Do you think modern games have less replay value?

[Einhander]

Of course nostalgia can only enhance your view on this topic. But I could name you 100 games from the past that I feel are worth replaying again. I would not be interested in replaying Uncharted, Last Of Us, Gears of War, etc.. They were great the first time around, especially when they were new, but I don't think I would ever wanna finish these games up ever again. 

Old games just seem so much more charming and do more for the imagination. And maybe it's just me but I feel like there was more variety.

[Megatron]

In terms of pick up and play, sadly I think those days have passed.  the games with the best replay value these days are Halo, Call of Duty or some other plotless action shooter.  But I think as long as something has a chapter select it could potentially have that pick up and play feel...but nothing lives up to replaying some of those NES games.  I could play COntra for hours, but as you said, Gears of War not so much.
So I would say that everything up to the SNES/Genesis has complete replayability.  After will depend.

Buuuuut.....in terms of story driven adventure games, I don't think anything of the past (except for MAYBE some PS1 rpgs) can hold a candle to Bioware or Bethesda these days.  Even the mighty SNES Squaresoft games (FF3, Chrono, etc) cannot compete with epics like Mass Effect, K.O.T.O.R. and Fallout.  Games with multiple play styles and endings can keep you coming back if the game is good.  Granted these aren't "play every day" games, but when I want to sit down and pick up an RPG or experience a vast, open world - the 7th generation (Xbox 360, PS3, Wii) is the way to go.

[wiggy]

Yes, largely because of the typical length.  I can play through Super Mario World in 30 minutes and feel quite satisfied.  I'd love to run through Portal 2 again, but just don't have the time to devote to it. 

The desire is there, just not the time

[sheep2001]

Let's not forget that if you haven't played on a game/system for a while in this gen and the last, chances are you'll have to wait half an hour for updates before you can get your quick fix.

[TDIRunner]

Yes, largely because of the typical length.  I can play through Super Mario World in 30 minutes and feel quite satisfied.  I'd love to run through Portal 2 again, but just don't have the time to devote to it.  

The desire is there, just not the time

This.  Although it's fair to mention that with saving, you can play through the longer modern games over an extended period of time.  Some retro games have save functions, but many don't.  Because of this, many retro games that I loved as a kid I can't play anymore because I don't have 3 or 4 hours in a row to dedicate to them.  

A prefect example is Jurasic Park for the SNES.  I LOVED this game when I was younger.  The game takes about 4 hours to play through, but there is no save function or password system.  Because of this I havn't played through this game in many years.  I know there are ways around this now.  Such as playing on a Retron 5 and using save states or with the SNES Game Saver.  However, I've pesonally tried two different Game Savers for Jurassic Park and I coudn't get either one to work properly.  

With all of that said, I stil agree with Wiggy.  If I have 30 minutes of free time, I'm much more likely to pick up Super Mario Bros. 2 and beat it then to start up a new game of Metal Gear Solid 4.

[TDIRunner]

Let's not forget that if you haven't played on a game/system for a while in this gen and the last, chances are you'll have to wait half an hour for updates before you can get your quick fix.

Oh, and this too.

[palmer6strings]

I can think of a few modern games that I wouldn't mind playing through again. All the games I list are wonderful and I would suggest them to anyone.
As wiggy stated, Portal 2 is a great game.
Dragon's Dogma
Morrowind/Skyrim (Oblivion is good too, just my least favorite)
Fable 1, 2, & 3
Fantasy Life (OMG this game is freaking amazing, best game I've played on the 3ds an Ho boy I own a lot of 3ds games)
Cave Story 3D
LOZ a Link Between Worlds
Resident Evil Revelations (great on all systems)
Dead Space 1, 2, & 3
Mass Effect 1, 2, & 3
....

I could actually go on for a while but these came to thought first.

Great modern games I can always fall back on,

Minecraft
Terraria
Animal Crossing
Almost any Pokémon game... Ya.

