Bittersweet Candy Bowl Forums

More Spcific Version:
Wacko had a good point, the original topic was too broad and was far too similar, so ive narrowed the topic down to the pure elements of a video game.
What does in fact make a video game classified as a "hit"?
is it poularity, sales, or is it something deeper?

When you go to the store, or look at an online review of a game, what are the specifics you're searching for. Some tend to search for a pure Shoot-em-up style genre like the CoD series of Battlefield. Other tend to go into the RPG style and look for games such as Skyrim or Fallout.

So in your perspective, what makes a perfect game? is it character, element, plot, or design?

I know that when I am looking for a new game to play, i prefer to look at a game to where i can connect with the characters more than i am for the story line(unless its a romcom) That why i like playing games like Pokemon, or even going so far as to play Minecraft. In those games your person is your own and you do with it whatever you feel. On the other hand some games do in fact pull me in because of the plot and sometimes even the genre of game. Games like Vanquish and DW: Gundam pull me in due to its shooter like qualities, with strategic storytelling and playstyles.


So now tell me your opinion, what makes a "good" game?

This post has been edited by typicalFeline: 14 September 2012 - 05:32 AM

Just to let you know, a similar video game thread was locked for being too general. We also formerly had a huge-ass video game thread, which is now in Detention because it invited too much random chatter.

You should probably narrow your focus to a specific game, or a specific aspect of video games. It shouldn't be merely a list of what your favourite games are. As a matter of fact, you didn't even list why you think those games are the top ones. That doesn't really help to foster discussion.

ok, thanks wacko, ill edit it to make it much more specific

My expectations for what makes a game good has really changed over the years. I used to be a lot about gameplay in my younger days, but that was an era where I had a lot of time to kill and completed everything 100%.

I don't play that way anymore. There simply isn't time. I think I've reached the point where I've played enough genres enough times that I decided unlocking everything isn't satisfying. I now care more about presentation and story than actual gameplay. It's funny how some people say graphics don't matter when it comes to having a good game, but I disagree to a certain extent. While it won't make a game perfect, I do think a nice-looking game can really add to the immersion and enjoyment of a world. I doubt games like Heavy Rain would've been as interesting if attention wasn't given to facial details, music, or theme, given the game' objective of keeping you interested in the characters' fates. I actually wanted to throw the first Assassin's Creed out the window when I played it back when it first came out due to how horribly repetitive it was (and it still is compared to the later games in the series), but I kept on playing because I wanted to see what happened next in the story.

That was pretty much it. I rarely replay games anymore because I just want to experience the story in a weekend and enjoy it while it lasts, and I see anything longer as a big investment of time that could be spent doing other things, which is why I haven't been so quick to jump on the Skyrim bandwagon. But yeah, to summarize, I enjoy presentation and story now, but of course, other gamers have different standards to what they look for in a game. It's why I decided to go with Witcher 2 over Skyrim...more focus on story.

But anyway, if you were to ask me what game I enjoyed many, many years ago, I'd say F-Zero GX. That game will truly test your patience if your goal was to complete and unlock everything. Story mode was a huge pain in the ass, but it always gave you that motivation of wanting to win because, dammit, you were THIS much closer to winning. Finally beating a chapter in very hard mode was the ultimate feeling of victory that no other game has given me since then. It's definitely not for casual players.

Creativity and Human Input. Which is why Graffiti Kingdom is one of the greatest, and no electronic RPG can ever best good old tabletop gaming with real live humans.

Alternatively, innovative game mechanics. Tag: The Power of Paint and Narbacular Drop come together in the hit Portal series. Piggybacking on sports, ranging from Madden to Skate to Wii Bowling makes for a popular but weak game. Although we all love jumping on buildings (I'm looking at you, Assasin's Creed) or flying spaceships (pick any flight simulator) or commanding huge armies (need I list them?), they rarely equate to a really, truly good game. Sure, they're fun, and that's what games are for, but if you're going to be a connoisseur about it, then none of them will cut it.

