What makes a game good?
I've been reading a few articles on Western fans/developers take on the "Decline of the JRPG" genre and have been hearing some of the strangest solutions to the genre and mostly some ideas that sound pretty awful. So my question to thhe people of EoFF is what makes a game fun and good for you? This doesn't have to be about JRPGs per se but any genre that gives you enjoyment.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: Step out the front door like a ghost into the fog Where no one notices the contrast of white on white And in between the moon and you, the angels get a better view Of the crumbling difference between wrong and right
Well clearly you don't have a clue. :P
A game is good if I have fun when I play it.
Just because people don't agree with you doesn't make them wrong, I figured you'd be smart enough at this stage in life to realize this, act your age.Originally Posted by Roto13
I was hoping for a more thoughtful answer, I'm asking about specifics, what creates the "fun" in it, is it story, mechanics, being able to do things you've never done, if it's the whole package what elements bring out the most fun for you? What initially attracts you to a game.
True beauty exists in things that last only for a moment.
Current Mood: Step out the front door like a ghost into the fog Where no one notices the contrast of white on white And in between the moon and you, the angels get a better view Of the crumbling difference between wrong and right
By giving you everything you expect and then something you didn't expect. Thats at least what makes a game memorable for me.
Surprisingly to me gameplay isn't a major focus in what I love about games. I love exploration and problem solving. The game has to have a certain atmosphere and presentation to hook me. I also like a bit of story and interesting characters.
This is why I love adventure games such as Riven and Grim Fandango; they have such a great atmosphere and really interesting presentation of visuals, sound and game play. It's also why I love Squaresoft's Playstation-era RPG's such as Final Fantasy IX and Chrono Cross.
Tell me if you want me to elaborate, and I'll try my best. I could even break down what I love about those games listed above. But in essence it's the overall experience I love.
Last edited by Rostum; 01-14-2011 at 12:58 PM.
"... and so I close, realizing that perhaps the ending has not yet been written."
immersive world
interesting storyline
not needing 10 hours of non-interactive cutscene boredom (that's right smurf you Kojima)
innovative gameplay mechanics
not having cliched characters
not having cliched annoying female characters that also happen to be the protagonists love interest
keeping the game fresh and interesting to play, no repetitive elements
fun
also making something take place in space is always better
This twenty-year-old boy was distinguished from childhood by strange qualities, a dreamer and an eccentric. A girl fell in love with him, and he went and sold her to a brothel...
Well, the fundamental stuff is to have the fundamentals down.A lot of games do this okay, but it's surprising how many still seem to have issues with their controls, their UI, that sort of thing. That's tolerable for a game like Dwarf Fortress, it's just one guy after all, but a bigger production should never have these sorts of problems at this stage in the medium's lifetime.
Beyond that, the major thing on my mind right now is having a solid and fair sense of progression, one which rewards the player. When you make a choice, it should be between viable options most of the time - the difference between Civ 4 and Civ 5 is very telling here. In the former, you're making choices between what to build and where to spend resources, but pretty much everything you can get is useful in some way or another; the costs are generally opportunity costs rather than 'actual' ones (i.e. in the time it took to build that library, I could have had four swordsmen)
Conversely, in Civ 5, it's a game about choosing the least of evils. Building units costs you. Building buildings costs you. Building cities costs you. Building tile improvements costs you. etc. etc. You don't choose what is best for you, you choose what is least bad - and a 4x, or any game about building a great and mighty empire, should never punish you for that sort of thing.
I like to think of it like this, and I'm sure you can understand the analogy:
Graphics - looks
Sounds - voice and accent
Controls - personal chemistry
Replay Value - how well you in long-term get along together
On a more serious note, I think the real heart of a game can't clearly be defined - it is just that little extra that makes you wanna play it over and over.
A good game cannot be defined just by its "great graphics", "awesome controls" etc, it needs that extra charm that makes you personally like it on a deeper level.
People have argued how lots of shooters are better than Goldeneye 007, and their arguments are usually "better controls", "better AI" and so on, but that's not what makes Goldeneye 007 so good.
The AI sucks and the graphics are outdated, but it's still one of the best shooters in history - because it has that particular unique charm.
And it has nothing to do with nostalgia either, because people are still discovering the game and growing to love it.
Last edited by *Laurelindo*; 01-14-2011 at 03:07 PM.
There are many things that can make a game good, but it usually depends on the type of game being made. One thing that is always a deal-breaker for me is poor controls/camera. A game needs to do what I want when I tell it to. I shouldn't have to fight the game as well as the challenges being posed within the game.
Good writing is also a huge point for me. A scant number of games actually have this these days - particularly the ones that are especially story-heavy (FFXIII, Heavy Rain, Metal Gear).
More than anything, though, is that a game's elements all need to work well together to make a compelling whole. This saves games that don't have particularly A-grade production throughout (Alpha Protocol) and it is what a solid game should be.
There are quite a few types of gaming around these days. The Wii, Kinect, Move, classic controller, PC is still around here or there, downloadable games where you should probably adjust expectations a little, rah rah ah ah ah. So long as you can create a game that isn't broken and satisfies whatever target audience is in your aim, good game is made. Good and fun and the like are pretty subjective, especially with something like games. Also, it has to produce fanart that I find funny and everyone else finds gross.
You pretty much listed it right there.
I don't have much to add except the inclusion of a music soundtrack. I find myself enjoying games more if they're complete with a vast musical soundtrack, or at least one that relates really well with what's going on in the game. Immerse worlds are a must. Media is a form of escapism for most so to have an immerse world(s) within the game where you can escape, is a plus. The biggest thing is the story. If it doesn't have a good story then it MUST have fantastic game play and amazing music (hi Sonic games). I'll be alright with the game play being repetitive as long as this is the case. But for most games, the story and characters is what hooks me. I would have never even thought of purchasing Red Dead Redemption if it weren't for this, because I didn't particularly care for riding around on a horse and hog tying.
Porn and Violence?
Critical reception and nothing else.
What makes a game good? Well, a game that makes you feel something a long time after you've finished it.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote
