What makes a good game?

[The Jester]

I admit that such a question is rather philosophical in nature, but it is really something I do ponder over. What elements do you have to include in order for a game to be good? Ask yourself: what sort of common themes have run through games which you have enjoyed in the past? When have you felt the most alive (not necessarily having the most fun) while gaming? What games have given you unique and special experiences? These questions of course differ from player to player, but I'm sure that there are a number of things you have enjoyed in the past which you'd like to share.

[Master of Ossus]

A game must be relatively easy to pick up, but have great depth for expert players who are going to spend hundreds of hours improving their skills with the game. Super Smash Bros., for the N64, was an example of a phenomenal game. It was fun and entertaining, even for novices who had never played before, but the combat system was surprisingly robust and offered a huge number of options for the various characters. Expert players needed to spend hundreds of hours honing their skills with several different characters in order to be worthy of the name, and the game offered some challenges even for them.

[Captain tycho]

1. (in no real order)
Games that really give you a sense of having accomplished something, like MoO2 after kicking the shit outta the Antarans or conquering everyone else in a Deity-level Alpha Centauri game.

2. It has to be FUN. Otherwise, why are you playing it?

3. Probably the most important factor is the openess and replayability of a game. Some RPGs, many strategy games, etc, do this exceedingly well, giving you a huge amount of ways to play through the game.
4. Multiplayer.

[McNum]

This is a difficult question. I'd like to just say "fun" and get it over with, but it's more. First of all I like when a game is well crafted. Meaning the general gameplay and interface is solid. That in itself is a good start. However even with good gameplay, good interface, and even with stellar graphics there is that elusive "something" that certain games have that makes them that bit better.

I'm not sure I can explain what that "something" is, but I can give an example of where that "something" is. I bought Skies of Arcadia Legends for GameCube. Overall that game had mediocre graphics, being a Dreamcast port, the battle system wasn't very streamlined and the story and characters were full of clichés. All in all it should by all rights have been just a mediocre game. Yet... it had that something. Most reviews of the game said it had an indescribable charm of sorts. I mean even with all the clichés, clunky battles both on land and in the air, and not too impressive graphics, it became one of my favorite games.

Other games have that something, too. Nintedno were very good at this in the N64 age with both Mario 64 and Zelda being examples of this. Newer examples could be Viewtiful Joe (the first one, not sure about the sequel) and perhaps The Wind Waker.

If I had to ask my education about this, then the "something" would be called "flow". Where difficulty and abilities are evenly matched. This might explain Viewtiful Joe, but Skies of Arcadia? Not so sure... It was more the setting and the upbeat attitude in the game that helped here. (Air Pirates exploring the world in sailboats? Cool!)

[Noble Ire]

For me, the factor of paramount importance is the story. I'm not sure why, but I cant stand games that dont have a story, or have bad characters, even if the gameplay and graphics are excellent. Heck, I'll even slog through a bad game if it has a story I'm interested in.

[Stofsk]

Atmosphere - an elusive quality in a game that provides a feeling of immersiveness as well as other feelings, IE suspense, dread, fear, excitement etc. Can be created through spooky music, lighting, sound effects, creepy monsters etc. Can also be created through other means, depending on what feelings you're trying to evoke. Also, game difficulty plays a part. The harder the monsters, the tougher the challenge, the more you have at stake, the more you are drawn into the game's world.

Exhibit A: Diablo 2. Tell me your blood wasn't pumping when you first went through this game. I nearly shit a brick when I first went through the Chaos Sanctuary - when Diablo finally came, I was scared. It also helped that Diablo killed my poor Amazon several times with what has now been nicknamed "The Red Lightning of Death." Also the Oblivion Knights were little bitches, as were the Venom Lords.

Exhibit B: Total Annihilation. The atmosphere of this game is terrific. It was one of the few RTS games that tries to allow you to do anything (not everything) you can think of. But in terms of atmosphere, whenever your units engaged the enemy the Battle Music would play. Suddenly, it was ON. Then when things quietened down, Build Music would play. You could also affect the environment in ways you really can't in most RTS games. You could blow up trees or harvest them for energy. When one of your units or an enemy unit was destroyed, depending on how severe the battle was they would leave burnt out husks that you could reclaim for spare metal. And few things gave a sense of awe than a row of Bertha long-range artillery cannons with a dozen fusion reactors pumping juice into, then ordering bombardment of the enemy base. Sometimes you could just sit back and cackle insanely as the enemy base was reduced to smoldering ruins.