I'll admit that Skate has one redeeming quality -- the Video Replay Editor. The ability to perform and edit films of gameplay may seem cheesy, but for me that was the main selling point of the game. There is so much skill and creativity that goes into editing videos that for a budding cinematographer, this game was a must. Not gonna lie, I bought this for the Replay Mode and not to actually shred pavement.

Oh yeah, and fabulous music. Such as the aforementioned Graffiti Kingdom, Chrono Trigger, the original Legend of Zelda games (top picks #1 and #3)...

Popularity is a shitty measurement, because there are millions of idiots with no taste who will buy anything thrown at them. Honestly, do we really need another rehashed Mario or Sonic game? Or even a Zelda game? It's so tired by now. Get over it.
Sonic the Hedgehog sucks. Deal with it.
BTW bro, liking this topic. Should make for interesting discussion that will not degenerate so easily.

This post has been edited by Dr. Klaus: 14 September 2012 - 11:38 PM

For me, a good game has GOT to have a good storyline. If I was looking for something repetitive I could play Pong. For free. All day long. When I'm looking at reviews if I see a bunch with something along the lines of "There were so many plot twists, I wasn't expecting half those bosses to be what they were" or "The story in here really added to the game play, I want a sequel" theres a good chance I'll buy it. Maybe I'm just soft for plots but I can't stand a game that has no lore behind it and is just, "kill people."

The plot is the best part, though obviously the other parts add into it, horrible art can ruin any attempt at playing it and make plot a moot point, mosty REALLY bad 3d is what makes me wince, but arts kind of subjective in games. I play Baldors Gate and Icewind Dale. Have for years. The arts outdated and by todays standards is bad. But there are so many awesome old games with art like that, you just gotta be open minded when talking "art" wise.

Obvious characters normally equal obvious plots. For there to be a good plot, you have to have some good NPC's and if you are playing an already layed out character and not one you made yourself, they should have a viable personality too.

I think all three of you have some very good points. Both marshmallow and crystal seemed to focus on plot, which is probably my biggest selling point as well. if the story isnt worth what i paid, then odds are im not going to play it.

Oh, and crystal, if i had to pick the best in-game music, I would hands down choose the soundtrack off of Need for Speed: Underground 2. there is absolutely nothing better than driving down some dark, busy city streets while Black Betty is playing in the background

Innuendos.

What sort of innuendos Falconboy?

There are a lot of things that can make a game good; the story, a gameplay mechanic, the music, playing with friends, the aesthetics [this is how a game looks, graphics are how much detail can be given], the characters, and the atmosphere the game creates are a few methods by which a game can be considered good.

A game is good when you like to play it. I think the main things to consider are the gameplay balance and the illusion.

In general a game has to set goals that are both challenging, reachable, and rewarding. It has to allow you to improve to reach the goals without becoming frustrating or trivial (and ultimately boring).
Examples of goals are gaining the high score, completing a level or advancing an experience level, and the rewards can be the first place in the ladder, new graphics in the next level, a progress in the plot, new abilities to use...
The game becomes frustrating when the amount of ability required is perceived as too high, or when there are random factors that overcome the player's ability in determining the results of the game; it becomes boring when the rewards are not satisfying or when it is so easy that they seem worthless.
If you think of Tetris for example, it has a very simple gameplay, but it works fine as long as you are able to improve and beat your previous score. Ultimately, you hit a wall where it becomes too hard to progress any further and there are no real rewards that push you to keep going. At the highest levels you might feel like the difference from beating the high score or failing depends from the pieces that drop, and that becomes frustrating because the random factor beats your skill.
As another example the Final-Fantasy Style games are heavily based on the rewards system, which includes both new graphics as you explore the world, new weapons and abilities as you gain new spells or summons, and a progress in the plot; of course the game is probably dead after you completed it once, and that's why there are now loads of mini-goals and hidden rewards to keep you playing after the main storyline is completed. But if the rewards are not good (the plot is not interesting or the spells all look the same...) the game becomes boring anyway.

