What is a definition of a "good game" for you.

[Zero]

Question is what makes games good not what makes games fun (although fun can be factor). Reason for this is that you dont have to enjoy the game personally, but you can appreciate a fine made game. Anyway, moving on.

Me and my friend was playing Guilty Gear XX:reloaded last night and this question plagued my mind as I was playing it. While we were downloading it (hehe modded ps2) I was filling him up with excitement about the good things I've heard about this game. When we played, he absolutely hated it. Even though the game had incredibly sophisticated battling system, he kept concluding that this was not a good game because there was 1) no solid story plot 2)poor character design 3)bad graphics

1) I thought games like quake and pac man is considered a great game by everyone. Well I dont see them having a solid story plot. Oh and chess? Well, there once was a great king in this far away kingdom. He was a ****ing wooden block who could only move one square in this checkered 8X8 land... blah blah blah... yeah ok.

2) character design. Meh. So he picked a transvestite nurse who attacks with a yoyo and almost threw up after I said "dude I wouldnt say that 'she' is a guy". I admit bizarre character that can be only be fathomed by the insane japanese/anime game designers is a bit of an acquired taste. But cant anyone find some humor in this and enjoy it? or does every character have to be a dark possessed evil shiloeted dude, captain america, or chick with big hooters?

3) Meh. I give up...


So how do you judge what makes a good game? I always thought a great gameplay is all thats needed. Since when did games become a movie? Why does everyone want to watch long ass mpeg file between every 2 min of their playing time? Those lunatics should go play Metal gear solid 2.

[LDiCesare]

Gameplay matters most, but it's the 'new' things provided by gameplay that matter.
Your friend probably wanted something 'new' or netter than what existed. I don't know the game, so I can't talk about gameplay, but most games are not innovative as far as gameplay is concerned. All FPS are FPS, RTS are RTS, and don't have many differences between one another. If you look at civ games, the gameplay differences between the various titles are not many: Public works/Workers is probably the biggest difference between the titles. Then comes ai/difficulty and moddability.

What are the differences between the games? Storyline (civ = Earth, SMAC = Mankind landed on Alpha Centaury, Galciv and MOO = space conquest), character design (unit design), and graphics.

For me a good game is a highly replayable game, like civ or Nethack. But what makes for a replayable game? I also like games of reflection/strategy on those of reflexes. I like Role Playing Games when they provide either good rasons for the characters to do things (storyline) or provide a world with a lot of things to do in it (nethack).

[Traianvs]

Graphics are important, but it depends on what kind of game you want to play. Most games need good graphics, but not always.

I liked the civ2 graphics over all the later civgraphics (ctp/civ3 etc) because it looked cooler, and I had a better view of my empire in civ2 (civ1 graphics however are too primitive!).


Though many people say graphics are not important and that gameplay rules; well I say that graphics add to the gameplay in many cases.

I can't really explain what makes a game "good" because I like most genres (except the sims and that kind of utter nonsense)

[okblacke]

What's a "good" game? Turn that question around and ask yourself "What's a 'good' movie?"

Is "Die Hard" a good movie? Sure, one of the best action flicks ever made. How about "Sense and Sensibility"? Very little in common with "Die Hard" but a fine light drama. "Ghostbusters"?

So why can't "Quake", "Space Invaders", "Civilization", "Starcraft", "The Sims" and "Zork" all be good games?

For me, it's entirely about mood. Some days "Capitalism" feels like a fun business sim; other days like an exercise in accounting. Some days "Civilization" feels dynamic and epic empire management, others like tedious bureaucratic micromanagement. Sometimes I fire up Unreal Tournament and blow the crap out of things. Sometimes I want an engrossing story, though these days, the best bet for those kinds of games seems to come from the amateur IF community.

Games are sort of like a vacation: How "good" they are depends on how different they are from what you're doing or have done.

[Kloreep]

Storyline is important. Almost all games I play have a storyline; either it's an adventure game that's all about story, or the game forms a story as it goes along (eg Civ), or there are at least cutscenes in between blowing stuff up to explain _why_ you're attempting to blow your targets up.

