Jump to content

PS Plus: Free Games for December 2016


Aranea Highwind

Recommended Posts

Why not download it anyway and then just hold off on playing it until a guide does become available?  Trophies really are not the be all and end all of gaming.

Ah, I remember the time when I tried to argue with trophy hunters. I think it's weird to miss out on a good game just because of difficult/mp/unobtainable trophies, let alone the lack of a platinum.

These days, I just think "that's how they enjoy gaming", and (often but not always) move on.Time spent arguing is time not spent on gaming, after all, and these discussions often don't go anywhere :)

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure there is a relevant point and superioty factor with Xbox's GwG, otherwise PS3's Blueray was an irrelevant feature and aspect to ps3 last gen when it was a better system on one side because of it. What I dont understand is how the few here cant easily grasp how GwG is clearly better because of its concept/structure (letting you keep the games. Games are meant to be played for long periods of time and to revisit, not be treated as limited edition or locked to "insert"... generally). Comparsions exist. PS+ and GwG can be compared. GwG is objectively better since the games can be kept (which is more important than anything else as gamers play games), since the quality of games is on par with PS+'s. A lot of supportive statements ("PS+ acts like a libraby card", "have to keep renewing your PS+ merely to be able to PLAY the game" REGARDLESS of MP components, and "cant seperately purchase games if you already got via PS+"... if you can its inconvienent and troublesome, ETC). PS+ is clearly flawed, and trying defend it rationally or irrationally....... .

With that said, the membership is worth it for its other features. The discounts, cloud, discounts, automatic updates (especially handle if you work a lot OR keep a lot of games stored on HDD), discounts, and more easily make it worth it. The service isnt 'Free Game Giveaway Plus', its PS+, meant to provide multiple benefits, and not focus on one particular benefit. You shouldnt be treating it nor expecting of it to give you really high quality games consistently.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Im pretty sure there is a relevant point and superioty factor with Xbox's GwG, otherwise PS3's Blueray was an irrelevant feature and aspect to ps3 last gen when it was a better system on one side because of it. What I dont understand is how the few here cant easily grasp how GwG is clearly better because of its concept/structure (letting you keep the games. Games are meant to be played for long periods of time and to revisit, not be treated as limited edition or locked to "insert"... generally). Comparsions exist. PS+ and GwG can be compared. GwG is objectively better since the games can be kept (which is more important than anything else as gamers play games), since the quality of games is on par with PS+'s. A lot of supportive statements ("PS+ acts like a libraby card", "have to keep renewing your PS+ merely to be able to PLAY the game" REGARDLESS of MP components, and "cant seperately purchase games if you already got via PS+"... if you can its inconvienent and troublesome, ETC). PS+ is clearly flawed, and trying defend it rationally or irrationally....... .

With that said, the membership is worth it for its other features. The discounts, cloud, discounts, automatic updates (especially handle if you work a lot OR keep a lot of games stored on HDD), discounts, and more easily make it worth it. The service isnt 'Free Game Giveaway Plus', its PS+, meant to provide multiple benefits, and not focus on one particular benefit. You shouldnt be treating it nor expecting of it to give you really high quality games consistently.

 

You only keep the Xbox 360 games on GwG. The Xbone games are taken away from you when your subscription ends, much like PS+. There's nothing about GwG that is "clearly" or "objectively" better. It all comes down to each month and the personal preferences of that individual. Who are you to say "games are meant to be played for long periods of time and to revisit"? When I'm done with a PS+ game, I'll never go back and play it because I move onto new games, so being able to access it when my PS+ subscription ends is quite frankly irrelevant to me. I don't ever let my subscription run out anyway, mostly because of the other benefits such as cloud saves, discounts, etc, so that doesn't even affect me.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

You only keep the Xbox 360 games on GwG. The Xbone games are taken away from you when your subscription ends, much like PS+. There's nothing about GwG that is "clearly" or "objectively" better. It all comes down to each month and the personal preferences of that individual. Who are you to say "games are meant to be played for long periods of time and to revisit"? When I'm done with a PS+ game, I'll never go back and play it because I move onto new games, so being able to access it when my PS+ subscription ends is quite frankly irrelevant to me. I don't ever let my subscription run out anyway, mostly because of the other benefits such as cloud saves, discounts, etc, so that doesn't even affect me.

