What makes a game good?

[NekoJonez]

Alright games... This isn't really a debate ... It actually sorta is but hey... I thought it was more fitting in this section...

Anyways.... Which features or elements in a game ... do you find that the game becomes a good game. Like eg: multiple save files or more then 1 ending.

Also ... please explain why.

More then 1 ending - Want to replay the game :3
Multiple save files - Handy to experiment OR to let 2 or more games play at the same time without "beating the game together."

[Kiss x Miz]

Possibility to adapt your character to how you want it to be.

[Swagmaster]

1) Story - I think this is pretty obvious
2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on
3) Freedom + Objective - Give the game some choice, but don't leave the user guessing in terms of direction.
4) Innovation & Creativity - Nobody wants to buy the same game with a different name over and over again. Add something(s) to it
5) Gameplay - Give the game something people want to play.

I guess depending on the genre of the game, they could change... EX: Sports games have the freedom, but there is (usually) no objective, because I don't think people need guidance from the menu

[NekoJonez]

2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on

I disagree here.

A nice example is Minecraft. A pc is way more powerful to generate WAY better graphics... yet Minecraft is a very good game. Also, the graphics can be very good but it can make the gameplay or other parts lacking.

Super Meat Boy & Limbo are two other examples.

What I would say is... if it sets a good overall tone with the other gameplay elements... Pushing the system is not really needed...

[Kiss x Miz]

2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on

I disagree here.

A nice example is Minecraft. A pc is way more powerful to generate WAY better graphics... yet Minecraft is a very good game. Also, the graphics can be very good but it can make the gameplay or other parts lacking.

Super Meat Boy & Limbo are two other examples.

What I would say is... if it sets a good overall tone with the other gameplay elements... Pushing the system is not really needed...

He probably means (as do I) graphics are a great addition to good games, but they're not necessary.
And fyi Limbo has great graphics.

[BloodcatNS]

2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on

I disagree here.

A nice example is Minecraft. A pc is way more powerful to generate WAY better graphics... yet Minecraft is a very good game. Also, the graphics can be very good but it can make the gameplay or other parts lacking.

Super Meat Boy & Limbo are two other examples.

What I would say is... if it sets a good overall tone with the other gameplay elements... Pushing the system is not really needed...

1) Story - I think this is pretty obvious
2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on
3) Freedom + Objective - Give the game some choice, but don't leave the user guessing in terms of direction.
4) Innovation & Creativity - Nobody wants to buy the same game with a different name over and over again. Add something(s) to it
5) Gameplay - Give the game something people want to play.

I guess depending on the genre of the game, they could change... EX: Sports games have the freedom, but there is (usually) no objective, because I don't think people need guidance from the menu

[NekoBot]

Whlasnt there a discussion about this already?

[Kiss x Miz]

Whlasnt there a discussion about this already?

No there "whlasnt". It was called 'What makes a game bad?'

[Swagmaster]

2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on

I disagree here.

A nice example is Minecraft. A pc is way more powerful to generate WAY better graphics... yet Minecraft is a very good game. Also, the graphics can be very good but it can make the gameplay or other parts lacking.

Super Meat Boy & Limbo are two other examples.

What I would say is... if it sets a good overall tone with the other gameplay elements... Pushing the system is not really needed...

1) Story - I think this is pretty obvious
2) Graphics - Once again, pretty obvious. They don't have to necessarily be good, just befitting of the game and console(s) in which they are played on
3) Freedom + Objective - Give the game some choice, but don't leave the user guessing in terms of direction.
4) Innovation & Creativity - Nobody wants to buy the same game with a different name over and over again. Add something(s) to it
5) Gameplay - Give the game something people want to play.

I guess depending on the genre of the game, they could change... EX: Sports games have the freedom, but there is (usually) no objective, because I don't think people need guidance from the menu

Thank You, Blood.

In Minecraft, the blocks are what the game is about. The pixelated style fits the game perfectly. But would it e.g. fit a game like Call of Duty? Or Pokemon? I don't know about you, but I wouldn't play an FPS that is all blocky and has limited movements (or whatever the word is for how the characters moves)

[NekoJonez]

Tsktsk.... Shooters with lines... Hrm, what about BrickForce?

[Swagmaster]

Looked it up, that's more of a for-children FPS. I'm not talking about that kind of FPS. I'm talking about ones with stories of real war and hatred. Ones with massive online communities where love isn't in the best interests of the online players. Games like battlefield, CoD, Halo, etc.

[NekoJonez]

>.< There is no such thing as a "FPS for children". It has a cartoony look okay... But that's =/= for-children.

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

[Kiss x Miz]

If they promise their buyers a real life-like shooter, they can't afford to use bad graphics. Graphics are just a part of the game. They don't make the game.

