remember when this was a phrase people would use when evaluating games? the idea that you'd beat a game and then play it again, and how enjoyable an experience you'd have on this second play? we need to bring that shit back instead of letting people who write or talk about games act like games spontaneously combust as soon as the credits roll. "the game is only 1/2/4/10 hours long" No The Fuck It Is not
but what is good replay value anyway? IMO it's not just having content that can only be experienced across multiple playthroughs, or having achievements for playing on higher difficulties. a game with all this can still have gameplay that gets rote and boring when repeated, and I'd say that has poor replay value.
things to look for in determining replay value:
- does the players' experience change with the understanding gained from a finished playthrough? does a player with experience play meaningfully differently than one without?
- can a player make different decisions during gameplay, short or long term, that notably affect game state? how many different ways can the player approach the game?
- can a player skip cutscenes and dialogue? how about tutorials?
- is there a level/chapter select system? is it easy to replay specific parts rather than the whole game?
things like story routes, difficulty levels, etc. can still certainly add to replay value, of course! it's just important to consider how well the game supports them and how much the experience holds up