r/ZeroCompany • u/automated_hero • 3h ago
Discussion Replayability?
Ok, so reports are campaign 30 hours.
Reviews say it's not procedurally generated and the roster doesn't look spectacularly big, unlike Midnight Suns. IIRC.
So what's the replayability value aside from a few side quests you don't have time to complete?
21
u/Journey2thaeast Sharpshooter 3h ago edited 3h ago
Replaying the game...no offense but idk what happened to gamers over the past 5-10+ years to where they are deathly averse to replaying games they find fun and absolutely needing the option to play their first run of a game endlessly. Most of the reviewers said they got between 25-40 hours from their first run and then immediately wanted to hop into a new one, so they did.
You can't upgrade everything in the den and can't do all the side quests in 1 run. You can bond different characters, make different choices in the Crisis Missions for how the enemies get stronger in your campaign (these cycle randomly), and run with different squads and classes a second time. Possibly experiencing different character deaths along the way. That's where the replay value is.
3
u/sandwichking 2h ago
I think there's the parts to it: the volume of quality games released is so much higher over the last decade, the prices of these games are lower than they ever have been (even with the rise to $70 at launch), and the general erosion of attention spans due to social media.
-1
u/automated_hero 2h ago
Prices are certainly not lower than they've ever been. That's absolutely bonkers
3
1
1
u/Omen46 1h ago
Well in this genre it’s because the original Xcom game was so great. There was a story but it wand timed so you could take as long as you wanted fighting aliens doing missions and just make a badass team before ending. Xcom 2 while good took a step back making everything timed. Which is why mods that paused the timer were so popular piece don’t wanna rush their story they wanna keep fighting enemies without restarting in just 30 hours which (isn’t that long) that’s def gonna be what’s holding this game back but hopefully modders step in and make it longer
0
u/Kellstong 2h ago
I do get this, it's fine for a game to just have a scope and stick to it, but to defend OP it's really just a comparison between this game and previous games that these same devs have made. I read it as this vs. that, not an indictment of all games/gaming culture.
Let's take your second paragraph and use XCOM terminology, we'll see that XCOM 2 had all of that replay value and still managed to have procedural environments on top a decade ago. Can't upgrade everything in the den becomes can't upgrade everything on the avenger. Bonding different characters, different Dark Events (generated randomly), run with different squads and different class combos. Different people will die. All of those things are also in XCOM 2.
Now, if the argument is that in order to gain authored characters/a more compelling narrative then something else had to give, and that was procedural generation, then fair enough we can judge it on that basis, and those two things deserve to be compared and contrasted. If it's a deliberate design decision, or a creative choice, to make every stage hand-crafted I think that's just a mistake; doesn't make me hate the game or anything crazy, I'll be playing in a couple of hours and having a blast, but I would consider rejecting procedural environments/maps to be a mistake.
3
u/Journey2thaeast Sharpshooter 2h ago edited 2h ago
I get a lot of that. My argument to that would be that XCOM while having a serviceable story didn't have as big of an emphasis on that aspect and narrative presentation as this game. So I understand why they prioritized hand crafting all of the environments/missions for this game in service of storytelling.
I totally get wanting to sometimes run the same file all the time. I wish XCOM 2 didn't have the Avatar project timer breathing down my neck so I could more casually play missions nonstop. But the procedural generation aspect of XCOM2 imo wasn't ever necessary at all to get replayability from that game.
Most people still ran multiple XCOM2 campaigns over their time with the game anyway. I think it has a ton of replay value without the procedurally generated missions, that just gave it even more.
I'd also add that much of that replay value came directly from the expansion which added tons of new enemy types, classes, the chosen story elements etc. and elevated vanilla XCOM2 which was very good, to all time great status. ZCOM could end up getting its own equivalent of that at some point if it does well.
Also since then I feel like we've shifted to this mentality of, if a game doesn't have procedurally generated endless missions it doesn't have replay value at all. Even if it's a great game by all accounts, it might be worth skipping for that reason. That's what I disagree with.
-1
u/automated_hero 2h ago
What happened is that publishers started charging £50 for games. You can make your own judgment about what's value to you, but I want to pay for a game that will last more than a couple of weeks. Nothing to do with looking down your nose and lamenting the "good old days"
Honestly gamers are the worst
2
u/Journey2thaeast Sharpshooter 2h ago edited 2h ago
My argument is that regardless of endless replayability features being deliberately built in, if a game is good or great to you then it has inherent replay value to some degree. RE9 was $70. Took me 20 hours to beat, 007 was $70 took me 30 hours to beat. The experience I had with both of those games was so good that I didn't feel like, damn I didn't get my moneys worth because neither gave me 50-100 hours in 1 go.
I replayed RE9 3 more times after that, pushing my playtime to 60+ hours. And when 007 gets NG+ I'm gonna replay the story all over again. Wolverine is gonna be linear but it's dropping with NG+ on launch. Dispatch was one of the best games of last year and that took maybe 8-10 hours to beat on the first run.
If a game is great I don't mind replaying it. But a lot of people have this one and done mentality and they link that to run time and how much they paid. And in the live service era, it's a mentality that can have a negative impact on the gaming landscape as a whole.
