What makes a good game?

[Jadzia]

Considering the games you like and the games you don't, do you know what makes the good games good?

Here's my Ten Commandments of Game Design.

1. Do keep the player busy. Keep them aware of their objective. At no time should a player come to a standstill with nothing obvious to do, and wondering what they're supposed to be doing.

2. Do keep the player under constant pressure. Everything should be against the clock, or against a steadily rising threat, or against a constant risk that means the quicker you get stuff done the quicker that risk is gone.

3. Do give the player frequent choice. At no point should there be only one correct move to make, or only one correct path to follow. However, more than four options at any one time can be overwhelming. Where a choice can be made in a game, aim to provide either 2,3 or 4 options.

4. Do regulate randomness. While some randomness is good to introduce variety, do try to eliminate luck as a deciding factor in gameplay. Randomness should take the form of lots of minor perturbations, rather than a few huge perturbations.

5. Do have levels, or equivalent stages of the game. No level should be more than about 20 minutes in duration. Levels regulate save points. Places to take a break, or stop for the day. Levels help to present the game as a series of independent challenges.

6. Do try to include some small amount of puzzle and reflex in any computer game.

7. If your game is to have physics, then do have things behave as players would expect things to behave. If things bounce, then make sure they bounce at the proper angles, respect relative masses, etc.

8. Do limit use of graphics to stuff which communicates something useful. Less can be better. And make sure the player is realistically capable of absorbing all the information you do communicate with graphics. Also try to keep it balanced on screen. As much information on the left as on the

9. Do make sure the game is enjoyable without any sounds/music. Sound should always be a bonus.

10. Do make sure the game is intuitive to play. A person should be able to load it up and work out within one minute how to play it.

 

[Starbreaker]

I was going to say #1. Glad you got there first. I was playing The Force Unleashed yesterday and was disgusted after the first level. The instructions were so vague it was ridiculous.

 

[crouteru]

It would depend on the genre. For example, an RPG needs to have a great story and characters, a 2D/3D platformer needs interesting and fun level designs, and a survival horror needs the atmosphere and tension of a horror movie.

 

[Jax]

keep the player under constant pressure. Everything should be against the clock,

I have to admit I am not a big fan of the countdown clock in games because it doesn't always work. Operation Flashpoint 2 spoke about all these tactics you can use but you were always rushed due to an invisible clock that made no logical sense because plot wise there was no need for the rush in alot of situations.

Personally I look for the norm (gameplay, good graphics, not many bugs etc) but I do admire games that take time to work on plot and sound. GTA 4 voice acting for example and general sound of the game is the best in any game IMO in history and the plots of games such as Mass Effect, Metal Gear Solid, COD 4 MW and GTA 4 again have amazing plots that feel like hollywood films. Also Mass Effect unique feature of carrying over data from 1 --- 2 is a superb idea and makes me feel more connected to the game and emotionally invested into the characters...tbh feels like a Novel for Games.

oh and CO-OP helps too

 

[Jadzia]

I have to admit I am not a big fan of the countdown clock in games because it doesn't always work.

I did give two other options besides a countdown clock for inducing pressure.

I feel that pressure is good to motivate the player to complete the level/stage, while also keeping them alert and developing gameplay skill. I concede that a time limit (if used) shouldn't be too tight, nor should it necessarily imply a strict win/loss, but be enough to penalise tardiness.

 

[Jax]

I feel that pressure is good to motivate the player to complete the level/stage, while also keeping them alert and developing gameplay skill.

I think AVP could fit this bill when your playing as the marines now if only that had (sp) co-op

 

[Mr Light]

I play games for a fun time so for me the priorities are 1) flawless controls that put you in the game, 2) adjustable difficulty, 3) able to save whenever or often, 4) able to play in small chunks of time and still complete something, 5) not a lot of running around or backtracking, 6) clear navigation of where to go and what to do next... and then there's other things like a good story... good visuals... open-world setting... intelligent AI... ability to fly/superjump...

 

[Shurik]

Length, replayabilty and the amount of various stuff to do. That's why I mostly play RPGs.

 

[Jax]

Length, replayabilty and the amount of various stuff to do. That's why I mostly play RPGs.

I was never a big fan of RPG's because growing up most were clicked based and that way of playing felt a little empty. The likes of Mass Effect & Fable II though has made me admire how satisfying it can be to be able to create your own character from looks to personality, makes you feel more connected to a game and its characters.

 

[Jadzia]

I play games for a fun time

Me too and I mostly enjoy arcade games for this reason. We don't see many mainstream developers working on arcade games now. Sometimes I feel that modern games are too reliant on long, involved, and unfolding stories, that I'm uninterested in hearing. That kind of content can make the game feel like it's not intended for me.

