I am curious as to what all your opinions are. What does it take to make a good game? Are certain parts of the experience more important? I have my opinions, but I will refrain from expressing them so as to bias the thread as little as possible. Be specific, and provide examples and comparisons if it would help demonstrate your point.
What makes a game good? bad? average?
- Thread starter Lagslayer
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Incredibly hard to define.
There are games I don't like, but would never call "bad".
About the only games I'm willing to call bad are obvious shovelware. And even that surprised me once.
My tastes lean more to intense, focus required combat. Like survival shooters, the ones with ammo scavenging and no health regen. RE4 and Dead Space. And Japanese hack-n-slash titles, like Bayonetta and DMC. Even a few WHNS, like God of War.
Story is unimportant to me. But does need to exist. An attempt must be made, usually. I need GOALS of some sort. Can't stand blank gameplay slates like Minecraft.
I also like deep, yet shallow RPGs. That can either be shallow and simple when you want them to be, or epically deep when you're ready to get serious. Like Pokemon.
I tend to shy away from older games, as they are often recommended for the story and not the gameplay.
I dislike "immersive story-telling experiences", I really need good gameplay. So, I've never cared for Silent Hill or similar things.
I like Zelda, but only the 2D handheld ones, really. And Wind Waker and TP, to a much lesser extent. The DS games are ass, sadly.
There are games I don't like, but would never call "bad".
About the only games I'm willing to call bad are obvious shovelware. And even that surprised me once.
My tastes lean more to intense, focus required combat. Like survival shooters, the ones with ammo scavenging and no health regen. RE4 and Dead Space. And Japanese hack-n-slash titles, like Bayonetta and DMC. Even a few WHNS, like God of War.
Story is unimportant to me. But does need to exist. An attempt must be made, usually. I need GOALS of some sort. Can't stand blank gameplay slates like Minecraft.
I also like deep, yet shallow RPGs. That can either be shallow and simple when you want them to be, or epically deep when you're ready to get serious. Like Pokemon.
I tend to shy away from older games, as they are often recommended for the story and not the gameplay.
I dislike "immersive story-telling experiences", I really need good gameplay. So, I've never cared for Silent Hill or similar things.
I like Zelda, but only the 2D handheld ones, really. And Wind Waker and TP, to a much lesser extent. The DS games are ass, sadly.
wel; of coarse its up to the induvidual but few things make or break a game for me
1. it must must must be enganging, eather by gameply or story thats my problem with the witcher ot stalker call shadow of cheobly,
Im sure they both have good storys but it all just feel buried under layers of drudgery and the gameplay isnt enough to make up for that
like Dragon age origins, hate high fantasy, gameplay isnt my thing...but the story is what made the game so enjoyable
or darksiders, story isnt exactally compelling (its not awful eather) but the gameplay is colurful and fun
I have to have some connection with whats going on and to care about whats going on, for example I hated Oblivion because my charahter was merely empty space, I felt like they sacrificed customization for actually feeling like part of the game world
Fallout 3 on the other hand is a million times better, the world is more interesting and my charachter actually has a conection with the world, even the courier from NV even withotu a backstory they feel like a charachter
1. it must must must be enganging, eather by gameply or story thats my problem with the witcher ot stalker call shadow of cheobly,
Im sure they both have good storys but it all just feel buried under layers of drudgery and the gameplay isnt enough to make up for that
like Dragon age origins, hate high fantasy, gameplay isnt my thing...but the story is what made the game so enjoyable
or darksiders, story isnt exactally compelling (its not awful eather) but the gameplay is colurful and fun
I have to have some connection with whats going on and to care about whats going on, for example I hated Oblivion because my charahter was merely empty space, I felt like they sacrificed customization for actually feeling like part of the game world
Fallout 3 on the other hand is a million times better, the world is more interesting and my charachter actually has a conection with the world, even the courier from NV even withotu a backstory they feel like a charachter
Onyx Oblivion said:
So in short game-play takes the gold for you.
mine-craft is an annoying empty husk GIR GIR
health regen <--- were the hell did life bars go ???
