What makes gameplay good (or bad)

[Floppertje]

So I'm sitting here watching Jim Sterling's video on The Division. 30 minute video in one sentence: it's perfectly functional but the gameplay is boring and repetitive and all you do is cover based shooting and I can relate to that from my own experience with the beta.
So I'm wondering... what makes gameplay good or satisfying?
Mass Effect 3 has cover based shooting as it's primary gameplay and I've played the entire series about 3 or 4 times. Why do I enjoy one more than the other? Is it that ME actually has better gameplay or do the story and characters of mass effect make it more interesting than The Division, which gave me the impression that it is VERY lacking in that department?
One of the games I still enjoy playing very much is Men of War: Assault Squad 2 because each individual shell has it's own flight path and can knock out individual parts of a tank, which, if abandoned, can be repaired and captured and holy crap I just shot something through a building. It has pretty much zero story, so what makes the gameplay so good?

 

[CritialGaming]

Mass Effect is definitely carried by the story. The Division is basically a modern setting of Destiny, and has a similar style to Diablo-esque games. You have to have the mind set for repetition in order to be able to get the most out of those games. And to be fair, some people do really like that kind of gameplay.

As a result, your question is hard to answer, because it will have different answers from different people. But the Division doesn't sound like the game for you based on what you said about the video you watched. I would wait and see if you can get a group of friends to play it with you, or a sizable price drop.

 

[FakeSympathy]

Good:
1. Not being repetitive for the entire game (I'm looking at you, destiny)
2. Not affected by microtransaction (Sonic moblie game)
3. Your actions actually effects the gameplay (Dishonored pulled it off with chaos system)
4. Each level/area feels distinctive and original
5. Fun boss fights (Don't know about you, but I enjoyed Ornstein and Smough fight in Dark Souls)
Bad:
1. QTE
2. Temporary ability loss (Metroid, Kingdom Hearts, SOTN, and many games takes away your awesome gears and powers)
3. Escort gameplay (Good example: Bioshock Infinite. Bad example: RE4)
4. Fetch quest
5. Too much effort went to graphics so the rest of the game is shitty (AC Unity, Order 1886)

 

[veloper]

Bad gameplay is anything that makes for a poor challenge.
Don't have this:
1. pointless busy work (it's very easy but does take up much time)
2. unresponsive controls
3. random luck being much more important than actual skill
4. too much repetition can make even something that began as a decent challenge(to the beginner) become busy work.

What constitutes good gameplay is much harder to pinpoint.
First of all what does make a fitting challenge depends on the player's skill level, but there's also an X-factor that comes from having the right timing, feedback, progression and even presentation, that can make playing so satisfying.

 

[Casual Shinji]

I'm sorry, but that's like asking what makes food good (besides the obvious need for nurishment).

It's just too broad. It depends on a whole host of factors, most of which will vary from person to person. It's about what resonates with you, and even then, what resonates with you at that point in your life. I used to like playing the Jak and Daxter games, but now you couldn't pay me to return to those controls. And who knows, maybe later in life I'll feel the same way about games I enjoy now.

Escort gameplay (Good example: Bioshock Infinite. Bad example: RE4)

I'd switch those two around.

 

[CritialGaming]

I'm sorry, but that's like asking what makes food good (besides the obvious need for nurishment).

It's just too broad. It depends on a whole host of factors, most of which will vary from person to person. It's about what resonates with you, and even then, what resonates with you at that point in your life. I used to like playing the Jak and Daxter games, but now you couldn't pay me to return to those controls. And who knows, maybe later in life I'll feel the same way about games I enjoy now.

Escort gameplay (Good example: Bioshock Infinite. Bad example: RE4)

I'd switch those two around.

Wait a second, you'd say Bioshock has a worse escort mission than Resident Evil 4? Do you also hate Dark Souls games for being too easy?

 

[Casual Shinji]

Wait a second, you'd say Bioshock has a worse escort mission than Resident Evil 4? Do you also hate Dark Souls games for being too easy?

I'd say Resident Evil 4 actually was an escort mission, since you were escorting someone that could come to harm. I never finished Infinite, but in what I had played Elizabeth was a complete non-entity, invulnerable to all harm.

I feel a bit sad that with the start of the 7th generation developers have sort of given up on in-game interaction with NPCs. We get loads of games with companions, but they're all in Godmode and they can warp to our side whenever the game dictates. I know it's hard to accomplish, but when done right we get games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Resident Evil 4. This is one of the biggest reasons I'm looking forward to The Last Guardian.

 

[CritialGaming]

Wait a second, you'd say Bioshock has a worse escort mission than Resident Evil 4? Do you also hate Dark Souls games for being too easy?

I'd say Resident Evil 4 actually was an escort mission, since you were escorting someone that could come to harm. I never finished Infinite, but in what I had played Elizabeth was a complete non-entity, invulnerable to all harm.

I feel a bit sad that with the start of the 7th generation developers have sort of given up on in-game interaction with NPCs. We get loads of games with companions, but they're all in Godmode and they can warp to our side whenever the game dictates. I know it's hard to accomplish, but when done right we get games like Ico, Shadow of the Colossus, and Resident Evil 4. This is one of the biggest reasons I'm looking forward to The Last Guardian.

Ahh, I suppose you have a very good point there. I just had to do a double take because I fucking hated those sections in RE4. HAAATTTEEEE!!!!