I also enjoy some rts games, which require lots of practice to get good at. But these are something I'm not particularly good at

 

[Sheep]

2. Do keep the player under constant pressure. Everything should be against the clock, or against a steadily rising threat, or against a constant risk that means the quicker you get stuff done the quicker that risk is gone.

Unless it's a racing or puzzle game, timed missions are fine in small doses but there's no way in hell I'd play ANY game that required me to get stuff done or risk dying because I ran out of time against some stupid timer. Artificially raising tension by running around trying to beat a clock (i.e., defusing a bomb, get through the swimming/space level before you run out of air, or escaping in time) is a video game cliche IMO.

Some of the best games I've played recently had ZERO pressure and allowed the player to progress at his/her own pace, like Test Drive Unlimited where you could literally drive the entire island of Oahu and not do a single mission-related thing for as long as you wanted to.

 

[archeryguy1701]

Length is a big one for me. Any game that has a campaign or story line, especially when the campaign is the main part of the game, needs to be long. I definately feel cheated when I can get through a campaign in a couple of days with very little effort or time spent.

No mindless button mashing. Even when I'm looking to not think, the button mashing kills me.

Reasonable save spots. It's not necessary to allow unlimited saves (I know that I use them as a monster crutch and save every 30 seconds, esp when things don't go well), but don't limit saves to just the beginning/ ending of levels.

Reasonable difficulty levels. One reason I have a hard time sticking with RTS's once I'm done with the campaign is because of AI intellegence level. Normal AI's and higher are a pain to beat, especially on modern games, while easy AI's act like they've had any semblance of intellegence shut off on them. It's frustrating because it's too boring to learn and get better against the easy (and hard to improve since it won't challenge you), but it's frustrating to try and learn against the normal/ better AI's because they will smack you down instantly.

Entertaining. I have games that I haven't finished because I don't feel like each new level has something new to bring, and that the story doesn't get moved along well enough to keep me interested.

An online aspect that new guys can jump right into. Shooters are pretty good about this, but RTS's are brutal for new guys to get involved online. Unless you manage to find another new person, you will get smacked down even faster than when you were against the AI. A lot of folks are pretty unfriendly when they decide that you absolutely suck. Like above, it's frustrating because you're not even good enough to have a chance to learn- the match is over before it starts, and you can't really get any helpful tips.

I'm sure that I have a few more if I think about it, but these are the biggies off the top of my head.

 

[Arrqh]

If it was easy to make a good game that everyone liked, then all games would be good and everyone would like them. Most of the high level points in the OP apply in general but it's the low level points, the nitty gritty of the game mechanics that will truly make it fun. And defining exactly what makes one game fun and another not fun and applying that to a new game is incredibly difficult.

But to pick a few out:

8. Do limit use of graphics to stuff which communicates something useful. Less can be better. And make sure the player is realistically capable of absorbing all the information you do communicate with graphics. Also try to keep it balanced on screen. As much information on the left as on the

This sounds great, but art design in a game can be incredibly complex and the type of game and how it interacts with the player has a huge effect on this. Take, for example, the God of War games. Absolutely all the environment art in that game is incredible, no screen space is ever wasted and everything always reads strongly. Why? Because the player has very limited control over the camera. At all times, the artists know exactly what is going to be shown on screen. But on the other hand, take a game like Oblivion... the entire game is free roaming. The player can be nearly anywhere in the game world and see anything from any angle. As a result, as an artist you have very little control on overall presentation... and therefore, can be much less specific about what you are conveying to the player at any given point.

9. Do make sure the game is enjoyable without any sounds/music. Sound should always be a bonus.

I would say that for many games, this makes no sense. It's like saying that a movie or TV show should be enjoyable muted or a stage production should be enjoyable with the lights turned off. For casual, play for 15 minute games? Okay, sure. But for the sorts of games generally embraced by mainstream consumers? No sound isn't going to work. Music and sound (or the intentional lack thereof) is as essential to setting mood and tone as anything we can throw at the player visually or through dialog. And it's also one of the few ways of getting information to a player. There always should be a visual cue to go along with aural information and vice virsa, but they can't be completely divorced... some information will simply make more sense to be provided aurally.

10. Do make sure the game is intuitive to play. A person should be able to load it up and work out within one minute how to play it.

I agree that gameplay should be intuitive, but intuitive doesn't mean simple. Rather, more complex gameplay should build up on simpler gameplay and be introduced in a clear, understandable fashion. Take Portal, for instance. The entire first 1/3 of the game is essentially training to teach you how to play the rest of the game and control concepts are slowly introduced and reinforced during that time. The mechanics of Portal are most certainly not graspable within a minute's time and yet they're the reason the game was so successful.

