What are the elements of a good game?

[Opinion]

Someone posted a similar question recently about why HL2 was going to be good....or not.
My question is, what are some objective criteria for determining whether a first person shooter will be well received or not? Is that something that is actually capable of being scored on a weighted scale?

Some thoughts I have are:

1. AI
a. unpredictable;
b. worthy adversaries (will beat you if you are sleeping, you can beat them if you try hard enough);
c. exhibit realistic behavior, both scripting and in reacting to player (they miss sometimes and are fallible - not all incredible marksmen)


2. Gameplay
a. interface is easy to use and master;
b. interface feels natural (like when HL gave you that special feeling...)
c. environment is believable - not compared to actual reality, but compared to the hottest game currently on the market at time of release.

3. Reason to come back
a. compelling story
b. easy to involve friends in multiplayer
c. positive "buzz" from general community

What are your thoughts?
Thanks
Opinion

 

[thehunter1320]

not ALL the time but grafix can help make/break a game... and story (of course)

 

[KagePrototype]

To me, if it's fun, it's fun. You can't define this so specifically. Some games have terrible AI, but make up for it in other departments (Deus Ex for example). Half-Life was, if stripped of the clever set-pieces and immersive atmosphere, was just another FPS with better than average AI (run, shoot, flick switch, run, shoot, flick switch, shoot object, run, shoot....) But obviously no one cared, due to it's immersivness. I beleive that there shouldn't be some pre-supposed view of what constitutes a good FPS. People should take an objective view of games while playing them, and base their opinion on the game's individual merits, not what you think those merits should be.

I think Deus Ex is a prime example of this sort of thing. Deus Ex, like it or not, was revolutionary. it was the first game to achieve a successful cross-breeding of RPGs and FPSs and bring it to the mainstream, with large success. System Shock may have done it previously on a somewhat lower level, but Deus Ex expanded on it and created a very unique game world where you could shoot, hack, talk, sneak, buy, steal, lie etc, all built around a very intelligent plot. But on the other hand, the graphics were sub-par and the AI was just terrible. Yor enemies just ran at you and started shooting, not running away until they were on their last breath, at which point they dind't even defend themselves, they just ran. But that didn't stop people calling it one of the greatest games ever created, did it?

Half-Life, once again, a nice example. We all loved it because of immersive atmosphere -- there wasn't an FPS ever made previously that immersed the player into the game world as much as HL did. The scripted sequences, AI, architecture, everything came into place and was one hell of a ride. But then again, if one wee to strip the game of these merits, all you would find is another mediocre FPS where you run, shoot, flick switch, repeat. Without those set pieces and AI, it wasn't much at all.

Another is Serious Sam. Story? Pfft. Who needs it. AI? Gimme a break, let's just make them run at the player at dizzying speeds and multiply the enemy count indefinately. Fun? OOOOOOH yes.

For me, I couldn't care if the graphics were realistic or the AI was smart enough to beat you at chess, as long as I enjoyed playing it. And personaly I think that's the best criteria for an FPS, as well as any other game genre. That's what games are supposed to be, right?

Damn, that's one big post. Ramble ramble ramble...

 

[ductonius]

Here is my mix of what makes a good game:

50% - gameplay
30% - story
20% - graphics

Why?

Gameplay: Centeral to what makes a good game is how it is played. A game with crappy gameplay is doomed to fail simply becuae it is not entertaining enough of a game. We have all seen games with an interesting story and top notch graphics fail simply becuae it bored the player stiff, or lacked some element to make it fun.

Story: Story is a centeral part of any game. In the early days of gaming, a story was simply something to justify the style or execution of gameplay, now it has moved beyond that and provides motivation to achieve goals beyond simply the challenge of completing them.

A game with a bad story but good gameplay will feel like: It might be fun to achieve teh next goal, but why should I?

Graphics: Graphics should serve to enhance gameplay first, the story second and grahpics third. A game made up of pretty grahics for the sake of pretty graphics and no gameplay or story will not be engaging enough to play. Once the shock of great visual effects wears off the player is left with nothing.