RE4 and dead space seem bad examples of scavenging ammo when it fall out of dead enemy's or in nearby crates :C still love both games tho XD
Mine would be a weave of story line and game play to make them good. (Some times game-plays enough ex dead rising XD)
I like to play the Everyman (sort of jack of all trades master of none LOLz) when it comes to games but never got into R.T.S. seems quite an empty game-play experience *BOO BOO* well it is :O.
Great: These tend to be the mega huge AAA titles that offer at least dozens of hours of playtime. Fun gameplay, a compelling story, and tons of variety to keep things from getting stale. If there isn't much variety, then odds are the core gameplay is simply addicting. Either way, I'm happy. (Assassin's Creed, Red Dead Redemption, Psychonauts, KOTOR, etc)
Good: The game is at least fun, if nothing else. I don't care if the graphics suck or the story is terrible, if I'm having a good time than that's all that matters.
Average: Have their moments of fun, perhaps they typically ARE fun, but there are several big gameplay flaws that drag things down immensely. Might make up for it a bit in the less important areas, such as the story or music. These aren't bad games, but they could have been much better by fixing a couple of major flaws.
Bad: For me, a truly bad game is rare. Most games tend to fall into the average category. With that in mind, if I think a game is bad, then you better damn believe it. A game simply isn't fun, at best there are a couple of okay parts that are few and far between. There are hardly any redeeming qualities to be found, if that. (Sonic 2006, the GBA and DS ports of the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance series, any Superman game)
Good: The game is at least fun, if nothing else. I don't care if the graphics suck or the story is terrible, if I'm having a good time than that's all that matters.
Average: Have their moments of fun, perhaps they typically ARE fun, but there are several big gameplay flaws that drag things down immensely. Might make up for it a bit in the less important areas, such as the story or music. These aren't bad games, but they could have been much better by fixing a couple of major flaws.
Bad: For me, a truly bad game is rare. Most games tend to fall into the average category. With that in mind, if I think a game is bad, then you better damn believe it. A game simply isn't fun, at best there are a couple of okay parts that are few and far between. There are hardly any redeeming qualities to be found, if that. (Sonic 2006, the GBA and DS ports of the Marvel: Ultimate Alliance series, any Superman game)
For me, it's story over gameplay (Silent Hill 2, anyone?). Gameplay is only a deal breaker for me if I constantly have to look up an FAQ to figure out how to shoot my gun. That's just a sign of failing to educate the player on the game's mechanics.
A good game for me is all about atmosphere. If I can play a game for over 5 hours and STILL want to keep going, that's the sign of a real gem right there. Having an encompassing mystery is also good because it keeps me interested throughout the game and will make me want to replay it so that I get the entire thing.
A bad game either has no story or attempts to be serious while lacking the means to be really mature (Killzones 1 & 2). I don't mind a game story being batshit (Katamari) and or stupid, but because they don't try to be serious, I never attempt to take them seriously in the first place.
An average game plays well and has an ok story, but never engages me fully (Bayonetta, InFamous, Fallout). I usually play for two hours before turning it off and switching to a good game or stopping altogether for the night.
A good game for me is all about atmosphere. If I can play a game for over 5 hours and STILL want to keep going, that's the sign of a real gem right there. Having an encompassing mystery is also good because it keeps me interested throughout the game and will make me want to replay it so that I get the entire thing.
A bad game either has no story or attempts to be serious while lacking the means to be really mature (Killzones 1 & 2). I don't mind a game story being batshit (Katamari) and or stupid, but because they don't try to be serious, I never attempt to take them seriously in the first place.
An average game plays well and has an ok story, but never engages me fully (Bayonetta, InFamous, Fallout). I usually play for two hours before turning it off and switching to a good game or stopping altogether for the night.
If I can't put the controller down, its good.
If I can deal with staying away from the game for a couple hours, its meh.
If I'm not having fun, its bad.
If I can deal with staying away from the game for a couple hours, its meh.
If I'm not having fun, its bad.
For me...
All games have something they're TRYING to do. Some sense of enjoyment that they're aiming for. Some focus.