 

[23skidoo]

My thoughts on what makes a good game (of course mileage may vary depending on the genre).

First, a game shouldn't be too difficult. That doesn't mean it has to be so easy as to be no challenge, but I've played games that are so difficult to play it is impossible to get into the game. I've probably played thousands of games of various types in the last 30 years (yeah, I'm an old-timer) and there are maybe a couple dozen that were so hard and frustrating from the get-go I just said "screw it - waste of time". Challenge the player by all means, and even make it impossibly hard later on, but if an experienced player (never mind a novice) abandons a game in the first few minutes, then the game is a fail. (This refers to games that either do not have a difficulty setting, or even the "easy" setting is impossible.)

An even bigger issue than gameplay difficulty is game control difficulty. Some game designers want to create games that are so intricate and complex they forget human beings are going to be playing the games. I've heard this complaint made about some console games, and I've played a few fighting games that require you to have 14 fingers to get the moves to work. The worst example I ever came across was the PC version of True Crime Streets of New York which was actually physically impossible for me to play. I thought it was just me till I started reading some pretty scathing reviews by experienced game reviewers saying more or less the same thing. It's the only game I've actually thrown in the garbage (since my local game trader knew of its reputation and refused to buy it off me).

In the case of games where you interact with characters, make the characters interesting and appealing. If they have voices, hire actors who can act. If you go text only, make sure the writing is good. Examples where the acting (both by the voice actor and by the "avatar" have been exemplary have included the Half Life 2 series (ahh, Alyx...), Vampire the Masquerade-Bloodlines, the original Deus Ex and Thief2. For writing dialogue (no voiceovers), I'd probably say Final Fantasy VII is my gold standard. Though I do have a soft spot for Zero Wing on both accounts ("All Your Base Are Belong to Us...")

Replayability is also a factor in what makes a good game. This can hit on many levels. I often like replaying games simply for relaxation, even if I've done the battles, or solved the puzzles before. If a game lends itself well to revisiting in that manner, that is a good game. Or if an RPG or FPS-style game is set up in such a way that there are new areas you can explore on later plays, so much the better. One of my favorite games in this area is actually the infamous Postal2. I just like wandering around the different areas of the city and seeing where I can explore -- half the time I don't bother with the shoot 'em up aspect anymore. Vampire the Masquerade-Bloodlines and the original Deus Ex were great for this, as well. A mark of a great game designer is one who realizes people are gonna want to wander around, especially if the universe he/she has created is appealing. One of the few disappointing things about Half-Life2 is the lack of ability to explore freely - the story proceeds in a linear fashion and you have to keep up; you can't go off an explore some random building the way you can in Postal2 (activating the police uniform cheat makes it easier to barge into people's homes without them attacking you, by the way).

I'm not a fan of third person (over the shoulder) view on games that require you to do things like aiming and shooting. I find it almost impossible to get my bearings and I usually die quickly unless there's an option to go into first person mode (which I usually leave activated). I particularly liked Second Life (yeah I know it's not a game) because it allowed me to enter first person view mode, so I was able to stop falling off cliffs and the like as I explored.

Alex

 

[Mistral]

While the OP covered good points, here's a few others:

Repetition. Nothing makes me shut my game down quicker. You punched the wall 30 times and it finally breaks down. You step past to find-another wall. #@!^%@!

Length. L4D and its sequel have this terrific VS mode. Sadly, it takes 2 hours or more to finish a game. So I don't play except on Fridays or Saturdays. Expect a 20 minute attention span. A smart game co. looks at medical reports about sustained adrenaline effects and plans their game "parts" based on human limits. After a while, the excitement fades if the game lasts too long.

Griefers. I play multiplayer online and no one has found a solution to griefers, or team killers, that works. There is a need, though. Maybe freezing them in place for multiple kills against their own team?

FF through storyline cut segments-all games should have this!

User operated cameras. Too many games have computer controlled views that hamper the player.

Tension. Lots of tension. Make the game feel unpredictable. If I know that a red barrel usually hides an AI opponent I'll start keying on red barrels. Surprise me-put something behind a blue box.

 

[Trubinator]

Considering the games you like and the games you don't, do you know what makes the good games good?

Here's my Ten Commandments of Game Design.

1. Do keep the player busy. Keep them aware of their objective. At no time should a player come to a standstill with nothing obvious to do, and wondering what they're supposed to be doing.

