What Makes a Game Good?

[Ori]

(This discussion may be a gunpowder barrel since I'll be telling my opinions on a lot of gaming stuff. Watch out.)

 

The title may be misleading, so let me explain:

I've been discussing with some people about how games today apparently have a set standard for 'good games' and 'junk games'.

Stuff like Skyrim and the rest of the RPGs of the esque are very wanted since it's a huge world to explore, there's caves, dungeons, deadly stuff crawling to get you, a nice plot, lots of things to do. Basically a game that you won't get tired of so easily. There is that bit of dark/depressive grey feel to it, yes, but the place is really on a sort of chaos, so it can be passable. Strategy games always are interesting, if you have enough patience for them. I am an old Empire at War and AOE veteran myself, and I always enjoy watching the massive battles occurring. I prefer, though, the strategy games where you start from sticks and stones, and end at little hells of antiprotons. Spore (the game) had a bit of strategy involved, but just wasn't cut out for the task. It simply failed. However, wasn't so horrible until end of civilization stage. You had to evolve a cell, survive as creature, defend the tribe and stuff. But when the space stage starts...

*click*

...

*click click*

...

"Quit to Windows"

...

*click*

In few words, there was just too much buggy content, and the game could get repetitive after a while. Not to mention the more-viral-than-ponies in the time, "Clark and Stanley" user-created 'adventures' (basically short stages), where the two guys always ended up either dead or very screwed. So it wasn't really much of a funny thing.

The Endless Space game I mentioned many times before, yes, it cuts everything except the Space stage. But just take a look at what they put into the game. The game has a abstract battle style. Granted, massive tech trees and J.J. Abrams StarTrek-esque effects, combined to a addicting gameplay and community-created content appearing as official ingame (search Automaton ship design contest) makes up to it.

Now, there's the known series directed towards younger groups, I.E. SEGA and Nintendo's series.

I didn't quite get what was so good about the Zelda series. I saw Twilight Princess and bought it. And my mind was blown away.

You see, even though the game was actually supposed to HAVE a 'doom 'n' gloom' feel, it still isn't some kind of weird emo crap I'd simply let alone for the ages to come. It has a great story and plot, and it's simply what Nintendo usually does to redeem past fails. I'm sincerely leaning towards getting Skyward Sword whenever I can.

There's also stuff like the famous Mario games. While the story isn't a big deal, the focus was always on the gameplay. The environments are always very colorful, full of life and such, and fun to play and toy around with. Galaxy's orchestrated themes were especially pleasant to hear during play, and contributed to the game's mood.

Sonic also falls into these lines (except '06, that was bad fanfiction). The world is sometimes seen as blur, but it's FREAKING MASSIVE EYE CANDY. Generations got me hooked into the series, and I say mostly because of how the worlds were designed to be cheerful and alive, combining with the fast-paced moods and tunes. Story also was never their forte, always with silly stock jokes in the mix, but hey, at least it's not The One That Shall Not Be Named. SFC

Oh, and our community's eponymous game is not to be forgotten. Though there was a huge comeback, aside from story development, the character designs were always of good standards (except Command), and the stories were silly or too stocky, but yet enjoyable (except Command), and the gameplay was, again, one of the big targets of the thing. That Command wasn't quite cut for it, honestly.

 

Some games are good, others get better with time, others get disappointing, and others are just terrible. But what makes video games be good or bad games? Discuss.

[Snys93]

   While good graphics are nice to look at, it doesn't compare to gameplay. Hell, people still play the 1st gen Street Fighter at gaming tournaments. I'm sure most of us still play the old snes classics.

 

   After that its the story, but a great game doesn't need a story at all like PacMan or Asteroids. Games with a story-line pretty much tells us about the characters, why we're saving the princess and why we should care. Much like film, it can be comedic and sad, allowing the player to put emotion into the characters. Doing this makes it seem more real rather than some mindless games with flashing lights and insane controller destroying, button pressing.

 

   Music is a must in a game and can be part of the story itself. Something in the back of our minds switches on when the music hits that note and transports us into that world. We as humans are moved by it and in some ways can effect us and how we play the game. It can be an epic build up, a saddening revelation , a peaceful setting, a violent event and so on. Music can also be used to identify key characters by their specific themes. Themes we often remember, humming them privately or posting Youtube videos of us playing them an instruments. Music moves us.

 

   Then comes the graphics. All the special effects are meant for to enhance the gameplay and a detailed world to run, jump, shot monsters, etc. But it is not the icing on the cake and not what a game is all about. That is why this is last on my list. Its the least important and something that leading game companies have put too much money into. Its a dumb decision to put graphics above gameplay and story.

[Icy]

For me, what makes a good game "good" MAINLY is its atmosphere. A good atmosphere goes a very long way.

 

I really enjoy Star Fox Adventures because of the atmosphere. The music, story, lighting, effects, and setting all combine to create an amazing immersive atmosphere.