There are crap games in every system, it's just more and more are coming out anymore because gaming a lot more popular than it ever has been before. Also because every Tom, Dick, and Harry can make a game anymore...

[Starwind Amada]

I heard The Order has no replay value and is basically just a movie with some QTEs, hence the reason I'm not staying up late to download it.

[sheep2001]

Someone on one of my Facebook groups finished it to platinum in 4 hrs 11 minutes.  Says there was just about one hour and a half of actual gameplay, the rest was quick time events and cut scenes.  That time was without rushing or skipping anything!

[Seraph Man]

Part of it is where the replay value is focused. No one is really interested in booting up Gears of War to play the single player again. But there are people still playing Gears 1 Multiplayer.

There are certain games I love to play and will go back to regardless of length or generation. Temporarily ignoring my Mega Man fixation, there's Illusion of Gaia, Terranigma (never played Soul Blazer), Eternal Darkness, Portal 1 & 2, Mass Effect 1, 2, and 3, Golden Sun, Super Metroid, Batman: Arkham Asylum & City, Lego: Batman (or any other Lego game), and so on.

Even the mighty SNES Squaresoft games (FF3, Chrono, etc) cannot compete with epics like Mass Effect, K.O.T.O.R. and Fallout.

Not only do I wholeheartedly disagree, I'd add Terranigma and Earthbound to the list of games that can compete with the epics like Mass Effect, KotOR, and Fallout. I'm not trying to downplay the quality of the newer games, but I think you're taking away from these games. You honestly just said the best Final Fantasy in the series and Chrono Trigger with it's multiple endings and character selection cannot compete with modern games. How can they not? The stories they tell, the means at which they tell them, the unique battle systems, the characterizations, the secrets, and more that better people than I can argue are what make them epics, regardless of what generation they appeared in.

[Megatron]

First off, I am not the biggest fan of Terranigma (which never came out in us officiallly) and i HATE earthbound.  So i wouldnt have included them anyway.
And the difference between older style rpgs and newer ones (btw i dont think 6 is the best ff), the endings are different but there is little variance in gameplay. With newer games, you could do an entire new play through and not do a single event or play style similar to your first run.  Ie. Paragon vs renegade in Mass Effect, Jedi vs Sith, saving hero or total asshole* in fall out.  And that isn't a knock to older games, just that more current titles have more advantages in terms of their story telling opportunities.

[CMDLineKing]

So EVERY game has PLAY value, how much you enjoy playing this game determines this value.  If you don't like the game, there could be multiple reasons why, but essentially you establish this immediately.. Don't like shooters? Cool, they have very little PLAY value for you, meaning they are likely to sit on the shelf.  But you LOVE RPGs! Can't get enough! RPG games will have a higher PLAY value for you.  PLAY value is essentially how likely you are to FREQUENTLY play a game.

Now, if a game has a high PLAY value for you that's very good! We now need to establish the REPLAY or PLAYTHROUGH value.  A game could have a low PLAY value for you, but have a high REPLAY or PLAYTHROUGH value.  

Minesweeper, I don't LOVE it, but I love to WIN it. This has a PLAYTHROUGH value.
I don't want to beat Galaga, but I play it OVER and OVER again. This has REPLAY value.

REPLAY value and PLAYTHROUGH value I think are different things..  I think REPLAY value (starting over) is higher in some games that have NO save feature.  PLAYTHROUGH value comes in from games that have a longer story, multiple storylines, or time to complete, but typically have save points..  There are games with a mix of PLAYTHROUGH and REPLAY value, but to keep this simple ----

REPLAY = Starting a NEW GAME
PLAYTHROUGH = Playing through and entire game (TYPICALLY HAS PROGRESSION SAVE FEATURE)  

To illustrate this, I'm going to compare two similar games, one with a Save feature, and one without..
Super Mario Brothers 3 vs. Super Mario World

I love both games, but they give me a different experience, while having basically the same core gameplay.