Preferences are irrelevant when youre trying to determine a winner in a comparison, obviously. Everything in life will not be universally equal with ppl, even essential things like food.

Regardless, some TYPE of games are kept there, unlike PS.

Who im I to state something obvious? Who are you to questionably challenge something theres no need to and makes no sense? Games are no different than toys and clothes, both aspects of life that are meant to interact with a person for a minimum lenghthy amount of time, so yes what I said is generally a fact. I didnt make this only about ps+ games either, I said GAMES and GENERALLY, so dont twist my point. Your point however is very flawed anyway. Both implying all games are useless (after beating) and that youll never come back to (especially when tslking from an irrelevant trophy collector's perspective), which then same logic applies to games you actually buy (retail/digitally), thus you should be trading those in by your logic. Not everyone is you, and more ppl revisit their games/keep for collection.

Games are intended by design to be played for a long time (as statues and collectable items are meant to he displayed for a long time, among other things), and dlc is one of many obvious reasons that supports that fact, despite developers NATURALLY saying in general how they hope their games will keep or last the player for a long time. MP is another supportive aspect of that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Preferences are irrelevant when youre trying to determine a winner in a comparison, obviously.

 

Uhhh, no. There's no such thing objectively better subscription service. There are benefits and negatives to both. You believe not being able to keep the games after your subscription runs out is a negative, but to me, it isn't even relevant. Maybe I think that the games the PS+ games have been of much higher quality than the Games with Gold this year. It's all subjective. Do you understand what I'm saying? It would be a bit like if I said Ratchet & Clank was objectively better than Jak & Daxter (it totally is though). :P

 

Who im I to state something obvious? Who are you to questionably challenge something theres no need to and makes no sense? Games are no different than toys and clothes, both aspects of life that are meant to interact with a person for a minimum lenghthy amount of time, so yes what I said is generally a fact. I didnt make this only about ps+ games either, I said GAMES and GENERALLY, so dont twist my point. Your point however is very flawed anyway. Both implying all games are useless (after beating) and that youll never come back to (especially when tslking from an irrelevant trophy collector's perspective), which then same logic applies to games you actually buy (retail/digitally), thus you should be trading those in by your logic. Not everyone is you, and more ppl revisit their games/keep for collection.

Games are intended by design to be played for a long time (as statues and collectable items are meant to he displayed for a long time, among other things), and dlc is one of many obvious reasons that supports that fact, despite developers NATURALLY saying in general how they hope their games will keep or last the player for a long time. MP is another supportive aspect of that.

 

I never said games were useless after beating them. Maybe don't twist my point, eh? ;) I'm saying that I don't go back to games after I've beaten them very often, and I'm willing to bet there are many others like me. You say that more people like to revisit their games after they're done with them than those that don't. Well, where's your source to back up this "fact" of yours since you seem to love using that word. Hell, most people don't even finish the games they buy, let alone go back for a second or third playthrough, and you can see this by looking at the trophy rarity on PSN for most games. You saying that "games are meant to revisited" isn't a fact, that's your opinion. That's what this entire argument comes down to really. I don't think you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity/facts and opinions.

 

And nope, some games are designed to be played for a long time, and others are very short experiences only meant to be experienced once. There is no one size fits all.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I was posting to inform us NA users because EU people (damned they be) got the games HOURS before. Fucking Timezone Haxors.

DEAL WITH IT, BITCHES! B)

To be fair though, after years of "we have to wait for the SECOND wednesday of the month instead of the first because the month starts with wednesday and we can't have Europe getting their games a week before 'Murica" AND paying as much from the start as the recent USA price increase, I feel like having the games a few hours sooner is the very least they can do for us.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

marvelboy10 said:


As a fellow trophy hunter I don't care how good or how bad a game is on ps plus. I play any type of game. So when people say oh this month sucks these are terrible games. I just try the games myself and I actually enjoy them. As a fellow trophy hunter we all know that if we want to get higher in the rankings and boost our profile we have to play these types of games.

 

DarkSoleride said:


Yup except for Tiny Troopers avoid it because it has two unobtainable trophies apparently.

 
I don't care for unobtainable trophies (played and really enjoyed Luftrausers when it got on PS+) and I don't mind if it has DLC which I will never play (more PS+ examples on my gaming card than I care to count), but I will still probably never play Tiny Troopers because the game itself just does not appeal to me at all. I will give all the other games a go, the background images on their game pages were enough to persuade me - except for VVVVVV, which will just go to my Vita and will be played if I ever find myself with it and not knowing what I should play. I don't often use my Vita so it might take a while.