[BloodcatNS]

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

Dude, you're repeating what Austin said. :\

>.< There is no such thing as a "FPS for children". It has a cartoony look okay... But that's =/= for-children.

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

Cartoony =/= "Bad" Graphics

Realistic Graphics =/= "Good" Graphics


And I think Austin's point is for the graphical presentation to be in line with its theme.
Resistance 3 has top-notch graphics. The wrecked houses and cities are clearly detailed, reflecting on the extreme damage and despair the alien "Chimera" has inflicted on the past 30 in-game years.

Minecraft is just simple blocks. That's it. But that's how it's supposed to be. Using a variety of blocks with different designs and uses, you can create structures with much creativity yet simplicity.

Slender absolutely does NOTHING for its graphics. But the paleness and dullness and deadness of the surroundings create the atmosphere of eeriness and loneliness. The latter is forcibly shattered when you realize you have a well-suited faceless stalker following your every steps via a mysterious teleportation method, instilling fear of the unknown.

[senpai_FisT]

>Gameplay.
>Innovation.
>Tits.
>Sound&BGM.(This is more important than people give credit for.)
>Story.
>Graphics.

(In that order.)

[PriomBlazer]

From the most importance to least:

1.Story:I love a good story.But who doesn't?

2.Possibilities:The more thing you do/surprises you get you get in a game can make that the more interesting.Ex:"what the hell that guy was being controlled by demon,you mean so far in the game I was hunting an innocent person OR awesome did...did I just make the wall dissapear"those feelings always feel epic.

3.Gameplay: Ofcourse I tend to choose my game based on how good of a story I might be getting.But just some boring repetitive gameplay is no fun.You need to actually try shiny moves in the game.

4.Graphics and sound:By graphics I mean playing in a beautiful world filled with bright beautiful environment that I can probably never find in real life.
and I agree with dolan repetitive and boring music is no fun.

5.Eroge: Because you know,It's E-RO-GE!

[Swagmaster]

>.< There is no such thing as a "FPS for children". It has a cartoony look okay... But that's =/= for-children.

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

What I meant was this:

If I buy a PS3 game, say, FIFA 13 for example, and it has the same graphics as FIFA on the PS2... That would be a terrible game. That's what I meant by befitting for the system. I did not mean that if PS3 is made to play 3D (not screen popping 3D) HD games, then all PS3 games absolutely have to have 3D HD graphics

[NekoJonez]

>.< There is no such thing as a "FPS for children". It has a cartoony look okay... But that's =/= for-children.

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

What I meant was this:

If I buy a PS3 game, say, FIFA 13 for example, and it has the same graphics as FIFA on the PS2... That would be a terrible game. That's what I meant by befitting for the system. I did not mean that if PS3 is made to play 3D (not screen popping 3D) HD games, then all PS3 games absolutely have to have 3D HD graphics

I disagree but I see you aren't able to be convinced.

[Swagmaster]

What dont you disagree with?

[NekoJonez]

>.< There is no such thing as a "FPS for children". It has a cartoony look okay... But that's =/= for-children.

My point is... That graphics don't have to be befitting from the system to create a good game.

What I meant was this:

If I buy a PS3 game, say, FIFA 13 for example, and it has the same graphics as FIFA on the PS2... That would be a terrible game. That's what I meant by befitting for the system. I did not mean that if PS3 is made to play 3D (not screen popping 3D) HD games, then all PS3 games absolutely have to have 3D HD graphics

That.

[Swagmaster]

PS3 branded game with PS2 quality?? I don't think there is any doubt between any gamer it would be terrible.

I'm not at all saying old styles are terrible. But Fifa in particular is a full HD game. Those are what I'm talking about. Highest graphic capabilty games on PS2 are considered terrible compared to PS3s even simplest of SD.

Old Style games claiming old style Graphics = good (depending in the game, of course)
Bad Quality games meant for HD Gaming = Shitty

Now you see you mean?

[NekoJonez]

Let's compare a bit here... So, if a game comes out that pushes the system to higher limits... That would mean that the older games are of bad quality since it doesn't benefit... ?

Also, sometimes having graphics from older generations isn't all that bad, it can help set a tone or keep the original feel of the previous console.

Plus, you totally changed subjects here, we were talking about graphics and not about quality. :3

Also, it's something Sony fanboy-ish to nag about graphics... Since the PS3 is seen as the best graphics console, which is open for debate ... it is how you look at the gaming desktop computers.

So yeah... I disagree~~

[Kiss x Miz]

Okay... So the 99% agrees graphics matter at least a bit in some way.

[devon]

The ability to upload game footage to youtube without breaking ToS. I could give a rats ass about gameplay, which is why I play Minecraft.

[Kiss x Miz]

The ability to upload game footage to youtube without breaking ToS. I could give a rats ass about gameplay, which is why I play Minecraft.

I always get big files when I do that. Do you play windowed?