The Replay

Replay value is often toted as one of the most important considerations when making or buying a game. This is usually equated with variability; the more ways subsequent games will differ, the better. Modern games have been latching onto this idea by implementing elements such as modular boards, assorted scenarios, optional cards, different roles or factions, and so on. Even the concept of a board game expansion emphasizes the idea that a game is more fun when it offers something new and different each time you play.

This make sense; that feeling of discovery is great, and games with assorted ways of playing do well in reproducing it. This idea, though, that a game without all of these extras is somehow inferior has become so ubiquitous that it seems strange to see a new board game these days that doesn't have modular components of some sort. As things are now, adding in something like a modular board is perceived as being a trivial addition and is, in some consumer's eyes, mandatory for a game to be worth even considering. I know I've taken less interest in certain games because of that, which is unfortunate.

With that said, however, changing the board, or the scenario, or even what cards are being used from game to game is clearly not a requirement for an enjoyable game, or even for a successful game. Games like Go and Chess haven't survived for as long as they have because they encapsulate that 'new game feeling' every time you play. Enjoying these classic, high strategy games is far more about mastery than variety; playing them is far more akin to solving a puzzle. The sense of discovery that is implemented in modern games by changing how you play instead comes from moments of epiphany, when things click and you better understand the game. The replay value comes from getting better at the game each time you play.

Still, the modern, modular game is likely far more sustainable in the current market than a static strategy game, though this is perhaps a self-fulfilling prophecy; the more modular games that are created, the more gamers will expect them, and the more it will be associated with what a game 'should' be. Classic-styled games that do not incorporate a 'modular' element could get pushed out of the market entirely; as it is I am hard-pressed to name any that have come out recently; Knight Moves comes to mind, but it is already ten years old.

Couple this shift in the market with the ability for companies to constantly create new content for their popular games, and the gaming market starts to look like the movie industry: a sea of sequels, remakes, and spin-offs. Just look at popular titles like Carcassonne, Settlers of Catan, and Munchkin, to name a few. Each one not only has a multitude of expansions to modify the game, but each one also has whole spin-off games and re-themed versions. It is a robust business model, with far fewer risks than creating brand new titles, so it is no surprise that it seems to have been adopted by nearly every game publisher.

Now, don't get me wrong, I really do enjoy modular games. It really is a big selling feature for me, and I do feel that it is a simple, effective way for a gamer to get more out of their game. Expansions, too, are a great way to rediscover an old favourite. My concern here is really more in the style restrictions that have been placed on designers; it is expected that games have to be expandable to be successful; they must be modifiable and provide drastically different game play every time you open the box or no one will be interested. But really, there is room in every gaming collection for strategic, non-modular games like Chess, Go, and Knight Moves. They have remarkable replay value, and mastering these kinds of games can be very rewarding. Plus, since they don't have a pile of expansions, they will leave plenty of room on your shelves for other games, too!

13/13