 

And yes, I totally just reinstated a post of mine that is quoting posts that have now disappeared into the void.

 

7 hours ago, TartanArmy41 said:

I think the PS+ games would feel better if I didn't know about the Xbox games for gold, they are knocking it out of the park in comparison to a very very poor PS+ year

That's your opinion. As me and others have said before, many of us enjoy PS+ for giving us games we don't know about but would like to try. I loved the last year of PS+, while There hasn't been a single month of GwG that made me sad I don't have the service any more. Yeah it's AAA games but it's also stuff I've owned for ages, or don't want at all.

Edited by BillyHorrible
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, BillyHorrible said:

That's your opinion. As me and others have said before, many of us enjoy PS+ for giving us games we don't know about but would like to try. I loved the last year of PS+, while There hasn't been a single month of GwG that made me sad I don't have the service any more. Yeah it's AAA games but it's also stuff I've owned for ages, or don't want at all.

Stuff like nom nom galaxy, dragon fin soup, invisible inc, Galak-z, Rebel Galaxy, Tricky Towers, and so much more are not things I paid so much money for a PS4 to play, these are like mini-clip games, I like new and unheard of games, it doesn't need to be AAA, just be something of worthwhile quality, there was nothing in 2016 I liked at all and I think that's not a good variety of games they gave us, very poor.  Fan boys stick to sony like glue, it's really sad to see when people don't demand better, you just need to look at the youtube videos of Playstations "PS+ games for the month of...." to see how the dislike bar makes Infinite Warfare look popular

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, TartanArmy41 said:

Stuff like nom nom galaxy, dragon fin soup, invisible inc, Galak-z, Rebel Galaxy, Tricky Towers, and so much more are not things I paid so much money for a PS4 to play, these are like mini-clip games, I like new and unheard of games, it doesn't need to be AAA, just be something of worthwhile quality, there was nothing in 2016 I liked at all and I think that's not a good variety of games they gave us, very poor.  Fan boys stick to sony like glue, it's really sad to see when people don't demand better, you just need to look at the youtube videos of Playstations "PS+ games for the month of...." to see how the dislike bar makes Infinite Warfare look popular

I'm not saying every title is a hit. Of that list, Rebel Galaxy and Invisible Inc went on my backlog and I don't really care for the others. The list of games I did care for is very big though. Journey, Everybody's Gone To The Rapture, The Deadly Tower Of Monsters, Tropico 5, MonsterBag, Velocity 2X... There's also many games which I did not really cared for at first but gave a try anyway and ended up enjoying a lot, like Flame Over and Road Less Taken.

I tend not to look at YouTube comments. Nor Twitter, Facebook... All those things tend to accentuate the negative. ESPECIALLY YouTube votes, with those misogynistic asses scripting downvote bots so the new Ghostbusters trailer becomes the most disliked video on there.

Personally I check a wee bit of gameplay for every PS+ title and unless it's a genre I really don't like (Tower Defense, sports, multiplayer only, what have you) then it's going on my list, at least to try it out. I use this tactic on PS+ and I did use it on GwG. On GwG almost nothing was left after taking away stuff I already had and stuff I did not like, but on PS+ at least two titles a month tend to remain (or, like this month and the one before: all except one remain). You can't really expect to love every title in every month since there's different tastes to take into account. Can't please everyone with every title.

Fanboying has nothing to do with it, I was annoyed by GwG long before I owned a PlayStation and I loved PS+ back when I only had a PS4 and still had some leftover months of GwG on my X360. I genuinely like PS+, if you don't believe me then check my gamer card for how many titles I've played through, and check my backlog thread for how much I still want to play.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 12/2/2016 at 11:34 PM, Undead Wolf said:

 

Uhhh, no. There's no such thing objectively better subscription service. There are benefits and negatives to both. You believe not being able to keep the games after your subscription runs out is a negative, but to me, it isn't even relevant. Maybe I think that the games the PS+ games have been of much higher quality than the Games with Gold this year. It's all subjective. Do you understand what I'm saying? It would be a bit like if I said Ratchet & Clank was objectively better than Jak & Daxter (it totally is though). :P

