What's the most important thing in a game to you?

[bl4ckh4wk64]

Hmm, let's see. Thinking of examples from AC5 and ME1 and 2...

Story: Don't care if the game is broken, I love me mah backstories. For example, ME1 controls kinda sucked if you were anything but Soldier. However, it's still one of my favorite games ever because of the immenseness and beauty of the story. Ace Combat 5 was an amazing game anyways, but the story and the mere amount of characterization make it my all time favorite game.

Sound: This really should go hand in hand with story because the music helps to represent what's going on in the game. ME1 music was right on the money with both timing and mood. AC5 music really helped to set the mood as well. (Except for the stupid debriefing music, that sucked.)

Controls: Immersion is one of those factors that makes a good game great. In order for this immersion to happen one's mind must be as close to what's actually going on as possible. I think it was Yahtzee that said something about how a controller works better because instead of flailing one's arms, the slightest movement in an analog stick will make the character do the action you intended. Good controls are important because they are needed to make the actions in the game seem as close to what you want them to do as possible. (God, my grammar sucked in that paragraph...)

Aesthetics: Goes along with immersion. Graphics aren't extremely important, but they are needed if one is to fully immerse oneself in a game.

Game Mechanics: The game has to work...

Edit: ME2 wasn't really an RPG, it was more of a TP cover based Shooter with RPG elements. Now ME1 was definitely an RPG. They kinda dumbed it down in 2.

 

[Grey_Focks]

Game Mechanics- Easily my number one. If a game isn't fun, why am I playing it? I can get good stories out of Movies, TV, and books. Cold day in hell when I force myself to play a bad game just because it's story is good.

Controls- Really same as game mechanics. I don't care if the first three Resident Evil games are atmospheric or any of that crap, it has the worst controls I've ever played.

Story- Ofcourse that isn't to say I don't appreciate games with good stories AND gameplay. If I'm having fun playing a game, AND enjoying the story/characters/world, then that's icing on the cake.

Aesthetics- Eh, this goes in the "Only really notice/care if they're either really bad or really good" department. If a modern game comes out looking like crap, or uses an art style I really dislike (anime just isn't my cup of tea) it really takes away from the game. On the otherside, I've played games longer than I should have just because they were so pretty (Crysis 2 demo, anyone?)

Sound- I'm feeling lazy, so I'm just gonna say "see aesthetics", except I really only ever notice good soundtracks on the positive side. Never really take much notice of good VA. On the other side, bad VA or soundtracks tend to stick out a bit.

 

[blankedboy]

...

What about fun?

 

[Smooth Operator]

Heavily depends on the game type:
- arcade/platrofmers - controls and gameplay must be absolutely airtight(alot of developers forget that)
- action FPS - controls and gameplay must be well done, hickups are to be expected but it hasto do a good job
- story FPS - a good story and world design will make me overlook quite alot of the gameplay holes
- RPG - I'll overlook the controls and problematic gameplay if they give me a world to dive into, turn based combat - whatever there is a world for me to explore, but if it's all a bit shallow I will be pissy over every minor thing(ME2, DA2, FF13,...)

 

[Nexus4]

I'm sorry to break the mould, but personally, for PC particularly, I am finding optimization to be one very important point. Take Crysis 2 for example, looks a helluva lot better that Crysis 1 with better technical and gameplay mechanics, yet on high detail setting runs absolutely perfectly on my laptop with a very solid framerate. This is a laptop that struggled to play Crysis 1, even Fallout 3 and New Vegas stuttered on occasion, yet Crysis 2 comes along and works perfectly fine. I recently downloaded the Shogun 2 demo for comparison to Crysis 2, from a technical standpoint, and found that it lagged horribly, even with the setting bumped down. So to me, optimization of the engine is currently the most important aspect of a game atm.