Graphics are the most superflous part of a game. As long as the graphics do the job of allowing great gameplay, and storytelling, they have done thier job. Anything above this is fluff.

This is not to say that fluff is bad. If a game has a good story and great gameplay, it can only be enhanced by graphic fluff.

 

[Pauly]

1. AI
2. good story
3. cool multiplayer
4. something that will leave u in "AWE"
5. (not that important...but nice to have) graphics
6. and of course funfactor

 

[Prince of China]

It should come with free pie.

 

[Pauly]

Originally posted by Tredoslop
It should come with free pie.

mmmm pie....should come with EXTRAS TOO!

mmm EXTRAS!!

*MY 300th PoST!*

 

[Kadayi]

One word, immersiveness.

 

[Pauly]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
One word, immersiveness.

that pretty much sums it up for me

 

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
One word, immersiveness.

You can say it, but do you know what it means?

 

[thehunter1320]

Originally posted by Pauly
that pretty much sums it up for me

really? the free pie sums it up for me

 

[Kadayi]

Originally posted by ductonius
You can say it, but do you know what it means?

Yes.

 

[ductonius]

Originally posted by Kadayi Polokov
Yes.

Then please, enlighten us.

 

[Snakebyte]

Ummm... pie.

And what Kage said.

 

[Vigil]

1. Physics...

I can't stand FPS's which don't move well. Deus Ex 2 (at first) was a good example of not having decent movement physics.

2 Immersiveness...

You've all said it before...I don't need to touch on it further

3. AI...

I think this one goes without explanation too...though it is not necessarily fundamental to a good game. Someone pointed out Serious Sam...which lacks any concept of AI...but it was sure as hell a good time.

4. Story...

Most games I play, not for the experience, or for the multiplayer (I've been playing these games since Doom, as I'm sure most of you have...there are few things that surprize me in games anymore). But if a game has a good storyline, I find myself drawn to at least play it out.

5. Implementation...

How many games have we all played that started out strong and have fallen to hell halfway through. The sort of game where the developers, though following through on a great idea, haven't quite hit the nail on the head. Planetside is an amazing example of this. The concept was certainly unique...fight across continents, thousands of players, dropships, tanks, fighters...ect. True, it was a little like Tribes, but on a much more grand scale. Problem is, SoE didn't implement it correctly. I guess you can call this category a summation of all the previous categories. It all needs to fit together well.

I guess I've rambled enough here...would be a good idea to shut my mouth at this point...

 

[Sulkdodds]

Damn. My one chance to make a massive post and Pendragon got there first.

What many people don't understand (and what Pendragon only touched on) is that realism in games is not nearly important as naturalism - by this I dont mean running around with no clothes on. Complete naturalism and consistency in games should be every developer's goal. It doesn't matter if the game is set on some far-off planet of jelly where wild cheeses roam the trousers, because people will play if it feels right. Okay, that's not to say that particular concept would work. Anyway, take Half-Life. Everything in it felt absolutely right and there were no incosistencies. Yes, even Xen. This si why I disagree with those who claim Half-Life without scripting and atmosphere would be rubbish. The fact remains that the actualt action is brilliant. Whether fighting marines or aliens it feels exactly right, right down to the ker-plonk of a grenade launcher.
This goes for every single element of any game, be it Space Invaders or Half-Life 2. The graphics, the sound, the physics must all feel completely natural. To use my previous example, a planet of jelly with wild cheeses should feel and act like such a planet should. To sum it up, there should never be anything which compels the player to think 'hang on. That isn't right. That doesn't fit.' Half-Life got this wrong only once as far as I can tell (send HL inconsistencies on the back of a postcard to the usual address) - if you push a large box on top of a tiny box it doesn't topple right off. Games should feel right, and that is the holy grail.
That's my two pence.

 

[Styloid]

If you ask good game I'd have to say I agree with most of what has already been said. A great game, however, has to do something more to make itself stand out.

 

[crabcakes66]

1. Intial fun factor/LOD (25%).......this includes opening cut scenes, intro movie training mission and first real mission.