 

 

I never said games were useless after beating them. Maybe don't twist my point, eh? ;) I'm saying that I don't go back to games after I've beaten them very often, and I'm willing to bet there are many others like me. You say that more people like to revisit their games after they're done with them than those that don't. Well, where's your source to back up this "fact" of yours since you seem to love using that word. Hell, most people don't even finish the games they buy, let alone go back for a second or third playthrough, and you can see this by looking at the trophy rarity on PSN for most games. You saying that "games are meant to revisited" isn't a fact, that's your opinion. That's what this entire argument comes down to really. I don't think you understand the difference between objectivity and subjectivity/facts and opinions.

 

And nope, some games are designed to be played for a long time, and others are very short experiences only meant to be experienced once. There is no one size fits all.

Uhh, yes there is, just like there are other things in life that are determined the best between it and something. Everything has their cons and pros, that's just how life is. It's generally a relevant factor. Just because you personally have no use for it, doesn't make it a fine feature or ok in "general". The problem is you're basing this too much on your OWN preference. I as usual tend to talk from a general perspective. Otherwise I can make foolish comments like I only need to eat one meal a day and im fine, so Ill support the idea - if a law was being considered (for arguments sake) - that everyone doesn't need to eat more than 1 meal a day since "Im" fine with one a day, or hell even one game made a year per system (because of my conditions). My vote would go towards that, since im only thinking about and considering my preference. Games.... I shouldn't really have to defend how games should always be accessible if you brought them or have access to them via certain services. Not being able to keep the games while a competitor's service has a mirroring service but lets you keeps the games there not only makes PS+ execution a legitimate objectively flaw but also one that makes GwG superior, advantageous, and better since 1/2 companies has that existent aspect in place while the other doesn't. (You're in the same nonsensical boat of supporting a similar example like Microsoft doesn't have weaker exclusives than Nintendo and Sony, it's all subjective, just abusing 'subjectivity' because technically nearly everything is an opinion.)  If GwG didn't allow it, it may still be a con for Sony, but then Xbox/Microsoft wouldn't have that edge/point over Sony. Do you understand what im saying is what I should be asking you, not the other way around.

Except that's not a valid comparison given the circumstances and marginal differences of the franchises. Otherwise let me also toss out unfair examples like technology is better now than it ever was in the past. That's fair, right? Food taste better now than in the past because of more created ingredients, formulas, and spices. Fair right? Adults are smarter than little kids. Fair right? Old man chosen over a mid 30yr old adult for service in army.. fair right? If you want a fair comparison, Uncharted vs Ratchet and Clank would be actually valid (Uncharted is definitely better than Ratchet and Clank though :p).

Maybe don't twist your point? Oh really now? Ok. 

On 12/2/2016 at 9:02 PM, Undead Wolf said:

When I'm done with a PS+ game, I'll never go back and play it because I move onto new games, so being able to access it when my PS+ subscription ends is quite frankly irrelevant to me.

I didn't twist crap. Of course there are always "others". But majority go back to games, especially when trophy hunting is not a thing. Before trophies existed, games were very much the foundation for replay-ability and were always played over and over and over (Mario Party, Mario Kart, Street Fighter, Smash Bros, do I really need to do this?). TROPHIES are what mostly created and pushed the idea/motive of not needing to go back to games because in order to get more trophies, you have to move on, which means you have to stop playing other games just for fun. Basing opinions on trophy rarity? Everyone doesn't sync and everyone doesn't have online access. No it is a fact that games are MOSTLY (AGAIN, MOSTLY) designed to be revisited, definitely factual by IN GAME BUILT MECHANICS, to. Im not going over this again, I just used 4 evident supports of this. By your flawed logic, because some games have implemented different ideas, the fact that games are mostly created for replay-ability is an opinion. That's extremely poor and flawed reasoning, when the right thing to actually say is that not ALL games are created with that in mind.

