I've recently finished Bioshock (not a difficult thing, I'll grant you but generally I don't finish games because I get bored with them) and after the euphoria of finishing it passed, I was left a little disappointed and lost. The reason for this, as I'm sure many people will have experienced before, was that I couldn't see a good reason to go back to the game once I'd finished it. Sure, I could go back and do it on a harder level or try and do it 'better' (I harvested rather than saved most of the little sisters), or even attempt to get some of the achievements I missed, but none of these reasons tempted me to reload the game after the last session.
The more I thought about it, the more I realised that while Bioshock is a very good game, having little reason to return once completed prevented it (in my eyes) from being a great game. Yes, I can trade it in against another game (and recoup a large part of the cost) but even so, is this something I should expect with games - the fact that once I have completed it in some way, it's over?
To draw some parallels, I'm an avid film watcher and book reader, and I regularly re-read books and re-watch films I've seen before, sometimes more than once. Why do I not find the same thing with games, or is it that I've just not yet found a game that deserves to be replayed? When you watch a film or read a book again it's not for the twists/shocks/surprises, as you know what's coming - it's for the direction and acting. Is this missing from games so that once played once, there's no reason to go back?
The way I see it, the only reason to keep playing a particular game is: -
1. Achievements. Guitar Hero 2 falls into this category, as there are still some achievements I'd like to get, although achievements in most games are lacking in creativity and seem to be added on as an afterthought.
2. Multiplayer. This is something very lacking in Bioshock, and the challenge of competing or working with other people always extends the lifetime of a game.
3. Non scripted/open-ended games. There are many games that you can play again and again simply because they are generated randomly, have multiple paths through them or are simply designed so that there is no 'finish'. Hence my addiction to games such as Pro Evo and (previously) Civilisation on the PC.
Ultimately, should the rating/review of a game reflect the replayability of the game as a significant part of the final score or am I being too hard on the more 'cinematic' games that, once played, are over for good? Should Bioshock be considered a classic despite the short lifetime of the game, or should other games that I may still be playing in a year's time be rated higher, simply because they are better value for money?
Interested in your opinions...
The more I thought about it, the more I realised that while Bioshock is a very good game, having little reason to return once completed prevented it (in my eyes) from being a great game. Yes, I can trade it in against another game (and recoup a large part of the cost) but even so, is this something I should expect with games - the fact that once I have completed it in some way, it's over?
To draw some parallels, I'm an avid film watcher and book reader, and I regularly re-read books and re-watch films I've seen before, sometimes more than once. Why do I not find the same thing with games, or is it that I've just not yet found a game that deserves to be replayed? When you watch a film or read a book again it's not for the twists/shocks/surprises, as you know what's coming - it's for the direction and acting. Is this missing from games so that once played once, there's no reason to go back?
The way I see it, the only reason to keep playing a particular game is: -
1. Achievements. Guitar Hero 2 falls into this category, as there are still some achievements I'd like to get, although achievements in most games are lacking in creativity and seem to be added on as an afterthought.
2. Multiplayer. This is something very lacking in Bioshock, and the challenge of competing or working with other people always extends the lifetime of a game.
3. Non scripted/open-ended games. There are many games that you can play again and again simply because they are generated randomly, have multiple paths through them or are simply designed so that there is no 'finish'. Hence my addiction to games such as Pro Evo and (previously) Civilisation on the PC.
Ultimately, should the rating/review of a game reflect the replayability of the game as a significant part of the final score or am I being too hard on the more 'cinematic' games that, once played, are over for good? Should Bioshock be considered a classic despite the short lifetime of the game, or should other games that I may still be playing in a year's time be rated higher, simply because they are better value for money?
Interested in your opinions...
)