The one thing that your games need to have.

[putowtin]

Story,

Take me to a place I've never been. Show me something I'll never see. Be bold. Be original

 

[Yopaz]

Here's the deal: Every player has that one thing they just need to have in any game they play.

Your original hypothesis is wrong.

The only way it would count in my case is if you consider "I want to play it/It has to entertain me" as a thing to have. But that doesn't really make sense so unfortunately I don't fall under that. I play every genre, and every format, so there isn't much to tie them together except what I already stated.

You have a point there that I really agree with. I have played a variety of games and there's really not one thing I need in order to like it. It has to be entertaining... yeah, that's so vague it can be used about anything.

Still, I would have to say gameplay is that one thing I need. Visual novels where I spend time just picking choices or games where the gameplay is pretty much quick time event in order to convince me that I am playing a game rather than watching a movie aren't going to interest me. Dear Esther, probably good for those who like that sort of thing, but I want to play my games not just press the walk button until I git the end.

 

[The_Echo]

Effort.

I cannot and will not play a game that feels lazily slapped together, or done just to have the game exist and sell. When I play a game I want to feel like someone really, truly cared about it.

This could be shown in a number of ways. The treasure hunt-esque design of Dark Souls's plot and lore, the beautiful scenery and atmosphere of Journey or the connection between tracks in the Kingdom Hearts soundtrack.

There's a certain charm that comes to a game that you know was given the time and effort it deserves and I can forgive quite a lot if a game has that charm.

 

[Saulkar]

Decent vehicle physics. So many games have merely passable vehicle physics or physics that are jarringly artificial feeling with certain biases designed to modify its basic function and presentation.

Case and point: Arma 3 vs an Indie Art Project.


Stiff suspension, a constant force that makes it incredibly hard to flip vehicles at the cost of jarringly flipping them right-side-up, no bounce, no compression release, just incredibly vapid.

On the other hand I will let this video do all of the talking.


Worst part is that the Unity and Reality game engines use the same fucking physics engine: PHYSX!!!

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

"Fun" gameplay, which may sound redundant, but it's exactly what I'm looking for. More specific features would be an open world vibe and a sense of freedom when approaching how I play and do stuff.

There's nothing I hate more than being ushered by the game into a specific, linear sequence of events. Like when you feel you're playing through a cutscene.

 

[Hero of Lime]

Good, well functioning gameplay. Everything else can come second. Though great controls and an excellent soundtrack helps a whole lot.

 

[veloper]

Gameplay.
As for something a bit more specific than that, the controls should at the very least be fairly responsive and easy to access.

 

[FPLOON]

I don't know...

A method that would not annoy or bore me to no end... In other words, a lack of un-fun repetition... I'm fine with a little repetition as long as I'm still having fun... But, if it's just too tedious to go further in the game, fuck you game... I'm not having fun anymore...

Also, no lives system... As in getting and receiving lives in-game... It was fine with the classic games, but we're passed this... (Learn from Rayman Origins, other potential games that are thinking of using the lives system...)


Other than that, I can technically play anything... except First-Person Shooters, but that's more of a personal taste that usually prevents me from playing them, anyway...

 

[Fijiman]

Longevity. If I can't sit there playing the game for hours on end, day after day without being bored out of my mind then there's no point in me playing it in the first place. Therefor the more stuff there is to do, such as exploring and collecting things or completing challenges, the longer I'll want to play the game.

 

[CrankyCorvus]

Your original hypothesis is wrong.

The only way it would count in my case is if you consider "I want to play it/It has to entertain me" as a thing to have. But that doesn't really make sense so unfortunately I don't fall under that. I play every genre, and every format, so there isn't much to tie them together except what I already stated.

This person has a good point. However, as a PC gamer, I do think there are some bare essentials a game released on PC needs, such as good optimization, many adjustable graphics settings (this depends on the type of game), mouse and keyboard support (this depends on the genre) and an FOV option in 1st person games (it'd also be nice in 3rd person games but nowhere near as important).

 

[norashepard]

I have to have the ability to play as non-white. It's petty, I know, but games cost enough money that I should be able to play the characters I'm actually interested in. And as far as I've seen, games that offer multiple character creation options tend to be the more in depth games overall. Not all of them, of course, but in general they do seem to have more visible effort and more replay value, because running through a game with one character can be completely different than with another, story wise at least.

 

[DEAD34345]

I enjoy games that have no graphics, I enjoy games that have no gameplay, and I even enjoy games that have no story. I enjoy lots of games that have no levels, no characterization, no longevity, even games that are fundamentally not fun, and which instead go for some other emotion.

Where does that leave me?

I don't think there's a single element all of them have in common at all.

 

[spartandude]

As someone who loves both Assassin's Creed and Dishonored I have to disagree with you. While in Dishonored you can decide if you kill or let the target live, but in terms of how you're going to do it, in both AC and Dishonored you can choose from a hanful diferent ways. Unless the missions where you're following someone, there's no choice there.

But I agree they should give a bit more liberty.

As someone who likes both im going to have to disagree with you

In Assassin's Creed series most missions had a "go here, kill these, sneak here, kill him, mission done" style where i felt as though i had little control. While something like Dishonored every mission gave me the option of guns blazing and full on assault or sneaky, and with the sneaky i had lethal or nonlethal. And when i was sneaking there were usually various paths with atleast one being direct and risky and the other taking longer but around the guards (again i say usually).