These really set the stage for the game if you ask me.....id say 25% of my overall impression of a game happens in the first 5 minues.....

look at HL....the opening sequence(s) was aswome at the time... your in the action and learning the story before the game really even starts.

2. Options/content.(50%)

What can i do, how many units, weapons, missions do i have to choose from....how many things can i tweak and upgrade.

this is 50% of a good game for me...... It a game....i want lots of shit to do.

short games piss me off.....overly hard or overly easy games piss me off...... making a game insanly hard and having only 5 missions does not make it good.

3. GFX.....(25%)

Im coming to expect more and more out of my games..........there should be no excuse for crappy gfx anymore....other than the laziness of the developers.


4. imersiveness/ cool story (20%)

imersiveness has already been explained in detail so i wont go there.

as far as the story goes......im tired of the same ****ing storys

find a key, open a door to next area.....blow something up.

rescue a hostage, escort a monkey, kill the boss.

i wish there would be more actaul story to a game and not the same stupid ass shortterm goals..... repeated over and over.



5. fit and finsh. (5%)

i dont like a game that crashes every 5 minutes and erases my hardrive....

things should work.......in game GUI's should work....missions should work(SWG again *cough)


6. good multiplayer (bonus 10%)

self explanatory.

 

[Lil' Timmy]

what makes a good game?

ludicrously enormous breats. 'nuff said.

 

[crabcakes66]

what are breats?

 

[mchammer75040]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
what are breats?

The question you should be asking is what is not breats.

 

[crabcakes66]

i type "breats" in google and it gives me a whole bunch of asian porno sites that are written in Engrish.......


:cheese: lolz

 

[Lil' Timmy]

Originally posted by crabcakes66
i type "breats" in google and it gives me a whole bunch of asian porno sites that are written in Engrish.......


:cheese: lolz

ha! take that you philistines! i case my rest.

 

[Kadayi]

Originally posted by ductonius
Then please, enlighten us.

Well immersiveness in games comes in many forms. It can be the graphics, the gameplay, the storyline, the interactions, the sound.

The best games offer up a combination of these various elements in order to draw the player into the virtual world/experience that the designers have envisaged.

Some examples:-

System Shock 2. Even at the time of it's release the graphics weren't particularly cutting edge. But what the developers did well was redefine the use of sound in games. What made System Shock 2 scary as a game, wasn't the fighting (although it was tough), it was the anticipation of an encounter, which was enhanced by the use of sound. From the gibbering of the escaped lab monkeys, the constant hum of the ship, to the ominous chatter of the alien midwifes. In all SP games you are alone, but in System shock 2, you were made to realise it.

Halflife. It might look quaint now, but at the time of it's release the game literally shook the scene apart, with a combination of good storytelling, puzzles and innovative AI. One of the fundamental reasons why Half life was immersive was because it never separated you from the events on screen. All the cut scenes were relayed through the actual game engine. There was no FMV sequencing separating the chapters or introducing the game. You fired up the game and straight away you were in it, you finished one chapter and the next began, it was unrelenting, you didn't feel like you were manipulating Gordon Freeman, you were Gordon Freeman (Aside from a photo if I recall, you never actually see Gordon's face ingame).

Deus Ex. Again the graphics were never the best, but DX lured you into it's world by discarding the 'on rails' approach to gameplay that had been the formula for previous games for a more real world approach. There were a number of different ways that you could complete each mission, you were never forced to adhere to a particular path. Instantly this approach puts you into the scene, with you having to weigh up the circumstances of your decisions, again very immersive.

 

[not28]

Originally posted by Tredoslop
It should come with free pie.

And free naked women.

 

[CyberSh33p]

My theory is simple. If a game attempts to have a story and succeeds, its probably going to be fun for me(see half life[this is also assuming is has the "standard" gameplay of an fps]). If the story sucks, I will probably hate it(see tribes 2 single player). If it doens't attempt to have a story, I will probably like it(see doom).

This only applies to single player though. Online I care most about modability and mod community. Modders can make great single player games too(see they hunger, which I simply loved). also, this applies to FPS games only, rpgs and rts is on a totally different plane.