Same goes for TLoZ: The Wind Waker.

 

One of my all-time favorite games was one that was not received well by critics, but some fans really love it. Indiana Jones and the Infernal Machine. The N64 version. Very buggy, rushed port from the PC. But it's amazing. Again, everything combines to create such a spectacular atmosphere, I can't bear to stop playing.

The people who designed, developed, and otherwise had any control over these games' development deserve to be applauded. They did a remarkable job.

 

Now of course, a game won't be good without some sort of gameplay. It has to be well thought-out and implemented correctly.

 

Then of course there are graphics... Polygon counts rarely matter, but that's not to say that technological advances don't mean anything. Effects, textures, and so on often do have a lot to do with making a game look appealing, but the main thing needed to make that happen is just a good art style, and well-made graphical assets. Nothing more.

 

Sounds can also help a game immensely. Music, ambiance, and just "sounds" matter quite a bit. The more care put into sounds, the better a game will be.

 

...

 

That's what makes a game good, in my opinion.

[Vy'drach]

Genuinely fun gameplay. Story is good and in a lot of genres, it's required, but not for gaming as a whole. Look at Turok: Dinosaur Hunter, for the N64. The story did not exist outside the instruction manual. You were some Native American guy dropped into a foggy jungle (the N64 couldn't handle the graphics at the time so to keep framerate good, they added a view distance fog which actually made the game amazing) who is now killing dinosaurs, animals, poachers, natives, basically anything that moves, really, all with stuff ranging from a knife and bow and arrow, to futuristic weaponry. There's random challenge area portals that open up, game was a fucking blast. And again, the game had no story at all to it, yet it spawned a, I believe 10 game series (counting the Game Boy games). What made Turok great was the environments, the enemy AI (I still say Turok 2's AI beats a lot of modern enemy AIs), the weapon selections, the smoothness of the controls, the level designs (meaning more layout than aesthetics).

 

Also, characters. If you're making a story-based game, have characters that you can really get behind and actually care about. As fun as killing off annoying characters can be, when most of the cast is that, it's not fun, but it is fun when even the thought of one of your characters being hurt makes you semi-panic as you scramble to save them. Also iconic characters. That's one thing that was great about games from the 90's was there was an icon war. Everyone was trying to make iconic characters that could spawn series such as Mario and Link and such had done. Two of my favourites are these:

 

Sir Daniel Fortesque.

 

Sir Dan is the man. Well, former man turned grumbling armoured skeleton out to make up for his past failing and live up to the legendary status that was attributed to him. He wasn't that strong, wasn't that right, he only had one eye, no one took him seriously, his whole resurrection was just a mistake by his arch-nemesis Xarok, but damn it all he was adorable and you just wanted him to succeed.

 

Tiny Tank:

World's cutest little killing machine. Except he was foul mouthed, excitable, not really meant for anything other than promos (in game that is), but he bowled his way into the hearts of men, women, and children alike in the 90's. If there was a Tiny Tank shirt, I would own it.

[Thu'um]

For me, what makes a good game "good" MAINLY is its atmosphere. A good atmosphere goes a very long way.

 

I really enjoy Star Fox Adventures because of the atmosphere. The music, story, lighting, effects, and setting all combine to create an amazing immersive atmosphere.

Same goes for TLoZ: The Wind Waker.

 

I'm going to agree with icy a lot on this point. Atmosphere creates a ton of emotion, which is really what drives my interest in anything. And adventures is an excellent example, specifically with the Krazoa palace. the combination  of sound effects with visuals and music always captivated me. I could almost feel chills as if i was there, and it was just a pleasing experience. Other elements are important, i can't tell you other wise, but a well done atmosphere combined with a brilliant or interesting plot can really make a game memorable, even with out excellent game play. 

 

An example of that is a popular flash game produced by armour games: Sony. If you've never played it check it out. Its only flash and the graphics are poor. But the story combined with the music....it's actually one of my favorite games....

 

The reason Skyrim, IMO, is so good is the excellent mood it portrays. I remember walking into Bulgruff's hall for the first time. With the big open fire pit and that slow deep ancient music playing. It was very well put together and it felt genuine. 

[Patch93]

When it comes down to it, I believe the most important factor of any game is the gameplay.

 

Story can be important too but it depends on the genre, for example if it's an RPG, then the story would have to be well written to work together with the gameplay to make the game great. (The Zelda series being one major example of this.)

 

Graphics and sound don't have to be perfect, but they should at least be good or decent enough to the point where it doesn't rape your ears or eyes to play the game.

[Icy]

The reason Skyrim, IMO, is so good is the excellent mood it portrays. I remember walking into Bulgruff's hall for the first time. With the big open fire pit and that slow deep ancient music playing. It was very well put together and it felt genuine. 

 

Agreed with the thought on Skyrim. It also has an excellent atmosphere everywhere you go.

 

The last few levels of the original Crysis really have an awesome atmosphere too. Rain, aliens, great music, story, etc.