What makes a "Good" game

[Powerman88]

This is a subject I've been thinking a lot about. What makes a game "good"? How is one game "better" than another. Is KOTOR necessarily "better" than snood? I've spent a lot of time playing both and have a lot of fun playing them both. KOTOR is certainly more artistic, but does that make it more fun? Its easy to compare games that are similar; Its easy to compare oh say the Witcher with Oblivion because they are both pretty open third person (mostly) action RPG's IE they have the same core gameplay concepts. Its easy to compare Super Mario 3 with Sonic the Hedgehog 3 because they also have similar gameplay concepts.

It is my theory that a sound concept is ultimately the source of a quality game. There are two main concept types in my opinion that go into a game; story and gameplay. The story of course would fall in second to gameplay because as Devil May Cry aptly showed us you can have wildly fun gameplay with a story that is terribly written and told, characters that are horribly flushed out, and settings that, although cool, are so generic its painful.

Gameplay concept is a funny thing though and I think its about having a strong concept and being able to realize it. I think thats where games such as Fable Sid Myers Pirates fall short of perfection; a VERY strong concept but execution that is lacking. I think the idea of blazing your own epic path through a huge, "living" fantasy world is awesome but its still dragged down by execution (whee I spent the last 2 hours being a blacksmith to earn money so I can buy houses that will generate more money that really is useful only for unlocking achievements). Sailing around and terrorizing an open carribean is a TON of fun, but in the end it turns into playing the same 3 or 4 minigames over and over. (On a side note: Pirates! would probably be one of my fav games of all time if it was soley based on the concept.)

I am curious to hear other people's thoughts on this....

 

[NXMT]

"Good" is what the individual makes it to be. There is no textbook or a list of do's and dont's that can define what a good game should or shouldn't be. What can be enforced/encouraged however, is extensive testing and tweaking before the final product hits the shelves.

 

[DangerChimp]

"Good" is what the individual makes it to be. There is no textbook or a list of do's and dont's that can define what a good game should or shouldn't be. What can be enforced/encouraged however, is extensive testing.

This.

 

[sheomad]

A label saying so D:

 

[pantsoffdanceoff]

A game that makes me feel like I AM the protagonist not some camera man who whispers advice into the ear of said protagonist.

 

[Valiance]

The search button.

But I guess sure, let's play along.

Fun. If the game isn't fun, it's not worth playing. Everyone has their own concept of fun, which is why so many varied genres sell, and why casual games are enjoyed by many, and why MMOs are enjoyed by many.

Personally, I tend to enjoy the RTS/FPS/TBS/RPG genres, but there are plenty of adventure games I love, plenty of other games I can't even classify into a genre I love, plenty of freeform games I love, space sims, etc, etc, etc, but this isn't about me, it's about people in general.

So, I'd probably break it down into a few concepts shown here:

Immersion
Storyline
Replayability
Game Mechanics
Price
Multiplayer aspect
Personal aspects (friends play it, want to have beaten "every game in the series", etc.)
Game Length
Innovation

...

Most people will probably want a combination of Storyline/replayability, and a way to get in touch with the characters, and hopefully play it again and share the experience with others.

 

[Singularly Datarific]

If playing it is a chore that you only do to advance the story, but then that means the story is good enough to force you to play it. If it weren't for that, it wouldn't be played at all, and would be a truly stupid game.
A good game would figure that most of the people who play games are in college or just after the aforementioned school for people with brain stems, and it would know that people don't need dumbed down systems of management, or regenerating health that takes away the penalty of exposing your entire body to enemy fire, because most people smart enough to reach that level are smart enough to effectively manage a limited amount of health or manually picking up things.
In short, a game that knows its audience.

 

[Mizaki]

It differs according to the genre, but there are general things that I want in a game:

The ability to be fun without me having to bother with the plot.
A protagonist that doesn't look/act offensively boring or attempt to be "me".
A combat system that doesn't look robotic or planned.
Something to give me the feeling of accomplishment within the game.
Maybe a sense of humor?
A likeable cast who actually have personalities that the player doesn't have to make up and argue about on the internet.
Freedom!

 

[Fronken]

Innovative and Fun gameplay.
Well written and immersive story.
Good use of graphics/art design (meaning more than 4 colors which seems to be the standard today).
And lastly it should be fun enough to push you into playing it over and over again, trying to beat your own personal times and such.

Long story short: Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time.

 

[Eclipse Dragon]

What makes a game good depends souly on the gamer, most movie games are horrible but apparently somebody out there is enjoying them, otherwise they wouldn't exist.

As far as what I like in a game, I usually like my gameplay and story to go together nicely, which is almost impossible these days. Extremely hard =/= fun. People love a good challenge, personally I'd prefer not to get so frustrated with a game that I throw the controller at the wall and never play the game again, so choosable difficulty is a nice touch.

 

[Quaidis]

A good game is a game that has no bugs, glitches, and can be played. A bad game does not have these qualities.

