What constitutes a "good" game?

Everyone wants to play a "good" game, but just what exactly is it that separates a "good" game from everything else? Is it distilled to a formula that anyone can use to make quality games, or is there some elusive ingredient, some X-factor, that makes one game more fun and enduring than another?

For me, what constitutes a "good" game is essentially asking "Can I win this game?" and "Do I feel good about it?" It's important for a game to be functional and intuitive enough that I can be able to tell exactly what I'm supposed to do and how to do it, but doubly so that I feel confident enough that accomplishing the tasks before me will be rewarding. That basically sums up "gameplay" for me, and it can either feature things that are tried-and-true and familiar, or it can feature things that have never before been done (or rarely done). I enjoy some imaginative games like Portal or Shift (a Flash game), but I do appreciate a by-the-numbers platformer such as Mystical Ninja (Goemon, N64). Simplicity also helps, which is why I still play Sonic games to this day; just run, jump, and win.

Though I advocate story in games, it's not always what compels me to play--but it does indeed help my experience with a game to have engaging characters with amusing dynamics against each other (such as the Ghostbusters crew or Sam and Max). It also helps to keep things unpredictable, such as going from fighting the Covenant to suddenly discovering the Flood in the first Halo game. It would be nice to have deep stories such as Gabriel Knight (a horror novelist versus a Voodoo underworld), but the problem with those is that sometimes clues are not apparent or it takes too long to discover what to do next after traipsing all over town asking every NPC every question and showing every object to everyone. The story needs to be fluid and act as a catalyst, not a hindrance or an afterthought.

is it fun
is it easy to control
does it have good replayability
did they put more effort into gameplay instead of graphics

Kriegsmarine wrote:is it fun
is it easy to control
does it have good replayability
did they put more effort into gameplay instead of graphics

Basically, this.

I don't delve too far into it, I think it's all just a simple opinion.

I look for a multitude of qualities - if the game possesses a majority of these, it qualifies as a 'good' game. Of course, beauty is in the eye of the beholder so it's impossible to judge what a good game is. We can at least attribute enjoyment to a few elements of a game, including, but not limited to:

- Graphics - Now, before I'm hung from the gallows with cries of "GRAPHICS DON'T MEAN s YOU ARE STUPID", allow me to explain myself fully. Given the technology, are the game's graphics appealing? By today's standards, games like Sonic 3 aren't exactly top of the scale when it comes to visual perfection. When the Mega Drive was in it's heyday, were the graphics impressive? Of course they were. Also, it would be wise to remember that 'good graphics' doesn't just mean a realistic portrayal of something. The perfect example is Wind Waker - the graphics were very appealing without being overly 'impressive'.

- Gameplay - Do the controls work well? Do the various commands function as they should? Is the experience presented smoothly? A comparison may be needed here; let's take a look at... Terminator on the NES and Contra, also on the NES. Terminator had horrible controls - unresponsive and pace-breaking. Contra played very smoothly, with a free-shoot mechanic and fast-paced gameplay coupled with responsive controls. It feels so much better to play than Terminator. However, gameplay quality is one of the hardest elements of a title to criticize as so many games get it right these days it's becoming somewhat redundant. Remember though, that in review terms, 'gameplay' does not directly correlate with 'enjoyment'. Nobody can guarantee that you will enjoy a game.

- Sound - To me, the soundtrack of a game is very important as it forms the backdrop for your actions. Would Final Fantasy VII be anywhere near as good without it's stellar soundtrack? Would you remember it as fondly? What about Metal Gear Solid 3? It's not just the music that matters, though. Are the sound effects pleasing? A slight difference in the sound of a bullet tearing through flesh can make the kill so much more enjoyable and so it's important to note the quality of the audio.

- Longevity - This is one of the hardest elements for me to review when writing about a game - how do you judge longevity? Developers may encourage players to continue pouring time into a title with mini-games, achievements and high scores, but surely the mark of a great game is one that you want to play again? Maybe even three times or more? Of course, repeated playthroughs are down to the individual player and depends on a lot of factors - time, effort, enjoyment... It's very hard to define how long a game will last because it definitely varies from person-to-person. Some people want a short, quick game (I.e. Portal) and some want a long, drawn-out experience (I.e. Lost Odyssey). For me, it has to be something that will last a little while and give me a sense of accomplishment upon completion, not just thinking "Huh, that ending was pretty cool".

