Install Steam
login
|
language
简体中文 (Simplified Chinese)
繁體中文 (Traditional Chinese)
日本語 (Japanese)
한국어 (Korean)
ไทย (Thai)
Български (Bulgarian)
Čeština (Czech)
Dansk (Danish)
Deutsch (German)
Español - España (Spanish - Spain)
Español - Latinoamérica (Spanish - Latin America)
Ελληνικά (Greek)
Français (French)
Italiano (Italian)
Bahasa Indonesia (Indonesian)
Magyar (Hungarian)
Nederlands (Dutch)
Norsk (Norwegian)
Polski (Polish)
Português (Portuguese - Portugal)
Português - Brasil (Portuguese - Brazil)
Română (Romanian)
Русский (Russian)
Suomi (Finnish)
Svenska (Swedish)
Türkçe (Turkish)
Tiếng Việt (Vietnamese)
Українська (Ukrainian)
Report a translation problem
Personally I don't measure "replayable" by hours played, mind. Or review input.
Postal
Are you claiming that Factorio and Rimworld aren't replayable games :) ? Within the first 20 reviews displayed for Factorio, 8 of them have over 1k hours, and 7 out of 20 for Rimworld. I get your point though. There are 3 main flaws with my rating system.
1. It can create false positives when a linear story game where the first (and usually only) playthrough takes over 100 hours for the average player. But there are only a small handful of such games in here. From the top 50 you could make an argument that such games are Library of Ruina, Troubleshooter: Abandoned Children, and maybe Witcher 3 because you play the same character through the same story every time. I'd say getting 47 out of 50 games right makes this a decent system to measure replayability. There is also the argument that when people say replayable they really mean a game they can commit to for a very long time, weeks to months. By that logic Troubleshooter: Abandoned Children is still a valid choice because someone who plays for 2 hours every day can play this unreplayable game for 2 months straight.
2. Games that get the bulk of their replayability from overhaul mods can have an inflated score (Banished, XCOM 2)
3. Games that were released within the last 6 months have a deflated score because there hasn't been enough time for players to build up their playtime (Bellwright).
If Rimworld was an unreplayable game with a 150 hour initial run, its score would be nowhere near 54,4%. If I had to guess I'd say about 10-15% of people reach 100 hours on their first ever run. The score keeps creeping up as more and more people do consecutive runs and break the 100 hour barrier.
I have short games I played a dozen times and won't reach that number because the playthrough is 2 hours.
Playtime isn't an indicator of replayability in any way. Or quality or whatever "objective" criteria people try to use to push their own agenda.
I Agree
i mean some games easy can take 60H to 100H+ just to beat the main story best example would be Baldurs Gate 3 (dont get me wrong i love BG3)
what i mean with that is replayabilty is play the main story more than just once or twice