 

[mjc0961]

Rank these five broad categories in order of importance to you and your enjoyment of a game -

Game Mechanics (core concept of the game, main game mechanic).
Aesthetics (including graphics and character design).
Sound (including music and sound effects).
Controls (method of control, timing response of controls, ease of use).
Story (including back-story, in-game cinematics)

You can break them up into smaller categories if you like. But please consider your answers carefully. Liking the look of a game over gameplay is not as stupid as it sounds.

Thank you for any response.

In general, I guess I'd have to order them like this:

Game Mechanics: If the game just fails at what it is trying to be, I'm not going to enjoy it no matter how well done the rest of the items are.
Control: Bad controls are really hard to overcome; the rest of the game is going to have to be absolutely brilliant to make me keep playing if I am disliking the controls.
Sound: Bad music and/or annoying sound effects really bother me. For example, to every game that has ever put in annoying gibberish sounds as "voice acting" that plays while text is being added on the screen without an option to disable it, please get in line so that I may kick you in the nuts. Also, I'd be enjoying LBP2 a lot more if half the community levels weren't filled with that Sleepyhead song, or obnoxious MIDI-sounding versions of songs that I already thought were obnoxious like Fireflies by Owl City (I think) and that Black Eyed Peas song where they keep saying it's going to be a good good night (it just might be if you'd stop violating my precious ears!).
Of course there are obnoxious sound effects too. The Pokémon low health beeping instantly springs to mind (thank you, Black and White, for finding a way to make this even more insufferable). Bad voice acting also gets included here. For example, Heavy Rain was a pretty good game, but it would have been even more enjoyable if half the voice actors had been able to pronounce commonly used words in the script correctly. The guy who voiced Norman Jayden was especially annoying, as not only could he not pronounce "origami" correctly (HINT: There is only one R in the word; it's not "origarmi"), he didn't even get "Norman" right. It was always "Nomin Jayden" whenever he said it. Sounds like some kind of meme character; Come see Nomin' Jayden eat a whole jar of cookies in under a minute!
Aesthetics: There is a point where graphics can get too ugly for the game to be playable (I challenge you to play Bubsy 3D without getting sick to your stomach from the awful environments and colors; of course, that game fails in all 5 of these categories so it's not just graphics that make it unplayable). But it's generally pretty hard to reach. In short, I'm not a graphics whore, so this doesn't bother me. And for character design; it can be something to make fun of, but unless it interferes with the game mechanics somehow (Yahtzee's complaints about the enemy designs in Darksiders makes for a good example), it's not that big a deal either.
Story: Not terribly important to me. A great story is always a nice thing to have, but if a game decides that it's going to have an NES or SNES era story of "The princes has been kidnapped by a giant turtle, go rescue her" or "A fatso has kidnapped your animal friends and stuffed them into robots, go free your friends and stop his scheme", that's fine by me. Hell, even a no-story game like Pac-Man is fine by me. It's only when a game tries to tell a story but fails miserably that I start complaining. Although there is plenty of example material I could pick, I just want to mention one thing here that really cheesed me off recently. Command and Conquer 4's constant shtick with the player's "wife". What it did is just throw some random woman in there (she does have a name, but she's such an unimportant character that I can't remember it; maybe it was Lily but who cares?), have her say "I love you" a few times, and expect me to give a rats ass about her. Then...

Spoiler: C&C4 spoilers obviously

she dies in a cutscene during one of the missions, and all the other characters try to console you in each mission briefing. Problem is, I DON'T CARE THAT SHE DIED. You did nothing to make me care about her, therefore I'm not upset by her death, therefore I'm not grieving and don't need any consoling! Even better is when you're on the NOD side, and it turns out that she's not dead and Kane is holding her hostage to make sure you obey orders. OH NOEZ! Don't hurt random fuckwit who says she loves me, Kane! I would be teh sadz!

So yeah. A bad story or bad story elements can get under my skin. But if the game is good, I'll still replay it. I'll just mock the story a whole lot on forums. If there is a game with a bad story that I don't play again, it's because it also failed to impress me in other areas.