Forgive me if this post is terribly fragmented, I'm still very tired and tried my best to put what I was trying to say across.

For me, it's playability first and foremost. Not just the control scheme being reasonable, but also the physics engine. Every time I press a button or direction to make my character perform a move, do I feel like I'm actually in control of that character at all times? Nice, tight control schemes are very important in making me actually feel like a part of the experience instead of something like pressing random orders of buttons to make it past a quicktime event. Also, I'm not a fan of segments where the game takes control away from the player and plays itself while the player simply sits there and wishes he or she could do what's happening on screen by actually pressing buttons.

The game also needs to provide enough variety so that it's not just the same button-mashing sequences over and over again (like the Werehog stages in Unleashed, pure tedium). The occasional odd objective here and there isn't so bad as long as it makes sense with the rest of what's going on in the game.

Obviously, the ideas presented in the game need to have been developed enough to work as best as possible. I don't care how much variety the game has if half of the ideas presented are implemented poorly and are unfinished or glitchy (Sonic 2006, anyone?). Every part of the game needs to feel of equal quality and just as much of the experience as the next.

Difficulty, while not at the absolute top of my list, is still somewhat of a priority. If a game is going to give me complete bs obstacles to work around right from the start, chances are I'm probably not going to spend too much time with it. At the same time, I don't want to feel like the game is holding my hand every step of the way by going out of its way to outline each little thing I need to do to succeed. For me, part of the fun is figuring out myself how to get past certain obstacles and levels, and learning how to do so skillfully.

Graphics are a much lesser issue with me. Granted, I don't want to spend my time with a game with a completely sloppy presentation and visuals, but at the same time they don't need to go overboard and make the graphics an absolute top focal point of development. Work on gameplay mechanics should always come first. As long as the game looks coherent and visually pleasing to my eyes, it's good.

Other things like sound don't bother me. If I can put up with the slow cutscenes and cheesy voice acting in SA1, I can tackle just about anything sound-wise. And I could care less about the story as long as the gameplay mechanics are solid. If they are, chances are I'll enjoy the character I'm playing as much more than if the game gave me lots of story but lousy controls. Like I said in another thread, the less cutscenes and automatically playing sections there are, the more time I have to actually play the game myself, and the more fun I'm likely to have.

Also, I don't get how developers try to make length a priority in their games. I'll gladly play a game that is much shorter yet more enjoyable than a longer game stuffed with boring ideas that I may quickly get tired of. Like, if Unleashed consisted only of daytime levels and lasted 8 hours, I'd actually enjoy it much more than the 20-hour Werehog fest that we have instead.

A good game to me is:

- non-linear level design. I like taking the other path, then the other path from there, then the other path to finish a level. Too many games go straight and close off potential 'other paths' these days, just so the walkthroughs can be easily written in time for the release.

- Themed levels. Fighting across terrain against enemy bases can only be a novelty for so long.

- Graphics, done by artists and not the programmers. I mean, real effort and love into the graphics, rather than 'we must show off this tech! buy this game because of it'. I'm speaking about a wide variety of systems here. The graphics must not be so 'game-of-the-year' busy detailed either (Half-Life 2), that just gives headaches and makes the game worse to play.

- Sound, especially positional audio support. I find 5.1 channels essential and I can't live with anything less these days. Not saying that i'm spoiled, but hearing stuff happening behind me I find as a good advantage for gameplay.

- Physics. As in gameplay physics, not LOL RAGDOLL BOUNCY physics. I want to immediately start running, crouching, jumping, and reacting from a fall and not be held down in between from all this for 'realism'.

- Polished control scheme. Many PC games these days have too sensitive or not enough sensitive mouse control or even unprecise mouse control (UT3 is a big offender of this).

- Keep the story out of my way. I'm playing a game here, not watching a drama play. Your idea of 'game experience' is my idea of 'game hinderance'.

This topic exploded with logic. My-- My brain.

For me, it's simple. How much fun is had with the game, how long you have fun with it, and the quality of said fun in each of our opinions.