Replayability - that thing that makes you want to play the game again and again. In other words, how addictive the game is. Some games are fun until it becomes repetitive. At which point, you throw it away and never play it again. It's at that point where you think "I've played this enough, there's nothing new for me." Other games - the good games - have something that makes you come back, over and over. Customisability also plays a part, as the more you can modify in the game the longer it lasts in terms of playability.

Exhibit A: Diablo 2. The wilderness is respawned everytime you save&exit. You can keep on going back to the same level and kill the monsters - for experience, for gold, for magic-finding (term used for hunting for magic items). The sheer randomness of the game ensures that no two games will be quite alike - the monsters are usually randomised, and everytime you play in a multiplayer game the map 'resets' so even if you have a waypoint, you don't know where all the landmarks are (so say you keep doing Countess runs to grab runes; if you play in single-player the Tower is always where it was the last time, but if you load up a MP game, the layout changes so you have to go hunt for it. This can also be replicated through switching between difficulty modes - if you play in nightmare difficulty and go down to normal, the map gets reset, and vice versa). Also, the magic items are randomised - you don't know what you're getting when you pick up a blue or yellow coloured item. Since a lot of the game involves hunting for items, this is incredibly important. But more than that: you can MAKE your own items. Crafted items and runewords and socketed weapons/armour help give the game some versatility. So you're not just looking for that one yellow item to make your character that much better, because you can make items that are potetentially more powerful. But you have to find 'ingredients' to do so.

Exhibit B: Galactic Civilisations. The starmap is randomly generated even though you can control some of the parameters (big vs small galaxy, for example). This makes the first X - exploration - some of the funnest moments in the game, as you start off with only a few scouts and you try to find out where all the good planets are within reach as well as resources to build your starbases on. That makes each game unique and challenging. Random events will also occur either when you colonise worlds or just regular turns pass. These random events give you a moral choice between: taking a short term loss, but long term acclaim (Good option, good civilisations like you and you're trusted, but you usually lose something like money); getting something in a compromise deal (neutral option); taking everything you want, but people start hating or fearing you (evil option, and good civilisations will ally to defeat you). The game is also highly modable, from tweaking units and tech and text etc in the game to all but deleting the data files and making your own, unique game.

Exhibit C: Alpha Centauri. The map can be randomly generated or you can play on the official 'Map of Planet' which is always fixed. In spite of this, Mindworm attacks are unpredictable and can be dangerous - who hasn't lost a base that was on 1 population because a mindworm boil came and ate everyone in there? Also the Unity pods were a bit of Russian Roulette - you could get something usefult like an Alien Artifact, a Monolith, new tech, new units, money or resources, or you could get mindworms or a xenofungal bloom (I fucking hated that). Random Events could occur which fuck you over: plague kills food production for 10 years, which causes one of your colonies to starve. Not nice. Also, you can mod the text data file to tweak the units and so on, while ingame you can make your own military forces.

Exhibit D: Total Annihilation. The gameplay can get old with just the same old units and dumbass computer AI. But you CAN mod the units and make them better or worse, depending on your own vision. For example, I never understood why aircraft had such a low visual radius when they have the ultimate highground. I also didn't understand why they had no radar. So I tweaked it, and gave them both.

Graphics/Aesthetics: what makes your game pleasing to the eye. It goes beyond 3D graphics - that is NOT a requirement for excellent graphics, yes it CAN help of course. But aesthetics deals with something harder to get a firm grip on. It can be how pretty the environment and the engine looks, or it could be cool 2D art. Or it could be something else entirely.

Exhibit A: any Blizzard game you care to name. Blizzard games have a 'cartoony' aspect to them that makes their games look cool. When I play Diablo 2 I want my characters to look their best. I will sometimes drop a certain item, no matter what mods it has, because it makes my guy or girl look cool. In Warcraft 3, the Hero units have an aura that makes them glow. Not only that but in nightime the environment changes too, which is also cool. Starcraft's graphics may be 2D but that doesn't detract from the enjoyment of it. Also the music can help with appreciating the environment as well. D2 music is spooky and heroic which ties in to the aesthetic of the game. Warcraft music is epic and that fits with the game. Starcraft music ties into each of the three races: terran have a march as well as some kind of rock music; zerg have this heavy industrial metal motif; Protoss has this weird, alien stuff going down that nevertheless feels epic.

