"Replay Value" needs to make a comeback as a review factor.
Replay value is an interesting one, especially when so many people use the $1:1 hour ratio to calculate the value proposition of buying a new game. On that basis, Hollow Knight should have cost me over a hundred bucks, which I will probably pay when I inevitably buy one of those bespoke collector's editions but that's besides the point.
Replay value is a weird thing when considering if it is worth considering when reviewing and scoring a game.
I don't believe replay value is a selling point inherently, and trying to make it such is just going to encourage artificial "replay value" like by adding piles of RNG BS to what you get to see or artificial looping that goes to hell immediately, but I do think that replay value is something that needs to be considered when creating, designing, or reviewing a shorter game. For larger and longer games I think it is less of an issue, so long as that size and length comes from worthwhile content, as I think it is possible to get the value needed from a single playthrough. For shorter games, though, this definitely needs to be made up for through replay value. I am curious though how much the average consumer cares about playing a game past beating it. I know I often play games long past the point of having beaten them, but recently when playing
Monster Hunter World with a friend (a game I have 1.4k hours in and have done 100% of the quests in) he mentioned it surprised him I still played a game I had so thoroughly beaten, I simply replied with "If I only played video games with the goal to beat them and move to the next, then I wouldn't love them like I do." Looking back I wouldn't be surprised if his normie ass was a sign of a more common perception of "you play a game to beat it and then move on" while I play games I enjoy for the purpose of enjoying them. It isn't getting to the end that I enjoy, though having those goals to work on is fun and enjoyable, it is the act of really diving into all that they offer. I definitely understand the relief of being done with a game and able to put it down for good, as I often need to play games for work reasons to understand how they function and what does and doesn't work/appeal about them, even if I personally fucking hate the game. Yet I don't view many games as disposable, but I wonder if for some people they are. Leisure is leisure, it doesn't matter if it is spent on something new or something familiar, just so long as it is enjoyed then it has done its job.
That isn't to say replay value should never be considered. I generally believe a game should have a sufficient amount of worthwhile playtime in it for its price before you feel you are ready to truly put it down. In some games this can be made up through replay value. There's plenty of games that aren't that long that absolutely made themselves worth it by having replay value. The
Devil May Cry series (except 2 and DmC) are a great example. They are games that, by their nature, encourage you to replay them for higher scores at higher difficulties and with new combos unlocked. Yet your average DMC game can be finished in a weekend. Typically taking around 10-20 hours for any given game for the average first time playthrough based on some quick number grabbing, though some sites are reporting as low at 6 hours for some entries which I think is accurate for a more experienced player on the lowest difficulty, these are games that aren't worth their prices, even at their modern reduced prices, for the majority of people. However, if you replay them you'll likely get two or three solid additional playthroughs out of them, putting you at a 30-80 hour average and that's before going full completionist with them. Raven's
Singularity,
Heretic,
Hexen, the original and the new
Doom games,
Blood Omen: Legacy of Kain, and classic survival horror such as the original four games respectively from both
Resident Evil and
Silent Hill all are games that come to mind in this sense. None of them could justify their full price in my eyes when at their peak of pricing if not for having incredible replay value. Though there are games that offer "alternative playthroughs" where it is basically a very binary "good" and "bad" playthrough and they lack enough difference or are both too short to justify the price of the game even if you consider the time for a "true full playthrough" to be the time to do both sides.
Then there's games that I consider "forever games", the types of games that never truly end their time with you until you get bored. "Completing" the game isn't really what determines that you're done, rather it is more based on the last time you load it up and as such you either are unlikely to or not truly replaying them. Things like the
Monster Hunter franchise where there's little reason to make a new character and replay them and instead you can just keep doing ever more on a new character and it will take quite a while to run out of content that way and even once you've done it all the core loop is such that you'd want to keep going.
Civilization is another aspect since a single "game" of Civ isn't really intended to be all you play, it is basically expected that you'll play countless games of it over time, with the expansions just adding to the experience as they come out to keep it fresh until a new entry comes out.
City Skylines and other simulation and management games also do this with each new scenario and instance having a beginning and end, but you wouldn't say that completing one is "beating" the game. Survival Crafting games like
Minecraft,
Terraria, or
Ark where making a new world to try out new things and create new things is always an option as much as sticking to a single world for years. Then there's rogue-likes/lites which you will make another run through with new and fresh randomized elements regardless of if you complete a run or not. I don't consider these games something you are typically replaying, because that just isn't how they work. You're simply playing another round or twenty. These games provide their value not through replaying, but through the fact that by the time you're done with having "just one more round" for the last time, you already got dozens, hundreds, or thousands of hours from them. Also toss into here games that are primarily about online, PvP, and/or live service games as well as games where such things are the main draw and the single player content is more tacked on.
Lastly are games that are just good enough all the way through and long enough to not need replay value to make themselves worthwhile. Some great examples here are
Super Mario 64,
Banjo-Kazooie, most of the
Legend of Zelda series past the first two,
Darksiders I & II,
Neverwinter Nights,
Baldur's Gate I & II,
Morrowind,
Fallout 1, 2 & NV,
Dragon Age: Origins,
Dark Souls I, II, & III, or even
Mass Effect 1 & 2. These games are the type of games that you are probably willing to replay, but don't need it to justify their price tag. These are games that are often viewed as timeless classics. They give enough and take long enough that no one is worried about them being too short, and likewise we don't need to sit here and worry about replay value. Yet many of them have it in spades. I would also toss in here games that function like a theoretically good version of
Zoochosis where individual "playthroughs" only take an hour or two, but it takes multiple to see the various endings and paths so a single playthrough is more defined by what it takes to get through and see the different paths rather than how long a single cycle takes.
Something I will disqualify from providing enough worthwhile playtime to justify their price are games that lean onto mods to do so.
Skyrim,
Fallout 3,
Fallout 4, and
Starfield do not, have never, and likely will never have enough content that is worthwhile to justify their prices. Just like how
Assassin's Creed,
Farcry, and
Watch_Dogs do not provide enough either as most of their content is meaningless, unenjoyable, and time wasting filler. The content needs to be worthwhile and actually engaging, not just time filling.
Monster Hunter might be grindy hell, but you're spending that time in the core gameplay loop and if you don't enjoy that loop you wouldn't be doing the grind anyways since all there is to the game is that core loop and progression and that core loop and progression is the worthwhile and engaging part.
Oh, also my dollar to worthwhile entertainment ratio (not dollar to playtime) is $2CAD to 1 hour solid and worthwhile content. That is the minimum I want to get. Many of my favourite games end up having far superior ratios before I finally feel like I got enough from them before I move on for an extended period of time.
