$18.00
GeekGold Bonus for All Supporters: 131.3

7,715 Supporters

$15 min for supporter badge & GeekGold bonus
48.6% of Goal | left

Support:

Recommend
3 
 Thumb up
 Hide
21 Posts

BoardGameGeek» Forums » Gaming Related » General Gaming

Subject: Replayability Rating? rss

Your Tags: Add tags
Popular Tags: [View All]
Chris Begg
Canada
flag msg tools
Is there anywhere to see how replayable a game is? I think it would be a great feature to have that score available on the game's page - you know, along with # of players, playing time, age recommendation, and complexity score.

Then again, maybe it is somewhere and I just don't know where to look . . .
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Paul DeStefano
United States
Long Island
New York
flag msg tools
designer
It's a Zendrum. www.zendrum.com
mbmbmbmbmb
Definitions of replayable vary.

Go has a single setup, but is often regarded as the most replayable game out there.
7 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Begg
Canada
flag msg tools
Fair enough, but so would something like complexity rating. If there were enough data, though, averages and trends would start to become apparent. I just thought it would give a rough idea of how much play one could expect to get out of a game.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(ɹnʎʞ)
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Good idea, but like Paul said, it's hard to really define a replay value.

Some games are "easy to learn, hard to master", which requires a good amount of time to get a solid impression and I doubt that that the average player ever reaches that point and could make a solid statement on a game this way. Then again, if someone spend that much time on a game that he/she "mastered" it, it's pretty safe to say that he/she likes it (a lot), so the opinion is also unlikely to be truly objective.

Having said that, a very basic community poll with "high/average/low" replay value labels could work, because most games will be classified as "average" and only very clear cases like T.I.M.E Stories or Tales of the Arabian Nights would peak in one of the other two directions.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandre P.
France
Strasbourg
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
Begger41 wrote:
Fair enough, but so would something like complexity rating. If there were enough data, though, averages and trends would start to become apparent. I just thought it would give a rough idea of how much play one could expect to get out of a game.


For some games you can determine the number of possible combinations but it won't be a very accurate result as some persons would rule out some of them.

For example, in Legendary Encounters: An Alien Deck Building Game you have:
- 4 scenarii,
- 5 different players counts,
- 3 modes that can be combined,
- 10 different avaars,
- the possibility to mix up the heroes,
....

So the first 3 criteria give 80 possibilities but you have also to consider that you don't win each time, that you may wan to win each scenario several times, that you may exclude players counts ...

A better-known example: Dominion. You can count the number of cards combinations but I would never play a game without a "+x actions" card so it reduces the count

So you can try to mathematically determine the variability but some won't exploit it at its max and others won't be bothered by the repetition.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Kyur wrote:
Good idea, but like Paul said, it's hard to really define a replay value.

Some games are "easy to learn, hard to master", which requires a good amount of time to get a solid impression and I doubt that that the average player ever reaches that point and could make a solid statement on a game this way. Then again, if someone spend that much time on a game that he/she "mastered" it, it's pretty safe to say that he/she likes it (a lot), so the opinion is also unlikely to be truly objective.

Having said that, a very basic community poll with "high/average/low" replay value labels could work, because most games will be classified as "average" and only very clear cases like T.I.M.E Stories or Tales of the Arabian Nights would peak in one of the other two directions.
A community poll would work, at least to the extent that some games are more replayable than others. I also think that you're underestimating how many games fall to the extremes of high and low replayability.
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Ken Lewis
United States
Cumming
Georgia
flag msg tools
designer
Geosphere wrote:
Definitions of replayable vary.

Go has a single setup, but is often regarded as the most replayable game out there.


I don't think it would be any different than the varied definitions people use to rate games or a game's weight on this site.

What matters is how you use the information presented to form your own opinion on a game.
4 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Nomad
South Korea
Gyeongsan
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I know Chess, Go, and Bridge players with (tens of?) thousands of games under their belts. Lots of my friends think San Juan isn't deep, but I'm still enjoying it 2000 plays later.

Essentially, the base rating on BGG is a measure of desire to play. You'd have to take into account people who haven't played a game rating it, but that's probably low enough that you could suggest a game's rating satisfies your requirements.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Michael Woodcock
Australia
TAMPA
Florida
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Maybe the play stats could help?

You can view all time and monthly plays listed by user - which would give info that at least some people play it a lot or not.

e.g. for Dominion ...
Dominion All time
Dominion This Month

I wonder if someone may have already pulled this data out to be more statistically useful.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
John Sallay
msg tools
mbmb
Geosphere wrote:
Definitions of replayable vary.

Go has a single setup, but is often regarded as the most replayable game out there.


How many definitions are there? I can only think of, does the game become more or less fun the more I play it?

Some games have very little or no variance in setup, like go, chess, or Puerto Rico, but many people still enjoy playing them over and over again. They may even enjoy them more, the more they play.

Other games have thousands of setup possibilities and a lot of randomness in the game, but fall flat after a few plays.

I guess what I'm saying is that I think there are a lot of reasons why someone might find a game to be replayable or not, but I think the definition is pretty solid. I don't know that the OP or the community in general necessarily care why the game is or isn't replayable, just whether or not people think that it is.

(I am willing to accept that I'm wrong, and I just don't see how other people view the problem.)

1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
(ɹnʎʞ)
Germany
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Thunkd wrote:
Kyur wrote:
Good idea, but like Paul said, it's hard to really define a replay value.

Some games are "easy to learn, hard to master", which requires a good amount of time to get a solid impression and I doubt that that the average player ever reaches that point and could make a solid statement on a game this way. Then again, if someone spend that much time on a game that he/she "mastered" it, it's pretty safe to say that he/she likes it (a lot), so the opinion is also unlikely to be truly objective.