 

Nah, I do, I don't think you do via this particular subject. You're arguing against common sense and nature/natural process of things. There is a majority though, and my point is tied to majority. It was never about all, that was what you was thinking, it was just about most.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

25 minutes ago, Mar said:

Uhh, yes there is, just like there are other things in life that are determined the best between it and something. Everything has their cons and pros, that's just how life is. It's generally a relevant factor. Just because you personally have no use for it, doesn't make it a fine feature or ok in "general". The problem is you're basing this too much on your OWN preference. I as usual tend to talk from a general perspective. Otherwise I can make foolish comments like I only need to eat one meal a day and im fine, so Ill support the idea - if a law was being considered (for arguments sake) - that everyone doesn't need to eat more than 1 meal a day since "Im" fine with one a day, or hell even one game made a year per system (because of my conditions). My vote would go towards that, since im only thinking about and considering my preference. Games.... I shouldn't really have to defend how games should always be accessible if you brought them or have access to them via certain services. Not being able to keep the games while a competitor's service has a mirroring service but lets you keeps the games there not only makes PS+ execution a legitimate objectively flaw but also one that makes GwG superior, advantageous, and better since 1/2 companies has that existent aspect in place while the other doesn't. (You're in the same nonsensical boat of supporting a similar example like Microsoft doesn't have weaker exclusives than Nintendo and Sony, it's all subjective, just abusing 'subjectivity' because technically nearly everything is an opinion.)  If GwG didn't allow it, it may still be a con for Sony, but then Xbox/Microsoft wouldn't have that edge/point over Sony. Do you understand what im saying is what I should be asking you, not the other way around.

Except that's not a valid comparison given the circumstances and marginal differences of the franchises. Otherwise let me also toss out unfair examples like technology is better now than it ever was in the past. That's fair, right? Food taste better now than in the past because of more created ingredients, formulas, and spices. Fair right? Adults are smarter than little kids. Fair right? Old man chosen over a mid 30yr old adult for service in army.. fair right? If you want a fair comparison, Uncharted vs Ratchet and Clank would be actually valid (Uncharted is definitely better than Ratchet and Clank though :p).

Maybe don't twist your point? Oh really now? Ok. 

I didn't twist crap. Of course there are always "others". But majority go back to games, especially when trophy hunting is not a thing. Before trophies existed, games were very much the foundation for replay-ability and were always played over and over and over (Mario Party, Mario Kart, Street Fighter, Smash Bros, do I really need to do this?). TROPHIES are what mostly created and pushed the idea/motive of not needing to go back to games because in order to get more trophies, you have to move on, which means you have to stop playing other games just for fun. Basing opinions on trophy rarity? Everyone doesn't sync and everyone doesn't have online access. No it is a fact that games are MOSTLY (AGAIN, MOSTLY) designed to be revisited, definitely factual by IN GAME BUILT MECHANICS, to. Im not going over this again, I just used 4 evident supports of this. By your flawed logic, because some games have implemented different ideas, the fact that games are mostly created for replay-ability is an opinion. That's extremely poor and flawed reasoning, when the right thing to actually say is that not ALL games are created with that in mind.

 

Nah, I do, I don't think you do via this particular subject. You're arguing against common sense and nature/natural process of things. There is a majority though, and my point is tied to majority. It was never about all, that was what you was thinking, it was just about most.

 

Did it really take you almost a whole week to come up with this reply? :P

Anyway, I'm done trying to reason with you. You're clearly not having any of it. No point beating my head against this brick wall any longer. <_<

Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 minutes ago, Undead Wolf said:

Did it really take you almost a whole week to come up with this reply? :P

Anyway, I'm done trying to reason with you. You're clearly not having any of it. No point beating my head against this brick wall any longer. <_<

Hmm.. or maybe perhaps I was busy with other things... or may'be I didn't feel like replying ASAP? (EDIT: I'm not even remotely accustomed/familiar with this website's new design. Like how there is no longer an UNDO/REDO Button.. huge mistake/over-sight.)

You're clearly not having it, though. If games aren't meant to entertain us for minimally lengthy decent amount of times then paper isn't meant for information to be placed on it, families aren't meant to be there for each other, figurines and statues aren't meant to be admired....

Edited by Mar
Link to comment
Share on other sites

49 minutes ago, Mar said:

Of course there are always "others". But majority go back to games, especially when trophy hunting is not a thing. Before trophies existed, games were very much the foundation for replay-ability and were always played over and over and over (Mario Party, Mario Kart, Street Fighter, Smash Bros, do I really need to do this?). TROPHIES are what mostly created and pushed the idea/motive of not needing to go back to games because in order to get more trophies, you have to move on, which means you have to stop playing other games just for fun. Basing opinions on trophy rarity? Everyone doesn't sync and everyone doesn't have online access. No it is a fact that games are MOSTLY (AGAIN, MOSTLY) designed to be revisited, definitely factual by IN GAME BUILT MECHANICS, to.