If they can't do well at what they're focusing on even at the most basic level, it's awful, to the point of being unplayable. Examples of this include Heavy Rain and Final Fantasy XIII, which fail at basic storytelling, story being their area of focus; Dragon Age 2, which identifies itself as a "strategic RPG" but has less strategy to it than an average Gears of War combat scenario due to the "wave"-based encounter structure, among other things; or Heavenly Sword, which was clearly built without any basic knowledge of how to develop a good hack-and-slash and lacks any solid sense of challenge or structure apart from a couple of vaguely interesting ideas. They each have something that they're purported to do, they just don't do it well, and there's clearly better places to go to fill the niche each of these games are meant for.
If they meet that focus, do it well, and build on it, then it's good. Super Meat Boy is a good game, picking a simple focus--pure platforming-based puzzle-solving devised as a throwback to oldschool platformers, only evil--and following through with it, developing 6 worlds of diabolical challenges, plus "Dark World" versions of those worlds for players looking for a challenge, plus "warp zone" levels with hidden characters and other secrets hidden in each stage, plus an entire bonus world. Everything they could have done with Super Meat Boy, they did. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better example than that.
Average? How to describe an average game. I see so few of them, gaming has become very black and white to me. I'd say that an average game is one that identifies its focus clearly but has rough parts or doesn't build on its focus. Ninja Gaiden 2/Sigma 2 is a good example. It's got solid fighting mechanics and risk-reward elements, but the gameplay is extremely one-note. I get this from Doom 3, Crysis 2, Uncharted 1/2, Call of Duty, Borderlands, Fallout 3, God of War 1/2, Halo, and the Mass Effect series as well. They all have a very uniform feel to them, lacking in variety or surprises. I feel like if I've played thirty minutes of them I've seen just about everything they have to offer. The short campaigns of modern military shooters are a testament to that lack of room or foresight for growth; the simple truth is that they're so plain and so limited by their level structure that developers can't generate more than four or five hours of content--even if they have the time and funding to do so--without it getting painfully redundant, like it did with Doom 3. Hell, it didn't take six hours for me to start to hate playing Uncharted 2.
Below average... take what I said about an average game, and fuck up some basic element that a game shouldn't fuck up. Devil May Cry 4 is below average. Yes, it has its focus--the same style-based combat as Devil May Cry 3--but it fucks up basic game flow by forcing the player to go through every level and every boss a second time backwards with a different character instead of having a proper progression through new levels, bosses, and content. Not very satisfying, rather lazy, and definitely no substitute for proper content. The Force Unleashed has the same problem, and The Force Unleashed 2 to an even greater extent, having more than enough potential to develop a full plate of content but somehow just not serving it up.
A GREAT game surprises me by pushing the boundaries in some way. Boy are those hard to find. You see people trying at this a lot but really just failing at basic shit and making excuses for why they fail at basic shit, like a lot of the games I defined as "bad" above. You see a lot of people putting together average or below-average games but putting a nice thick coat of spectacle on them and trying to pass them off as great, but more often the greatness of a game is under-stated. Batman: Arkham Asylum is a great game, not only delivering a near-perfect realization of Batman in game mechanics but also employing unique four-dimensional level design, with segments of Arkham Island changing frequently and presenting new challenges as Batman gets to the bottom of the Joker's plot, bringing the world of Batman to life where it could have settled for just Batman himself. Dungeon Keeper is a great game, providing a full range of rich and engaging experiences that emerge purely from the act of playing the game. In a playthrough of one level you'll mine for gold to build your defenses, discover a hidden underground river leading to the entrance of an abandoned temple, and send an expedition of minions to navigate its traps and recover its treasure, only to discover hidden evil that's been sealed away for centuries... which you now control. And that's just one emergent story in one level.
Things that set me off personally...
Lack of flexibility, above all, sets me off. If I feel like I don't have room to play the game, I get frustrated. Uncharted epitomizes this peeve of mine, presenting me with a walking tour of its levels with occasional shooting gallery segments instead of giving me the sense of actually being an explorer or a treasure hunter. The whole experience feels like I'm jumping through the developers' hoops rather than engaging in any kind of creative problem-solving, to the point that the game has decided for me exactly which weapons it wants me to use and exactly what order it wants me to shoot enemies in.
By contrast, Metal Gear Solid 3 gives me locations laid out as they would be if they were real places, gives me a goal, and says "I don't care how you get there, just get it done. Bonus points if you don't kill anyone or get noticed." Crysis 1 gives me a lot of this as well. Devil May Cry 3 has a lot of things that should set me off, but there's enough detail and content in the fighting engine alone that I've got plenty of room to get creative with how I dispatch enemies, like the Tony Hawk of hack-and-slash.
