What makes a computer game good?

[pgrmdave]

I've been trying to understand this for a while, some games are good, some are bad, we know what we like and what we don't, but the fact that there are some games which most people think are very good, and most people think are very bad lend credence to the idea that there are basics that all games need to have in order to be good. Does anybody have any ideas on what these might be? I had a few ideas - intuitive gameplay/controls, difficult but solvable, for longer games - engaging storylines/characters, but I would appreciate any input people can provide.

[Tormod]

Well...this is of course another matter of personal taste. I tend to like fast-action first-person shooters because they give me some time off from real life. But I used to really love the old text-based adventures that would show an occasional image or two. That is actually how I learned English. This was back in the 80s and you still had to TYPE to ask your character to look at things, and after thousands of "You find nothing." replies you suddenly get a spark of imagination and try something different and hey! You move on.

 

I've had periods of lots of gaming and very long periods with little gaming, mostly due to having a family. But I find that for me, technological advances is fun and interesting. I like that games require heavy hardware to run. The problem is that I can't afford it...but I still like reading about those games. I actually don't mind that I don't get to play them.

 

But more to the point - I think storyline is very important. I also like challenges, but I tend to like them if they are easily solvable. I hate puzzles that require me to do things which do not make sense (like solving meaningless color puzzles in order to open a door).

 

Immersion is also important to me. If a game grabs my attention I can spend hours with it, and come back to it. This doesn't have to mean fast action and furious speeds...I had that experience with a version of Majong a while back. :hihi:

[Killean]

The first thing that grabs my attention about a game is the story. I don't even care if everything else is completly stupid (MIDI like music or none at all, single still-frame images or purely text based), just so long as their is a good story (comedy is good to see once in a while, gotta have the drama, got to have the sad moments with the good.). The next factor would be the graphics driving the game. 3D games with as few polygonal shaped characters and environments is looked down upon but 3D in any form is still wonderful. The visual effects on screen are also a major addition to any 3D/2D world. Next step down is the concept of the game. I love the good mind boggling puzzles and riddles they sometimes put into games that have a purpose being in there (such as the scene on Baldur's Gate 2 when the party visits the Asylum for the magicaly deviant. They are thrown into a huge maze which tests the sanity of a person by asking them riddles). Next down, customization controls such as character looks, build your own environment, these give the user a sense that they are in control of the game but the horrorfying truth is that it is still based off of control from the game. The second last feature that grabs me is the game physics and programming involved. I have always been amazed and the amount of detailed placed into any game engine, and the unique ways each development team will figure out one how to trigger and fullfill events. Last but not least is the music and sound effects. Although it is the last thing I consider, it does complete some of the most intense FPS, fighting, psycological horror and driving games. I have an added advantage in that I can hook all of my games (even for PC) up to a home theater system. Turn the volume up, up the subwoofer, turn down the lights, best way to get yourself in the 'zone'. A side bit to all games, the controls are realy never a problem unless the game is a sequel to one I had already played and got used to its controls. I know the new game has more features but just shift some of the none essential controls and keep the rest the same. I'm mainly speaking of one game in particular: GTA San Andreas. I miss the driving via use of the d-pad like in Vice City.

[Stargazer]

It's hard to tell since I like so many different kinds of games. Puzzlegames (Tetris, Antix, etc.,) strategy (StarCraft, Civilization II,) first person shooters (Doom etc.,) and racing car games (Need for Speed, Stunts 4D.) So the graphics can be primitive if it has other qualities, but sometimes the story is more important, and sometimes a little of all.

[Drakon1323]

I would think that as complex as this answer could very easily be, it could be summed up in this way:

 

The basics behind a 'good' game is a balance of the apropriate aspects required for the type of game, and quality.

 

For example, instead of trying to say a game should be challenging but solvable, because not all games use a puzzle, i would shoot for something more of 'a well placed learning curve for the target participant'.

Reasonable graphics for the desired level of mental emersion.

Ease and convenience of control.

Conseptual quality (as opposed to storyline 'cause some dont have a plot.)

 

Try to simplify all the aspects to the most basic of ideas that are commonly shared between them and compare.