[HEADING=1]tl;dr[/HEADING]
1. Game Mechanics
2. Controls
3. Sound
4. Aesthetics
5. Story

 

[mjc0961]

...

What about fun?

Generally, the more of those things the game fails to impress you at, the less fun you're having. And if it does them all in a way that you enjoy, you're already having fun. So it's kind of implied, and I figured the point was to rate them in the order in which they contribute to you enjoying the game, or having fun with it.

I mean, really, if the game mechanics are bad and the controls are bad too, making the game a huge struggle to play, you're probably not having any fun. Well, I'm probably not having any fun, because those are the two most important things for me. If your most important thing is story, and the game has a really bad one, then you probably aren't having much fun with that game either.

 

[Paksenarrion]

Price: Is it free or a one-time payment? Then sure.

Is it more than $30? I'll wait until it's on sale for $20 or below.

*years later, at the advent of a working holodeck*

Score! I can finally buy Bulletstor-...what's this? Viva Pinata?

FFUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUU-

 

[ultrachicken]

Game controls. If it uses motion controls or doesn't work properly, there's no way in hell I'm playing it.

 

[valleyshrew]

The most important thing to me is depth of interactivity which isn't possible to talk about in your primitive categories. There are 3 layers of game design - gameplay (the combat or sports mechanics), level design (the world you explore) and writing (the story you explore, often interactively). I don't want to play a game where the level design and writing are uninteractive. FFXIII is a good example - straight forward mindless level design, and uninvolving cutscenes. Now compare it with FFVII where you have a huge explorable world and 35+ interactive variations like chocobo racing, snowboarding, motorbike chase, tower defence, etc.

My most played games of all time are metal gear online, counter-strike, call of duty and pro evo/fifa. But I would never list any of them as my favourite games. They're not memorable or meaningful entertainment, they're mindless social fun. It'd be like listing jeopardy as your favourite tv show ahead of the wire. Every meaningful game to me has to have an explorable world with creative cultural concepts and gameplay that isn't just combat but offers a change of pace and strengthens immersion and realism. They have to be intellectually satisfying. Combat has to be varied, perhaps offering a pacifist playthrough (metal gear solid, deus ex, fallout etc. do). These games are supposed to be adventurous journeys that span more time for the character than you experience. They shouldn't spend it all in combat. It's repetitive and tiring. There should be time for more "fun" entertainment.

An explorable openworld, interactive dialogue, plot choices, morality systems, minigames, puzzles, emergent gameplay, tons of interactive characters with their own motivations and vernaculars and personalities, radio stations, computer terminals, etc.. Don't just give me combat and cutscenes (hi ffxiii) or it's extremely boring. If I had to make my own list of important features:

1. Game engine - Doesn't matter how good the controls or gameplay are if you've got no graphics/physics/animations to show them with.

2. Engaging gameplay - Doesn't *have* to be fun.

3. Good level design

4. Varied interactivity

5. Good writing (can just be good characters or good plot, doesn't need both)

6. Good camera - So many games have bad camera controls and lack of settings. Rest of controls are usually fine.

7. Good sound - Great music can redeem a mediocre game. A horror game can't scare you if the sound is off. Voice acting, sound effects etc. are now very important. Even in a sports game, the commentary can be really annoying if it isn't accurate.

8. Lack of crashing/glitches - Singleplayer glitches can often be positive allowing people more interactivity, finding secrets or to speedrun. If it's crashing the game or not letting you finish an objective etc. then it's extremely negative.

 

[RedEyesBlackGamer]

How about characters? If a game doesn't have entertaining/complex characters then I don't want to play it.
1. Characters
2. Story
3. Gameplay mechanics
4. Controls
5. Sound/aesthetics

 

[moretimethansense]

Story's first
Gameplay's a close second
Aesthetics and Sound are too close to cal
And Controls are last, no matter how bad the controls are if I like the game otherwise I can adapt.

You missed something though, the user interface, IE the HUD, menus and such, they can ruin a game far more thoroughly than bad controls ever could.