Exhibit B: KOTOR and KOTOR 2. Some of the most beautiful 3D effects I've ever seen. I love walking around Dantooine in KOTOR and just stopping, and looking around. Just... wonderful. Manaan and the Unknown World are also beautiful as well. In KOTOR 2 all the items are randomised, as well as new Jedi robes and so on. That means you can make your character look better than you could in KOTOR.

Exhibit C: Galciv and SMAC. Graphics don't really help a great deal here, as they're not necessary. TBS games by their nature are slow cerebral games. That requires a different outlook in terms of graphics. You're NOT trying to wow people with impressive environments or so on, but you don't want things stale and boring either. Things should thus be uncluttered, simple, and serve as a pretty background. Galciv's graphics are functional, and that's all that is required. However, the background layout changes when you become a Good or Evil civilisation (at the start, you are a neutral civ). Good has blue tones, evil has red tones. Again, simple graphics which do a lot. Alpha Centauri's graphics are hardly what I would call intensive, but one of my favourite things to do is just look at my territory. I can even rename the little squares. Maybe I'll name a river or a mountain, or a spot where I battled enemies. And even though it's probably more efficient to build unlimited bases, I don't care I LIKE building sensor towers, bunkers and airbases.

Exhibit D: Total Annihilation. Two words: CHUNKY EXPLOSIONS. 'Nuff said.

Exhibit E: Age of Mythology. It just looks nice, for a 3D RTS. Plus, I love building archers with flaming arrows, or mythical units like the Hydra.

Exhibit F: Homeworld. Like KOTOR, I just sometimes stop and take a look around.

Personality: hard to define. Basically, a quality that makes the game unique.

Exhibit A: Starcraft. Starcraft vs TA, who wins? I wanted to play TA with a friend and he suggested Starcraft instead. Why? "Starcraft has greater personality." But what does that mean? Is it a simple matter of giving each unit you build something amusing to say? With TA it's whirrs and rhorls, with Starcraft it's "I vote we frag this commander" or "Command or you will be relieved!" or "For AIUR!!!" Even the Zerg have weird sounds: overlords sound constipated and like they're having a great shit on the bowl, while Defilers sound like evil snakes, drones sound like buzzing bees, and so on.

Exhibit B: Total Annihilation. Brawlers have lots of personality, so do Fidos, Hawks, and other units. The Krogoth has a big, abrasive "Fuck you, and the horse you rode in on" personality. Also, units get stronger the more kills they make. After a long battle I sometimes pause and look over my troops: those with veteran rankings get special treatment (immediate repairs, put into a reserve force etc).

Exhibit C: TA: Kingdoms. Like TA above, but veterans turn gold. This makes it somewhat more interesting. Your units get a visual change everytime they kill a certain number of enemies.

Difficulty: A game has to be challenging, but it also has to scale with your own abilities. Too easy, and you throw it away in disgust. Too hard... and you throw it away in disgust. There is no need to present exhibits now. Basically, if you can modify the difficulty so that the monsters get more HP or the enemy builds quicker etc, it works.

[Praxis]

Hard to define. A game that leaves me with a feeling of, "Wow", after I am finished.

[SyntaxVorlon]

For video games, it's the ability of a game to make you play it, to make you play it again, and to be addicting because of a number of aspects of its gameplay. For instance, despite the fact that B&W is hard to play at times, it's still so much fun that the day I got it I spent a good 6 hours playing it. The fact that I have ultimate control over what my creature turns out makes playing it and changing my attitudes changes the way the game plays out.

Another good instance is EV Nova, it's fun as hell, moddable, mutable, offers numerous different story lines, has a fairly simple control system, and so forth. I've managed to come back to the game two or three times.

For board games, I would say simplicity, if you're going for most complex and rewarding gameplay. Go for instance is a game where you put down a stone, and your opponent puts down a stone, repeat, that's the gameplay, simple and very straightforward. The strategy involved however is so complex that it's very hard to make computer programs that can take into account what goes on in the game.

[The Jester]

2. It has to be FUN. Otherwise, why are you playing it?

Two questions:

What do you think makes a game fun for you?

