What makes a good game???

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

This is a very simple question that spawns many different answers, because people like different things. I and most hardcore gamers though, believe that Gameplay itself is the most important factor, I mean if it doesn't play well, then who cares how good it looks, and hell you can usually download the soundtracks.

So what makes a good game, feel free to use other games for examples of what you're saying.

[JACK-2]

Jun 1, 2008 7:25:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

This is a very simple question that spawns many different answers, because people like different things. I and most hardcore gamers though, believe that Gameplay itself is the most important factor, I mean if it doesn't play well, then who cares how good it looks, and hell you can usually download the soundtracks.

So what makes a good game, feel free to use other games for examples of what you're saying.

Everything if you ask me, sure there are things that are more important than others like gameplay. But, a really great game is one that simply perfects everything a game is judge by and takes it to a next level.

Legend of Zelda: Ocarina of Time
Street Fighter II: Hyper Fighting
Super Mario Bros.

Are a few example of games on that level.

[Dja Majista]

I'm gonna look at Spiderman 2 here, because, at least for me, it poses a lot of problems to this question. In many many respects, it is a poor quality game. The voice acting is far below mediocre. It's littered with simple recurring glitches. Overall, everything is just sloppy. Except nonetheless, it manages to be incredibly fun. With this game, it's easy for me to say it's one of the most enjoyable games of played. But since a good anything is something that does what it's supposed to do well, I find it a daunting task giving it a high score as a good game, since I would have to put such huge priority on fun factor instead of immersion, learning curve and all that... I mean a game pulls you in more when it has less of those simple programming issues and graphics problems.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Well gameplay alone makes a game good, IMO. Or maybe just fun. Then again a game can be top notch and have the best people funding it, and be lousy. Maybe there should be a distinction between good and great.

[Dja Majista]

gameplay is so vague. If you think about it, that really includes tons and tons of things, i.e. difficulty, learning curve, controls, concept, so on and so forth. Some games are addictive, and yet are no fun at all, so it just pisses you off that you spent so much of your time. Some games are very rewarding and addictive. A good example is diamond mine, a simple internet game. Some games aren't addictive at all, and yet you can enjoy getting a bit of time in and your satisfied. This thing called fun factor is very easy to find in games, even the low quality ones. But the real question is "How is it fun?" Is it rewarding, addictive, satisfying?

[JACK-2]

Well, what kind of answer are we looking for? Are we asking what makes a game fun or what makes a game high quality?

[Psyquis52]

Jun 2, 2008 18:22:15 GMT -5 JACK-2 said:

Well, what kind of answer are we looking for? Are we asking what makes a game fun or what makes a game high quality?

It's all perspective man.

Just tell us what you think.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 2, 2008 15:35:48 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

gameplay is so vague. If you think about it, that really includes tons and tons of things, i.e. difficulty, learning curve, controls, concept, so on and so forth. Some games are addictive, and yet are no fun at all, so it just pisses you off that you spent so much of your time. Some games are very rewarding and addictive. A good example is diamond mine, a simple internet game. Some games aren't addictive at all, and yet you can enjoy getting a bit of time in and your satisfied. This thing called fun factor is very easy to find in games, even the low quality ones. But the real question is "How is it fun?" Is it rewarding, addictive, satisfying?

Why would it be addictive and not fun? Battletoads takes tons of restarts, hence the people who hate it are the ones who can't beat it. No way would someone go through all of that if they didn't like the reward of beating a level.

And like I said before, glitches don't make a game bad, to a degree. BG2 is a huge game and has several glitches and bugs, hence several patches, and that game is probably the best or one of the best RPG's ever. IMO of course, but it's a highly reviewed and appreciated game nevertheless.

Spiderman 2 is probably the best movie game out there, especially for superheroes. Considering the amount of time they lack, they did a really good job with it. Not to mention they were trying something new. Which carried on later, and into games like The Hulk.

Gameplay is just how the game plays, or how fun it is. (Depending if the two are seperated or not) it includes a lot of things, but it's molded into one. Sounds and controls are seperate, but those can be many things into one.

Soundtrack, sound effects, sound blend. Control setup, control customization, responsiveness.

Graphics, blur, frame rate, able to see what's going on. All of them are tons of things in one.

[Sinistrous]

Average and even poor games can be fun just as much so as games that are actually good or great. The Spiderman 2 game is pretty damn average across the board (not quite poor though). Awful camera, terrible plot/dialog, rushed level design, boring music/sound, and a horde of technical issues are thrown into a pretty simple yet promising formula of GTA-meets-superhero game with the emphasis on beat-em-up combat. Again, it's an average game. However, the overall style of the game lends itself well to an energetic performance from the player (CM and DM in particular should know what I'm talking about) and works as a one-trick outlet in this regard. So it can be fun, sure, but that doesn't make it good. Of course, you're welcome to think it does just that, but I doubt you'll find that a good qualifier after a bit of scrutiny ("I enjoyed watching Plan 9 from Outer Space, does that make it good?").

Jun 3, 2008 10:57:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Why would it be addictive and not fun?