[maddog]

What I like to see in a game is response to my environment. I like games that have stuff

going on real-time and I have to address immediately or all-heck breaks loose. :xx: This

builds suspense. That your role in the game is at risk. You might lose all you've put into

it up to that point. A game I still have some addition to is D2 (in particular LOD) by

Blizzard. I have been wanting to check out the new WOW (World Of Warcraft). I have

both PCs and Macs. I haven't got very far in Halo. I hear Doom3 is great. I have PS2

and I have seen there are some new games for it released recently. All of these games

have what I've already outlined: responsiveness, risk, I would add visuals -- LOTS of

visuals.... :rant: :hihi:

 

Maddog

[Tormod]

Hey maddog, did you explain what D2 is in the other thread? Is it Diablo 2?

[Killean]

I can only assume he is talking about Diablo 2 and the Lord of Destruction expantion.

 

I like games that have stuff going on real-time and I have to address immediately or all-heck breaks loose.

I have been wanting to play a game such as this. From the way you said it, do you mean that such games exist? Care to mention a couple?

[Tormod]

I haven't got very far in Halo.

 

Halo was excellent, IMO. It combined the best bits from games like Deus Ex and Half-Life and was a real thrill to play. However, Halo 2 does not live up to the hype - at least not on the Xbox. I have played about halfway through, am stuck, and feel no real pressure to pick it up and move on.

 

Half-Life 2, on the other hand, is simply stunning. There is a lot of stuff going on there - sometimes the pace is so fast I don't have time for anything but running away from creatures and helicopters etc. Sometimes it can get *too* busy...

 

responsiveness, risk, I would add visuals -- LOTS of

visuals.... :rant: :hihi:

 

I agree. I'm a sucker for great graphics.

[Killean]

I think I can answer my own question because I have played at least one game that provide a timer on events, which happens to be invisible so you have no real clue as to when they happen. Secret Weapons Over Normandy is a great WW2 plane simulator/flight combat game with a few hidden timers and a few planned events.

 

I agree. I'm a sucker for great graphics.

Here here! Anyone who disagrees should be charged with heresy! :hihi:

[GAHD]

Yes, HL@ is an awesome game, ooh how I hated those ant lions untill I got the power of the pods.

[kaelcarp]

I think it's all about level of engagement. If the game engages a person well, it's a good game. If it doesn't do a good job of engaging a person, it isn't. Now what makes a game engage people? Well, for one, it has to have "invisible" controls. By "invisible" I mean that you shouldn't have to keep looking up how to do certain things in the game and the controls shouldn't be too complex. Beyond that, there are so many possibilities. A game can have no graphics but a great storyline that sucks you in (the original Zork, for instance). Or, it can have no story at all, but keep you glued with gameplay (something like Tetris). Great graphics will score points, but only insofar as they are able to draw you further into the game's reality. Great graphics alone won't do it.

[geko]

For years i played the rts command & conquer (online). RA2 and yuris are still the best rts's ever made in my opinion. What made them good i think is that they were fast (I like this about racing games as well. Gotta be fast and smooth - wipeout fusion and need for speed underground are my favs). C&C had simply controls as well which made them good but they also had a big learning curve on the units to know how to use them (im still not 'that' good now after 4 or 5 years of playing :) ), but even a complete beginner would have no trouble finding out how to simply move and shoot. The graphics are 2D and pretty basic by todays standards, but that doesnt bother me with rts's.

 

The ability to go online, have a player and/or clan ladder, a good learning curve, fast pace and a variety of units is a requirement for a potentially good rts in my opinion. edit: and there's gotta be lots of hot keys for the structures etc. compare ra2 and generals and you have my idea ;)

 

With first person shooters my most favourite thing is the atmosphere of the game. Doom3 was perfect. Disappointed with HL2 (although the look of it was great). Disappointed with painkiller. Cant wait till F.E.A.R comes out to hopefully scare the wotsits out of me :) I also think the physics or engine whatever it's called is important in fps's - if i get stuck on a bit of scenery or a broken box or somethign and have to reload im not happy, more than once and it totally ticks me off.

 

Not really interested in going online with these, so a scary atmosphere (sounds, lights, monsters etc.,), good engine and good graphics is what makes fps games good for me.