Saw this and felt like going into it for a little bit.

First, yes trophies are probably to blame for a few people not revisiting games. Personally I think trophies add replayability - because I almost never 100% a game on my first go and thus get more trophies out of going back to a game. Having said that, I'm clearly not a trophy hunter and I have replayed several games multiple times even though I had already obtained all trophies (Portal 2, Super Star Wars...). I know non-hunters may seem like a vocal minority here but I know I'm not the only one I know who replays stuff regardless of trophies, both on this site and in real life.

What I think is a big factor in replaying games less (regardless of whether or not you're a hunter) is that there's much more games coming out these days, and it's much easier to obtain them. During my first SNES console as a kid, I had probably only ten games, maaaaybe twenty. I replayed some of those games over and over... Even now, I don't think I have more than thirty SNES cartridges. Compare my PlayStation backlog, with the PS+ and the digitals and the DLCs... How can I replay Arkham Knight when there's over sixty games I own but haven't played yet? Most of my backlog is PS+, and I'm not even counting the games I'm not interested in.

Anyways I try to keep replaying my favourites from time to time. I actually replayed the classic Game Boy title Kirby's Dream Land yesterday. Adding an extra factor: playing that whole game took me less than an hour. You'll be less inclined to play games that take weeks to play through (though I know a guy who's replaying through Fallout 4 for maybe the fourth time now...).

Edited by BillyHorrible
  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

13 minutes ago, BillyHorrible said:

Saw this and felt like going into it for a little bit.

First, yes trophies are probably to blame for a few people not revisiting games. Personally I think trophies add replayability - because I almost never 100% a game on my first go and thus get more trophies out of going back to a game. Having said that, I'm clearly not a trophy hunter and I have replayed several games multiple times even though I had already obtained all trophies (Portal 2, Super Star Wars...). I know non-hunters may seem like a vocal minority here but I know I'm not the only one I know who replays stuff regardless of trophies, both on this site and in real life.

What I think is a big factor in replaying games less (regardless of whether or not you're a hunter) is that there's much more games coming out these days, and it's much easier to obtain them. During my first SNES console as a kid, I had probably only ten games, maaaaybe twenty. I replayed some of those games over and over... Even now, I don't think I have more than thirty SNES cartridges. Compare my PlayStation backlog, with the PS+ and the digitals and the DLCs... How can I replay Arkham Knight when there's over sixty games I own but haven't played yet? Most of my backlog is PS+, and I'm not even counting the games I'm not interested in.

Anyways I try to keep replaying my favourites from time to time. I actually replayed the classic Game Boy title Kirby's Dream Land yesterday. Adding an extra factor: playing that whole game took me less than an hour. You'll be less inclined to play games that take weeks to play through (though I know a guy who's replaying through Fallout 4 for maybe the fourth time now...).

Though I agree with what you say for the most part. I feel that replayability was reduced nowadays as rather than have add ons or cool unlocks to keep you playing i.e. alt costumes, characters, cheat modes etc. Most games dropped these and there's less to really get in a second play through that you didn't get in a first play through.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Superbuu3 said:

Though I agree with what you say for the most part. I feel that replayability was reduced nowadays as rather than have add ons or cool unlocks to keep you playing i.e. alt costumes, characters, cheat modes etc. Most games dropped these and there's less to really get in a second play through that you didn't get in a first play through.

I've got two arguments against that:

One - SNES games back in the day did not have unlockables at all, it was literally the same game every time except for the rare NG+ (Kirby's Dream Land) or 100% statistic (Donkey Kong Country), or - very rare - different levels depending on difficulty (Star Fox). Replayability through add-ons and unlocks is something that happened more recently, the age of game replays I mentioned was from before those days. In those days, a game could be played through in hours.

Two - there are still add-ons / unlocks in recent games to promote replayability. LEGO has the minikits which you can't get obtain your first go, Mass Effect has a plethora of choices to make that can change stuff as well as different team members who react in different ways, Batman Arkhams have NG+, Assassin's Creed tries to get you to go for 100% synchronisation, Portal 2 has unlockable dev commentary... I could go on and on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...