What makes a good game?

Discussion in 'Gaming and Software' started by IT_GEEK, Nov 13, 2007.

Welcome to the Army Rumour Service, ARRSE

The UK's largest and busiest UNofficial military website.

The heart of the site is the forum area, including:

  1. Rather than hijack the Top 5 games thread, I thought I would start a new one. Reading the top 5 video games thread has rasied some intresting questions. I notice a huge amount people are listing old games, ones that were probably amongst the first they played back in the dawn of the console/computer. Indeed I considered similar myself, especially after reading how many people had put Elite (the original wireframe not the ghastly 3d efforts) on their list. Indeed it brought a tear to my eye as well (mainly because of the memories of splatting so often into the side of the space station pre docking computer)

    However, I wonder how much of this is nostalgia and Old Gits remeniscing "eeee, it'wo better in maa day". I am an avid Trekie, but there is no way I can watch the original anymore, it just makes me cringe, so I just wonder if people take of the Rose tinted specs, what is it that makes a good game?

  2. For me it is a game which has lastability, i.e. I keep coming back to it regardless of whether it is brand new or five years old. It must also still be challenging regardless of how good (or not) I become at it.
  3. Yes, that is definitely a good selling point and one which the Civilisation series falls into.

    Another different category altogether though, is the fast furious fun category. In this category for example I place atomic bomberman or any of its similar gameplay clones. As I single player game I doubt I have even played it an hour, however as mutliplayer, it is still one of the funniest most frantic games around. The graphics are mediocre at best, but the fun factor of having all your oponents on screen at the same time, extremely fast gameplay and the sheer fun and shouting of abuse at each other as one player drops one of the "bad" powerups on you and you find yourself dropping all your bombs automatically behind you and trying to outrun your self before they blow up, is just genius.
  4. This has got to be the 'ultimate gaming question'. One I am sure every game manufacturer in the world would love to have the answer to.

    On a personal note it has to be playability (is that a word!!!). Great gameplay will keep people interested even if the graphics are sub-standard, however, not many people will play a game just because it has good graphics.

    Many games now seem to be hammering the graphics side and forgetting storyline, gameplay etc. This is no different than Hollywood really with the latest special effects extravaganza's ..... all bang but no substance, there are exceptions of course.

    Elite, one of my personal favourites as listed in the other thread, was a very very simple game and yet millions of people played it, loved it and still love it today. I wonder how many of todays games will be remembered the same in years to come ???
  5. Lastability would be a key factor. Also factoring in good storyline, not always good graphics if there older games ( take Sonic, still play today as reminds me of my childhood) BUT more or less cruical in todays games.

    Games that excite me are open ended, like GTA....

    Talking of that, anybody had a crack on Assasins Creed? Looking at buying it.
  6. What makes a good game?

    Two naked 18 year old twins, a bucket of baby oil, a twister board, a video camera and a pass to access ALL areas.
  7. Two naked 18 year old FEMALE twins, a bucket of baby oil, a twister board, a video camera and a pass to access ALL areas

    then again to each his own I guess 8)
  8. it has to keep you interested: a combination of good gfx and plotline

    a reasonable learning curve that progresses naturally

    should give a sense of achievement (in the context that it is only a game :lol: ) as you progress through it.

    playability (probably the most important part i think. with playability comes practise and therefore progression on the learning curve bit).

    in fact, if it has playability, everything i've listed above is of only minor importance. if you get the mix right you should have a best seller.

    and Manic Miner has the lot 8)
  9. Something innovative, IE new at its time, or best in class of its time.

    Goldeneye and the N64 Mario Kart are prime examples, IMHO

    Along with the CIV's and every other great game to go before them, they all seem to have either something new, or a new twist on an existing genre, or just plain brilliantly implemented.
  10. If any of you are interested.....


    Has all the old classics Sonic, Streetfighter, Desert Strikes...you can download for free!
  11. I think it's down to gameplay, pure and simple. As time goes by our definition of good graphics is blown away constantly by something better. Tekken looked quite good when NAMCO first released it on PS1, and a measure of how groundbreaking that game was is the fact that it has hardly changed through it's many incarnations 12 years later. I still enjoy a game of two player Tekken 3 when I get the chance, as I feel the series has had little to offer since then so there's no point in buying sequels.

    Graphics help to soften the blow of sh*t games, and they help to improve games which are already good. The fact remains, though, that no one will buy a game if they know it's sh*t, no matter how good the graphics are.

    As a side issue, does anyone remember any games which you remember for the awesome soundtrack as opposed to the graphics or gameplay? StarWing on the SNES springs to mind, also all the Star Wars games.
  12. Soundtrack always. However it has to be relevant to the gameplay. Thats why Call of Duty was awesome.
  13. Oh I dunno, the Myst series springs to mind :D
  14. But did you know it was sh*t before you bought it?
  15. We used to calculate it as cost against playing time. Which is a good enough formula for a shooter , but crap for Command and Conquer.

    Having spent a long time in the industry, and playing a lot of different genres, I'd say it was design, pure and simple.

    Some games with gash graphics keep you coming back over and over again, just think back to the Speccy/64 days, and some with state of the art graphics are bogging on gameplay. All flash and no durability.

    Some games being hailed today as the 'next best thing' and retailing at over 50 squids would have been savaged by the reviewers at C+VG or the One back in the day. It appears commercial considerations have overtaken the sheer joy of tight design.

    We can all think of one game we love above all others on a variety of platforms. I loved Herzog Zwei and Strider on the Megadrive, yet Halo leaves me cold. 99% of the time, it will be tight design, variety and durability.

    Microprose as a design house was excellent at that , as was EA