About music and graphics I don't think an awesome level is absolutely necessary to make a game good: although they do help, I think they only really need to be decent. If the gameplay sucks but the graphics and music are good you'll think "meh, what a waste" but you probably won't play that game anyway.
To make a pleasant experience a game has to not "break the illusion", in a similar way to what happens with movies: as long as the game is consistent even if the graphics is mediocre you just get used to it as long as there's nothing that stands out and looks out of place. With games the illusion can be broken by other means, e.g. if you give the intended command and your character performs an unintended action. The interaction is important because whatever severs you for a second from the game's world breaks the illusion and feels uncomfortable and disappointing. Even the music doesn't need to be a masterpiece as long as it doesn't become annoying: the moment it does you'll notice how much it sucks.

This post has been edited by Cavara: 17 September 2012 - 07:52 AM

Cavara, on 17 September 2012 - 07:50 AM, said:

Please stop using the word graphics as a synonym for scenery and aesthetic, that's not what graphics are, graphics are how much detail something has, not how it looks which is what you keep using it to mean, sorry to start this post out like that but it was really bugging me.

I kinda agree with your argument about difficulty, I think having a very hard goal is a good way to encourage the player to improve their actual skills, but having the difficulty based too much in skill and not enough in skill is frustrating. Also just because a game is easy doesn't make it not 'good' as well, i'll point at minecraft as an example because it is actually pretty easy, but it's still a good game. Difficulty can be a factor in what makes a game good, but a game can be good without having balanced difficulty.

I feel like you underplay how important good aesthetics and good audio are to a good game. I use audio because sometimes it's not always a grand orchestra played piece that helps make a good game, but a very bare amount of audio like Limbo had, or some parts of the earlier Silent Hill games which relied more on the sound of the players footsteps then any actual music to create the right mood. Sometimes it's a single, memorable piece or audio that makes a game not fall into the void of undistinguished mediocrity, the almost iconic example being Portal's "Still Alive", which possibly might be the most memorable part of the entire game, with the 'maybe' exception of the companion cube. Good aesthetics are also an important part of whether a game survives falling into a void of completely forgettable 'bad' games, Team Fortress 2 is probably a good example of this with it's distinct visual style setting it apart from every other first person shooter in the market, or Journey's beautiful scenery which is probably the absolute most important part of that games success, and even Minecraft's simplistic aesthetics which ties in with the simplicity of the game[collect, build, survive]. Bad aesthetics definitely hamper a games ability to be good, as well as it's ability to even get noticed, if you've ever gone searching for a game to buy you probably skipped right over the ones that just looked very bland or uninspired in terms of aesthetics without even reading the title of the game.

Another point that wasn't touched on at all is whether or not a game attempts to take serious issues seriously, which sounds a bit ridiculous but if not done can make a game that could otherwise be considered good into a bad game. The airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 is probably the most well-known example of this, since considering it can be skipped with the story completely unhindered or diminished in any way proves it to be just a part meant to cause needless controversy to boost sales, which shows a disrespect in the intelligence of the players whom they'd believe this would bring, and a disrespect for the content they were making. Just because something is a video game doesn't mean it should get a free pass to use serious issues without good reason to the story or to the game.

The airport scene in Modern Warfare 2 is a good idea in theory, but the fundamental flaw of this scene is that it took place in Call of Duty. Didn't the developer say something about how that was supposed to highlight how brutal the enemy was? The problem with that argument is that no one really gives a crap about the story in any Call of Duty game. Sure, Captain Price and Ghost are cool characters, but the games never really were about character development or serious topics. All it is is a mindless shooter with explosions, nothing more. This is also the reason the van explosion scene in Modern Warfare 3 lacked any real emotional value. It was just kid-dies scene for the sake of having a scene.

The problem with most shooters is that they try to be the "serious" modern shooter just to compete with the other games out there. Battlefield Bad Company 1 actually had something interesting going for it since the campaign actually attempted to be a little more light-hearted with the squad's humorous commentary, but all of that went out the window in BC2 when it became just another generic modern shooter story. Same goes for Crysis 2, which felt more of a reboot than an actual sequel to the original since the original Korea plot almost has no mention aside from a scene or two, and how the original multiplayer style gameplay was discarded in place of a CoD-style perk in smaller maps.