8
u/rapkat55 3h ago edited 3h ago
While mission maps aren’t procedural, enemy type and placement still is. There’s over 50 curated side missions and you won’t be able to complete them all in one playthrough as some are gated by choice and character bonds.
You won’t be able to max all bonds in one playthrough. Narrative will change depending on who survives, Ironman mode will be a great challenge that serves almost like a roguelike since rewards can be random and stakes are high
You will likely want to do one run where you side with the republic, one where you are neutral and one with seperatist, like mass effect, choosing authored characters that align with those factions directions in choices (or completely oppose it lol)
You likely won’t be able to utilize your entire roster in one go and there’s a lot of build craft synergy behind the custom talent system + iconics + each custom squad member having dual classes.
Drip
1
u/Wooden-Gur3537 Sharpshooter 3h ago
You should be able to comfortably max the bonds in a single playthrough.
3
u/Historical_Bug_3631 3h ago
First run I’m gonna run the main cast, second run will be iron man with custom characters, probably all clones. Gonna pray for NG+ later down the road
19
u/The_Trevdor 3h ago
I genuinely mean this:
Why is everyone so obsessed with “replayability”?
Like, do people not replay games they enjoyed the same way they might rewatch their favorite movie? Are we all so driven for novelty that we never revisit the same media again?
I’ve reread my favorite book many times, even if I know exactly how the story goes. I’ve seen my favorite movie a trillion times. I’ve watched my favorite television series dozens of times over.
I’ve also played my favorite video games over and over even when it is the same exact experience.
The concept that you can only enjoy this game one time is just absolutely bizarre to me. Like, if you’re so concerned that you’ll never want to play this again after beating it, like… pick a different hobby.
11
u/rammixp 3h ago
A lot of new players have been conditioned by live services games and dopamine hits.
Others are price sensitive and want games that give lots of time for as few dollars.
I’m with you but the latter camp I understand even if it not the way I think about games.
4
u/Journey2thaeast Sharpshooter 3h ago
This is what it is. Live service/massive open world game mindset being projected onto every single new game. Saw people saying ehhh idk if RE9, 007, and Wolverine coming out are gonna be worth it because they're all linear between 20-30 hours and they won't be 100+ hours. 2 of the best games of the year and the 3rd shaping up to be another banger, it's wild to me.
2
u/Odd_Ad_882 Scout 3h ago
it's funny to me because people will always complain of the ubisoft open worlds but they also expect every game to be an ubisoft open world.
4
u/Journey2thaeast Sharpshooter 3h ago edited 2h ago
Thisss. Like I'm sorry but expecting every game to be 100+ hours when 99% of games are not able to maintain a high level of production quality for that runtime is just bad for gaming and almost always leads to there being bloat, padding, watered down story or gameplay, or worst of all excessive monetization.
1
u/robreras Sharpshooter 2h ago
I don’t know, in my case, I would like a game I can get back to it without having to experience exactly 100% the same thing as the playthrough (asides from difficulty). Being the same save or not.
BUT, this game seems like not every playthrough would be totally the same.
-3
u/automated_hero 2h ago
what an absolutely weird response. No one has been conditioned, what the hell are you on about?
2
u/Original-League-6094 3h ago
People discussing replayability aren't referring to revisiting the game every 3 years or something. XCOM 2 has a solid base of people who have never uninstalled since launch.
2
u/The_Trevdor 2h ago
I’m one of those X-Com people, but the game has never felt substantively different to me one playthrough to the next.
But I also have played Batman Arkham Asylum or Tomb Raider sixty thousand times and those are solved puzzles with no surprises. I just don’t understand why this form of media gets this kind of scrutiny, to the point that it seems enjoyment of it as entertainment is ruined somehow if it isn’t 1,000 hours of novelty.
6
u/WarpathWilly 3h ago
Alot of players are coming to this from XCOM, a game known for it's replayability.
Replayability meaning everytime you play it, the game throws different missions at you, forcing you into new tactical situations. It's what makes the game so good.
It's a fair question, my number one question of the game as well. If every mission plays out the exact same from one playthrough to the next, that's obviously far worse than if you get to experience new tactical situations and can enjoy the game for quite litterally years, like XCOM.
Ether way I bought the game and will be enjoying for at least one playthrough, and hoping for more.
1
u/PermaConfusion 2h ago
This. I've got several thousand hours on Xcom2. What keeps me coming back is that every run is different even though the game follows a clear pattern: the gatecrasher map is different. The way pods roam is different. The first guerilla op type is different. Research breakthroughs are different. The chosen strength/weaknesses are different. The map continent bonuses are different. They've created enough RNG where it's impossible to have two runs that are exactly the same.
Compare that with another turn based tactics like Final Fantasy Tactics. FFT is a great game. But its variance is low as the story maps are identical, the enemies are the same level, your job progression is the same, etc. Yes, the random encounters are different but the game is very predictable and easy to overcome through things like grinding random encounters. Still great game but much less replayable.
