[GAHD]

Yes, HL@ is an awesome game, ooh how I hated those ant lions untill I got the power of the pods.

[kaelcarp]

I think it's all about level of engagement. If the game engages a person well, it's a good game. If it doesn't do a good job of engaging a person, it isn't. Now what makes a game engage people? Well, for one, it has to have "invisible" controls. By "invisible" I mean that you shouldn't have to keep looking up how to do certain things in the game and the controls shouldn't be too complex. Beyond that, there are so many possibilities. A game can have no graphics but a great storyline that sucks you in (the original Zork, for instance). Or, it can have no story at all, but keep you glued with gameplay (something like Tetris). Great graphics will score points, but only insofar as they are able to draw you further into the game's reality. Great graphics alone won't do it.

[geko]

For years i played the rts command & conquer (online). RA2 and yuris are still the best rts's ever made in my opinion. What made them good i think is that they were fast (I like this about racing games as well. Gotta be fast and smooth - wipeout fusion and need for speed underground are my favs). C&C had simply controls as well which made them good but they also had a big learning curve on the units to know how to use them (im still not 'that' good now after 4 or 5 years of playing ), but even a complete beginner would have no trouble finding out how to simply move and shoot. The graphics are 2D and pretty basic by todays standards, but that doesnt bother me with rts's.

The ability to go online, have a player and/or clan ladder, a good learning curve, fast pace and a variety of units is a requirement for a potentially good rts in my opinion. edit: and there's gotta be lots of hot keys for the structures etc. compare ra2 and generals and you have my idea

With first person shooters my most favourite thing is the atmosphere of the game. Doom3 was perfect. Disappointed with HL2 (although the look of it was great). Disappointed with painkiller. Cant wait till F.E.A.R comes out to hopefully scare the wotsits out of me I also think the physics or engine whatever it's called is important in fps's - if i get stuck on a bit of scenery or a broken box or somethign and have to reload im not happy, more than once and it totally ticks me off.

Not really interested in going online with these, so a scary atmosphere (sounds, lights, monsters etc.,), good engine and good graphics is what makes fps games good for me.

I dont like bosses, they get in the way. I dont like puzzles (unless i can solve them REAL easy), and i dont like getting lost

[Pyrotex]

I've been lucky to avoid real gaming addiction. That is, until I discovered Civilization. Where all fp/shooters and flight sims left me stone cold, the idea of building a world strategically was awesome. The "sequel" Alpha Centauri was even better. After a few years, I got tired of the stupid AI opponents.

Then I bought a new HP computer, and used their game coupons to get Fate. It's a fp/shooter, using swords, axes, spears, hacking & slashing agaiinst a universe of increasingly powerful monsters. You know the drill. What I loved about it was: serious 3D graphics, realistic monster movements, a sense of unpredictability despite how long I played, a complex keyboard+mouse interface that I could master incrementally until I no longer needed to think about it. After six months of play, I had to delete the game from my computer to save my sanity, my job and my marriage.

In my gaming fantasy, I want a combo of strategy and fp/shooter. There were Mac games in the early years, can't remember the names, but there were sailing warships on a sea, where you directed your fleets strategically, setting up battles that might take place 10 minutes in your future, then drop down into the individual battles and take the helm of your flagship for R/T action.

I once wrote a design for a computer game based on the ancient (1969) game of StarTrek, where there were three levels, Warp Drive Battle, Interplanetary (Impulse) Battle, and Planetary interaction with alien civilizations, including finding "puzzle" pieces (i.e., advanced technology) and engaging in fp/shootemups. It never got built. As soon as the computer club I was president of read the specs, they disbanded. Darn.

[Tormod]

Originally Posted by Pyrotex

I've been lucky to avoid real gaming addiction. That is, until I discovered Civilization. Where all fp/shooters and flight sims left me stone cold, the idea of building a world strategically was awesome. The "sequel" Alpha Centauri was even better. After a few years, I got tired of the stupid AI opponents.