I feel there is a huge opportunity to cover current events going on around the world in these games, but pretty much none of them live up to those expectations because action is a bigger priority than treating a current topic seriously. I don't think these possible stories even NEED to be shooters. Maybe they can be something more slower-paced that places you in the lives of those going through some ordeal.

This post has been edited by Marshmallow: 18 September 2012 - 03:07 AM

stormthehouse, on 18 September 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

I'm sorry for bothering you, and thanks for the correction.

stormthehouse, on 18 September 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Minecraft belongs to a branch of games that tends to require your time more than your skill. It is a trend that was set by mmorpgs and can be extended to the sims in some ways: you don't need any extraordinary skill to succeed, as long as you devolve enough time to the game. In these games the balance is more like time vs rewards rather than skill vs rewards.

stormthehouse, on 18 September 2012 - 01:41 AM, said:

Maybe I really underestimate them, but that's because I refer to my own experience. I have seen loads of demos of new games with awesome aesthetics that promised to be the new best game in the world, but when I tried them many were just ultimately boring. On the countrary I still find myself playing the occasional game at Street Fighter Alpha III on mame, and I still find it entertaining although I could't say it has wonderful aesthetics or audio.

I don't feel like taking serious issues seriously is a very important matter in a game. Is the airport part fun to play? Does it ruin the mood or "break the illusion" when you get to it? If the answers are "yes" and "no" I'm fine with it, no matter if there are second motives for choosing that scenery.

A game needs to be fun and keep me playing for it to be good.

I found the airport scene to be fairly moronic when i played it. The only point i felt it got across was that "this is how this character dies" and that was about it. It could have been easily omitted from the game but in order to have higher play through times, they kept it using the excuse of "character development"

Sometimes even the cheap knockoffs of games are entertaining as well. I have currently found myself constantly playing Super Smash Flash 2, which is a veeeery cheap knockoff of SSBB. Its pixelated and somewhat choppy, but its entertaining because it has the ability to play with multiple people on the same computer. People in my computer programming class have mini-tournies in that game because of that. Others like some pokemon/yugioh knockoffs are also fun sometimes. They were a couple on Facebook and have even been some that havecome out on handheld. Just because they are not the "namebrand" game doesnt always take away from their enjoyability and playability. I dont know, maybe its just me though

When the story and characters are engaging; when the setting is something beautiful and interactive; when the gameplay reacts smoothly enough that your character can become an extension of yourself into that environment; when the art style is appropriate to the tone and the genre, generally well-executed.

In a word, good games stay with you long time; excellent games stay with you forever.

ChronoTrigger! Baaawwww! I still have all the midis, and I listen to the ending theme from time to time! I loved the combo attacks!

Weirdly enough I'm playing through that game right now. The overworld theme from 600 AD is my fav.

Excluding the genre breakdown, a good game by game community standards usually has a few of the elements below.

• Engaging Single Player Storyline/Memorable moments
  
• Multiplayer componments with community engagement (Clans, leveling systems, chat & voice, Web based Leaderboards & forums)
  
• Seamless control Scheme / Gameplay element usage
  
• Basic Progression with expanded roles/skills/abilities/leveling/items
  
• Characters that can be connected with on an emotional level
  
• Replay Value

Using Halo 1 as an example for the above list

• Storyline that was simple for the player to understand, and provided fun situations for the player to be engaged with
  
• Multiplayer was offline, but was so well made that players formed their own online system. System linking at Lan parties was a hit as well
  
• One of the better FPS control setup's on consoles. Trifecta of Nade/Gun/Melee as the offensive system worked perfectly within the engine
  
• Started out with no weapons, taught how to use the controls within storyline, expanded weapons/veichles as the game progressed
  
• Not really that much investment in MC, go go space marine
  
• Fun as hell to play again and again, especially on Legendary Mode.

Outside of some general things most great games accomplish, anything that can provide that hook to you is a good game. If you like Madden 2012 or Chrono Trigger because it makes you want to play it again, then by definition it's a good game for YOU because it's providing entertainment. If you want to classify a game based on a score rating, feel free to use the list above.