AND

Have you, or anyone else here, ever spent a substantial amount of time playing a game which you didn't find fun (even if you did so when you started playing)? What were your reasons for playing an unfun game.

3. Probably the most important factor is the openess and replayability of a game. Some RPGs, many strategy games, etc, do this exceedingly well, giving you a huge amount of ways to play through the game.

When you say replayability, do you mean that you want an experience you can repeat, or do you just wish for a more prolonged playing experience through which replayability can achieve these means?

4. Multiplayer.

How much do you enjoy the social activity of a game as opposed to just playing? Do you typically like to play with friends over playing alone?

Meaning the general gameplay and interface is solid.

The word interface is pretty broad. Do you think there are aspects of how you interact with the gaming environment common to many good games? Is it possible for a game developer to focus more on a specific aspect of the interaction and is able to develop a strong interface from that?

If I had to ask my education about this, then the "something" would be called "flow". Where difficulty and abilities are evenly matched.

You seem to make a reference to challange level. That a good game should provide a certain level of challenge to players?

Not so sure... It was more the setting and the upbeat attitude in the game that helped here. (Air Pirates exploring the world in sailboats? Cool!)

Here you seem to be referring more to theme and how the game evoke an emotional reaction through setting, theme and attitude of the game. Would you say this is a fair appraisal?

For me, the factor of paramount importance is the story. I'm not sure why, but I cant stand games that dont have a story, or have bad characters, even if the gameplay and graphics are excellent. Heck, I'll even slog through a bad game if it has a story I'm interested in.

So you feel a good game is a good piece of interactive fiction?

Atmosphere - an elusive quality in a game that provides a feeling of immersiveness as well as other feelings, IE suspense, dread, fear, excitement etc. Can be created through spooky music, lighting, sound effects, creepy monsters etc. Can also be created through other means, depending on what feelings you're trying to evoke.

Actually one thing I've noticed is that manipulating how a player responds, or feels the correct way to respond to the environment has a great deal to do with what kind of emotional experience it is for a player. E.g. If a player feels that he should avoid and run from encounters, he is more likely to experience fear, or experience a stronger sense of fear. (Ever tried playing Silent Hill 2 with action difficulty on hard? Gives navigating through corridors a whole new level of fear.)

Question: Do you think it possible for a game which evokes a lot of unpleasant emotions on purpose (e.g. frustration, sadness) to be good? That is, through the natural progression of a game you experience these things, not just when you die.

For video games, it's the ability of a game to make you play it, to make you play it again, and to be addicting because of a number of aspects of its gameplay.

Is it possible for a bad game to be addictive?

[McNum]

Meaning the general gameplay and interface is solid.

The word interface is pretty broad. Do you think there are aspects of how you interact with the gaming environment common to many good games? Is it possible for a game developer to focus more on a specific aspect of the interaction and is able to develop a strong interface from that?

If I had to ask my education about this, then the "something" would be called "flow". Where difficulty and abilities are evenly matched.

You seem to make a reference to challange level. That a good game should provide a certain level of challenge to players?

Not so sure... It was more the setting and the upbeat attitude in the game that helped here. (Air Pirates exploring the world in sailboats? Cool!)

Here you seem to be referring more to theme and how the game evoke an emotional reaction through setting, theme and attitude of the game. Would you say this is a fair appraisal?

Interface is a big word, yes. What I mean is that the act of playing the game should be mostly transparent. If you need to stop and think about the interface for more than a few seconds, then there's something wrong with the interface. I played The Wind Waker earlier today and the ease of with I could make Link slash and parry and throw various harmful stuff at the enemies was great. Basically if the players has to spend more time on concentrating on the interface rather than the gameplay, then there's something wrong. If you want to see a master of interface design try playing some of the more recent Maxis games, such as Sims 2. Click on Sim, click on target, give order. Doesn't get much more simple than that. And you can turn much of the interface on and off if you need. The coming Spore seems like an interface marvel as well.

