Walkthroughs or Multiple Playthroughs?

[Heliocentrical]

So this was an interesting question that passed by me today. How do you prefer to complete a game? Multiple playthroughs where you find everything on your own or walkthroughs where you find everything in a single playthrough? I honestly prefer walkthroughs. I can't stand not finding everything in a single playthrough and it drives me crazy if I know that I missed something or that I thought I missed something. I've had to tell myself that it was okay when I missed something multiple times. I know finding stuff on your own is much more organic but the alternative of playing the same game over and over again is like a Sisyphean hell to me. I would do multiple playthroughs anyway either because I miss something and couldn't go back to get it or because my character build was slightly flawed. It is not fun.

 

[UndeadNecro]

I personally loathe playing games more than once when I've burned it out(aka played it once and am in a "familiar" state with it). For example, I've beaten Chrono Cross once but after that single playthrough, I only get up to half~ before I stop playing. Same goes for lots of other games because I know I'm playing familiar parts over and over and it feels tedious etc.

I prefer a walkthrough for a single playthrough if I *need* it or if using a walkthrough provides the player with benefits that are easily missed. Example : Baldur's Gate secret armour, which requires you to play BG 1 and keep the pantaloons, then complete the set in BG2, giving you(AFAIK) the best armour in the game.

 

[Psychotic Ninja]

Multi-playthroughs. I will go out of my way not to 100% a game on my first playthrough. Depending on the game I'll attempt to 100% it in another playthrough. Sometimes with a guide, sometimes without. If I attempt a 100% on my first playthrough, I get burnt out. I have little-no interest in playing the game again.

 

[arsenicCatnip]

what the hell, why are more people choosing walkthrough

the game's no fun if you have to have every aspect of it spoon-fed to you

 

[SC]

Having a game spoon fed to you doesn't make you appreciate it.

You need to experience your cycles of guilt.

 

[BTGBullseye]

For the most part, I would rather not do either. I'm in the game for the story initially, and will try to do everything possible in it under my own power. However, if the gameplay is good enough, I will replay a game several times. If it isn't, I might go through and get the things I missed, just for bragging rights. Since so few games focus on the gameplay anymore, it's rare that I get more than 2 playthroughs for any given game.

 

[TheTron852]

The only time I use walkthroughs is when it's a Guide Dang It moment, a.k.a. that moment where you basically ask "WHAT SHOULD I DO? WHERE DO I GO?", and next to none of helpful hints are given to you. looking at you, Simon's Quest

Or when I am unable to get past a particular enemy

As for multiple playthroughs... Well, most of the time it's a game I really enjoyed. Or the game was made for multiple playthroughs AND was interesting for me. I'd say multiple playthroughs happen more often than walkthrough situations, so I choose the second option

 

[Selkie]

I'm going with multiple playthroughs but for the most part I never even bother with 100% completions. Last time I tried that i ruined the game for myself and can't even play it without feeling like an obligation. The only exception is Bloodborne. I could 100% that again and still love it lol.

 

[Heliocentrical]

I personally loathe playing games more than once when I've burned it out(aka played it once and am in a "familiar" state with it). For example, I've beaten Chrono Cross once but after that single playthrough, I only get up to half~ before I stop playing. Same goes for lots of other games because I know I'm playing familiar parts over and over and it feels tedious etc.
I prefer a walkthrough for a single playthrough if I *need* it or if using a walkthrough provides the player with benefits that are easily missed. Example : Baldur's Gate secret armour, which requires you to play BG 1 and keep the pantaloons, then complete the set in BG2, giving you(AFAIK) the best armour in the game.

I agree, there are only so many times I can replay a game before I start losing my mind. I hate that sense of deja vu you get from doing multiple playthroughs. To some extent walkthroughs reveal way too much. I only read the bits I need and then if I'm really concerned I'll read the rest the walkthrough. I think maybe the best way to go about this is to write down some sort of checklist/strategy for myself and only progress when I'm comfortable with doing so . But man, some of those older RPGs/point & clicks can use some of the most obtuse moon logic I've ever seen. Planescape: Torment in particular has a lot of moon logic. "Make sure to talk to the old lady, have her remove your intestines and lose some of your permanent HP otherwise you won't be able to finish a large quest chain for one of your companions." I hate things like that and in PS:T it's especially egregious because stuff like what I've just described feels like a total gamble. If you weren't following a walkthrough for all you knew the devs could just be fucking with you by giving you an option to remove your intestines. For games with moon logic I would say following a walkthrough is essential.

BTW the reason I started this thread in the first place is because I'm thinking about playing Fallout 2 without a walkthrough. I've stopped play FO1 since people seem to regard it as the weaker one of the two classic fallout titles and I hate it. If FO1 is just mediocre then judging the whole classic Fallout series by my experience with FO1 seems rather unjust to me. From what I understand there's less combat in FO2 than in FO1 so I'm willing to give FO2 a shot purely because of that. I still stand by what I said about the combat being a godawful mess but maybe if there's less of it maybe I won't mind as much.

 

[Selfsurprise]

I went with the walkthrough option by a small margin. I'm not exactly a committed gamer and frankly I usually don't have the time to play games for more than a few hours - and honestly I usually don't want to. I might belong to a minority on this forum in that gaming is a secondary interest to me, rather noticeably trumped by other things like looking at art or reading copiously.