Gameplay that can stand on its own without a story, making any story around it a nice bonus that adds to a solid core.
Tight, responsive controls.
Fitting music.
Graphics good enough to see what's happening, doesn't have to be AAA quality.

This formula has made even the most simple video games games fun since 100k B.C.
Music is optional, but can help a whole lot. I'd be more likely to play something like Sokoban if it had a tune that just keeps one pulled in than if it just were bleeps and bloops.

Story and so on is of no consequence if the core mechanics are solid. Tetris for example, no story there (even if the game boy version had missile launch events), awesome, timeless game.
I wouldn't say that narrative driven games are for chumps, but I consider those games not as gamey as they could be, they're more like interactive novels with some housework tied to them.
(And a few of those belong to my all time favorites, but I still don't consider them very gamey. )

I'd argue that while those create a good game, story is required for a great game. There have been dozens of versions of Tetris, even knockoff clones, but the difference is mostly academic. Chrono Trigger, on the other hand, is instantly recognizable as precisely what it is.

Novelty is a big one for me, when discussing what makes an individual game good. Even if it feels exactly like another game that I love, if it doesn't have something special to call its own, I won't consider it a good game. (I won't call it a knockoff, because sometimes I played the later game first, and in those situations it's an unfair comparison anyway. The nature of the experience, I think.)

And I'll echo falconboy99: a little bit of risque humor and a nod to the process we all came from can do a lot to deepen one's enjoyment of a game. Some of the best moments in FF3 and FF7 were where a main character was hitting on another, with variable success (Edgar got shot down repeatedly while Locke got Celes, and Cloud got preapocalyptic nookie with Tifa that everyone in the party watched).

I agree on the general points about aesthetics and gameplay.

Probably the most important, though, is novelty. Everything else can suck, but if there's something game X does that no one else does and people enjoy it, people will buy game X no matter how crappy it is in everything else. (Which goes back to the popularity problem Dr. Klaus mentioned. The game can be terrible and popular, but you need to be prepared for some crap to get to the good parts.)

You argue that story is required to make a great game. I Argue story results in great narrative, not gameplay, the thing that makes the game.
If the twists and revelations of the story are more engaging and satisfying than the game-play elements, then it's more a novel than a game.
That's not a bad thing, I just consider it more a novel with some bookkeeping. Do you play the game to enjoy grinding the enemies, or do you want to eradicate them to get closer to the end so you can find out what happens when Lavos gets kicked in the face?
If the latter aspect wins over the former, then are you really playing the game game? The mechanics and so on? Or are you reading a story with a nonstandard way of turning the pages?

That said, I love CT.

About the funny moments in FF, I too enjoy them, but they are not gameplay related. They aren't a mechanic, well, okay, in a way they are, to see them you must flip some flags on so the game engine progresses to the story bit, but it's not gameplay.

Would you consider the iconic one up sound in Mario games a gameplay mechanic? It's satisfying but one can still play SMB with the sound off and still have a good time. Take everything but the battle system out of FF and all you'd do is choosing actions from a menu eternally.

Anyway, I guess it's mostly philosophy, one I disregard all time time, seeing how I used to be, and still somewhat am into all those games I apparently dont want to classify as such.
I still find it important to know about this and disregard it than being ignorant about it and attributing the term game to something that is not one.

Or things like the following two gems shall be thine personal hell evermore.
http://youtu.be/OLMM6wmmDho http://youtu.be/_JU6dXf39JY

Even worse than quicktime fests.

Edit:
So yeah, I still stand by my original ingredients that make a good game, and while I love CT a whole whole whole lot, I'd still consider something Tetris the better 'game', but CT certainly has moved me more.

This post has been edited by Geist: 22 September 2012 - 04:00 PM

Geist, on 22 September 2012 - 03:32 PM, said:

Here's our fundamental disconnect. If a game has a story, I feel it's part of what makes the game good or bad. The narrative and mechanics can be separated, but that's not the same as being unrelated or unconnected. A game with a narrative focus should have mechanics that reflect the narrative, or you get an unsatisfying disconnect between what is going on and what can be done. For example, if Crono were described as an excellent marksman instead of a swordsman, it would be weird that he used a sword. When you have narrative, it can hinder or enhance the gameplay experience despite not being a mechanical concern per se.