You can't really use The Wind Waker for a challenge argument, though. It is a bit on the easy side, but the puzzles in the game are pretty satisfying to solve. I mean a 7-10 reflection light puzzle with two playable characters at once does take a bit of creative thinking. Viewtiful Joe on the other hand was hard as hell at first. Any game where the first sub boss utterly destroys you on the first encounter and yet you still come back for more has GOT to have something special. One boss in particular (Fire Leo) I litterally threw 100 lives at before I finally defeated him. Think about that. 100. One hundred times did he smash poor Joe and yet I kept coming back. Why? Because I lost fair and square every single time. He didn't magically teleport or shoot some random shot at me. Every single time it was a player mistake that caused the loss. And player mistakes can be fixed next time. That is probably one of my favorite boss battles ever. Of course when you finally beat the game it unlocks... hard difficulty.

Skies of Arcadia was definitely setting and characters that was the drawing point. That and while the battle system was mediocre it still had the charm from the rest of the game. Plus touches like boss music that changes mood depending on who's winning really makes those battle fun. Nothing quite like hammering the boss with a Cutlass Fury only to have the music switch to upbeat on the final hit, even if it only means that the boss is at 50% HP the upbeat music really makes it feel like you're on a roll. Of course then the boss decides to one-hit an ally and the music goes to "we're gonna die!"... until you get the fallen ally revived. One big thing about SoA is that... it isn't angsty. There's no "the world is in trouble but I don't care", or "What can we do against that kind of power?". It's all "Let's hunt treasure!", "We'll escape from the inescapable fortress, again!", "Blue Rogues... ATTACK!" That is just refreshing. No Cloud/Squall-syndrome here. Quite the opposite, really.

[Master of Ossus]

3. Probably the most important factor is the openess and replayability of a game. Some RPGs, many strategy games, etc, do this exceedingly well, giving you a huge amount of ways to play through the game.

When you say replayability, do you mean that you want an experience you can repeat, or do you just wish for a more prolonged playing experience through which replayability can achieve these means?

Replayability is actually the ability to create a new experience by playing through the game again. Take Baldur's Gate II, for example, since it's one of the most replayable games I've ever had. Baldur's Gate II had a large variety of classes and sub-classes that your character could choose from, each with unique strengths and weaknesses and abilities to bring to the game. The class that you chose for your character made a huge difference in how you played the game, and how things were done. The game also offered a wide variety of NPC's which you could bring with you in your party and who would bring their own strengths and weaknesses, but also conversation to the game. On top of that, each class had a variety of weapons and items to choose from, there were different "strongholds" which provided different classes with different quests, and there was one place where the story branched quite dramatically, even though both branches ended up at more-or-less the same place. All of these features almost mandated that a player who enjoyed the game the first time play through it numerous times just to discover the rest of the game.

Meaning the general gameplay and interface is solid.

The word interface is pretty broad. Do you think there are aspects of how you interact with the gaming environment common to many good games? Is it possible for a game developer to focus more on a specific aspect of the interaction and is able to develop a strong interface from that?

The interface must be sufficiently simple and easy for a reasonable person to understand the game fairly quickly, but the engine must be robust enough, offering enough options, for the gameplay to be deep and interesting. Again, see Super Smash Bros. That game has a very simple interface, which was intuitive and allowed even novice players to quickly figure out how to move, attack, and jump, but it required an expert player to understand the various combinations of moves each character could utilize and to incorporate those into his play. Note that making a game's engine and mechanics very complicated makes it more difficult to make a simple interface, and so balance is obviously required.

You seem to make a reference to challange level. That a good game should provide a certain level of challenge to players?

Ideally, a game should present different goals for different players. For example, Donkey Kong Country had a game for novices: beating the game. Experienced players, though, were tasked with finding all of the DK coins that were spread throughout the game. To use Baldur's Gate II, again, as an example, the first and most obvious goal was getting through the game and defeating Irenicus. After my brother and I had completed the game, though, we went on wildly different paths with our subsequent trips through the game: he tried to get through the game using fewer and fewer party members (ultimately getting down to a single character), while I focused on learning how to play the game with different characters and NPC's in a party.

For me, the factor of paramount importance is the story. I'm not sure why, but I cant stand games that dont have a story, or have bad characters, even if the gameplay and graphics are excellent. Heck, I'll even slog through a bad game if it has a story I'm interested in.

So you feel a good game is a good piece of interactive fiction?

I would say that it can be. Certainly a good piece of interactive fiction would make a good game, but I would also say that games do not necessarily require stories in order to be good (see Super Smash Bros., which had NO discernable story).

Question: Do you think it possible for a game which evokes a lot of unpleasant emotions on purpose (e.g. frustration, sadness) to be good? That is, through the natural progression of a game you experience these things, not just when you die.

