The Replayability Dilemma

Before we kick off, please note that I am using footnotes to augment this article. Also, I have included screenshots of games I find particularly replayable (or not) for the sake of a bit of colour.

The Replayability Dilemma

This article was inspired by the Co-Optional Podcast, and as such I do heartily recommend readers also have a watch of that.

Hearing a commentator who I greatly respect talk about what he considered to be replayable games got me thinking. Replayability is something that I factor into my reviews and discussion on video games, in part because a lot of developers these days make a big deal about how replayable their games are. So this begs the question, is replayability quantifiable, and if so, how do we evaluate it? I thought I would have a bit of a discussion on the matter, and tie things up with a case study of sorts.

What is replayability?

Quite obviously, replayability concerns how likely a game is going to be replayed after the initial play-through. Developers *cough*BioWare*cough* often make a big song and dance about how replayable their latest game is, and how players will immerse themselves in the game over and over again. It seems that the industry wants players to believe that games that are replayable are better value for money.

SM Railroads! Dozens of hours.

Value for money in any form of entertainment is very tricky to define. You are paying for an experience, and as such it isn’t like buying bread, or underwear. For example, very few movies are the same length, or cost the same to produce, yet you pay the same amount at the box office for tickets, no matter the film.[1] Video games are much the same, and the equation is made trickier due to the gradual drop in price of games as time passes. After all, is a two year old AAA game that is $30 necessarily going to be worth $50 less that the new AAA game that has come out today for $80? I would argue that no, it isn’t necessarily worth even 5 cents less, the issue is that the economies of scale and time influence price but not necessarily value.

So, when a new game comes out developers (and publishers) want people to buy it then for the $80, rather than wait for a sale, or for time to pass and drop the price. This is because they are businesses and need to make a profit. The more you pay for a game, the more they make. Quid pro quo.

Therefore the blanket question of What is replayability? needs to be broken down a bit more and examined. There are various forms of replayability, and they all get played for marketing.

Types of Replayability

I will attempt to lay out some broad themes of replayability as follows:

Choices – One way which a number of developers try to create replayability is to create a large number of diverse choices which the player can make as they play. The idea behind this is fairly logical, players will want to play the game again to see what happens when they make different choices. Ultimately it seems to work fairly well as a way of getting people to replay game.[2]

Just Cause 2: Tonnes of content done right.

Content, Content, Content! – Some developers think that packing the game world with huge amounts of quests, items, events, and such like will improve replayability. This only really works if your player-base is either anal-retentive, or is a firm believer in Pokemon taglines. The Borderlands franchise is a chief offender in this regard and I have this to say: You know what, I don’t care about the 50 bazillion guns I didn’t use, find, or earn. I don’t give a flying f*** about them – quality over quantity, please!
Ahem…as I was saying, content dumping can work very well, or very badly. The Elder Scrolls, for example, often does it extremely well. The game worlds of that franchise are jam-packed with stuff to do, sights to see, things to make, but never do they seem cluttered – the world breathes; it feels natural rather than contrived.[3] On the flipside are behemoths like Dragon Age: Inquisition (it is gonna get a big chat later on in this article). Yes, lovely world building, but too much dross. So much dross in fact that it invalidated one of the lauded new game mechanics – the horse riding.[4] Further, it had all the grind factor of an MMO, without the social element that makes grinding in an MMO almost bearable.[5]

Bethesda gets it right.

Immersion & Story – This is, in my opinion, the best type. The game might contain other elements
like choices or endless f***ing content, but what keeps pulling you back under is the way the story is told. The story might be hilarious, or it might tug your heartstrings over and over again, or maybe the world is just amazing to wander around in (Skyrim, Cyrodiil, or anywhere in The Witcher). Whatever it is, I think this works excellently for the same reason that people re-watch films or TV shows until their HDD cracks the sh*ts purely for some originality, or they re-read a book until the words have been worn off the page.[6] People love a good story, so games that deliver one do well, and deservedly so.

Those are my top three, and the ones that stand out.

So, that is something of a rough idea of some ways that replayability can be created, with varying levels of effectiveness. Now, let us get our hands dirty with some investigation…

Case Study – Dragon Age: Inquisition

This is not a review of the game, although I will express my opinions on it. I will primarily be looking at elements of the game that contribute to its replayability.

