Cyber Poll

I don't see the option "replayability" in the list and that is a shame. That would be
my pick as well. Is this a test to see what the second choice might be (is playablilty
as a first choice assumed a given)?

Cheers,
Jack

My guess is that it's assumed that these 6 choices are the main things that *contribute* to a game's playability (and REplayability!), and that they therefore assumed that (re)playability is the most important aspect overall regardless.

Sam,

With all the emphasis Brad has placed on replayability in the past (and the word "playability" is
in my post is a typo, I ment replayability) I can't believe he would leave that option out or
imply it in any way.

Cheers,
Jack

Jack,

If you say so; you've been around here a lot longer than me so you certainly know better than I. It still seems to me, though, that "replayability" is a much broader and more general term than the choices given in the poll. If a strategy game has a high replayability value, wouldn't it have a high quality level of most or all of those things mentioned in the poll? [shrug] I dunno.

I used to have an old game around 20 years ago on my old IBM PCjr called Rogue. The graphics consisted of nothing more than ASCII characters. There was no sound. The objectve was to go down a dungeon 20 levels and get back up. I never made it. I played that game until computers were so different that they couldn't recognize the programing. I even purchased an external 5 1/4" drive so with the next 2 computers I had I could keep this game. The monsters never moved unless you entered the room, then all they did was chase you until they attacked or you left the level you were on. So no real AI. Couldn't expand the game in any way. Features consisted of start & quit the game. No save feature or anything.

All the items in the list could have been in the game, but were not, even per the machines of the time. Yet this game was fun. The maze/dungeon changed every time you played. It was simple, addictive, and infinately replayable. I played that game for over 7 years & would still be playing it today if I could. That is what I mean by replayability. Not many games are like that.

Thus, I would say that yes, those aspects mentioned in the poll can greatly assist, but those alone do not make a game replayable. replayability is a seperate characteristic based on how the game is varied each time you play and on how much fun you have while playing.

God King,
you can still play that game today as well as the many newer versions. Search for Rogue tpye games such as ADOM, Nethack, Moria, and Angband (and their thousands of variations). These games are still highly addictive!
I do agree though that replayability can be totally seperate from all items on the cyber poll list. For Rogue I would say it was a mix of simplicity versus infinite variation. A bit like chess really. Other major attractions were that you could just play and play never getting bogged down with details and micromanagement. How many games do you play which are fun initially and then the focus of the game changes as play?

Paul.

I guess the question is more about what things have the most impact on making a game 'fun' for us as gamers(or more specifically 'strategy gamers'). I think most successful games have an edge(the one thing that game does exceptionally well...possibly the AI in Gal Civ...), but no one piece alone will make for a great game. AI,Graphics,sound etc. will all contribute to the feeling you get when you sit down to play GalCiv. Ultimately the test will be 'do you enjoy playing it', and that will be answered by how well the pieces come together. You can have the finest ingredients in the world but they have to be combined in just the right way to to make that perfect cake....er game...
<-and does anybody else think this wink looks like it has a black eye

When I think of replayability I think of those aspects that allow a game to be different
with each replay. So a game with a "story line" that you have to follow correctly to
win is one I would think of as having a very low replayability charactoristic regardless
of any of the "quality" charactoristics, like graphics, AI, features, etc. Because of this I
consider replayability as a separate charactoristic of a game.

I agree wholeheartedly that other characteristics of good quality contribute to a game's
enjoyability, but without replayability they are not worth my time or money.

Just MHO.

Cheers,
Jack

Yes, Winkie does look like he winked at the wrong girl and had the entire Lions football team pound his arse. Of course as the Lions stink, it wasn't that much of a pounding....

The replayability of a game is so important the I won't even look at an RTS game until it is on the $9.99 shelf at Best Buy, and even then with great trepidition (is it worth the cost of two lunches) will I buy it. Most RTS games have 20 odd scenarios and then all it is good for is the expansion pack or multiplayer - which I don't do.

About the only exception I have to the purchase of a game that is not easiely replayable is the "dungeons and Dragons" games. I havn't been able to get a large enough group together in about 5 years and I am the type of geek that does enjoy D&D.... so I get my fix thrue the computer.

In terms of GalCiv I think that the better the AI is and with the large amount of variability in the game I do suspect (else I wouldn't be here) that this will be a great game with lots of replayability. Gotta go, 5 pm work is over for the day, time to go home. Peace.

Replayability, gameplay, and "fun" are all so subjective that it wouldn't mean much.

Afterall, "Fun" is teh result of a combination of features, AI, graphics, etc.

Same for replayablity.

Brad!!!
How can you, of all people, call replayability "so subjective that it wouldn't mean much"? Haven't
you often shown the differences between games like WarCraft, Mech Warrior, Command and
Conquer, etc. and games like MOO, CIV, and GalCiv when discribing replayability? While a good
AI and graphics can add to the fun of a game, the very basic design of a game puts it into, or
out of, the replayability catagory.

Cheers,
Jack

Or perhaps someone else was using your ID and put that last post on as a joke?

Cheers,
Jack

Jack,
I think Brad was just suggesting that replayability is subjective as oppossed to all the items in the poll which are physical measureable quantities. It is therefore not in the poll. Neither is fun, and neither is gameplay. I don't believe he suggested for a second that he didn't feel replayability was crucial.
Brad it could be interestng to have a seperate poll at a later stage looking for what makes a game replayable.

resource / location randomness
AI randomness
multiple story threads
lots to do - micro management
multiplayer
simplicity of gameplay
etc ...

Paul.

Good idea Solitair/Paul
I agree that it is far more subjective.
That doesn't mean that it couldn't be on such a poll. "Most important aspect of a stratagy game" is itself subjective.

Lets think about the purpose of the poll - if I had to guess, it will be used to help determine where to focus in on the game. Thus Frogboy / Brad has a point, replayability would mean so little in this regards that ya, it shouldn't be on the poll. But that is NOT to say that replayability is not important. Perhaps the poll should have asked "The focus of the work on GalCiv should be on".

As suggested, perhaps the next poll can focus on the qualities of a game that make it replayable (and fun).

Wow, just read what I wrote and it sounds like I am kinda snobby, rude, etc. Not my intention. So please read it as a discussion and not as me being an ass. Thanks all, peace.

Rich and Paul,
When viewed as a poll for directing efforts with the development of Galciv, you are
entirely correct and I spoke out of turn.

Brad,
My appologies for reading your comments so far out of context.

Cheers,
Jack

I would like to see a poll on what htey think makes a game more replayable.