Definitely. Frustration ultimately sweetens the triumph of a victory, while any game that makes you care enough about it to be sad when things go poorly, or happy when they go well, is a seriously good game.

Is it possible for a bad game to be addictive?

Not really. The Sims is the closest "bad game" that was addictive, but I don't even really consider it to be a game because there were no objectives and no rewards for accomplishing the objectives that you set for yourself.

[SPOOFE]

For me, a game isn't good unless it has crates. Everywhere.

[Trogdor]

Is it possible for a bad game to be addictive?

Unfortunatly, yes. I've watched a friend of mine do nothing but curse while he plays Sonic Spinball but be unable to put it down. I tried that game myself, it's really frustrating, but it is hard to put down. You just can't help thinking, "This thing only has 4 levels, and it's fucking PINBALL! I should be able to beat this!"

As for the main question, I think what makes a game good varies by genre. Super Smash Bros. Melee had very little in common with, say, Red Alert 2, but both were very good games.

[The Wookiee]

Games that have a deep, compelling story and intuitive gameplay I consider good. Everything else is more or less secondary. That's part of the reason why I tend to prefer RPGs.

[The Wookiee]

Is it possible for a bad game to be addictive?

Unfortunatly, yes. I've watched a friend of mine do nothing but curse while he plays Sonic Spinball but be unable to put it down. I tried that game myself, it's really frustrating, but it is hard to put down. You just can't help thinking, "This thing only has 4 levels, and it's fucking PINBALL! I should be able to beat this!"

Your friend is not alone...

[Hawkwings]

there are really two categories of games for me. "small" ones like Tetris, and "big" ones like any RTS or RPG. They're fun for different reasons.

Tetris is simple, very clean, very obvious what you must do, and it doesn't end. The reward makes you keep playing, it's what actually *lets* you keep playing, meaning that the game rewards you for playing for longer times.

"Big" games, I like detail. Lots of details is good. It doesn't have to be in graphics either. Stuff like little sounds, little effects, maybe another character walks with a limp, or your weapon has a manufacturer's name stamped onto it. Little stuff adds up.

Of course, all little stuff and crap for the game is no good either.

[salm]

Immersiveness

[The Jester]

Interface is a big word, yes. What I mean is that the act of playing the game should be mostly transparent. If you need to stop and think about the interface for more than a few seconds, then there's something wrong with the interface.

Interface is also how a game communicates its environment to you. The simplest control system ever is not going to help you if you're constantly troubled by bad camera angles. I'm sure more than a few of us have own fair share of experiences with games where we are somewhat frustrated with our perspective of the gaming environment.

If you want to see a master of interface design try playing some of the more recent Maxis games, such as Sims 2. Click on Sim, click on target, give order. Doesn't get much more simple than that.

Well, it again depends on how the object is presented. Because I'm sure we've all had experience in adventure games where we've missed some object simply because it wasn't readily apparent that we could interact with it.

Replayability is actually the ability to create a new experience by playing through the game again. Take Baldur's Gate II, for example, since it's one of the most replayable games I've ever had. Baldur's Gate II had a large variety of classes and sub-classes that your character could choose from, each with unique strengths and weaknesses and abilities to bring to the game.

So do you feel it is interchangeable with game length? Suppose the game was the same the second time through though was twice as long (400 hours, ouch) would you feel that it would be just as good then?

To use Baldur's Gate II, again, as an example, the first and most obvious goal was getting through the game and defeating Irenicus. After my brother and I had completed the game, though, we went on wildly different paths with our subsequent trips through the game: he tried to get through the game using fewer and fewer party members (ultimately getting down to a single character),

Actually, I don't believe the designers intended to challenge players in such a manner here, but it's more something players have come up with in order to challenge themselves since they have been challenging themselves like this for a long time in all sorts of RPG's. The game gives them the means of incurring the handicap upon themselves, but its the hardcore players that want to see just how far they can go.

I would say that it can be. Certainly a good piece of interactive fiction would make a good game, but I would also say that games do not necessarily require stories in order to be good (see Super Smash Bros., which had NO discernable story).