One of the things that puzzled me about Inquisition was the way they simultaneously pushed the ideas that it was reeeeeallllyyyyyy looooooong and also very replayable. Why did that puzzle me? Because I didn’t really think that a Dragon Age story would be both amazing enough to get me to play it for 90+ hours and also play it through again.

I was right.

Immersion killing hair and animations.

My first (and only complete) playthrough of Inquisition came in at around 100 hours. In that, I certainly missed some side quests and probably some special gear as well. However, I felt that I had immersed myself pretty well, and got a good feeling for the game. So, 100 hours of my life used, I sat back and wondered about replaying it. Sure, trying a different race would be interesting (although the changes, even in the dialogue, are rather cosmetic in nature), but beyond a few things in the early game, there were no choices that I could make in the mid to late game that would justify me playing through another 100 or so hours. What about the different classes? Well, my enquiring subconscious, they are basically the same as they have always been in Dragon Age, and they were simply cherry picked amalgamations of Dungeons & Dragons classes anyway.

For me there was no good reason to replay the game even once, let alone several times. Even if I were to ignore the rather average combat, hours of grinding[7], and glitches, the story was not good enough to justify it, and the choices that I was actually interested in were few and far between. For me, this is an issue I have had with all the Dragon Age games. I can replay Neverwinter Nights or Mass Effect until the proverbial cows come home, but when it comes to Dragon Age I just don’t care.

One of the big problems is the length. Given how many games are under 10 hours long but cost the same as Inquisition, surely the 90+ campaign was value for money enough as it is. I would like to point out that a long story isn’t by definition a good story – in this case a long story padded out heavily with grinding and mind-numbing Ubisoft-watchtower-esque activities certainly isn’t by definition a good story. BioWare were going for an epic. I’ve read epics. The Iliad is quite good but by all the gods I wouldn’t dive back in and re-read it. BioWare wanted you to love the epic-length

Charming, but not quite...

story, but also wanted you to replay it as much as the much, much, much shorter Mass Effect 2.[8] This was a problem. The story was good, don’t get me wrong, but it wasn’t that good.[9]

Next was the grinding. MMOs use grinding because achieving high levels is a big thing in those sorts of games, and they need to keep people playing for as long as possible because that is how MMOs make their money. Inquisition is a single player game, the money is made when the game is bought, not when random person #5471639 has been playing for 6 months, desperately trying to find more f***ing Elfroot. It wasn’t necessary, and just felt like excessive padding used to justify the at times tedious levelling system.

The combat in Dragon Age has never been stellar, and Inquisition was no exception. It is clunky, despite its flashy animations, and wears thin pretty fast. I replay Neverwinter Nights 2[10] because despite the clunkiness, it is honest. You can literally see the D&D game running as you play, see the dice-rolls, and the turn-based origins of the game. That is part of its charm. I replay Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning (in part) because its combat is fun, fast, and frantic – what I look for if combat is going to determine my replays. Inquisition is neither particularly honest about its Origins[11], nor does it have the fun and panache of Kingdoms of Amalur. The combat is not going to get me coming back for seconds – it was the over-boiled cabbage of the meal the first time through.

Look, a label! And a glowing outline.

The world was pretty, and rather diverse. That said, that is true of Minecraft as well, with Minecraft worlds having the added advantage of being randomly generated. Having a pretty world with lovely skyboxes falls into the same basket as pretty graphics and animations for me. They are garnishes. If the meal is a steaming pile, then it doesn’t matter that you have garnished it with a beautiful lemon, dill, and yoghurt sauce, because I am still going to taste the steaming pile. Also, games with pretty worlds are a dime a dozen[12] these days, and so unless it really stands out, which Inquisition’s doesn’t, it isn’t worth much. The pretty graphics are also let down by the weirdness of BioWare facial animations, and BioWare hair. 
Inquisition's Thedas doesn’t feel like an open world, and I never felt the excitement of exploration – I mostly just was annoyed at how long it was going to take me to get to my next objective. If you want great worlds to explore look at anything from Bethesda – whatever other flaws their games may have, they know how to build a damn good world. BioWare, on the other hand, are better at set pieces, and that shows when they try to make these expansive maps. The palace in Orlais was far more interesting than, for example, the Western Approach.

Bethesda get's it right again.