I know...the Civ games are insane. I spent so much time with Civ III that it almost ruined a summer vacation - I sat up ALL night while the others slept.

In my gaming fantasy, I want a combo of strategy and fp/shooter.

I sort of think the same, but I think I have found out that there is no time for me to spend on strategy. I just want the kick ass part. Halo was great in that respect. Right now I'm playing F.E.A.R. which apart from being an excellent FPS also has a strong element of (yes) fear. The first few hours were so scary I couldn't believe it, but after a while I had to tell myself that this is only a computer game after all. There is a reason for the 18+ rating...

I once wrote a design for a computer game based on the ancient (1969) game of StarTrek, where there were three levels, Warp Drive Battle, Interplanetary (Impulse) Battle, and Planetary interaction with alien civilizations, including finding "puzzle" pieces (i.e., advanced technology) and engaging in fp/shootemups. It never got built. As soon as the computer club I was president of read the specs, they disbanded. Darn.

Good one.

[Mercedes Benzene]

As others have mentioned previously, it is really up to the gamer to decide what makes a good computer game or not.
For me, despite the fact that modern games have much better graphics, I tend to prefer the older (late 90s) computer games because at this point in time, game programmers had not run out of original ideas. I think I've mentioned this in a previous thread before, but Might and Magic VIII: Day of the Destroyer is my all time favorite game. The interface and storyline help to make it my favorite.

As for modern games, I personally like futuristic games (preferably FPSs) and some RPGs.
One of the biggest selling points for me --and I do believe it is for a lot of gamers-- is that a game have excellent replay value. Even if you're not the type of person who feels like going through an entire game again, simply knowing that you can and still enjoy the game somewhat, makes the game more enjoyable.
(That was a little wordy, but I hope you got what I meant. )

[Zythryn]

Immersion, in my opinion, has a lot to do with it. However, what is immersive is highly subjective.
One of my all time favorites was Warcraft 2. Not just do to the game and interface, but the humor value. Click repeatedly on a character and they would speak to you (Zug Zug, Dabu), click on them enough they would threaten you(STOP poking me!).

I also like a mix of action and strategy/tactics. One I particularily enjoy is Planetside. You can run around shooting the bad guys or you can team up with other players to take out enemy locations/installations, set up defences, or provide support. Some truly epic battles take place (but not as often as I would like).

[KickAssClown]

Originally Posted by Killean

I think I can answer my own question because I have played at least one game that provide a timer on events, which happens to be invisible so you have no real clue as to when they happen. Secret Weapons Over Normandy is a great WW2 plane simulator/flight combat game with a few hidden timers and a few planned events.

Here here! Anyone who disagrees should be charged with heresy!

I will take on the charge of Heresy, as always.

To me graphics a good game does not make. A good game can have good graphics, but it is not necessary for a good game to have good graphics.

What I like about games is engaging, intuitive, immersive interfaces. When I can look at a game's demo and tell how the player does what they do, that is intuitive. I dislike games which either do not document their unique little button combos, or inconveniently place their button combos.

For non-computer based games, like board games, when I can understand how I can interact with the problem space, that is intuitive.

Biggest complaint about Halo on the XBox, the x button is the melee button, which requires that I remove my thumb from the right thumb stick (look) to hit people, which makes aiming and melee harder to do. That is non-engaging.

Or when I open a window in Diablo 2. Most annoying thing. I can't see what's going on below my window and often enough that has killed my character. That is non-immersive. When you have to leave the general problem space to deal with your character that can be problematic, or the interface gets in the way of interaction. Pausing the game can be a good answer, but that can break the trance, so to speak.

One of my favorite games of all time was Dungeon Keeper. I suppose it would be a RTS, though that doesn't give you a real good idea of what made it special. The interface was clean neat, and consistent. the problem space, was kept separate from the hud, and everything has a quick key, that you can find simply by placing your mouse icon over the icon of the thing to be accessed.