First, SMB3 TOTALLY could have had a save feature, the very next game (Super Mario World) did.. I mean look at the VAST 8 worlds that lay before you if you were to just PLAY.  Its crazy!  Hence the "Flutes/Whistles" warp zone.  When I fire it up and beat those first couple of worlds, then get the flutes I can whisk myself off to ANY of the worlds to play.  I turn the system off, or lose too many lives, it's game over.. I'm done, start over!! I must possess skills and mastery of the game to traverse these levels every time I choose to play. This is REPLAY value.

Now Super Mario World..  I have 3 different save slots, of which I only use 1 anyway.  I fire up the game, I select my save, then I try my hand at the next level in my path. If I die too many times, I just don't save.. Or.. I die.. and I KEEP ALL MY PROGRESS ANYWAY?  I am just picking up where I left off each time.. I can play through at my leisure, with no penalty.. So I play in short bursts, and it sits.. I beat the game, I don't start a new one.. I start try to find secrets or new paths.. And that can get old.. fast.  especially since once you find it.. that's it.. it's saved.. you can forget about it again until you want to play through the WHOLE game again. I do not need to possess mastery of any level longer than it takes me to pass it once, as my progression is saved and I do not need to return to this level again. This is PLAYTHROUGH value.

I am less drawn to play SMW.. PURELY because of the save feature, it reduced my REPLAY value. In SMB3 my play through is limited. I feel like I'm honing a skill that I can use to play the game more efficiently each time.  With SMW I'm missing that sense of "Oh crap, If I screw this up I am going to LOSE!", or "Oh Crap! if I don't get this mushroom I'm going to die in the next area."

If I said "I beat Super Mario Bros. 3 on my NES! NO GAME GENIE!" You would likely get a positive response from most gamers. Achieving this task takes SKILL and/or MASTERY of the game to finish it each time you turn it on.
If I said "I beat Super Mario World!" You would likely get a more passive response, as it does not take MASTERY to achieve this task, just time.
If I said "I beat Super Mario World, without saving and no continues in less than 1 hour!" You would likely get the more positive response, as this would take SKILL and/or MASTERY of the game to achieve.

So this brings me to what has good value...  Depending on what you prefer, or have time for, you may be looking for a game that has REPLAY value. Or you may be looking for a game that has PLAYTHROUGH value, but ideally a little of both.

For me most Genre's have these as follows..

ARCADE - REPLAY VALUE
ARCADE on FREE PLAY - PLAYTHROUGH VALUE
RPG - PLAYTHROUGH VALUE
RPG w/ CHANGING STORY - REPLAY & PLAYTHROUGH VALUE
RPG w/ MULTI-ENDING - REPLAY & PLAYTHROUGH VALUE
FPS STORY - PLAYTHROUGH VALUE
FPS MULTIPLAYER - REPLAY VALUE
PLATFORMER - NO SAVE = REPLAY VALUE
PLATFORMER - W/ SAVE = PLAYTHROUGH VALUE

[TDIRunner]

Well said ^^^^^

[Megatron]

I disagree with your analysis of SMW.  I have beaten that game so many times, and honestly I will either just erase my save or move on to a new save slot after I have played through in its entirety. As you said, this will vary person to person, but I don't think a save feature necessarily means it has no replay value.

[Thom Grayson]

Modern games do not (across the board) have any more or any less replay value than older games - you could pick any couple of games and 'prove' it one way or the other.

But I will say about open world games, you can play them for an extremely long time, because there's a lot to do in the world - GTA 5, etc. But for the same reason, they aren't the kind of games that you would replay from the beginning over and over. So you have a lot of time invested into it, and you can keep on returning to it over and over - but it's not really 'replaying', in a strict sense.

Is that a pointless exercise in semantics or a meaningful difference? I don't know, but it illustrates a problem with asking these kinds of questions - you will get extremely different answers depending on how you define 'replaying' and what kind of games you play.