Youre technically correct, of course, but i think you're being a little vague. Yes, in an fps, you shoot things. In an rts, you control units and move them around a battlefield. In guitar hero, you're always playing songs with a plastic guitar thing.

However, its the less general stuff that removes the repetition. In guitar hero, you play different songs. Its the same motions, but you do it in a different order, with different timing. In an fps, its the setting - a good fps changes the situation and the solution to it (being more specific than "kill all baddies") constantly - or will give you lots of options, letting you vary your experience as you see fit.

Also, repetition doesnt necesarily have to be a bad thing, depending on your opinion of the core game mechanics. For example, i enjoy killing the flood on halo 1 so much that i actually enjoy playing through the library. Im weird, i know :P

To focus on Assassins Creed, i think its that some aspects of the game are apparently repeated without much variation - especially the mini-quests you do to get info on your target, i think. If you enjoy doing these very similar things many times, great for you! It seems that many reviewers did not find them so fun after the first time, and hence made a point about it.

Damn, Savant.

It's way too early to stump me in a couple of paragraphs, you amish bastard. I was basically going to say what Prof. Pew said anyways, so just to spite you I'll think of something and return here with a "OMG I can has epiphany!"

"but when you have a game like Tetris where there are only so many pieces to drop, there's only so much replay value.....right?"

A good argument. As I stated above, all games are built around one or more simple elements. Tetris is a prime example of a game that is intricate in its simplicity.

But I have a counter argument; if Tetris wasn't repetitive, then why do they need 4,000 different iterations of it? (World, Evolution, Splash, DS, 2, Attack, etc.)

Easy: X-Com

I'm not so sure one can take the frame work of a game as repetition in the negative. With X-Com, your repetition is Build Things, Manage things, Chase down Alien Ship, bring down Alien Ship, Send in your guys to clean up the mess, [Variable: Attack Alien Base/Be attacked by Aliens in your base],Fail/Succeed, repeat.

You do that repeatedly. However, each scenario is a little different, broken up by where the ship crashed, how damaged it was, if its day/night when you land, what type of gear your team has and so on. I've had games of X-Com where my team lasts about 5 missions fully intact. Others, I've had teams wiped out on each mission.

The experience is quite varied, barring the framework.

I'd more or less agree with Rev.'s review of Assasin's Creed repetition as a negative, because, as he describes it, the structure and content of the missions are pretty rigid. How about a mark you just bumped into while doing your feildwork? How about a mark that you're not sure about? That sort of thing is nearly expected nowadays to provide an interesting game progression.

One thing that stuck out for me awhile back was in GTA III. That's got a pretty straight forward structure: mission intro, go drive, finish objective, collect $3000. There's one mission in particular though, where you have your information, you're driving, then your pager rings telling you to ignore our mission because you've been setup. The penalty for continuing the repetition is death and fail.

We've all played plenty of games, so we're bound to see the patterns. As a result, I'm pretty disappointed when the gamemakers don't tweak the structure when they know its transparent.

I think you're using the definition where repetitive isn't negative while they are. Repetitive can mean characterised by repitition OR doing the same thing too often.

Repeating a task, if it is an enjoyable task, does not necessarily feel repetitive, but repeating any task too often, no matter how enjoyable initially, is a negative point.

"if Tetris wasn't repetitive, then why do they need 4,000 different iterations of it?"

Well, we don't *need* it. The framework of Tetris, and its play content is golden. Its one of the greatest games ever created. It is, after all, the highest grossing mobile platform (read: cell phone) games of all time.

But when you've got that golden framework that people love, or at least tolerate without grudge, there's definitely no harm in tweaking the experience.

Tetris is to Tetris DS as
Super Mario Bros is to Mario Galaxy as
Megaman is to Megaman [enter sequel number here]

I don't think anyone would argue that AC needs a sequel, if only to apply its mechanics to another setting. But the trick is repeating what people enjoyed. If they keep the same mission framework, but give Altair a lazer gun and a companion cube, that's a disaster. Altair in France, though, is a win.

This repetitive argument was brought up alot with assassins creed recently. I cant understand why though, didn't everybody know it was just going to be running and killin before it came out? I think once has gotten mixed reviews the repetition argument is only around the corner. Personally i agree with Savant, at the end of the day its entertainment and its nearly impossible to constantly surprise and not repeat yourself all while making it fun too.

Stop stealing shit from my blog savant, you filthy deviant!

Anyway, I posted a reply to most of the arguments here elsewhere, but I doubt anyone actually so it, so here's a copypasta: In a game like halo, you're presented with the premise(ie. shooting shit) right off the bat, and you continue to do it for the whole game. The only real difference here is that AC is a huge, open sandbox type game. GTA established a precedent for a large variety of missions, and the fact that AC doesn't copy by rote seems to be what bothers people. Personally, I'd rather a small variety of missions executed excellently than a large variety with frequent problems(the copland mission from vice city comes to mind). I don't think it's entirely fair to criticise a game becaue it's not exactly how you thought it would be, especially if you have no solid reason for thinking it would be.

I challenge you to find a shooter with more variety than AC(FPSRPGs don't count). Bear in mind you only have to do 2 investigative missions before each assassination, and you can chose between informer missions(a series of assasinations that have to be done completely stealthily, or freerunning checkpoint races), eavesdropping missions, interrogation missions or pickpocketing missions. That's on top of all the optional stuff, like finding viewpoints, hidden flags and killing templars(which is always fun).

The game is awesome. Might not be everyone's cup of tea, but I firmly believe everyone should at least try it, and not just condemn it based on antihype.

Technically you are right, but I just dont want to admit it

@madninja

To extrapolate on youkilledmyguy's example, does smoking cigarettes have variety? Smoking is addictive and gives you the same feeling every time - like Tetris. I like your idea about variety or the lack thereof, but maybe it only applies to certain games?

Hmm.

->xper: No, I think I get what you're aiming for. The game is basically, get mission at base, go to city, investigate target, assassinate target, return to base, 9 times. I can see why you might have a problem with this, and I'm fine with that. I'm not trying to convince anyone who's played the game and formulated their own ideas about it to change their mind, because they're entitled to their own views as much as myself. My concern is that people see the dirge of criticism(particularly here at the toid) and just consider the game another overhyped underdeveloped pile of ass. I'm adamant that everyone should at least rent/borrow/pirate it.

But I digress, sort of. Puzzle quest, diablo, gears of war, etc. etc. etc., you're doing the same thing for the whole game. They're great games regardless.