What makes a good game

#1 Personally, I think that each genre has its own necessary elements that make it a "good game." However, there are a few basic things that make any game good.

Here's what I think makes a good game:

1. A Goal. Every game needs to have a goal. It doesn't have to be a goal that could realistically be met, however. The gamer just needs a reason to play other than good graphics, AI, etc.

2. Control. The game has to have a good control system. A good story, great graphics, and incredible AI won't mask terrible controls. Take Soul Fighter for example. The game had a great look and all, but the controls SUCKED. They ruined the game for me. Granted the AI wasn't too good either, but you get the point.

3. Graphics. Bad graphics are a wicked let down. More importantly, inappropriate graphics are a wicked let down. What I mean by inappropriate is this...when you're trying to make a horror game, you don't want to use happy cartoony graphics with a lot of brightness. It ruins the whole horror feel of the game. So basically, the game needs good looking graphics with an appropriate style for the game's theme.

4. Programming. Programming is really a pretty broad subject, (as was graphics, but anyway...), one main thing is AI. I always laugh at games with terrible AI. It's fun to watch my enemies get hung up on walls, bushes, or any other objects in the game. However, while it IS funny at times, it doesn't make for a good game. I want my foes to act intelligently, that way there's more of a challenge. On the other end, you don't want your enemies to be too smart, because then the game will be practically impossible. Another thing about the programming is collision detection. I hate getting hung up on little tiny things sticking out of walls because a game has poor collision detection. The last thing about programming, (off the top of my head), is bugs. I simply HATE it when I play a buggy game. Games should be bug free. OK, maybe bug free is a bit to ask for...OK a lot to ask for. But at any rate, it should be a rare occasion when the gamer encounters a glitch in the program.

Well these are just my opinions, based on what I know now. Let me know what you think.

-Kenn Austin

#2 Well, there's a fundamental rule that you need to keep in mind when you make games, and that's KEEP IT FUN. Gameplay is the most important aspect, because otherwise it's not a game anymore, it's just a movie or a tech demo. In my opinion, and opinion of my design colleagues, a rule of thumb is that it's better to have a crappy looking game that's fun to play rather than vice-versa. Not to say we're aimaing for a crappy looking game, but when making game choices such as engine selection, interactivity and level design, you have to keep that balance in mind.

There's still a big fanbase for Interactive Fiction - including seriously old-school text adventures like those produced by InfoCom in the heady days of graphicsless games. Even today MUSHs are popular enough to support several formats and regular updates, as well as a continual creation of new games and codes -- all for games that rely on nothing but the quality of gameplay and capacity for roleplay.

Certainly there have been beautiful games that have had oodles of gameplay. The Sims presents a very graphically, and audibly, interesting game environment. MYST is the best selling game of all time, and it for its time created a believable, sometimes palpable world. Certainly Black and White seems to hold great promise.

On the other hand, look back at some of the most successful games and their gameplay:eyecandy ratio. Half Life, undoubtably the king of single-player FPS' was based on the already aging Quake2 engine when it came out, but it offered us a level of detail, storytelling and AI that had rarely been seen in one game. PaRappa, a huge his for Sony, features incredibly simple graphics and cutscenes, but gave the player a unique musical experience that spawned a new genre of dancing games. The underrated Hidden and Dangerous is one of those games that you play _despite_ the buggy graphics, the lack of polish and the effective but simplistic audio.

I guess my sermon here is this: as game designers we are responsible for being the Player's advocate in the game. We need to take care of his or her needs, create situations and tools they'll enjoy experiencing and feel clever using, and, hopefully create a game that will trigger genuine emotional response in our player - shock, fear, hilarity, anger, sadness. It's the goal of all creative people, to have their work be _experienced_, not just looked at or listened too. There's no doubt that graphics, and sound and cutscenes are all part of that experience, but the meat of the game, it's ability to grab the players and keep them playing, is gameplay. I guess we could call it the Tetris Effect ;)

Rev

#3 hmmmm...the tetris effect? of course tetris being over 10 years old and spawning numerous spins, and rips of it. it is still a great game, why? because its addicting, and it makes you want to beat your high score, and it has that "oh i'll just play for 10 more minutes and stop" quality. very few games have that effect. one game that does have that effect is Tony Hawk 2. great controls, nice level layout, slick graphics, and to top it off, it makes you try to beat your high score. I've spent many a night trying to get everything on each stage, and spent even more time just trying to get the high score. and this game keeps one simple thing in mind, despite every other game, it is FUN! fun is the most lacking quality of any game. there that is my two cents worth.