 

[Floppertje]

Responsiveness seems to be a recurring theme. I have to agree, it's very annoying when the game takes control away with knockdowns or something like that. To take mass effect as an example again (been playing that a lot recently), it bugs the hell out of me to play with krogans in multiplayer because they have this biotic slam that makes the screen shake and somehow manages to make me miss half my shots. same with the Hades turret in the final mission... hate that thing so freaking much...

 

[DrownedAmmet]

Variety makes a huge impact for me, I like having multiple ways to tackle a problem. It makes "game overs" a little less frustrating if I can think "well this time I'll try this weapon, or I'll go slow instead of rushing in guns blazing"

It's mostly why I don't like RPGs or MMOs that much, it feels like all I do is press buttons to use abilities, wait for the cooldown, and then use it again. And if I die, well I just have to spam my keyboard faster

 

[CaitSeith]

Well, Mass Effect 3 gives you access to powers and allows you to give basic commands to your squad members. And the different classes also make a difference. Playing hardcore mode with the Vangard class was the most fun gameplay experience I had in the whole series.

I think the gameplay must be deep (give you a variety options on how to win in each situation) or fun to be good.

 

[Scarim Coral]

While I can mention a few things but I think one of them is it has something that drive you finish/ complete. Wheather it be it's challanging, the gerne is well done or it's additing.

 

[Pete Oddly]

To me, the ONLY thing that makes gameplay good or bad are the controls and UI. If you have a tight, functional, logical control scheme as well as an intuitive and unobtrusive UI, no matter what gameplay is attached, there will be an audience for your game. You don't have to appeal to everyone with your gameplay, but you DO have to make sure the people who ARE interested in your game don't throw their controller/keyboard down in frustration after playing for ten minutes.

 

[Maximum Bert]

Good gameplay is something you engage in that you enjoy bad gameplay is something you engage in that you dont. I am using enjoy here as meaning you get something positive out of it even if it emotes negative feelings. As you can see I feel it is purely subjective like all things good and bad are.

 

[Dizchu]

What makes gameplay good is context, feedback and diversity. A lot of "tried and tested" gameplay mechanics get misused because they don't feel satisfying. I'll give some examples of how mechanics are used well and poorly.

1. The Mass Effect series: The RPG and cover-based shooting elements aren't fantastic. They get more streamlined and functional as the series goes on, but it's still not top-notch. HOWEVER, it's the context that makes it exciting. Your squad is made up of characters you care about and your investment in the story means you're willing to put up with some relatively samey gameplay. It also helps that the choices you make have a huge impact, even carrying over to subsequent games in the series.

2. The Bioshock series: Bioshock tries to convey a spooky atmosphere and both it and Bioshock Infinite have settings and themes that are thought-provoking and unique. But the gameplay of Bioshock feels like Doom 3 and the gameplay of Infinite feels like a hybrid of Serious Sam and Half-Life 2. While others may be fond of these games, I feel that this dissonance between gameplay and narrative kills my investment in the worlds they're portraying and makes the gameplay unsatisfying.

3. System Shock 2: the combat is clunky, the interface is complex and there are some balancing issues. But they fit perfectly with the tone the game is going for, the degrading weapons and clumsy combat add to the tension and the amount of character customisation available keeps you invested in the game, because choices you make will have consequences. It also helps that a lot of the storytelling just makes sense within the environment of the game (well, up until the end).

4. Gone Home: the story is delivered by exploring a large house filled with items the player can examine. The relative mundanity of the story fits with the slow-paced gameplay and realism of the environment.

5. Dear Esther: you walk around a pretty island and a narrator talks to you... while the mood of the environment is definitely evocative, the only connection between the narration and the "gameplay" seems to be the general mood, the stormy sky suggesting some sort of emotional turbulence. Interesting, but not the most satisfying experience.

6. Doom: You're a space marine that runs at 60mph killing demons with a double-barreled shotgun, the amount of variety that can be achieved with the (relatively basic) set of monsters and level layouts makes it endlessly compelling. There is nothing to dislike about this.

 

[Cowabungaa]

Outside of subjective matters of taste?

First of all, the mechanics of course shouldn't be broken. It's obvious but as we know there's plenty of broken games out there. Badly functioning controls, shitty hit registration, you name it.

Second, it should avoid optimal strategies as much as possible. What do I mean with that? When a game has one or two strategies that are clearly superior over everything else. Like an RTS that you can win by just spamming one unit over and over again, or a fighting game in which you ignore 50% of the move sets. Because it's clearly superior players will be using that constantly and that'll make your game mechanically repetitive rather fast.

Thirdly, a game's mechanics should fit the goals of the game. Imagine for instance a football game that's pretty much arcade all the way through with wacky goals and objectives throughout its matches, but then the actual football mechanics turn out to be really hardcore and simulation-esque. I'll admit that on this your mileage may vary.

Lastly, and yeah I know it was a buzzword for a while but it's a real thing; ludo-narrative dissonance should be avoided as much as possible. It overlaps a little with my previous point, but it's perfectly possible that a game's mechanics get you towards the game's goals perfectly well yet doesn't fit at all with the narrative and characters involved.

I think that's pretty much it, and quite a lot already to be honest. Most other stuff is subjective.

 

[Johnny Novgorod]

My fantasy math is: skill over challenge equals pay-off, wherein challenge curbs up throughout the game and skill is multiplied.