Bad storytelling gets to me too. Bad writing I can take. Clunky dialogue or shallow character motivations I can take as long as I can understand what's going on and the story gets moving. Cliches I can take as long as they're plausible and don't come off as pandering. But bad storytelling? Just plain being bad at communicating what's going on, why I should care, or what the story is even about? That sets me off. Heavy Rain is one of those games, unable to find enough focus between its four characters to bring any of their struggles full-circle, often coming out of nowhere with essential facts and depending on cheats to artificially maintain suspense. Bioshock is another one of those games, building on one set of themes only to discard them for another before a resolution can be found, taking its twists and its morality system too far when all it really needed to do was pose the player a question: How much of a monster are you willing to become in order to escape this place? As it is, it feels like it's trying way too hard to impress me.
By contrast, let's look at Final Fantasy 7. Sephiroth is--let's be honest here--a poor villain taken on his own merits. His megalomaniacal turn comes from weak foundations and his oedipal complex is purely ridiculous. On the other hand, though, he has a good image, is an imposing antagonist, and serves his purpose as a representation of the Shinra corporation's reach exceeding their grasp, prematurely meddling with powers they don't fully understand as a natural progression of their meddling with everything else. Point is that he ain't realistic, but he does what he needs to in order to make the story work, make it interesting, and push its themes full-circle. Another example is Crysis 1. Straightforward story about aliens. It's not anything special as a story, but then again how special did it honestly have to be? They build the aliens up effectively as imposing antagonists, the Korean military cell occupying the island make an effective contrast and establish a sense of context compared with these aliens, and both make for a variety of interesting problems for the player to solve. It's an under-stated story that does what it needs to do to make the game interesting, and that's all I ask for.
Welp, as I've probably written several pages by now I think I'll just stop here. To sum it up: whatever it is the game does, I'd just like it to be good at it! Not sure what you wanted to get out of this, but I hope it was useful to someone.
All games have something they're TRYING to do. Some sense of enjoyment that they're aiming for. Some focus.
If they can't do well at what they're focusing on even at the most basic level, it's awful, to the point of being unplayable. Examples of this include Heavy Rain and Final Fantasy XIII, which fail at basic storytelling, story being their area of focus; Dragon Age 2, which identifies itself as a "strategic RPG" but has less strategy to it than an average Gears of War combat scenario due to the "wave"-based encounter structure, among other things; or Heavenly Sword, which was clearly built without any basic knowledge of how to develop a good hack-and-slash and lacks any solid sense of challenge or structure apart from a couple of vaguely interesting ideas. They each have something that they're purported to do, they just don't do it well, and there's clearly better places to go to fill the niche each of these games are meant for.
If they meet that focus, do it well, and build on it, then it's good. Super Meat Boy is a good game, picking a simple focus--pure platforming-based puzzle-solving devised as a throwback to oldschool platformers, only evil--and following through with it, developing 6 worlds of diabolical challenges, plus "Dark World" versions of those worlds for players looking for a challenge, plus "warp zone" levels with hidden characters and other secrets hidden in each stage, plus an entire bonus world. Everything they could have done with Super Meat Boy, they did. I'd be hard-pressed to find a better example than that.
Average? How to describe an average game. I see so few of them, gaming has become very black and white to me. I'd say that an average game is one that identifies its focus clearly but has rough parts or doesn't build on its focus. Ninja Gaiden 2/Sigma 2 is a good example. It's got solid fighting mechanics and risk-reward elements, but the gameplay is extremely one-note. I get this from Doom 3, Crysis 2, Uncharted 1/2, Call of Duty, Borderlands, Fallout 3, God of War 1/2, Halo, and the Mass Effect series as well. They all have a very uniform feel to them, lacking in variety or surprises. I feel like if I've played thirty minutes of them I've seen just about everything they have to offer. The short campaigns of modern military shooters are a testament to that lack of room or foresight for growth; the simple truth is that they're so plain and so limited by their level structure that developers can't generate more than four or five hours of content--even if they have the time and funding to do so--without it getting painfully redundant, like it did with Doom 3. Hell, it didn't take six hours for me to start to hate playing Uncharted 2.