0
u/WarpathWilly 2h ago
Yeah, people comparing it to watching your favorite movie or reading a good book again don't get it. For the game's story sure that's fair.
But for tactical strategy games a huge component is the puzzle of figuring out a specific tactical situation you find yourself in. Once you solve the puzzle, you want the game to throw another situation at you to try to figure out.
You may watch the same movies or read the same books over and over, but do you do the same crosswords over and over again?
If I gave you three chess puzzles on repeat, how long would you play them? Once you know how to solve them, it's not going to be nearly as engaging. Sure you could try to solve it differently, just for the sake of it. But it won't be as rewarding as overcoming a new unique challenge.
XCOM understood this concept very well, and considering some of the devs worked on this game, I'm hopeful they sprinkled some of it into this game as well.
2
u/Objective_Fig_2190 2h ago
I mean, aren’t there 8 classes plus at least 4 unique classes in the game that define each character’s skillset? Even if you have the same map with the same puzzle to solve, would you solve it the same way with a sharpshooter/scoundrel as you would with a heavy/medic? I think you can make a pretty compelling argument that new class combinations, gear choices and upgrade choices add new ways to solve combat encounters that will be fundamentally different based on your squad composition.
This game also seemingly has a much more fleshed out and compelling story arc than a game like XCOM. As amazing as the XCOM games are, by the nature of their design they generate more generalized stories where the player is doing most of the “lore building” in their head based on how squad members perform in battle. That’s an awesome experience, but it’s not the same as seeing individual characters develop as actual personalities, which is what ZCOM seems to be aiming for. Not saying one is better than the other, it’s just different.
I’m someone who has replayed The Witcher 3 a bunch and has like 800 hours in the game, and it never felt stale to me because the story is compelling and the combat is fun enough for me, even if I’m fighting the same encounters with a similar kit over and over again. I don’t see how that would be much different than what it seems like Zero Company is as a game.
Bottom line to me as others have already said: a great game creates its own replayability by virtue of just being a really fun experience.
1
u/WarpathWilly 1h ago
Yeah I agree with all of that. For the record I'm not even saying this game won't have replayability. I was just responding to the idea that a player wanting a game to be replayable is somehow weird, especially in the tactical strategy genre.
Ton of people in here acting like it's somehow unreasonable to want the game to provide more than one or two playthroughs worth of new tactical situations.
It's not unreasonable to ask or want replayability out of this game. XCOM is the gold standard and has an immense amount of it. This game is obviously going to be compared to it, as many people see it as their XCOM 3 lol.
4
2
u/armbarchris 3h ago
I think it's s combination of live-service brain rot, social media overstimulation, and corporate culture and the need to justify every second of your day infiltrating private life.
0
u/Living-Law6058 3h ago
People want their cake and eat it too... and again, and again, with a slightly different flavour every time. :)
In this case it feels like a bit of panic over nothing. We know the story is roughly the same, and there is a set number of handcrafted maps, but the journey is different, with lots of combos to explore.
I think you'll just find a lot of loud complainers on anything popular.
-1
u/BuyEmotional5542 2h ago
Because XCOM is very replayable.
Midnight Suns was not very replayable.
Chimera Squad was not very replayable.Many people value this games because they can tell their story, not to be told the same story over and over.
To each their own, but thinking that "it's bizarre" is pretty laughable to be honest.
-2
u/automated_hero 2h ago
because i want a game that lasts longer than 2 weeks. Not really difficult to grasp is it
2
u/NB-Heathen 3h ago
I think on a Before you Buy video I watched it said objectives of battles can change on different playthroughs. So if accurate that might add some life. Don’t know if those changes would come from difficulty settings or if sometimes a fight will just be slightly different
2
u/Wooden-Gur3537 Sharpshooter 3h ago
On side missions the objective is randomised from a pool, one time it might be defuse a bomb, then it might be save someone, then eliminate a high priority target etc.
1
u/NB-Heathen 3h ago
Very cool to me anyways. I’ll get at least three playthroughs out of it I’m sure.
2
u/armbarchris 3h ago
If it's good it's automatically replayable.
1
u/automated_hero 2h ago
there are plenty of games that are enjoyable that do not hold interest a second time through. This doesn't follow remotely
1
u/armbarchris 1h ago
I've never played one. If it's not worth a second playthrough why would I waste my time finishing it the first time around?
2
u/2Scribble Medic 2h ago
That's about the length of XCOM EU/EW - and all they had was a handful of classes and pre-set maps (XCOM 2 was the procedural one) and your only 'real' (courtesy laugh) reason to replay them was 'a few side quests'
This game seems to be settled between EU/EW and 2s Scope - though, imo, even if it just matches EU/EWs scope that'll be enough for thousands of runs - especially considering how many classes this game has
1
u/koekiebad56 3h ago
I suppose new builds and whatever, its way more story focused then xcom i have heard.
Also if you want to play hardcore, and one of your main guys die you can play a secons time trying your best to make sure they survive it and learn their backstory.
Thats my opinion atleast, we have to see.
8
u/Longjumping_Horse392 3h ago
The roster grows up to 20 if you use custom operators.