You can pretty seamlessly go from overhead control to First person when you possess your creatures and the controls are both standard (wasd) and customizable. The mouse is used for looking, the abilities of the creature are labeled and numbered, and the stats easily accessible with a moment's glance. left click used a selected ability, and right click released control of the creature and took you back to the Keeper third person mode.

So in conclusion, I would say what makes a game good is the form of it's interactive elements, their functionality, presentability, and accessibility.


Now beyond that, I can't talk about what I like about games, as the only consistent, common aspect of a game is it's interface.

Now what I like about narratives, logical consistency, physical probability/improbability, and other such issues would take up different threads. As each is individual to the so called "genre" or "class" of game. A rpg has elements which are different from a puzzle, as is a strategy different from an adventure.

[Boerseun]

Civilization!!! Many a wasted day using my diplomacy and trade to avert warfare, whilst paying the English to destroy the Russians, with whom I've got an alliance! Hahaha - good times.

No, seriously - I like strategy games. And Civilization stands out amongst them all because it's <GASP> turn-based. The sheer amount of time available to you makes micromanagement possible, and the gaming experience is much richer and deeper for it.

And then Flight Simulator 2004! Nobody's shooting at you, nobody wants to kill you, but you have to get that Boeing 747-400 from New York to London. And what you have is real-world weather, the airplane's normal instruments, a GPS and airplane systems which could (if you are partial to playing around with the reliability settings) malfunction at any time. Yes, it is indeed a waste of time. But at least you get to learn how stuff works, which is a bonus.

The serious FlightSim fanatics join virtual airlines, and work through the ranks. There's quite a couple of websites out there for this kinda thing.

I'm gonna buy Flight Simulator X next, as soon as I've upgraded my screencard. The graphics is simply out of this world. I've seen a demo, and it blew me away.

Okay - so I'm not the killing type. Blood and guts come second to ATIS and IFR!

[Boerseun]

Originally Posted by Boerseun

Okay - so I'm not the killing type. Blood and guts come second to ATIS and IFR!

Okay - so I lied.

I had to upgrade my one machine to an insane level for a new project I'm busy with, and the geek at the computer store chucked in a game on the house to go with my awesomely spiffy screen card and quad core processor. He told me that what I needed the hardware for will be a waste - all that processing power going to waste. What I needed to really put it to the test, was Call of Duty 4.

And so I did.

And it's AAAAAAAAWESOME!

Anybody else here played Call of Duty 4, or, as the fanboys on the 'net will have it, Charlie Oscar Delta?

FPS on a sinking ship, with the whole world swaying? I almost got seasick. No shit. Bullets on a long sniping shot being affected by wind, distance drop, even the Coriolis force? No kidding. There's a scene where you have to snipe a terrorist in rather windy conditions. He's standing amongst pretty dynamic scenery, and you have to judge the wind conditions and correct your aim accordingly. It rocks.

I read on the net that COD4 has the most advanced FPS engine yet. It does calculations on every single bullet fired, as the bullet drops, what kinds of material it passes through, etc. You can't hide behind a door, for instance. It's got some "penetration" calculation thingy going; for instance, if a bullet has passed through a lot of stuff, the drop increases and velocity decreases, if it hits you then it might just puncture the skin if it's slow enough, and not pass through. It's a whole new ballgame.

Seen "Shooter" with Mark Wahlberg? Well, this game also includes the rather Yeti-looking Ghillie-suits as well. Awesome.

COD4 is the best game I've ever played. Can't really compare it to strategy, 'cause you're just dunked into the killing zone for about 15 minutes worth of insanity till the next stage - a little too linear on the story line. But hey - that's FPS. But graphics/sound/engine wise, it's simply in a league of its own. The characters are simply amazing. Zooming into their faces gives you detail like you can't believe. Stubble (not shaded, ACTUAL stubble, active facial muscles, contextually moving eyeballs, the list goes on. But I'll stop right here... gotta go kill some Russian Ultranationalists...