Poll: The way you rate games.

[Mystery00]

There are certainly a lot of gamers in the world, and everyone has a different idea of what they expect of a game.

Some people just want to jump into some action and shoot big guns (see Crysis) while some gamers prefer puzzle type games or games that have a great storyline (see Portal).

This leads to inevitable battles between the two sides, the Portal gamers would see Crysis as just another shoot'em'up with little innovation and write it off as a mediocre experience and Portal as God. The Crysis gamers would see Portal as a boring little puzzle game and Crysis as the next coming of Jeebus in terms of pure explosive content.

I am quite exaggerating I know, this is only to drive a point.

All this is pretty obvious stuff (people are different? WHAT?) but what I would like to know is the statistics. Just how many people enjoy games that require less brain and more mouse flicking rather than more brain and even more mouse flicking?

Thus I present this poll (and hope that nobody dies in the crossfire).

 

[Abbadiel]

As long as it entertains me (Hurrrr hurrr). If I find it fun enough I would give a damn about the games story or graphic. If I end up bashing a game for its storyline it's because I simply found the game boring (As I have done with Halo about a 100 times).

I can enjoy a mindless kill em' all shooter as long as it entertains me (the reason of why I liked Crysis [even if it was a blatant Halo ripoff]), or have amusing dark humor and interesting puzzles (the reason of why I liked Portal).

Basically, I can enjoy everything as long as it keeps me entertained. If it doesn't then I classify it as mediocre and if it makes me sick, I call it horrible.

 

[Black Cat Godess]

What hooks me on a game varies. Being able to actually finish the game is a huge plus (so it's can't be too hard) but more for me, I like the story. Psychonauts really was a good exemplar of this; the story is just so amazing I can't put the game down and for a casual gamer like me, that's hard to make happen sometimes. The Jak series was like this as well; I loved the story and characters so much, I just had to keep playing to see what happened to them. After story comes game play and graphics, for me. If a game is fun to play, fairly intuitive, and looks neat, that's awesome, I'll give it a go. Most games are like this for me. The storyline could use some work, but the rest is good, so I'll play for awhile.

Of course, that's not saying the odd explosion now and then isn't good. One of the reasons I'd play Alone in the Dark (if I wasn't such a pansy afraid of monsters) is because you can make the bad guys go boom. Quite literally. I'm sorry, but there's just something appealing about throwing a bottle of lighter fluid at something and exploding it by shooting at it with a gun. So I guess in the end, storyline is more important, but game play and booms go a long way towards making this casual gamer happy. ^^

 

[fyrh56]

Gameplay above all else. A good story can make or break a game, granted, but stories are pretty much just single player content. Eventually, a game's replayability will rely on it's multiplayer content, hence why i value gameplay so much. Graphics are just an adornment handy to have around to sweeten the experience. Good graphics enhance the gameplay, they don't throw useless gimmicks at you until you can't tell the difference between the living room's plant and an evil alien bastard about to tentacle-rape you.