If you play a game that you can't finish because there's a known glitch of the screen going black after a certain scene and there's no way to get around it, it's a bad game. If you get a fantastic game that has a huge car driving part, but there's no way to actually drive said car, it's a bad game. If you get a game and half of the controls don't work, the music has this ear-piercing screech behind it that doesn't seem natural, and in the first five minutes all sound cuts out and the character gets frozen in the pose of a sick ballerina, it's a bad game.

And even if the game can still be played, but the camera has the pace of a caffeinated kid with ADHD to the point that you start hurling the second you move left, it's still considered a bad game.

Now when you come across a game that has no such glitches and has no problems that interferes with playing, even if you personally don't like that type of game, it's a good game.

An exceptionally good game is one perfected from all glitches, bugs, and freezes and can be played without having to worry about such things.

 

[ZacQuickSilver]

There is no one definition of good. Look at anything: not just games: anything. And try to find people who agree on what makes it good.

If we disagree on everything else, how are games going to be any different. I like innovation and cool features: If I had a computer that could play Warcraft; Orcs and Humans, I would probably play a few games now and again. Just because it's that fresh. Other people I know like WoW: I find it too much of a grind and too railroaded (everyone can become great, given sufficient time. Not dedication or effort: time).

 

[TsunamiWombat]

"Good" is very subjective.

So I shall respond with: "Fun".

 

[Stewie Plisken]

It's subjective. Even if it weren't, there are so many different aspects of good gaming, that it's impossible to bottle it all in.

For me, personally, fun comes first. Innovation comes second, refinement follows closely and not going with the flow just for the hell of it is pretty close as well (yes, I'm considering not buying any game that offers an open-ended world from now on).

 

[EzraPound]

A good game has:

- Aesthetically clear graphics - which shouldn't be conflated with "high-tec" graphics. A good example is Super Mario World: sure, it looks dated (and is allowed to), but it's also a hell of a lot less harder on the eyes than alot of dark Genesis games that feature ugly pixel compositins and graphically indecipherable environments.

- An accessible learning curve - call me a "n00b", but I don't really get my kicks out of arduously fighting the same boss battles in Ninja Gaiden Black twenty times over. Games are meant to be played, and played for fun - a grating difficulty level just often strips it of it.

- Clearly defined game rules - I've been playing The Simpsons: Hit & Run lately, and one irritating aspect of the game is that when you're being pursued by the police the way in which you're "busted" isn't clear - does it happen when they run into you? when they run into you and your not driving quickly? when they confine you to a certain area? For a good example of game-rule consistency, take pretty much anything designed by Miyamoto (and yes, poor hit detection is the worst inconsistency of game-rules possible)

- Not an excess of repetition - JRPGs have become less frustrating overtime, but where it's charming to have to fight a slew of random battles in a bona fide classic like the first Phantasy Star, when you have to do it in FFX it just pisses me off. Other genres are guilty of this, too.

- Atmospheric environments - good examples: the Mushroom Kingdom in SM64; Midgar in FF7; Hong Kong in Shenmue II. Bad examples: Castlevania: Curse of Darkness where every setting looks exactly the same and results in holistic confusion; anything with 'Quake' in the title.

- Puzzles that aren't completely obscure - there was definitely some brilliant adventure games (Grim Fandango, Monkey Island, the like) but one problem I always had with the genre was the extent to which the solutions to problems were often so mind-numbingly obscure that mental function seized to play into the discerning of them and the 'gameplay' just became reduced to trial and error clicking. Of course, many other games in other genres still rely on the 'obscure-solution' ploy, and I'm inclined to believe at this point that it's solely the result of programmers being too damnfool to clearly indicate what task you're supposed to complete.

- A game concept that isn't riddled with cliches - good examples: Katamari Damacy, BioShock, Portal, Endless Ocean, Grand Theft Auto III. Bad examples: pretty much any recent FPS, anything with 'Madden' in the title (excepting a few iterations), anything with 'Final Fantasy' in the title.

- Gameplay depth - remember Pokemon; a game that you could finish in ten hours but that featured 151 creatures you could collect, all with a range of customizable attacks? Or Gold & Silver, which added an internal clock to the franchise, doubled the number of locales, added attachable items 100 new Pokemon, etc.? In the context of the Game Boy, that is depth (SMB3, with a myriad of ways you could beat it, is another example)

- Gameplay that isn't ridiculously overwrought - like StarFox 64, which was simple albeit addictive, almost any rail shooter, Heroes of Might and Magic (any), Super Mario Galaxy, etc. Bad example: Unreal Championship 2, which was admirable in some respects but turned playing the game into basically an act of micromanagement due to the sheer volume of different abilities (note this is the reason far more people enjoy Super Smash Bros. than Street Fighter III, or Soul Calibur than VF).

- Replay value - well, duh.

- A decent story - bad examples: overly self-serious sci-fi tripe like Halo or StarCraft, Diablo, any fighting game, Metal Gear Solid IV (I won't say 'Mario' or 'Sonic' because I assume those games are purposely eluding having a storyline). Good examples: Curse of Monkey Island, GTA: Vice City, Final Fantasy VII (it was!), Syberia, Deux Ex, etc (though really no video games actually have good stories).