Games are like drugs in a lot of respects. They can be just as addictive and folks tend to become jaded to their effects (aka fun) over time.

[Sinistrous]

Jun 2, 2008 15:35:48 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

gameplay is so vague. If you think about it, that really includes tons and tons of things, i.e. difficulty, learning curve, controls, concept, so on and so forth. Some games are addictive, and yet are no fun at all, so it just pisses you off that you spent so much of your time. Some games are very rewarding and addictive. A good example is diamond mine, a simple internet game. Some games aren't addictive at all, and yet you can enjoy getting a bit of time in and your satisfied. This thing called fun factor is very easy to find in games, even the low quality ones. But the real question is "How is it fun?" Is it rewarding, addictive, satisfying?

Wow, I'm surprised to see we reached similar points of view, but not too much so. Maybe if I had read your response earlier my original post would have been different. Still, I think we should clarify a few things, primarily being whether satisfaction, addictiveness, and sense of reward are an aspect/form of fun or if they're separate entities.

Personally, I vote the latter and I'm guessing you do as well. When I have fun with something (be it a game or movie or whatever), it's a pretty similar feeling each time no matter the medium. The only thing I ever see change is the amount of fun I have each time. This makes sense so far, correct? The deal breaker here, though, is that when you read Hobbes or something, it's not exactly "fun" material though it is rewarding. Your standard video game like Metal Slug is not exactly rewarding, but is pretty damn fun. Both are responses from the player, but they're entirely separate ones. Satisfaction (which is more or less the same as 'sense of reward'), addictiveness, and many others are the same way.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 17, 2008 19:37:22 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

Average and even poor games can be fun just as much so as games that are actually good or great. The Spiderman 2 game is pretty damn average across the board (not quite poor though). Awful camera, terrible plot/dialog, rushed level design, boring music/sound, and a horde of technical issues are thrown into a pretty simple yet promising formula of GTA-meets-superhero game with the emphasis on beat-em-up combat. Again, it's an average game. However, the overall style of the game lends itself well to an energetic performance from the player (CM and DM in particular should know what I'm talking about) and works as a one-trick outlet in this regard. So it can be fun, sure, but that doesn't make it good. Of course, you're welcome to think it does just that, but I doubt you'll find that a good qualifier after a bit of scrutiny ("I enjoyed watching Plan 9 from Outer Space, does that make it good?").

Jun 3, 2008 10:57:54 GMT -5 The Big Daddy C-Master said:

Why would it be addictive and not fun?

Games are like drugs in a lot of respects. They can be just as addictive and folks tend to become jaded to their effects (aka fun) over time.

True, hell, even Big Rigs can be fun, but it sure isn't good. But if a game has a lot of effort into it and blows, could it be considered good? I guess the question should be the difference between good and entertaining. (Overall)

[Sinistrous]

No, it couldn't be considered good because it blows. If you put your maximum effort into pushing a door that's clearly intended to be pulled for proper operation, you don't get a C for effort, you're just singled out as retarded. With a video game it can be more complicated than that, but I think you have the basic idea.

As for the other half, a game being good means it has some sort of impact on the player - a reward if you will. Good games tend to not be a complete waste of time and aim for being more than just an entertaining bit of escapism. Entertainment (we both know what that is) isn't necessary in a good game, but it generally doesn't hurt either and it is, more often than not, the more common aim with video games.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 17, 2008 22:02:20 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

No, it couldn't be considered good because it blows. If you put your maximum effort into pushing a door that's clearly intended to be pulled for proper operation, you don't get a C for effort, you're just singled out as retarded. With a video game it can be more complicated than that, but I think you have the basic idea.

First of all...

there we go. I'm happy now.

Wow, I'm surprised to see we reached similar points of view, but not too much so. Maybe if I had read your response earlier my original post would have been different. Still, I think we should clarify a few things, primarily being whether satisfaction, addictiveness, and sense of reward are an aspect/form of fun or if they're separate entities.

Personally, I vote the latter and I'm guessing you do as well. When I have fun with something (be it a game or movie or whatever), it's a pretty similar feeling each time no matter the medium. The only thing I ever see change is the amount of fun I have each time. This makes sense so far, correct? The deal breaker here, though, is that when you read Hobbes or something, it's not exactly "fun" material though it is rewarding. Your standard video game like Metal Slug is not exactly rewarding, but is pretty damn fun. Both are responses from the player, but they're entirely separate ones. Satisfaction (which is more or less the same as 'sense of reward'), addictiveness, and many others are the same way.

I agree, to take the latter choice: they are separate entities, but I think they all contribute to the fun that's yielded, and the way in which it is fun. Some games are simply good time wasters, which IMO is the cheapest kind of fun you can get, but it still does classify as fun. Pokemon and various JRPGs might find themselves categorized here at least when it comes to the level grinding aspect. It takes relatively no skill to train your characters, and the only mental work you really have to do is decide where your going to train. Otherwise, your progress is almost entirely based on how much time you spend with the game.

