What makes a computer game good?

[IDMclean]

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:

 

I will take on the charge of Heresy, as always.

 

To me graphics a good game does not make. A good game can have good graphics, but it is not necessary for a good game to have good graphics.

 

What I like about games is engaging, intuitive, immersive interfaces. When I can look at a game's demo and tell how the player does what they do, that is intuitive. I dislike games which either do not document their unique little button combos, or inconveniently place their button combos.

 

For non-computer based games, like board games, when I can understand how I can interact with the problem space, that is intuitive.

 

Biggest complaint about Halo on the XBox, the x button is the melee button, which requires that I remove my thumb from the right thumb stick (look) to hit people, which makes aiming and melee harder to do. That is non-engaging.

 

Or when I open a window in Diablo 2. Most annoying thing. I can't see what's going on below my window and often enough that has killed my character. That is non-immersive. When you have to leave the general problem space to deal with your character that can be problematic, or the interface gets in the way of interaction. Pausing the game can be a good answer, but that can break the trance, so to speak.

 

One of my favorite games of all time was Dungeon Keeper. I suppose it would be a RTS, though that doesn't give you a real good idea of what made it special. The interface was clean neat, and consistent. the problem space, was kept separate from the hud, and everything has a quick key, that you can find simply by placing your mouse icon over the icon of the thing to be accessed.

 

You can pretty seamlessly go from overhead control to First person when you possess your creatures and the controls are both standard (wasd) and customizable. The mouse is used for looking, the abilities of the creature are labeled and numbered, and the stats easily accessible with a moment's glance. left click used a selected ability, and right click released control of the creature and took you back to the Keeper third person mode.

 

So in conclusion, I would say what makes a game good is the form of it's interactive elements, their functionality, presentability, and accessibility.

:) :Clown:

 

Now beyond that, I can't talk about what I like about games, as the only consistent, common aspect of a game is it's interface.

 

Now what I like about narratives, logical consistency, physical probability/improbability, and other such issues would take up different threads. As each is individual to the so called "genre" or "class" of game. A rpg has elements which are different from a puzzle, as is a strategy different from an adventure.

[Boerseun]

Civilization!!! Many a wasted day using my diplomacy and trade to avert warfare, whilst paying the English to destroy the Russians, with whom I've got an alliance! Hahaha - good times.

 

No, seriously - I like strategy games. And Civilization stands out amongst them all because it's <GASP> turn-based. The sheer amount of time available to you makes micromanagement possible, and the gaming experience is much richer and deeper for it.

 

And then Flight Simulator 2004! Nobody's shooting at you, nobody wants to kill you, but you have to get that Boeing 747-400 from New York to London. And what you have is real-world weather, the airplane's normal instruments, a GPS and airplane systems which could (if you are partial to playing around with the reliability settings) malfunction at any time. Yes, it is indeed a waste of time. But at least you get to learn how stuff works, which is a bonus.

 

The serious FlightSim fanatics join virtual airlines, and work through the ranks. There's quite a couple of websites out there for this kinda thing.

 

I'm gonna buy Flight Simulator X next, as soon as I've upgraded my screencard. The graphics is simply out of this world. I've seen a demo, and it blew me away.

 

Okay - so I'm not the killing type. Blood and guts come second to ATIS and IFR!

[Boerseun]

Okay - so I'm not the killing type. Blood and guts come second to ATIS and IFR!

Okay - so I lied.

 

I had to upgrade my one machine to an insane level for a new project I'm busy with, and the geek at the computer store chucked in a game on the house to go with my awesomely spiffy screen card and quad core processor. He told me that what I needed the hardware for will be a waste - all that processing power going to waste. What I needed to really put it to the test, was Call of Duty 4.

 

And so I did.

 

And it's AAAAAAAAWESOME!

 

Anybody else here played Call of Duty 4, or, as the fanboys on the 'net will have it, Charlie Oscar Delta?

 

FPS on a sinking ship, with the whole world swaying? I almost got seasick. No ****. Bullets on a long sniping shot being affected by wind, distance drop, even the Coriolis force? No kidding. There's a scene where you have to snipe a terrorist in rather windy conditions. He's standing amongst pretty dynamic scenery, and you have to judge the wind conditions and correct your aim accordingly. It rocks.

 

I read on the net that COD4 has the most advanced FPS engine yet. It does calculations on every single bullet fired, as the bullet drops, what kinds of material it passes through, etc. You can't hide behind a door, for instance. It's got some "penetration" calculation thingy going; for instance, if a bullet has passed through a lot of stuff, the drop increases and velocity decreases, if it hits you then it might just puncture the skin if it's slow enough, and not pass through. It's a whole new ballgame.

 

Seen "Shooter" with Mark Wahlberg? Well, this game also includes the rather Yeti-looking Ghillie-suits as well. Awesome.

 

COD4 is the best game I've ever played. Can't really compare it to strategy, 'cause you're just dunked into the killing zone for about 15 minutes worth of insanity till the next stage - a little too linear on the story line. But hey - that's FPS. But graphics/sound/engine wise, it's simply in a league of its own. The characters are simply amazing. Zooming into their faces gives you detail like you can't believe. Stubble (not shaded, ACTUAL stubble, active facial muscles, contextually moving eyeballs, the list goes on. But I'll stop right here... gotta go kill some Russian Ultranationalists...

[ronthepon]

COD4 was really good. Defenitely one of the best tactical shooter like things. Seen STALKER? The chernobyl mission reminded me some.

 

But COD has it's own tried and tested philosophy or cinematic intensity. Really rewarding, too. Excellent scripting. It can be said that the linear gameplay is it's power.

 

In the matter or graphics, however, Crysis truly astounded me. I'd still love to get a computer which'll truly run it in all it's glory.

[Grains]

I personally believe that to many games today focus to much just on graphics. I have played plenty of games that are just trying to "show off" their graphics capabilities and the gameplay/story/controls/etc are awful.

 

Just for the sake of the example I am thinking of now I would like to focus on RPGs. I have enjoyed RPGs for many years. Some of my older favorites include Final Fantasy 1, Final Fantasy 2 (U.S. version). I still find myself going back and playing these games over and over again. When you attach with your fighter he quickly swings his sword or when you cast a spell it is a quick little scene. Today's RPGs if I cast a spell I have tome to go use the bathroom and get a drink before the spell is over (maybe a little but of exaggeration). It is ridiculous. A little effect is good but to often it can be over the top.

 

I think that is why you see many "timeless classics" who have great games that are still great. Because they have not forgot the first priority, gameplay. Look at Civilization, Warcraft Series, Doom Series, and many others. They still have a great franchises because I believe the focus on the actual gameplay/story first and foremost. I also agree with the replay value theory mentioned by another user earlier.