Below average... take what I said about an average game, and fuck up some basic element that a game shouldn't fuck up. Devil May Cry 4 is below average. Yes, it has its focus--the same style-based combat as Devil May Cry 3--but it fucks up basic game flow by forcing the player to go through every level and every boss a second time backwards with a different character instead of having a proper progression through new levels, bosses, and content. Not very satisfying, rather lazy, and definitely no substitute for proper content. The Force Unleashed has the same problem, and The Force Unleashed 2 to an even greater extent, having more than enough potential to develop a full plate of content but somehow just not serving it up.
A GREAT game surprises me by pushing the boundaries in some way. Boy are those hard to find. You see people trying at this a lot but really just failing at basic shit and making excuses for why they fail at basic shit, like a lot of the games I defined as "bad" above. You see a lot of people putting together average or below-average games but putting a nice thick coat of spectacle on them and trying to pass them off as great, but more often the greatness of a game is under-stated. Batman: Arkham Asylum is a great game, not only delivering a near-perfect realization of Batman in game mechanics but also employing unique four-dimensional level design, with segments of Arkham Island changing frequently and presenting new challenges as Batman gets to the bottom of the Joker's plot, bringing the world of Batman to life where it could have settled for just Batman himself. Dungeon Keeper is a great game, providing a full range of rich and engaging experiences that emerge purely from the act of playing the game. In a playthrough of one level you'll mine for gold to build your defenses, discover a hidden underground river leading to the entrance of an abandoned temple, and send an expedition of minions to navigate its traps and recover its treasure, only to discover hidden evil that's been sealed away for centuries... which you now control. And that's just one emergent story in one level.
Things that set me off personally...
Lack of flexibility, above all, sets me off. If I feel like I don't have room to play the game, I get frustrated. Uncharted epitomizes this peeve of mine, presenting me with a walking tour of its levels with occasional shooting gallery segments instead of giving me the sense of actually being an explorer or a treasure hunter. The whole experience feels like I'm jumping through the developers' hoops rather than engaging in any kind of creative problem-solving, to the point that the game has decided for me exactly which weapons it wants me to use and exactly what order it wants me to shoot enemies in.
By contrast, Metal Gear Solid 3 gives me locations laid out as they would be if they were real places, gives me a goal, and says "I don't care how you get there, just get it done. Bonus points if you don't kill anyone or get noticed." Crysis 1 gives me a lot of this as well. Devil May Cry 3 has a lot of things that should set me off, but there's enough detail and content in the fighting engine alone that I've got plenty of room to get creative with how I dispatch enemies, like the Tony Hawk of hack-and-slash.
Bad storytelling gets to me too. Bad writing I can take. Clunky dialogue or shallow character motivations I can take as long as I can understand what's going on and the story gets moving. Cliches I can take as long as they're plausible and don't come off as pandering. But bad storytelling? Just plain being bad at communicating what's going on, why I should care, or what the story is even about? That sets me off. Heavy Rain is one of those games, unable to find enough focus between its four characters to bring any of their struggles full-circle, often coming out of nowhere with essential facts and depending on cheats to artificially maintain suspense. Bioshock is another one of those games, building on one set of themes only to discard them for another before a resolution can be found, taking its twists and its morality system too far when all it really needed to do was pose the player a question: How much of a monster are you willing to become in order to escape this place? As it is, it feels like it's trying way too hard to impress me.
By contrast, let's look at Final Fantasy 7. Sephiroth is--let's be honest here--a poor villain taken on his own merits. His megalomaniacal turn comes from weak foundations and his oedipal complex is purely ridiculous. On the other hand, though, he has a good image, is an imposing antagonist, and serves his purpose as a representation of the Shinra corporation's reach exceeding their grasp, prematurely meddling with powers they don't fully understand as a natural progression of their meddling with everything else. Point is that he ain't realistic, but he does what he needs to in order to make the story work, make it interesting, and push its themes full-circle. Another example is Crysis 1. Straightforward story about aliens. It's not anything special as a story, but then again how special did it honestly have to be? They build the aliens up effectively as imposing antagonists, the Korean military cell occupying the island make an effective contrast and establish a sense of context compared with these aliens, and both make for a variety of interesting problems for the player to solve. It's an under-stated story that does what it needs to do to make the game interesting, and that's all I ask for.