And for me, it really is the whole experience. I love to power level early on and crush later enemies like two bit thugs in a 64 bit world, and I love the feeling of beating a boss who was particularly wicked, and I absolutely adore the feeling of completing a game I get invested in the story with. (Particularly ones like Chrono Trigger that have multiple endings. Seeing all of them is pretty awesome.)

If the developers put so much emphasis on the story over the gameplay that you don't feel like you're playing a game, like with FF13 or Heavy Rain, then I can see the visual novel comparison being more apt. But not just because the gameplay is less of a draw than the story overall.

This post has been edited by Coyote: 22 September 2012 - 05:28 PM

im not going to make a long reply like some of these, im just going to say an idea i had just thought of.

one of my favorite things in a game is achievements. If a game doesnt have achievements, it seriously depreciates its playtime for me. I absolutely love the feeling of completing a challenge and then getting a reward to show of because of it

You like something to boast about it. That is normal, that is why there is an Honor Roll/Dean's List thing in school. It by no way makes the game good. It just entices you to try extra hard to achieve a challenge set forth by someone else. If you just want to brag about accomplishing that then I pity you.

That is not different from pitying someone who wants to beat the high score.

In the basics of it, you are correct, but a high score and a trophy are two different things.

Only one person has the highscore, while many thousands of people can earn the trophy/achievement.

Achievements don't make the gameplay any smoother or the story any more compelling, but they do make the overall experience more engaging. I'd have to agree that in general, they will make a game better. That wasn't were I thought I'd side on that suggestion at first, so kudos to typicalFeline for the good call.

This post has been edited by Coyote: 25 September 2012 - 06:22 AM

I'm not really a hardcore gamer, but I'll give my two cents.

Plot line, plot line, plot line. I'm one of those people who loves to find hidden/implied messages in everything, and then find out what other people found. ESPECIALLY "kids games" having some REALLY dark elements. Which is probably why Legend of Zelda: Majora's Mask is one my favourite games ever. But I do understand there aren't a whole bunch of people like me in this regard.

Gameplay is pretty damn important too, and the choice of audio (being into retro games, I don't care much for graphics/visuals). There needs to be a certain level of difficulty (possible, but not easy) as well, and having to think outside the box is always a plus. Achievements always help because I LOVE trying to get EVERYTHING, though never on my first play-through, which is solely for the main game/story line.

I think that if a game, as any other kind of media, has a solid concept, and the developers can build all the elements of the game around it in order to make a coherent and cohesive piece, it is bound to become a hit. This means that both the tone and the topics of the narrative, as well as the aesthetic feel both visually and aurally, merge well with the mechanics and the concept as well.

I believe that by following these guidelines a developer can make an amazing work with very few resources. For example, take the Katamari series. Those games don't have very good graphic definition by themselves, but the entire aesthetic elements blend together in order to make a game that looks, sounds and feels fantastic.

But then again, it's usually not enough to make a hit out of a game. I still have to figure that one out.

Semi-pro gamer here.... (aged 13)

what makes a game good..

1st-Gameplay (obviously)
2nd-Story (Makes you understand the creativity of the developers)
3rd-Graphics (meh...for me graphics dosent matter)
4th-Replay (for loooong hours of gaming)
4th-Music (Headbangs!!! YEAH!)


@Marshmallow ever played F-zero X? one of the best in the F-zero series

This post has been edited by zYnthetic: 26 October 2012 - 04:46 PM

Semi-pro? Have you ever placed first in a tourney with a cash prize of over $500?

I know a pro gamer. His winnings are considerably more than $500.

No..semi-pro in game experiences...First and third person shooting

Any time the word "Pro" is used in anything it means the person is making money off of it, you are not semi-pro.

There still things that I dont know in the internet..BTW thanks for telling me what a Semi-pro is...*watching Starcraft 2...Slivko vs Grubby*

wacko, on 26 October 2012 - 07:12 PM, said:

I was just throwing out a semi-significant amount of money for winning a tournament.

a good story and immersive gameplay