 

[dolgion]

I don't like to break down games into their single bits and pieces, because they usually influence each other heavily.

When I play a game, I can't just generally say I want a great story or else...

It depends on what the game is trying to do. If I play a football game, I want the game to have great physics and AI, as well as great controls to simulate the sport as perfectly as possible.

When I play an RPG, I usually want it to be well written, give me lots of choices and a good underlying ruleset for combat and other things.

When playing a platformer or FPS, I want good controls above all, and good level design.

But from all games, it is always great to see innovative and new things for the respective genre. Sure, I don't really have a problem when I play a traditional game that doesn't really bring anything new to the table as long as its execution is great.

So for games that are brave and try to push the limits in their respective genre, I'm usually much more forgiving for their eventual flaws - for example with Oblivion. What? Oblivion is innovative? Well, Bethesda has been consistently working on the UBER free kind of RPGs where you can do anything and go anywhere. Obviously, no RPG that perfected this kind of game has been released, but at least they're trying and pushing in the direction - hence I can forgive the "soullessness" of the game.

What I can't forgive is when a game is just a clone and not even a good one at that - see for example tons and tons of WW2 shooters.

So yeah it really depends on the "intention" of the game and how well it executes the separate things needed to reach that goal, if in visuals, gameplay, narrative or whatever.

 

[Nirth90]

Game mechanics
Story
Controls
Art Design
Sound
Technical Graphics

I would like to break down aesthetics to technical graphics and art design where I prioritize art design above sound but technical graphics below.

It's a bit hard to priotize them because if one of them is really bad it could be annoying all the time but it's all relative of course so if for example the controls suck but the story is amazing you could try to ignore it but enjoy the story.

As for the priority I agree with dolgion that it depends on what type of game you're playing.

 

[Wondermint13]

Damn Fella! You make it so much effort!
I just wanted to say Breasts and move on.. Thats the most important thing in a game for me. The rest is for the developers to make sure I enjoy...

 

[floppylobster]

Rank these five broad categories in order of importance to you and your enjoyment of a game -

Game Mechanics (core concept of the game, main game mechanic).
Aesthetics (including graphics and character design).
Sound (including music and sound effects).
Controls (method of control, timing response of controls, ease of use).
Story (including back-story, in-game cinematics)

You can break them up into smaller categories if you like. But please consider your answers carefully. Liking the look of a game over gameplay is not as stupid as it sounds.

Thank you for any response.

In general, I guess I'd have to order them like this:

Game Mechanics: If the game just fails at what it is trying to be, I'm not going to enjoy it no matter how well done the rest of the items are.
Control: Bad controls are really hard to overcome; the rest of the game is going to have to be absolutely brilliant to make me keep playing if I am disliking the controls.
Sound: Bad music and/or annoying sound effects really bother me. For example, to every game that has ever put in annoying gibberish sounds as "voice acting" that plays while text is being added on the screen without an option to disable it, please get in line so that I may kick you in the nuts. Also, I'd be enjoying LBP2 a lot more if half the community levels weren't filled with that Sleepyhead song, or obnoxious MIDI-sounding versions of songs that I already thought were obnoxious like Fireflies by Owl City (I think) and that Black Eyed Peas song where they keep saying it's going to be a good good night (it just might be if you'd stop violating my precious ears!).
Of course there are obnoxious sound effects too. The Pokémon low health beeping instantly springs to mind (thank you, Black and White, for finding a way to make this even more insufferable). Bad voice acting also gets included here. For example, Heavy Rain was a pretty good game, but it would have been even more enjoyable if half the voice actors had been able to pronounce commonly used words in the script correctly. The guy who voiced Norman Jayden was especially annoying, as not only could he not pronounce "origami" correctly (HINT: There is only one R in the word; it's not "origarmi"), he didn't even get "Norman" right. It was always "Nomin Jayden" whenever he said it. Sounds like some kind of meme character; Come see Nomin' Jayden eat a whole jar of cookies in under a minute!
Aesthetics: There is a point where graphics can get too ugly for the game to be playable (I challenge you to play Bubsy 3D without getting sick to your stomach from the awful environments and colors; of course, that game fails in all 5 of these categories so it's not just graphics that make it unplayable). But it's generally pretty hard to reach. In short, I'm not a graphics whore, so this doesn't bother me. And for character design; it can be something to make fun of, but unless it interferes with the game mechanics somehow (Yahtzee's complaints about the enemy designs in Darksiders makes for a good example), it's not that big a deal either.
Story: Not terribly important to me. A great story is always a nice thing to have, but if a game decides that it's going to have an NES or SNES era story of "The princes has been kidnapped by a giant turtle, go rescue her" or "A fatso has kidnapped your animal friends and stuffed them into robots, go free your friends and stop his scheme", that's fine by me. Hell, even a no-story game like Pac-Man is fine by me. It's only when a game tries to tell a story but fails miserably that I start complaining. Although there is plenty of example material I could pick, I just want to mention one thing here that really cheesed me off recently. Command and Conquer 4's constant shtick with the player's "wife". What it did is just throw some random woman in there (she does have a name, but she's such an unimportant character that I can't remember it; maybe it was Lily but who cares?), have her say "I love you" a few times, and expect me to give a rats ass about her. Then...