Welp, as I've probably written several pages by now I think I'll just stop here. To sum it up: whatever it is the game does, I'd just like it to be good at it! Not sure what you wanted to get out of this, but I hope it was useful to someone.
The big difference for me is pacing and having a goal. Having a well paced game can make up for a lot of faults. The only time I can stand to grind levels via random encounters is when I've got to kill 6-8 hours on a plane.
If I put the game in the disc slot after dinner then suddenly look around and see that it's 3am then it's a great game especially if this is a third or fourth play through.
The games that accomplish this for me are ones where the story and game play work together and I feel like I'm winning (or failing) even in games which are meant to be linear and story based (mass effect, KOTOR, prince of persia, fall out 3, enslaved)
I hate having to go searching and find the clue that will tell the characters what to do when I figured it out instantly, (the world ends with you is the only example I've got right now)
If I put the game in the disc slot after dinner then suddenly look around and see that it's 3am then it's a great game especially if this is a third or fourth play through.
The games that accomplish this for me are ones where the story and game play work together and I feel like I'm winning (or failing) even in games which are meant to be linear and story based (mass effect, KOTOR, prince of persia, fall out 3, enslaved)
I hate having to go searching and find the clue that will tell the characters what to do when I figured it out instantly, (the world ends with you is the only example I've got right now)
This is a horribly pointless thread. Sorry to be a dick.
What makes a game good? What is bad? Define average.
Its like you're trying to assign quantitative data to qualitative properties. It isn't something that can be measured. Its the same as asking, "Are video games art?" It cannot be measured. "Is a game good/bad?" Is not a yes/no question. I don't feel like adding anything else, so here is a copy/paste of Gamespot's rating system:
10.0: Prime
This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.
9.0-9.5: Superb
We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.
8.0-8.5: Great
This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike.
7.0-7.5: Good
A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.
6.0-6.5: Fair
Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
5.0-5.5: Mediocre
A 5-range score refers to a game that's "merely average" in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you.
4.0-4.5: Poor
Games that just don't work right and maybe didn't spend enough time in production tend to fall in to this category. They simply lack the cohesion and quality that make other games fun.
3.0-3.5: Bad
You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range. Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing.
2.0-2.5: Terrible
Beware, for a game in this range is almost entirely devoid of any remotely decent or fully functional features.
1.0-1.5: Abysmal
Ouch. The rare game that falls in this lowest-of-the-low range has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Don't play this game.
What makes a game good? What is bad? Define average.
Its like you're trying to assign quantitative data to qualitative properties. It isn't something that can be measured. Its the same as asking, "Are video games art?" It cannot be measured. "Is a game good/bad?" Is not a yes/no question. I don't feel like adding anything else, so here is a copy/paste of Gamespot's rating system:
10.0: Prime
This exceedingly rare score refers to a game that is as perfect as a game can aspire to be at its time of release. Obviously, the constantly changing standards for technology and gameplay will probably make this game obsolete some day, but at its time of release, a game earning this score could not have been improved upon in any meaningful way.
9.0-9.5: Superb
We absolutely recommend any game in this range, especially to fans of that particular genre. However, games that score in the 9 range are also typically well suited to new players. Games that earn 9s are naturally uncommon, and earn GameSpot's Editors' Choice Award for their outstanding quality.
8.0-8.5: Great
This range refers to great games that are excellent in almost every way and whose few setbacks probably aren't too important. We highly recommend games in the upper half of this range, since they tend to be good enough to provide an enjoyable experience to fans of the particular genre and to new players alike.
7.0-7.5: Good
A game within this range is good overall, and likely worth playing by fans of the particular genre or by those otherwise interested. While its strengths outweigh its weaknesses, a game that falls in this range tends to have noticeable faults.
6.0-6.5: Fair
Games that earn 6-range ratings have certain good qualities but significant problems as well. These games may well be worth playing, but you should approach them with caution.