#4 One of the best pieces of advice about making a game I have ever read/heard:
"Make it simple to learn but hard to master."

I have also noticed that the most addictive games tend to fall into 2 categories:
1) The type game where you keep saying "I'll just do one more thing!" and then you do that thing and then think "Just one more!" This is the type game you will end up playing until the wee hours of the night. Anyone who has played a good rts or sim game know what I'm talking about (I have to be very careful about Civilization II now). It is also crucial that when the player finally rips himself free of the game that he be able to get back into it the next day without feeling overwhelmed. I can not tell you how many games I have on indefinite hold b/c I just can't bring myself to spend all that energy getting back into where I left off. The best formula for defeating this is to set very short term goals that can be accomplished in at least 30 minutes. Half-Life is an excellent example of what I talking about. You constantly had a new area/level to deal with and a new goal in mind. They strayed from this formula twice and it is where most people quit playing the game (the giant tentacle creature and the Zen levels). Shogo also did a great job with this. You can beat any level in about 15 minutes.
2) The other type of addictive game is a game that has very short "rounds". This is games like tetris and Solitaire and PacMan. This type of gameplay is what draws a lot of people into multiplayer. You can sit down for 30 minutes and play a round or two and then get up and leave. Most people can't spare 3 hours a day to play their latest game. Of course a lot of times the games with short rounds will end up back in the first category- "Just one more round!"

Of course, I don't have anything against a game with a really great story! I enjoy playing a game like that much in the way I enjoy reading a good book. I just wanted to talk a little bit about the "tetris" effect and what I've observed that makes a game have great replayability.

#5 The last few posts have done a great job solidifying come design concepts that I have been going
over in my head. As an artist, I think a game's mood is all important in a gaming experience. There
are several elements that set the mood of a game: music, color & lighting, level design, and enemy
layout & ai just to name a few. I didnt love metal gear because all the game mags said it was the
game to buy, I loved it because the developers took the time to create a mood and a living, breathing
world in wich to play a realy well developed character. Thats what I try to do in my games. Even in
a fighting game.


-maurice

#6 What I like to see in a great game:
Lively characters, good storyline, accurate play control, inovations and new ideas that add more fun to the game, great sound and music, graphics that make you look twice, enemies that challenge you, immersive levels that make sense and give the game personality as well as a reason to be there.

What I don't like in games:
Repetition, ideas that are not implemented in the right way, bad control, bad collision, misrepresented graphics, useless objects and pick-ups that make a game boring, stupid enemies, enemies that cheat, bad level design, messy camera work, wrong sounds, and above all, games that don't know the meaning of fun.

These are what I base all my creativity on, and there's still tons more I look at to design the perfect games that people will look forward to playing and enjoying.

#7 I'd just like to take this opertunity to wish a verry important figure in the video game industry a happy birthday. Duke Nukem Forever.... four years of waiting never flew by so fast.


-maurice

#8 One issue which I feel is never properly addressed in 'what makes a great game' is that there are so many different types of game. In fact, many so called 'computer games' use this name just because it gets them on the correct rack of the store.

I don't mean FPS vs RPG vs MMORG, but more generic issues, such as 'sports' style games (online FPS, ala Quake/Tribes) which pit your personal ability against others, and single player objective type games (Half-Life/C&C/Diablo single player) where you have a goal to reach, and no score.

As an example of how they might differ in 'what makes a great game', a goal based single player game needs to give the player some reward such as progress towards the goal, whilst making the player feel that the game is hard but not too hard. Many people find games too hard or too easy, making it just so is very tricky.

But for an online deathmatch game, the issue of difficulty is not the same. This is similar to the case of score based games (some would say 'real games'), like Tetris. You allways have something to try to beat.

I'm not being as clear as I'd like here, but hopefully you get the point - some game styles are different and require different approaches.

Doug EnkiSoftware Limited

#9 In my opinion, many of the factors that make a great game, are paralelled(sp?) in other artforms.

What made ALIENS a great movie? Why is the Mona Lisa considered on of the best artworks of all time? Why do so many people watch the Simpson's? What is it about the chrysler building that makes people go "ooh ahh"?

The one major thing I see that these successes have in common is ORIGINALITY. They are unique. When you run across something that is unlike anything you have seen before, it sticks out in your mind. I never played Half-life, Rogue-Speare, etc. because I played doom once. Those games look the same. What players want is a new thing, not a clone. They want to experience something they have never experienced before.