Then, of course are the soul-crushingly long loading times. I accept that there is alot to load, but plenty of other 'big' games can manage without taking so long that I can play a level of Angry Birds on my phone while I wait. Worse still are the immersion breaking labels on everything. Other games also have labels, but do it in such a way that they don't intrude on the game world. Little niggles count against replayability, they really do.

I could go on and on for almost as long as a playthrough of Inquisition, but I feel my point is made. Inquisition was too long, too padded, too clunky, and had too average a story to be replayable. If # of hours played = value for money in your mind, then Inquisition is for you.[13]

As for me? Well, I am going to go and re-read some Terry Pratchett, and replay Mafia II for the 20^th time.

P.S. I will conceded, in a first for the Dragon Age series, the music is great. In fact, it outshines the rest of the game at times.

---

[1] This, obviously, assumes that you are going to the same cinema every time, and ignores any special discounts for specific days of the week.

[2] I do have some caveats though, more on this later.

[3] Guild Wars 2 is another example of lots of content done well.

[4] Yahtzee covers the many irritating quirks of DA:I this in his ZeroPunctuation episode.

[5] I don’t like grinding, got a problem?

[6] This totally happens. Completely legit.

[7] Both types, this is a BioWare game after all.

[8] Which was a masterpiece.

[9] Also, don’t even get me started on the BS that is BioWare’s habit of putting massive plot points in the DLC of previous games, long after many have gotten sick of throwing money into the bin for DLC. Seriously, cut that shit out.

[10] Shameless self-promotion, watch my Neverwinter Nights 2 videos.

[11] Punning 101.

[12] I’ve stopped counting the clichés.

[13] I promise you though, Minecraft is cheaper and offers even more hours of play. It is the jackpot if that is how you measure value.

The Narrative Within Interactive Media (Part 1)

So yes, it is a little late, and yes, it is a slightly obscure title, but here it is!
I am a huge proponent of Video Games as art. No, let's not have the debate here. I will however, justify my position as follows:
Video Games are for kids - No, some video games are for kids. Just as there are books, films, television programs, etc., for children, teenagers, and adults so there are video games for all demographics. It's just the way it is.
Video Games do not further societal causes - They do. They really do. In video games, the characters can say things that many people would be afraid to say - they can oppose problems in a way that few other mediums can (I'll get to why later). Video Games/series such as The Witcher, Fallout, Wasteland, This War of Mine, StarCraft are all able offer powerful social commentaries, making them valid theatres for discussion. Unfortunately, as some of you may be aware, video games can also be used to attack certain groups with society - with great power comes...well, you know the rest.
The Video Game industry offers gainful, rewarding employment to many individuals of varying skills, serving to grow the creative arts industries worldwide. Talented writers, composers, artists, musicians, coders, and historians all find employment in the Video Game industry.
As with many new fields (though interactive media isn't so new anymore), there is opposition, particularly from those who are besotted with the Status Quo. Today's discussion may touch on that, but the main thrust of today will begin to look at the narratives within Video Games (aka Interactive Media). Please note that I do not, and have not, worked in the Video Game industry, and am viewing things from the point of view of a writer.

How do Video Games tell Stories?

In myriad ways. As with other mediums, video games are able to express their narratives in various ways, depending on the intention of the creator. However, there are many complications to presenting a story in a video game.