Suppose Super Smash Bros. had a story (use your imagination) and it was horrible. You literally couldn't stand it, but you were given the ability to skip it entirely under options or a different game mode or whatever. It was the same Super Smash Bros. you know and love, but had an optional story. Would it be a worse game than what it is now if everything was the same? What if you couldn't avoid the story elements, would it be worse then?

Definitely. Frustration ultimately sweetens the triumph of a victory, while any game that makes you care enough about it to be sad when things go poorly, or happy when they go well, is a seriously good game.

Suppose we turn it around then. Suppose the game designer is a real sadist. He wants to hurt players make them feel loss and generally batter them emotionally until they give up. The only reason why you may feel happy at any given point is so the game can make you feel worse again. Would you like to try it?

Not really. The Sims is the closest "bad game" that was addictive, but I don't even really consider it to be a game because there were no objectives and no rewards for accomplishing the objectives that you set for yourself.

Have you ever played GTA for a number of hours just trying to run amok, not caring about any of the missions included in the game?

Unfortunatly, yes. I've watched a friend of mine do nothing but curse while he plays Sonic Spinball but be unable to put it down. I tried that game myself, it's really frustrating, but it is hard to put down. You just can't help thinking, "This thing only has 4 levels, and it's fucking PINBALL! I should be able to beat this!"

Chalk another one up to cognitive dissonance. I think it occurs quite frequently, that a player will sit down at a game believing that he will have fun playing it. Even if he's not enjoying it, and is incredibly frustrated by his lack of achievement, he will still continue playing. Why? To justify the time already spent playing in attempting some goal. Of course, this just leads to more time being spent on the game which leads to more dissonance and so forth. And at the end of the day he's somehow forgotten that the whole experience was fun. It's really quite incredible how often it happens actually.

[McNum]

Interface is a big word, yes. What I mean is that the act of playing the game should be mostly transparent. If you need to stop and think about the interface for more than a few seconds, then there's something wrong with the interface.

Interface is also how a game communicates its environment to you. The simplest control system ever is not going to help you if you're constantly troubled by bad camera angles. I'm sure more than a few of us have own fair share of experiences with games where we are somewhat frustrated with our perspective of the gaming environment.

If you want to see a master of interface design try playing some of the more recent Maxis games, such as Sims 2. Click on Sim, click on target, give order. Doesn't get much more simple than that.

Well, it again depends on how the object is presented. Because I'm sure we've all had experience in adventure games where we've missed some object simply because it wasn't readily apparent that we could interact with it.

Of course. As I said if you have to stop and think about it, then it's bad. That goes both ways. Unless the game is based on pixel hunting a game should give some indication, even if it's subtle, of what options the player has. Likewise it should always show when pley player does something and communicate the result back. If I use Zelda for an example again, in the upper right corner of the screen there's a layout like the buttons on the controller. The red B button has a sword on it. And the X, Y, and Z buttons are customsable for up to three different items. If you press B Link uses his sword, and you can see and hear Like slashing with it. Press another button with an Item on it and he'll use that item. And I believe the Zelda games, were the first to use the lock-on camera. It was introduced in Ocarina of Time. You lock on an enemy and the camera automatically tracks both Link and the Enemy so both are in view all the time. Or if no enemies are near the button resets the camera. Handy button.

For helping the player out should he get stuck in a puzzle Link's eyes will always track the next object to be used if you leave him alone for a while. He might look at a cracked wall, for instance, cluing in the player that a bomb might be good here. Or you can ask... Tingle. But you need a GBA for that.

But basically you're right. Interface goes both ways. Great controls mean nothing without apparent reaction from the game, and an apparent game can be ruined by sloppy controls.

[LadyTevar]

See my thread about MonsterRancher = crack for gamers.

[Master of Ossus]

Replayability is actually the ability to create a new experience by playing through the game again. Take Baldur's Gate II, for example, since it's one of the most replayable games I've ever had. Baldur's Gate II had a large variety of classes and sub-classes that your character could choose from, each with unique strengths and weaknesses and abilities to bring to the game.

So do you feel it is interchangeable with game length?

Uh... no. A game shouldn't take more than about 40 or 45 hours maximum to accomplish the standard objectives for a novice player (ie. "beating the game"). Players, though, when they're done should feel as if they still have work to do before they can say that they've mastered the game.

Suppose the game was the same the second time through though was twice as long (400 hours, ouch) would you feel that it would be just as good then?