Even in an over-worked game genre, new things can be done. How many isometric RPG games have there been in all of history? 100? 10000? Now how many post haulocaust road warrior type RPGs have been done? Well, a few, but Fallout 2 was the latest, and it was unique.

It all starts out with a concept. The concept itself must be unique. No matter how many times you make a new quake game, it is still quake. Give it another name, add a few functions, still quake. I think even a bad game with a concept that hasnt been done to death is still interesting and worth playing to its end.

#10 It's interesting what you are saying there. I thinlk there are two types of originality though.

1. a new game based on a genre, FPS for example. Although many games following the lines of a well known type of game can seem like a total rip, There are als games where the idea is fresh, a new twist is added to the genre. I think that many people will disagree, but I was also put off of half-life, when I first saw a preview, I thought wow. When I saw the game, it just seemed to me that it was just another FPS. I respect that it is better then many out there, but none the less, it's an FPS.

2. The unclasifiable game. In my experience, many games like this are labeled RPG :) These games really break the mould, they are the games that spawn genres (or not, but at least they are different). It always seems when thinking up a new game idea, that you decide what 'kind' of game it's going to be first, RTS, FPS. But there are games which are truly original. I would like to hope that one day I'll think of something completely new, I try and think of an idea, and forget about the genre, but it seems a tough thing to do. I hope that with hobby games development, something new will spring up, just because of the fat that there are no imposed limits as to what will sell and what wont.

Something I saw that seemed really cool (and new) to me just the other day, was Majestic (go look for it at cliffhangergames.com). That is soething that strikes me as an original and intriguing idea.

Anyway, the one thing I've heard often about a good-game, is a well defined goal for the player, yet strangly enough, I spend my time trying to create open-ended games, oh well. I think that if you have a good idea, that you like, and time is spent to conceive it in the way you imagined (not just 'along those lines'), then you should be able to make a fun game no matter what. If you like the idea and would want to play it, then you're almost guaranteed that others would too.

#11 Yeah I prefer open games myself. Speaking of goals, even an open-ended game should have them. I assume you mean RPG's, because right off hand thats about the only type of open ended game I can think of. The goals may not be quite so obvious, or they might just be goals that you know the player will make for him/herself. Here are some of the goals I can think of that I usually try in an open ended game:

1: Exploration
2: Advancing - Whether it means gaining levels, or collecting stuff, or making money
3: Looking for easter eggs
4: Poking and prodding NPC's

If its a multiplayer game, I really spend a lot of time concentrating on how my character looks. Don't ask me why but I like to have a certain look to my character, and if it means having to look for stuff for 50 hours, I will have the coolest looking guy in the game :P

#12 I don't have a lot of time to continuesly play a game...So something that sets goals that can be accomplished within an halfhour to hour keep me interested...RPG type things like the Final Fantasy, Xenogears are examples of this...Zelda is even better...I like real time combat but with a variety of weapons and enemies where the challange isn't so much how much HP or magic you have, but rather exerciseing a diverse amount of stratigy through the objects in your possesion..where every object/weapon has distinct advantages/disadvantages given the obstical you face...this is so much cooler IMHO as a game that "features" 200+ weapons, were each one is better then the last in all situations (A +10 sword is much better then a +3 sword for example)...I don't care how realistic that is, it just bores the pants off me :P

Graphics arn't that important to me..I've purchased more shareware games than retail ones this year...It's all about gameplay..."awsome" graphics or adiherince to "realisam" don't meen squat if the gameplay isn't there...

#13 I dont think addictiveness makes a good game. I think a good game makes addictiveness.

#14 Heh, nice quote... that'll be going on someone's sig... :)