 

I dont like bosses, they get in the way. I dont like puzzles (unless i can solve them REAL easy), and i dont like getting lost :D

[Pyrotex]

I've been lucky to avoid real gaming addiction. That is, until I discovered Civilization. Where all fp/shooters and flight sims left me stone cold, the idea of building a world strategically was awesome. The "sequel" Alpha Centauri was even better. After a few years, I got tired of the stupid AI opponents.

 

Then I bought a new HP computer, and used their game coupons to get Fate. It's a fp/shooter, using swords, axes, spears, hacking & slashing agaiinst a universe of increasingly powerful monsters. You know the drill. What I loved about it was: serious 3D graphics, realistic monster movements, a sense of unpredictability despite how long I played, a complex keyboard+mouse interface that I could master incrementally until I no longer needed to think about it. After six months of play, I had to delete the game from my computer to save my sanity, my job and my marriage.

 

In my gaming fantasy, I want a combo of strategy and fp/shooter. There were Mac games in the early years, can't remember the names, but there were sailing warships on a sea, where you directed your fleets strategically, setting up battles that might take place 10 minutes in your future, then drop down into the individual battles and take the helm of your flagship for R/T action.

 

I once wrote a design for a computer game based on the ancient (1969) game of StarTrek, where there were three levels, Warp Drive Battle, Interplanetary (Impulse) Battle, and Planetary interaction with alien civilizations, including finding "puzzle" pieces (i.e., advanced technology) and engaging in fp/shootemups. It never got built. As soon as the computer club I was president of read the specs, they disbanded. Darn. :hihi:

[Tormod]

I've been lucky to avoid real gaming addiction. That is, until I discovered Civilization. Where all fp/shooters and flight sims left me stone cold, the idea of building a world strategically was awesome. The "sequel" Alpha Centauri was even better. After a few years, I got tired of the stupid AI opponents.

 

I know...the Civ games are insane. I spent so much time with Civ III that it almost ruined a summer vacation - I sat up ALL night while the others slept. :)

 

In my gaming fantasy, I want a combo of strategy and fp/shooter.

 

I sort of think the same, but I think I have found out that there is no time for me to spend on strategy. I just want the kick *** part. :) Halo was great in that respect. Right now I'm playing F.E.A.R. which apart from being an excellent FPS also has a strong element of (yes) fear. The first few hours were so scary I couldn't believe it, but after a while I had to tell myself that this is only a computer game after all. There is a reason for the 18+ rating... :)

 

I once wrote a design for a computer game based on the ancient (1969) game of StarTrek, where there were three levels, Warp Drive Battle, Interplanetary (Impulse) Battle, and Planetary interaction with alien civilizations, including finding "puzzle" pieces (i.e., advanced technology) and engaging in fp/shootemups. It never got built. As soon as the computer club I was president of read the specs, they disbanded. Darn. :(

 

:phones: Good one.

[Mercedes Benzene]

As others have mentioned previously, it is really up to the gamer to decide what makes a good computer game or not.

For me, despite the fact that modern games have much better graphics, I tend to prefer the older (late 90s) computer games because at this point in time, game programmers had not run out of original ideas. :eek: I think I've mentioned this in a previous thread before, but Might and Magic VIII: Day of the Destroyer is my all time favorite game. The interface and storyline help to make it my favorite.

 

As for modern games, I personally like futuristic games (preferably FPSs) and some RPGs.

One of the biggest selling points for me --and I do believe it is for a lot of gamers-- is that a game have excellent replay value. Even if you're not the type of person who feels like going through an entire game again, simply knowing that you can and still enjoy the game somewhat, makes the game more enjoyable.

(That was a little wordy, but I hope you got what I meant. :) )

[Zythryn]

Immersion, in my opinion, has a lot to do with it. However, what is immersive is highly subjective.

One of my all time favorites was Warcraft 2. Not just do to the game and interface, but the humor value. Click repeatedly on a character and they would speak to you (Zug Zug, Dabu), click on them enough they would threaten you(STOP poking me!).

 

I also like a mix of action and strategy/tactics. One I particularily enjoy is Planetside. You can run around shooting the bad guys or you can team up with other players to take out enemy locations/installations, set up defences, or provide support. Some truly epic battles take place (but not as often as I would like).