios moved away from it.
This could be a very interesting topic to discuss. I think it's important to focus on the fact that the turn-based RPG stems from the Dungeons and Dragons model of pre-video game role-playing games. The evolution (for better or worse) has evolved as technology has allowed for more immersive experiences for the gamer. On a personal note, I still love playing FFX, but as much of a huge FF fan I am, there's still a reason they added fast-forward modes on the other ports. – A G Macdonald8 months ago
You also can't ignore the pokemon games, probably the most popular turn based RPG that's still doing numbers, even if it isn't exactly the same vein as FF. – Cedarfireflies558 months ago
Miitopia, which originally came out in 2016 and was re-released in 2021, is an interesting game to consider because it uses a very simplified turn-based combat system. The player can control their avatar in battle, but the turns of the NPC party members are all controlled by AI. If the player wants to, they can even select an option that allows AI to control their avatar’s turns as well. While this is just one game (and it has more in common with Pokémon than Dragon Quest or Final Fantasy), Miitopia’s simplified turn-based combat system could suggest that even when contemporary games do use turn-based combat systems, they are not the intensely strategy-focused systems of the past. – Magnolia8 months ago
Another thing to consider is that is wasn't just rpgs that were turned based; essentially every video game was, even platformers--you lose your lives and go back to the beginning of the level/game or hand the controller over to your friend. This could be because the notion of what constituted a "game" was perhaps more rigid then. Games were primarily competitive and turns where part of ensuring fairness. So, pretty much all games were turned based. Even solitaire had turns. If anything, it might be rpgs and their focus on narrative experiences that helped evolve the idea of what a game is, which, maybe ironically, led to the downfall of turn-based rpgs. – zmedlin7 months ago
"The Last of Us" has become an acclaimed game due to its story, memorable characters, and post-apocalyptic world. With the release of two sucessful games, many fans are anticipating a potential third part. However, with this, comes the question: is a part 3 of The Last of Us really necessary?
By exploring the potential direction of the game series, it is important to consider the implications of continuing the story. Has the narrative reached a natural conclusion or is there still more to be told? A part 3 could provide an opportunity to expand upon the world and characters established in the previous games, while also resolving any lingering questions or story arcs.
At the same time, there are valid concerns about the potential risks of a third part. How might a part 3 change the established lore or character dynamics? Could it detract from the impact of the previous games or damage the series forever?
In this article, we could explore the pros and cons of a part 3 of The Last of Us, considering both the potential benefits and drawbacks of continuing the story. Discuss the ways in which a third part could expand the world and characters of the previous games, as well as the potential risks that must be avoided to preserve the integrity of the series.
Good concept but execute the question with more clarity. Specify "series forever," "continuing history," "what potential direction," and what expansion would you like the writer to discuss? – Montayj798 months ago