Spoiler: C&C4 spoilers obviously

she dies in a cutscene during one of the missions, and all the other characters try to console you in each mission briefing. Problem is, I DON'T CARE THAT SHE DIED. You did nothing to make me care about her, therefore I'm not upset by her death, therefore I'm not grieving and don't need any consoling! Even better is when you're on the NOD side, and it turns out that she's not dead and Kane is holding her hostage to make sure you obey orders. OH NOEZ! Don't hurt random fuckwit who says she loves me, Kane! I would be teh sadz!

So yeah. A bad story or bad story elements can get under my skin. But if the game is good, I'll still replay it. I'll just mock the story a whole lot on forums. If there is a game with a bad story that I don't play again, it's because it also failed to impress me in other areas.

[HEADING=1]tl;dr[/HEADING]
1. Game Mechanics
2. Controls
3. Sound
4. Aesthetics
5. Story

Thanks for your response mjc0961, it seems we see games in many similar ways. Including an intense dislike of C&C 4 and it's failed attempt to manipulate player sympathy (to speak nothing of the many other things wrong with that game). From the examples you mention can I assume you're a slightly older gamer? I am, and must say I was surprised how many respondents ranked Story as being quite important to them. While I enjoyed Shadow of the Colossus and Chronotrigger I could never say I have played a game where the storyline or plot was my main interest.

It's more the concept or idea behind the story that I find interesting. Or the way the scenario can evoke some emotion in me if I allow myself to explore the situation I am exploring through the gameplay (for example, feeling threatened in the original Resident Evil; feelings of fear in Doom; feeling of revenge in Halo). Is it a product of modern cinematic games that has caused story to rise in people's expectations? Command & Conquer didn't have a spectacular story either but I loved that game. I kept playing to see the next CG cut scene, but in terms of what was happening between NOD and GDI and Tiberium, I didn't really care as long as there was an escalation of conflict (meaning I could play with more units next time).

When I considered my own feelings to my question I was surprised how many games I like mainly because of the sound effects (Galaga's opening tune, Ms. Pac-man, Robotron 2084, Defender - I enjoy them all far more because they have great sound effects). I tend to like a lot of retro games, (although I played them when they were new), so maybe it's product of growing up during that era of gaming? Anyway, thanks for putting some real thought into your response. And thanks to everyone else who responded.

 

[floppylobster]

The most important thing to me is depth of interactivity which isn't possible to talk about in your primitive categories. There are 3 layers of game design - gameplay (the combat or sports mechanics), level design (the world you explore) and writing (the story you explore, often interactively). I don't want to play a game where the level design and writing are uninteractive. FFXIII is a good example - straight forward mindless level design, and uninvolving cutscenes. Now compare it with FFVII where you have a huge explorable world and 35+ interactive variations like chocobo racing, snowboarding, motorbike chase, tower defence, etc.

