I've been trying to understand this for a while, some games are good, some are bad, we know what we like and what we don't, but the fact that there are some games which most people think are very good, and most people think are very bad lend credence to the idea that there are basics that all games need to have in order to be good. Does anybody have any ideas on what these might be? I had a few ideas - intuitive gameplay/controls, difficult but solvable, for longer games - engaging storylines/characters, but I would appreciate any input people can provide.
Well...this is of course another matter of personal taste. I tend to like fast-action first-person shooters because they give me some time off from real life. But I used to really love the old text-based adventures that would show an occasional image or two. That is actually how I learned English. This was back in the 80s and you still had to TYPE to ask your character to look at things, and after thousands of "You find nothing." replies you suddenly get a spark of imagination and try something different and hey! You move on.
I've had periods of lots of gaming and very long periods with little gaming, mostly due to having a family. But I find that for me, technological advances is fun and interesting. I like that games require heavy hardware to run. The problem is that I can't afford it...but I still like reading about those games. I actually don't mind that I don't get to play them.
But more to the point - I think storyline is very important. I also like challenges, but I tend to like them if they are easily solvable. I hate puzzles that require me to do things which do not make sense (like solving meaningless color puzzles in order to open a door).
Immersion is also important to me. If a game grabs my attention I can spend hours with it, and come back to it. This doesn't have to mean fast action and furious speeds...I had that experience with a version of Majong a while back.
---------------- Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
The first thing that grabs my attention about a game is the story. I don't even care if everything else is completly stupid (MIDI like music or none at all, single still-frame images or purely text based), just so long as their is a good story (comedy is good to see once in a while, gotta have the drama, got to have the sad moments with the good.). The next factor would be the graphics driving the game. 3D games with as few polygonal shaped characters and environments is looked down upon but 3D in any form is still wonderful. The visual effects on screen are also a major addition to any 3D/2D world. Next step down is the concept of the game. I love the good mind boggling puzzles and riddles they sometimes put into games that have a purpose being in there (such as the scene on Baldur's Gate 2 when the party visits the Asylum for the magicaly deviant. They are thrown into a huge maze which tests the sanity of a person by asking them riddles). Next down, customization controls such as character looks, build your own environment, these give the user a sense that they are in control of the game but the horrorfying truth is that it is still based off of control from the game. The second last feature that grabs me is the game physics and programming involved. I have always been amazed and the amount of detailed placed into any game engine, and the unique ways each development team will figure out one how to trigger and fullfill events. Last but not least is the music and sound effects. Although it is the last thing I consider, it does complete some of the most intense FPS, fighting, psycological horror and driving games. I have an added advantage in that I can hook all of my games (even for PC) up to a home theater system. Turn the volume up, up the subwoofer, turn down the lights, best way to get yourself in the 'zone'. A side bit to all games, the controls are realy never a problem unless the game is a sequel to one I had already played and got used to its controls. I know the new game has more features but just shift some of the none essential controls and keep the rest the same. I'm mainly speaking of one game in particular: GTA San Andreas. I miss the driving via use of the d-pad like in Vice City.
It's hard to tell since I like so many different kinds of games. Puzzlegames (Tetris, Antix, etc.,) strategy (StarCraft, Civilization II,) first person shooters (Doom etc.,) and racing car games (Need for Speed, Stunts 4D.) So the graphics can be primitive if it has other qualities, but sometimes the story is more important, and sometimes a little of all.
I would think that as complex as this answer could very easily be, it could be summed up in this way:
The basics behind a 'good' game is a balance of the apropriate aspects required for the type of game, and quality.
For example, instead of trying to say a game should be challenging but solvable, because not all games use a puzzle, i would shoot for something more of 'a well placed learning curve for the target participant'.
Reasonable graphics for the desired level of mental emersion.
Ease and convenience of control.
Conseptual quality (as opposed to storyline 'cause some dont have a plot.)
Try to simplify all the aspects to the most basic of ideas that are commonly shared between them and compare.
What I like to see in a game is response to my environment. I like games that have stuff
going on real-time and I have to address immediately or all-heck breaks loose. This
builds suspense. That your role in the game is at risk. You might lose all you've put into
it up to that point. A game I still have some addition to is D2 (in particular LOD) by
Blizzard. I have been wanting to check out the new WOW (World Of Warcraft). I have
both PCs and Macs. I haven't got very far in Halo. I hear Doom3 is great. I have PS2
and I have seen there are some new games for it released recently. All of these games
have what I've already outlined: responsiveness, risk, I would add visuals -- LOTS of
visuals....
Halo was excellent, IMO. It combined the best bits from games like Deus Ex and Half-Life and was a real thrill to play. However, Halo 2 does not live up to the hype - at least not on the Xbox. I have played about halfway through, am stuck, and feel no real pressure to pick it up and move on.
Half-Life 2, on the other hand, is simply stunning. There is a lot of stuff going on there - sometimes the pace is so fast I don't have time for anything but running away from creatures and helicopters etc. Sometimes it can get *too* busy...
Quote:
responsiveness, risk, I would add visuals -- LOTS of
visuals....
I agree. I'm a sucker for great graphics.
---------------- Your Friendly Neighborhood Administrator
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.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Tormod
I agree. I'm a sucker for great graphics.
Here here! Anyone who disagrees should be charged with heresy!
<sip>
Re: What makes a computer game good?
This