It depends. Games that use gimicks and such (ie. "Play through the exact same game, again, but this time the enemies do double damage and you do half") are usually not too rewarding. Once a player has already beaten the game once, it gets really hard to squeeze more satisfaction out of beating it again, even if it's harder (sort of like kicking one dog, then graduating to kicking a bigger dog isn't that big of a deal).

Actually, I don't believe the designers intended to challenge players in such a manner here, but it's more something players have come up with in order to challenge themselves since they have been challenging themselves like this for a long time in all sorts of RPG's. The game gives them the means of incurring the handicap upon themselves, but its the hardcore players that want to see just how far they can go.

Regardless, the game still allows such behavior and creates a rewarding and fulfilling experience for players who do decide to pursue such goals, just as DKC's DK coins were rewarding for people who wished to find them all.

Suppose Super Smash Bros. had a story (use your imagination) and it was horrible. You literally couldn't stand it, but you were given the ability to skip it entirely under options or a different game mode or whatever. It was the same Super Smash Bros. you know and love, but had an optional story. Would it be a worse game than what it is now if everything was the same?

Yeah, it would. A game shouldn't do things it's simply not going to succeed with. The game wouldn't be much worse, but if it tried to do something and failed then it would be pointless.

What if you couldn't avoid the story elements, would it be worse then?

Almost certainly.

Suppose we turn it around then. Suppose the game designer is a real sadist. He wants to hurt players make them feel loss and generally batter them emotionally until they give up.

That seems impossible, but okay.

The only reason why you may feel happy at any given point is so the game can make you feel worse again. Would you like to try it?

I might pick it up, but fulfilling games and cinema achieve emotional appeal when they provide a range of emotions and feelings.

Have you ever played GTA for a number of hours just trying to run amok, not caring about any of the missions included in the game?

Actually, I haven't. I did play GoldenEye for a little while just plopping grenades and blowing up enemies on the "infinite spawn point" levels, and shooting them in the limbs just to prolong their electronic suffering.

[The Jester]

Uh... no. A game shouldn't take more than about 40 or 45 hours maximum to accomplish the standard objectives for a novice player (ie. "beating the game").

Why? What is wrong with a game that a novice plays for 1000 hours if he enjoys it?

Once a player has already beaten the game once, it gets really hard to squeeze more satisfaction out of beating it again, even if it's harder (sort of like kicking one dog, then graduating to kicking a bigger dog isn't that big of a deal).

So what you're saying is that the second time through a game a player should have a different objective than from the first play through, right? You mean even if it's the same game, same difficulty (or different difficulty), players should have another objective set for them as they play through the game normally?

Would it be a worse game than what it is now if everything was the same?

Yeah, it would. A game shouldn't do things it's simply not going to succeed with. The game wouldn't be much worse, but if it tried to do something and failed then it would be pointless.

Even if it is identical in every other regard? Even if the exact same elements which you enjoy are completely preserved and unchanged? What makes those elements less fun so that the game is worse?

Suppose we turn it around then. Suppose the game designer is a real sadist. He wants to hurt players make them feel loss and generally batter them emotionally until they give up.

That seems impossible, but okay.

Why would it be impossible? Many people play addictive games even though they don't enjoy them. Why not have a player compelled to play a game that will only treat him bad?

I might pick it up, but fulfilling games and cinema achieve emotional appeal when they provide a range of emotions and feelings.

I bet it'll be too intense for you and you'll never get through it. C'mon, prove you're a tough guy.

Actually, I haven't. I did play GoldenEye for a little while just plopping grenades and blowing up enemies on the "infinite spawn point" levels, and shooting them in the limbs just to prolong their electronic suffering.

Did you do this before or after finishing the game?

[Stark]

What's your agenda? You start with an open question that is very general in nature, and then not only seek clarification but argue with people. What are you looking for?

I'm a negative person: a good game for me is one that doesn't have any bad things, like

linear, hackneyed plots
cheating/spawning/inconsistent AI
unrealistic player containment
poorly thought out HUD/controls
poor goal/plot/reward structure
no decisionmaking
overemphasis on balance

A game can be good (if unremarkable) if it has small goals but achieves them. 'Swhy small, simple games are easier to get right than more complex ones, I guess. SSB:M is an amazing game, as is Viewtiful Joe: getting something like Civilisation right is going to be much harder (particularly if you're Sid Meier).