Having said that, a very basic community poll with "high/average/low" replay value labels could work, because most games will be classified as "average" and only very clear cases like T.I.M.E Stories or Tales of the Arabian Nights would peak in one of the other two directions.
A community poll would work, at least to the extent that some games are more replayable than others. I also think that you're underestimating how many games fall to the extremes of high and low replayability.

I actually don't, but I guess that many people will just vote with "average" because the didn't spent too much time for a more refined opinion in either direction (E Cult of the New). Some games require a bit more time to see them unfold and having the players not just scratch on their surface. A game with lots of components does not mean that it automatically offers more replay value, likewise a game with very few components does not mean that it has a lower replay value. Polls like this are very much influenced by these subjective factors though.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
S. Turner
United States
flag msg tools
The premise of the game ratings is that they *are* replayability ratings:

For example:
2: Very bad - won't ever play again
3: Bad - likely won't play this again
...
10: Outstanding - will always enjoy playing
3 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Alexandre P.
France
Strasbourg
France
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
sturner wrote:
The premise of the game ratings is that they *are* replayability ratings:


But it's more a frequence rating and, in my case, every game I enjoy earns a 6 or higher and 2 games I like as much but have different setting conditions (length, table space, number of players ...) can bbe separated by several points as one will be more frequently played.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
T. Ips
Denmark
flag msg tools
mbmbmb
I would love such a feature! It's one of my main concerns when buying games. It could really help distinguish the games for me
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
United States
Bellevue
Washington
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
If a game has two scenarios, people will say the replay-ability is low because "only two scenarios!". If you remove one scenario and call the other scenario the game, then people will rate it as being more replay-able.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
chearns
Canada
Montréal
Québec
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
I usually just look at the play stats. For instance, let's say I was wondering if UR: 1830 BC had lots of replayability. I could look at the play stats and draw my own conclusions regarding this 15 year old game:
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/2396

Coloretto (2003):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/5782

Twixt (1962):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/949

Dominion (2008):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/36218

For me people playing a game over and over again is more telling than people saying that they think a game could be played over and over again.
4 
 Thumb up
0.01
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Australia
flag msg tools
chearns wrote:
I usually just look at the play stats. For instance, let's say I was wondering if UR: 1830 BC had lots of replayability. I could look at the play stats and draw my own conclusions regarding this 15 year old game:
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/2396

Coloretto (2003):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/5782

Twixt (1962):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/949

Dominion (2008):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/36218

For me people playing a game over and over again is more telling than people saying that they think a game could be played over and over again.


Except, UR is far more complex, longer to play and harder to find than something like Coloretto. A game might have excellent replayability value - in the sense that each game offers something new, or a different game state - but be hard to get to the table. This of course depends on your definition of replayability.

I'm sure you have this covered with your statement about drawing your own conclusions.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Chris Begg
Canada
flag msg tools
chearns wrote:
I usually just look at the play stats. For instance, let's say I was wondering if UR: 1830 BC had lots of replayability. I could look at the play stats and draw my own conclusions regarding this 15 year old game:
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/2396

Coloretto (2003):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/5782

Twixt (1962):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/949

Dominion (2008):
https://boardgamegeek.com/playstats/thing/36218

For me people playing a game over and over again is more telling than people saying that they think a game could be played over and over again.

This is a pretty interesting feature and I agree that people playing over and over is more telling than people saying it can be played over and over.

I'm relatively new to the site so I hadn't navigated this deep into the site's features. Thanks for pointing it out!
2 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Brandon Ciantar
Malta
flag msg tools
mb
https://boardgamegeek.com/thread/1670755/voting-game-most-re...

List will be available 2nd December.
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Iori Yagami
Latvia
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmb
A better term is VARIABILITY and LONGEVITY?
That thing where if you are sick and tired of same gameplay, game offers you a new type of puzzle.
Deck builders are like that by design (no 2 games the same average VARIABILITY and average LONGEVITY), games with campaigns, too (though they're limited, low LONGEVITY and high VARIABILITY - different campaign are totally different, but they expire very fast: 1-2-3 times, and it's no longer fun to play the same campaign anymore), finally, abstracts (very low VARIABILITY - all start the same or almost the same, but can be played for long due to fast growing decision tree branching factor and sheer number of game states - piece connections, card combinations, etc, meaning high LONGEVITY).
BTW, euros get the worst of them - usually similar start conditions, and pretty low decision count - the only reason not to abandon is to pump the 'hi-score' up up up!
1 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Bryan Thunkd
United States
Florence
MA
flag msg tools
mbmbmbmbmb
Iori_Yagami wrote:
A better term is VARIABILITY and LONGEVITY?
Actually neither term is better.

There are games that have a lot of variability, but where the basic gameplay is essentially the same from game to game. Despite having a lot of variability, the game may not be very replayable, as you may tire of the basic gameplay.

There are also games that have longevity, but aren't very replayable. I forget the game, but there is some war game that takes thousands of hours to complete. While the game may last a long time, it's not clear to me that someone would necessarily be up for repeating the experience.

Replayability is a perfectly serviceable word. I don't see a need to search for a replacement.
 
 Thumb up
 tip
 Hide
  • [+] Dice rolls
Front Page | Welcome | Contact | Privacy Policy | Terms of Service | Advertise | Support BGG | Feeds RSS
Geekdo, BoardGameGeek, the Geekdo logo, and the BoardGameGeek logo are trademarks of BoardGameGeek, LLC.