My most played games of all time are metal gear online, counter-strike, call of duty and pro evo/fifa. But I would never list any of them as my favourite games. They're not memorable or meaningful entertainment, they're mindless social fun. It'd be like listing jeopardy as your favourite tv show ahead of the wire. Every meaningful game to me has to have an explorable world with creative cultural concepts and gameplay that isn't just combat but offers a change of pace and strengthens immersion and realism. They have to be intellectually satisfying. Combat has to be varied, perhaps offering a pacifist playthrough (metal gear solid, deus ex, fallout etc. do). These games are supposed to be adventurous journeys that span more time for the character than you experience. They shouldn't spend it all in combat. It's repetitive and tiring. There should be time for more "fun" entertainment.

An explorable openworld, interactive dialogue, plot choices, morality systems, minigames, puzzles, emergent gameplay, tons of interactive characters with their own motivations and vernaculars and personalities, radio stations, computer terminals, etc.. Don't just give me combat and cutscenes (hi ffxiii) or it's extremely boring. If I had to make my own list of important features:

1. Game engine - Doesn't matter how good the controls or gameplay are if you've got no graphics/physics/animations to show them with.

2. Engaging gameplay - Doesn't *have* to be fun.

3. Good level design

4. Varied interactivity

5. Good writing (can just be good characters or good plot, doesn't need both)

6. Good camera - So many games have bad camera controls and lack of settings. Rest of controls are usually fine.

7. Good sound - Great music can redeem a mediocre game. A horror game can't scare you if the sound is off. Voice acting, sound effects etc. are now very important. Even in a sports game, the commentary can be really annoying if it isn't accurate.

8. Lack of crashing/glitches - Singleplayer glitches can often be positive allowing people more interactivity, finding secrets or to speedrun. If it's crashing the game or not letting you finish an objective etc. then it's extremely negative.

Very technical and valid points. Sounds like you have a future or current position in game design. The addition of camera controls to your list suggests you are not including any games from the 70s or 80s in your consideration. Do you think these games can still be good (more than just engaging time diversions) despite their basic game engines, a lack of any discernable writing, basic sound and no camera controls?

I appreciate you expanding the discussion. I completely agree with your point about interactive writing/storytelling. Engaging the player through what you say and don't say, and most importantly, when you say it, is something I feel many game writers haven't grasped yet. And I'm not just talking about dialogue, story for me encompasses every event that happens or can be triggered within the timeline of the narrative. I think it is being achieved in good games much more subtly than most players notice.

Story is the most important factor...but I admit that wonky camera angles or fixed cameras are the BANE of my existence!

How do we explain the huge appeal of Modern Warfare and Halo multi-player where there is no story but the ebb and flow of the current battle? Is that what people are calling story? Is that enough to be engaging as long as the player is involved (i.e. no characters as such)? I know it can be, (like a group of friends doing a post match dissection of a paint-ball game), but is that not more of an experience than a story?

 

[Mallefunction]

How do we explain the huge appeal of Modern Warfare and Halo multi-player where there is no story but the ebb and flow of the current battle? Is that what people are calling story? Is that enough to be engaging as long as the player is involved (i.e. no characters as such)? I know it can be, (like a group of friends doing a post match dissection of a paint-ball game), but is that not more of an experience than a story?

It's like the difference between snacking on junk food and eating a real meal. Games like Halo are akin to chips in that you can eat a lot and they are readily available, but ultimately, they offer you nothing in terms of nutrition and do not give you the sensation of fullness.

Games like Bioshock with intense well developed stories are like a steak dinner. You only have it once in a while, but it fills you right up the first time around. Games with little story do not offer the player more than an 'experience'. Those that do have a very strong story give them much more back because they make the player think rather than just react to stimuli.

Not to say that games like Halo don't have their merits, I just think that story should be given much more consideration.