2. Do keep the player under constant pressure. Everything should be against the clock, or against a steadily rising threat, or against a constant risk that means the quicker you get stuff done the quicker that risk is gone.

3. Do give the player frequent choice. At no point should there be only one correct move to make, or only one correct path to follow. However, more than four options at any one time can be overwhelming. Where a choice can be made in a game, aim to provide either 2,3 or 4 options.

4. Do regulate randomness. While some randomness is good to introduce variety, do try to eliminate luck as a deciding factor in gameplay. Randomness should take the form of lots of minor perturbations, rather than a few huge perturbations.

5. Do have levels, or equivalent stages of the game. No level should be more than about 20 minutes in duration. Levels regulate save points. Places to take a break, or stop for the day. Levels help to present the game as a series of independent challenges.

6. Do try to include some small amount of puzzle and reflex in any computer game.

7. If your game is to have physics, then do have things behave as players would expect things to behave. If things bounce, then make sure they bounce at the proper angles, respect relative masses, etc.

8. Do limit use of graphics to stuff which communicates something useful. Less can be better. And make sure the player is realistically capable of absorbing all the information you do communicate with graphics. Also try to keep it balanced on screen. As much information on the left as on the

9. Do make sure the game is enjoyable without any sounds/music. Sound should always be a bonus.

10. Do make sure the game is intuitive to play. A person should be able to load it up and work out within one minute how to play it.

I disagree on several points. My list is more like this:

Specific to Genre:

For RTS games: The core gameplay must be complex and resistant to any form of rushing or "build orders". This means the opposite of retarded Blizzard games where anybody can be good and the outcome is always the same.

For RPG games: MUST have an excellent story and atmosphere. The story should resist summary (e.g. be complex to the point where you have to play to understand it) OR be classically good vs. evil in the style of Mass Effect or Star Wars.

For FPS games: They must feature multiple weapons, excellent music, and of course, coop.

Games in General:

1. Must have coop to receive an excellent score. There are rare exceptions, but these are generally only made for BioWare games and EuroRPGs.

2. Must be lengthy and feature elaborate multiplayer.

3. Must push the graphics envelope.

4. Must be different than the rest of the pack unless the sequel is simply refining on a formula that already works very well.

5. Must have good use of music.

6. Must be immersive.

7. Should have replay value.

8. Should have appropriate moments of silence where you are not constantly being mindlessly pressed to do something NOW.

9. Absolutely no stupid respawn or boss battle that only has one method of beating it.

10. Should lack frequent cutscene hijacking for no apparent purpose. See JPRG games or the Resident Evil series.

11. Should lack constant signposting unless appropriate. Make the player think a little bit.

12. Should have large, open worlds. I don't like going through an endless series of levels the size of a catbox.

13. MUST have variety in the core gameplay. GTA4 and Assassin's Creed both are horrible at mindless repetition and get docked points heavily for it IMHO.

14. Difficulty should not level scale. Difficulty options should range from ultra easy to hardcore to provide variety.

15. Should be polished, but never ultra polished to the point of forgetting to make a good game (e.g. Oblivion).

 

[Showdown]

1. Fun. This is a given.

2. Variety. Either in enemies, level design, activities, weapons, choices, etc.

3. Polish. Bugs can kill a game. Little details can add a lot.

4. Co-op & Multiplayer. It's always more fun with a friend.

5. Controls. Poor controls kill the fun.

6. Creativity. Something new, or a new twist to an old concept.

7. Length. Games that are too short are

8. Challenge. Fair challenge, not unfair cheap shots. I'm looking at you fighting game bosses.

9. Characters. Someone to root for.

10. Good story. Keep us intrested to keep playing.

 

[Trubinator]

A good, solid list.

 

[gh4chiefs]

I suspect the things that makes a game good, may be dependent a lot upon the player's skill levels. I suck a lot, so things that annoy me, are probably a lot of fun for most of you.

But I will say what I always say about game design and making games better. ANY game you want to name, can be improved dramatically if they simply give me the choice of saving when I want to save. I can't stress this enough about how important this is to me, to make a good game.

One of the single most frustrating parts of any game I play, is having to repeat over and over, some section of a game just to get back to the "hard part" where I died. In fact, I'll quit games very easily over this because I just get bored to tears with it. For example, the new Wii Mario Brothers game. I can already tell that I won't be playing it for long because I have go back and replay a bunch of worlds that I've already cleared, simply because I ran out of lives trying to clear the castle. This is just the cardinal sin in game design for me.

After that, it becomes so subjective I don't know where to start. It's kind of like the old definition of pornography. I don't know how to describe it, but I'll know it when I see it.