Anyway, regarding the 'tetris-effect'... I would say that GoldenEye is like this, one of the best games ever. Despite Zelda's genius (I occasionally just go to Lake Hyrule to watch the sun rise and set- call me sad, I know...) but I still think GoldenEye is the N64's crowning achievement... one year on from Perfect Dark, I still play Goldeneye more. Part of my bias could be due to a factor of nostalgia - I had Goldeneye when I was 'carefree' and only ever really bought maybe a handful of games per year- so every game I spent time on. Five months to be precise. I spent five solid months with Goldeneye on singleplayer alone... my friends at the time were useless at games and I have never really played Goldeneye MP properly, which I hear is even more lastible that SP. Anyway, I spent five months and at the end of that time I had earned all of the cheats and completed the game. In the run up to Perfect Dark I 'practised' by playing to get the Facility cheat on 00 Agent... a cheat thought to be the hardest which took me a few solid days to evetually 'earn' I can now do (and could do a year ago) virually on every attempt with at least half energy left. And yet I still played. Many of Goldeneye's levels were good for the first time, but some brilliant gems are still great today, I'd include Facility, Bunker and Frigate in this as well as a couple of other greats...
However, now Perfect Dark has come and gone, and I still now play Goldeneye! :)
Maybe the point with Goldeneye is mastery. Because I spent so much time on it I enjoy walking through it now, although the 007 editor mode feels like a bit of a waste on impossible settings, but great on 'realistic' (both in terms of one shot death and realistic to actually do) settings, however, I love the fact that the cheats had to be earned and also cheat times could be made like mutual record times - both of these increased replayability for me too. However, even though I've mastered it, I can still try the 007 editor out, and fighting Jaws on 00 Agent still sends shivers of fear down my spine, so the game will never truly be mastered and with records, alterable settings, and so much stuff to do!
A little side note, learning how games are made makes all games replayability multiplied by two - since learning to map/level design, I have been back through plenty of games to see how the designers made them.

Other old games which I believe have lasted through the years include games such as ISS- good sports games, and good 'arcady' games like Driver or Grand Theft Auto which can be played in many ways.

Anyway, this sort of turned into an incoherant ramble, so I think I'd better go :)

-Alf-Life/Martin Badowsky.

#15 >I dont think addictiveness makes a good game. I think a good game makes addictiveness.

Nice quote, but to me, it really has no point, as it is assumed that these go hand and hand. A game wouldn't be addictive if it wasn't good, and if it is good it may very well be addictive.

#16 Well, how can a game be bad if you're "addicted" to it? Certainly some part of you thinks it's good. :-) I'd rather just say: good games are addictive, or at least replayable.

There's a new article on Gamasutra by Ernest Adams that has some bearing on this thread. Good read.

#17 Well I dont recall ever being addicted to a "bad" game.

Martin: Yes Goldeneye was a very well done game. My favorite level was the level that was outside in the snow. i really dug the atmospheric effects with the sniper.

#18 Entr0phy: Really, you liked the Surface level? I thought that was really good the first time, and more original (all of GoldenEye's levels were very original), however, I didn't really think it was very good to replay... long range fighting and sprawling gameplay unlike the 'covertness' of the Facility or taking out a terrorist group aboard a real life Frigate... :)

And yes, Brian Smith, I agree, an addictive game has to be good, who ever heard of a bad addictive game? :p

#19 Wow, I think those are all good points. I think another detail that makes a good game is its hook. I think of some of the good games I have played and they all had something that made them a little different, and appealed to that certain part of my personality. TRIBES was outdoor and unlimited with jump jets and teamwork. Monkey Island and Disc World were funny, funny enough that you wanted to do everything, not just try and cruise through the puzzles to move on. Half Life gave you the opportunity to watch seemingly normal adults turn into blood crazed maniacs. Starcraft, well, Starcraft is just Starcraft. That is enough.

But all of those games, which I have enjoyed, took one part of a genre (ie FPS) and said "we are going to do this better than anyone." I think that is a solid idea. For example, Unreal Tournament has really awesome AI. They basically said we are going to do this very well, and they did. That made that particualr game fun for me for a long time, because I could play against AI and not get bored. Trying to make a came that is the ultimate DM tour de force will be hard. But you can make a game that has the most accessible controls of any DM, or maybe even a DM that has the most interesting premise.

Whatever your decision, decide what your strengths as a designer/programmer/artist is and cater to it. If you are an awesome 3d Modeler, but a terrible scenery creator, make the figures that main focus of your game. Likewise, if you are a great map maker, but your team is just not able to make a bunch of game play variations (vehicles, different character types, weapons, etc.) then make a game that has so many different levels, that it takes a while before people even notice that they used the same gun the whole game, or that the gun sounded like someone punding on a metal garbage can lid in their garage.

I hope this helps, or is even mildly true...

#20 Well , what make a good game ? Quick answer:I hate FPS , only played doom and as it was already stated on this forum , nothing realy changed till today , but when i saw Max Payne , i decided to buy a 3D accelerator and play it.It is the first time that somebody did something diffrent a FPS.This is definetly a good game!And has a pretty original story(not the invading aliens cliche).