Role Playing Games: Video Games ranging from Wasteland and Baldur's Gate all the way to Mass Effect and The Witcher are considered Role Playing Games (of various types). RPGs, as their name suggests, place the player in the driver's seat, so to speak. The player takes on a role, often that of the narrative's protagonist, and 'acts' in the throughout the game. A common hallmark of RPGs is allowing the player to customise their character, whether their appearance, their abilities, and/or their equipment. RPGs are nearly always heavily story driven. Some RPGs offer little to no choice to the player, simply guiding them by the hand through the narrative. Others, especially in recent years, offer greater freedom to the player, allowing them to explore the game's world, and permitting them to guide the narrative through their own decisions and actions. It is important to note that many modern video games not of the RPG genre are incorporating elements of RPGs into them to enhance the experience.
Strategy Games (Real Time and Turn Based) - Strategy games are able to have rich narratives, or have an absence of narrative. However, the narrative is presented differently, with the player simply observing the story from the stands, and completing objectives as instructed. The StarCraft series is a good example of this. The player is in command during missions, but for the rest of the time simply watches the story pan out, taking little to no active role in the narrative.
Adventure Games - Whilst adventure games (and action-adventure games) are often heavily story driven, and the player often takes on the role of protagonist, the level of involvement is very different to that in RPGs. A good example is the Uncharted series. Feeling more like a DIY movie experience, the player observes the story of Nathan Drake, and 'acts' out his 'scenes' but the story is linear, with little to no choice given to the player.
I am sure you can use these three example to extrapolate the issues of other genres.
I talked about choice a fair amount. Please do not think that the absence of choice is a bad thing in a video game - it isn't. What is important is the quality of the story, and how it is told. Some stories lend themselves well to choice (The Witcher, Mass Effect, and Dragon Age series' for example) whilst others would probably gain little by adding choice (Uncharted, Tomb Raider). It is also dependant on the experience a particular person is seeking. Some people will enjoy choice, others would prefer to be guided by the narrative, enjoying it as they would a film or book.
Some video games feature narrators, some have the player and non-player characters (PCs and NPCs) acting out the narrative, others tell the story through pieces of information picked up along the way. Some (especially RPGs) use a combination of the three. There is no one 'right way'.

The Big Challenge

Video game writers face a challenge that I, as a writer, never face. I write a story, and people read it. no complication there. As the medium of video games has evolved, however, it has demonstrated its greatest strength, and greatest weakness - its interactivity. Short of some board games, and Choose Your Own Adventure books, there is no other medium that offers choice in the way that video games do.

Early video games had a set narrative, and while the player could do various other things in the game world, the narrative was a set thing, to be experienced in a specified order. However, as technology (and talent) has advanced, video games have changed. Now, players can choose not only how quickly or slowly a story advances, but can also choose which characters take part in it, who lives or dies, and even the order of the scenes to some extent. As I writer, I can imagine how challenging that makes creating the video game's narrative. The story must be robust, yet versatile, to remain coherent while still granting such freedoms to the 'reader'. Further, the story must be able to maintain its narrative drive, even though the reader may see scenes 'out of order' or take much longer to progress the plot than the writer might intend. All of things make it more complicated, and I tip my hat to those writers who can plan for these challenges, and overcome them.

The Illusion of Choice.

Ultimately, many of the choices made by a player are superficial - what armour their character wears, or what weapons they wield affect the gameplay, but not the narrative. While the player might choose to take part in various elements of the story in a particular order, they are still ultimately taking part in the same story. I won't deny that recently video games have been able to present choice and consequence in a powerful way  - such as certain choices having unforeseen consequences in the narrative. However, these consequences were still planned. So, what does the narrative seek to do?

I would argue that the game's narrative seeks to create the opportunity for choices to be made, and to have consequences that are meaningful enough to immerse the player in the experience.

For example, BioWare's Mass Effect games have a fairly thinly veiled choice system. In Mass Effect 2, if the player chose not to complete all the side missions for a given companion, that companion would die in the endgame suicide mission. On the other hand, if the chose to complete all side missions, the companion in question would survive. While this might be immersive the first time, it loses its power in consequent playthroughs, and at a meta level, is quite basic. One of the strengths of the The Witcher Franchise (which are based on the novels by Andrzej Sapkowski) is that the choices made by the player may not have readily apparent consequences. The player might opt to spare someone early in the plot, only to have them reappear many acts later to aid the player (or oppose them). Often, and to the game's credit, the player has no way of foreseeing the possible outcomes, which makes the game especially immersive. Impressively, some games (The Witcher included) do not make these choices obvious, and the player might make them with little serious thought (much like the real world). Some players, however, might find this extremely frustrating.

As you can imagine, having to write in such detail, and with such robustness, must be extremely talented, and video game writing teams the world over, I feel, deserve a round of applause, and infinite respect.

Wrapping up Part 1

As you would have guessed, this will be a multi-part discussion. Today I intended to lay down the groundwork, and impress upon you just how had the writer's of video game narrative have to work to succeed. The next instalment (or two) will roll out in the coming weeks. I intend to look at character writing in video games, and the complexities there, as well as look at the social impact that video game narratives can have.

Until then,

Thanks for reading...

N N B Clarke