5.0-5.5: Mediocre
A 5-range score refers to a game that's "merely average" in the negative sense. These games tend to have enough major weaknesses to considerably outweigh their strengths. There's probably a substantially better, similar game out there for you.
4.0-4.5: Poor
Games that just don't work right and maybe didn't spend enough time in production tend to fall in to this category. They simply lack the cohesion and quality that make other games fun.
3.0-3.5: Bad
You probably shouldn't get too close to a game in this range. Any of its positive qualities most likely serve only to make the rest of it seem even more disappointing.
2.0-2.5: Terrible
Beware, for a game in this range is almost entirely devoid of any remotely decent or fully functional features.
1.0-1.5: Abysmal
Ouch. The rare game that falls in this lowest-of-the-low range has no redeeming qualities whatsoever. Don't play this game.
The way I see it, there are three main parts to a game: story, gameplay, and graphics. In other words you have the non-interactive, the interactive, and the visual elements. The last is usually the least important of the group. Good graphics help with immersion, but are not completely necessary. This is why we are able to go back and play old games that we think are good. Sure the graphics aren't as good, but the gameplay or story elements usually make up for it.
The story is much more important than graphics but still comes in second in the race for importance. It makes sense because since video games are an interactive medium, you would think the interactive part would be of most significance. I know how much a story can have on how good a game is with Bioshock being one of my top games because of its twist. However, you have games like Super Meat Boy or the original Portal who's story wasn't much of a significance despite both games being great. There are some types of games like point-and-click adventures and whatever Heavy Rain was supposed to be who emphasize story over gameplay, but general statement gameplay is usually more important than story.
SUMMARY
if you're too lazy to read the 2 paragraphs above the gist is this: gameplay > story > graphics
The story is much more important than graphics but still comes in second in the race for importance. It makes sense because since video games are an interactive medium, you would think the interactive part would be of most significance. I know how much a story can have on how good a game is with Bioshock being one of my top games because of its twist. However, you have games like Super Meat Boy or the original Portal who's story wasn't much of a significance despite both games being great. There are some types of games like point-and-click adventures and whatever Heavy Rain was supposed to be who emphasize story over gameplay, but general statement gameplay is usually more important than story.
SUMMARY
if you're too lazy to read the 2 paragraphs above the gist is this: gameplay > story > graphics
good = chock full of good memorable moments
bad = chock full of bad memorable moments
i like my games to have spectacle and pizazz. if you're going to make an interactive world, then i want to murder and pillage shit.
you don't make a game and forget the fun, because that just makes me uninstall and/or break games for making me waste my time
bad = chock full of bad memorable moments
i like my games to have spectacle and pizazz. if you're going to make an interactive world, then i want to murder and pillage shit.
you don't make a game and forget the fun, because that just makes me uninstall and/or break games for making me waste my time
My list is this.
1) A good game needs to have a good story.
2) the game play needs to work as well, if the story is awesome but its a pain to get through the fights or puzzles its not worth the time you put in it.
3) graphics are nice but if you rely on it to make the game your not gonna have a good one.
4) Multiplayer is a nice game feature, but you can not rely on it as the only important part of the game because that's not the reason why everyone is gonna buy your game unless of course your buying MAG or some other MMO.
5) It has to have its own personality. People get sick of playing the same game over and over again. It can be something silly like EDF has with you fighting giant ants or even duke nukems just disregard for anything other than him and women. But its just that feeling you get when something feels unique.
That's basically what i look for in a game. You can't just go by sales or what the kids at school or people at work say. The only way to really know if a game is good is if you play it and like it.
1) A good game needs to have a good story.
2) the game play needs to work as well, if the story is awesome but its a pain to get through the fights or puzzles its not worth the time you put in it.
3) graphics are nice but if you rely on it to make the game your not gonna have a good one.
4) Multiplayer is a nice game feature, but you can not rely on it as the only important part of the game because that's not the reason why everyone is gonna buy your game unless of course your buying MAG or some other MMO.
5) It has to have its own personality. People get sick of playing the same game over and over again. It can be something silly like EDF has with you fighting giant ants or even duke nukems just disregard for anything other than him and women. But its just that feeling you get when something feels unique.
That's basically what i look for in a game. You can't just go by sales or what the kids at school or people at work say. The only way to really know if a game is good is if you play it and like it.