To Play or To Replay?

How does one rate the entertainment value derived from a video game? One of the more common elements considered is the length, going from short-term replay value versus long-term one-time experiences. But how does one quantify the value? Is one option intrinsically better than the other?

Game length is something considered heavily by consumers. Often times, gamers are excited about a title but could be reluctant to spend their cash because of the short length of the experience. Game developers know this, and is one of the strong reasons why many otherwise single-player only titles are given multiplayer components. Resident Evil 5 is a fantastic example. Skilled players can beat the single-player mode in around three hours. Divide the price by the time, and that’s around twenty bucks per hour for the duration of the game.

It sounds expensive because it is. Extremely expensive. However, Resident Evil 5 has some of the best replay value of any current-gen game on the market. Tons of unlockables, extra weapons and upgrades, and trophies keep many players coming back for more. These are what keep the longevity of a short title up, and make it more worth the average consumer’s money. Players who are trophy/achievement hunters will probably have to beat a game many times on all gameplay modes to get their fix, bringing even more replay to a shorter title.

Fighting games stand almost alone on this front, as their core experiences can be as short as five or ten seconds, though it is understood that this basic experience will be repeated thousands of times (if not more) before the consumer moves on.

But what about traditionally single-player games? Role playing games obviously stand out in this respect, because most strive to be grand tales that are meant for a single long, solid run. Though hardcore RPG fans may find themselves returning to stellar titles, most will admit that they play role-playing games once and move on.

I put 76 hours into Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion before I got caught up in another title. For the twenty bucks I spent on the title, that works out to a little over a quarter for every hour of entertainment. At full retail price, a title this long still works out to just under eighty cents per hour. However, aside from the few missions I have yet to complete, I know I will never come back to this title. Once it is done, I am done; this is very often the nature of this particular genre.

The next logical question is, which one appeals more to gamers? The quick answer is that its torn 50/50. Some of the best-selling titles on current-generation consoles are first-person shooters with limited single-player and expansive multiplayer experiences, leading one to believe most gamers crave quick fixes that can be returned to several times. However, this doesn’t account for the (smaller, but equally important) hardcore crowd that seems to focus more on heavy single-player experiences with intricate plots, plenty of sidequests, and an overall immersive experience.

Ultimately, as players explore the fields of various genres and get a feel for which game style is right for them, they will eventually settle on something that gives them the most time spent for their money spent. For me, there is nothing better than one long and intense experience, even if I know I won’t ever return to it. For others, their sixty bucks can be better spent on something that can give them potentially limitless hours on short and sweet gaming bits.