I think immersion and gameplay are really the main two elements. The game must first be able to draw you in through nice graphics; I don't mean what res it is or how many colors, just how the art looks. That really makes or breaks the game environment. Once the graphics give the game a good feel, there must be good gameplay to keep you interested and keep the fun factor up.

I think you really only need those three elements for a good game. In some cases you don't even need storyline. I wouldn't put replayability on the list, though it's true replayable games like Civ are what I keep returning to. The adventure games I discard after playing through a few times are still very fun those first few times, and are still good games IMO.

[Jamski]

But there are games that don't have the best graphics, story, engine, are full of bugs and exploits but are still great. Examples : Baldur's Gate 2, SMAC, MoO2...

Why is this so? These games have CHARACTER. You actually care what happens to the Psilon, or Edwin, or the Hive.

-Jam

[flipside]

IMVHO if you care what happens it is a worthwhile game

[Jamski]

No reason to be so VH with your O, its a valid point. If the game makes you actually give a damn if you die, or if you run our of grapefruit, or time, or beat the boss... then its a great game. If a game can make you actually emotional about it, even if its just mildly elated, or pretty darn pissed, then it is reaching the level of ART, and then it's a great game. If you reach the end and think "oh was it" then it sure isn't a great game. If you die, and just press "continue" then its not a great game. A great game makes you turn off your computer and sulk for 10 minutes when you die, plotting your revenge, which you later triumphantly achieve after 154 reloads, and feel like a real hero.

-Jam

[flipside]

Originally posted by Jamski
No reason to be so VH with your O, its a valid point. If the game makes you actually give a damn if you die, or if you run our of grapefruit, or time, or beat the boss... then its a great game. If a game can make you actually emotional about it, even if its just mildly elated, or pretty darn pissed, then it is reaching the level of ART, and then it's a great game. If you reach the end and think "oh was it" then it sure isn't a great game. If you die, and just press "continue" then its not a great game. A great game makes you turn off your computer and sulk for 10 minutes when you die, plotting your revenge, which you later triumphantly achieve after 154 reloads, and feel like a real hero.

-Jam

Yep.
Games that work have an emotional attachment to them.
They also have a sense of progression to them.
You can see yourself improving and this improvement is rewarded within the game.

[Sarxis]

My favorite games have made me emotional. I guess good games are ones that make you emotional (in a good way).

MoO3 made me emotional too.. in a bad way. :|

[Skanky Burns]

A game is good if I don't delete it after finishing it.
A game is great if it involves me emotionally.

[Urban Ranger]

To me, Die Hard is an entertaining movie, but not a good movie. The actions are nice, sure, but the story is corny, some of the things are just unbelievable, and why the heck did Willis go around without a pair of shoes the whole time?

Now, back to games. Clearly, it depends on the genre. You don't really expect any story or character in a FPS, but they are paramount in an RPG.

Originally posted by Jamski
You actually care what happens to the Psilon, or Edwin, or the Hive.

Not me

[Zero]

Originally posted by LDiCesare
Gameplay matters most, but it's the 'new' things provided by gameplay that matter.
Your friend probably wanted something 'new' or netter than what existed. I don't know the game, so I can't talk about gameplay, but most games are not innovative as far as gameplay...

GGXX:R is best thing since sliced bread for fighting game.

There's zillions of modes and features that ensures game is balanced (well it isnt but it tries REAL hard and comparing to other games it is damn near balanced)

Its not just combo crazy chaotic like any other 2D fighters. Theres anti strategies and indepth play for both offensive and defensive play (like Roman canceling, false Rcing, bursting... etc dont wanna go too specific.. but trust me theres **** load).

Yet my friend cant seem to appreciate it. I know some games need to be observed carefully in order to appreciate the game design (esp if theyre complicated) but he didnt even give this game a chance.

[LDiCesare]

Its not just combo crazy chaotic like any other 2D fighters.

That's maybe why he doesn't like it. If he likes games of reflexes rather than of strategy, he may not like these changes?
And now a piece of gratuitous psychology about someone I don't know:
He would have to learn a bit about the strategies before being able ot appreciate the game, and, since he knows other fighting games, he expected this one to behave the same. It didn't behave as the norm, so it wasn't good.

[DrSpike]

A game is good if it neither bad nor average.