What makes a good game.

inglonias · June 11, 2007, 16:40

I am not much of a graphics guy when it comes to gameplay but glitchy aesthetics are a pet peeve. Mostly, I prefer the gameplay aspect of games and making it match the graphics.
For example, a game that was so real, you couldn't tell the difference between it and reality that just had you walking in a straight line for no reason would suck.
Most game companies go for graphics more than gameplay but they try to make it fun. That said, some developers try to go for gameplay with things like vector graphics:
*COUGH!**COUGH!* but MAN is it fun.

Marid Audran · June 11, 2007, 19:18

I believe this thread is more salient to the "Other Games" forum.

Speaking for myself, gameplay, storyline, and strong, identifiable characters are key. Especially true in CRPGs but also apropros to most game genres as well, including our beloved SMAC. The old Looking Glass "Thief" games and System Shock 2 are still strong favorites on my machine, despite their age, over many many newer and shinier first-person games. Arcanum is my favorite CRPG out there, another with decidedly aged graphics but superb gameplay, writing, and setting.

This is another reason why tempesteruos forum arguements are going on over at Bethesda's forums for Fallout 3, a lot of die-hard "old-guard" fans clamoring for Fallout's "soul" to be maintained versus it becoming an Oblivion clone with Mad Max overtones.

CEO Aaron · June 12, 2007, 15:18

Obviously gameplay is what makes a good game. Without gameplay, you're left with pretty pictures and nothing else. That said, I think there's room in the world for games with both good graphics, sound AND gameplay. The trick is that you can't fake good graphics, so even the worst and most inept developers will still sink good money into making their game pretty. They are the cover that sells the book, as it were.

Straybow · June 14, 2007, 19:22

SMAC graphics were "edgy" back in '99. That is, they were ugly but "cool." The 3D models were just "good enough" to slow down the display if you had an economical graphics card (or, heaven forbid, motherboard graphics).

Pretty much the same for new games every year. Push the graphics to the extent that older or cheaper systems can't cope. Yeah, that's a great marketing strategy. Even if I wanted to I still can't play Civ4 on my computer because of that.

inglonias · June 15, 2007, 08:44

In that case, then I guess I am doomed.
I have a G4 Mac MINI!
Can you believe it?
THIS is why I prefer more retro style games.
DEFCON is a nice game that runs smoothly
Darwinia, sweet
Uplink runs AWESOMe, even on my old classic G3!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

CEO Aaron · June 15, 2007, 16:55

I don't understand why you expect to get new games to be written/released for old systems. Do you want record companies to issue new albums on 8 track? Or perhaps a version of Windows Vista that will run on an IBM Selectric typewriter?

Seriously, game publishers aim their system specs at the segment of the market share most likely to purchase their game. Anything else is just a misuse of their investor's capital. This is why most mainstream games actually have fairly modest system requirements in comparison to what's available. Blizzard games, for example, have system specs that are years, even decades behind the bleeding edge.

It's one thing to bemoan the lack of innovation in gameplay as more and more of a game's production budget gets co-opted by graphical whizbang, but it's another thing entirely to bash the graphics for their own sake.

Hmn. I seem to be somewhat cranky today. Must be the plumbers who're taking apart my building. Anyway, I tend to be a glass is half full guy anyway: I'm just glad a game like SMAX ever came out, and I'm happy to play it so long as my OS is capable of loading it.

molly bloom · June 16, 2007, 06:21

Originally posted by CEO Aaron

Do you want record companies to issue new albums on 8 track?

I'm still pushing for more wax cylinder releases.

Failing that, corporate wandering minstrels.

Xian · June 19, 2007, 23:06

Originally posted by CEO Aaron
I don't understand why you expect to get new games to be written/released for old systems. Do you want record companies to issue new albums on 8 track?

Besides the fact that record companies do regularly issue releases on LP vinyl your analogy is absolutely terrible. The medium a product released on is not the same thing as the target system it is meant to run on. And operating systems are not "products" in the same way as video games are.

There is no good reason why Civ4 - for example - needed to have such high system requirements. NO turn-based game should ever need a 3d graphics card, particularly one that isn't even three dimensional!

CEO Aaron · June 21, 2007, 19:47

You've missed my point entirely. Game developers design games based on ONE overriding priority: Selling their game. While gameplay and good design make games more enjoyable, pretty graphics definitely do a better job of selling their games. Also, if you haven't put a 3d-capable graphics card by now, you're likely not in the target demographic sought out by the developers of any game being made today. 3d graphics technology is so ubiquitous now that I don't believe there's a single graphics card or even motherboard being manufactured currently that doesn't support it.

operating systems are not "products" in the same way as video games are

What?