Then you have the kind of fun that comes from being good at the game. I can think of several titles where the fun really begins after you've cut past the learning curve and the controls feel completely natural. Spiderman 2 comes to mind here, as does starcraft and of course Street Fighter. Games like this not only demand your attention and make for a good time killer, but they also serve to occupy the mind sufficiently, which is much more satisfying then, say, leveling up your dragonite to 100. Similarly there are games that are enjoyable even when you suck at them and get much more fun as you get better, like smash bros. The mark of these kinds of games is the capacity for just having great moments: A perfectly timed zerg rush, a great comeback, or an insane custom combo. That and the ability to actually use your head in a game to make a difference: an ingeniously laid out farming field, an excellent strategy, or a good fake out. This I believe is the best kind of fun a game can offer. Now don't get me wrong, I don't mind a game that is designed for noobs to play well and have fun. I'm not saying games should have a skill requirement; they should simply get rid of the skill limit. In some games, most notably JRPGs and the like (yeah I know I'm bashing them a lot, but I still play them), you can only be so good. And even if you are better than someone else at playing smart, the real deciding factor for the winner remains at "what level you are," which is based almost entirely on how much time you've spent playing. WoW fits in quite nicely into this category actually

And then there is the rewarding aspect. Now, here, I'm not necessarily talking about how accomplished you feel after playing. I'm simply talking about the in game experience. Part of what makes the game diamond mine so addictive is that every so often you'll match up 3 diamonds or whatever, and it will chain into this huge combo with tons of other diamonds falling into place. It's an incredible feeling, and it drives you to keep playing, but that's got nothing to do with the accomplishment you feel after playing. If you get any accomplishment at all, it was probably because you got a high score. Metal Slug is extremely rewarding in game IMO simply because everything blows up so nicely. After playing that is a different story.

So I guess we could distinguish between the two by saying the sense of reward you feel afterwards is satisfaction. But how rewarding it is in game is... how rewarding it is... Because the two are definitely different.

Then, you bring in the kind of fun that is completely person specific. I can think and pace for upwards of four hours but other people might think that is hell. Similarly, I don't see myself playing basketball for upwards of four hours either. You brought up Plan 9 which is a perfect example: you can get fun from laughing at a game, but that takes more than just the game to have fun. You would need your own sense of humor. The thing is, if we want to place fun into the formula for how good a game is, it has to be reasonably universal fun, and it has to be experienced just by playing the game, not doing any extraneous activities to help the process along.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 17, 2008 22:02:20 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

No, it couldn't be considered good because it blows. If you put your maximum effort into pushing a door that's clearly intended to be pulled for proper operation, you don't get a C for effort, you're just singled out as retarded. With a video game it can be more complicated than that, but I think you have the basic idea.

As for the other half, a game being good means it has some sort of impact on the player - a reward if you will. Good games tend to not be a complete waste of time and aim for being more than just an entertaining bit of escapism. Entertainment (we both know what that is) isn't necessary in a good game, but it generally doesn't hurt either and it is, more often than not, the more common aim with video games.

As in if a game was really "well made and thought out" but it just wasn't fun to the subjective likes of the player, does that make it a bad game?

You can find anything rewarding though, I might pop in a mediocre game and complete something that I wasn't able to, or find some special passage that I did on accident or have read about online or something. I wouldn't say that necessarily makes it a well made game. For instance I could take game that isn't that good, use a fun cheat and make it rewarding for a short time. I'm sure we've all done that before.

Funny picture by the way.

[Sinistrous]

Remember, if we wanted to distinguish between "sense of reward" and "satisfaction", there would have to be a reason to do so. Satisfaction and reward don't exactly appear or disappear out of nowhere as soon as you flip the power switch off; it's a collective sort of thing. Look at fantasy books for instance: people read those to get a sort of collective experience if you will. That experience (or REWARD) lasts as long as they're reading and some time after as well, depending how good and stimulating it is. It's the same thing in an adventure game and the only thing that changes with the game genre is the type of reward -- strategy games like Starcraft or Civilization tend to be more mentally stimulating whereas action games like Guardian Heroes or Spiderman are more about reflexes and coordination.

Also, I don't really think there's fun that isn't person specific. How entertaining something is almost entirely depends on the persons own quirks.

CM, remember that just because a game isn't fun doesn't mean it's not good. I believe I already mentioned that even poor games can be fun. That doesn't magically make them good though. Also, when you mention finding something rewarding, it looks to my eyes like you're talking about how much fun something can be. Like when you use a fun cheat on a not-so-fantastic game? That's just making it more fun. Accidentally finding level 6-66 in Mario World is closer to what "rewarding" would be, but that's more of a little extra either way you look at it. If there was some real effort involved on the player's part to get to this area, then you would have that reward or sense of satisfaction we're talking about.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 19, 2008 20:49:46 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

Remember, if we wanted to distinguish between "sense of reward" and "satisfaction", there would have to be a reason to do so. Satisfaction and reward don't exactly appear or disappear out of nowhere as soon as you flip the power switch off; it's a collective sort of thing. Look at fantasy books for instance: people read those to get a sort of collective experience if you will. That experience (or REWARD) lasts as long as they're reading and some time after as well, depending how good and stimulating it is. It's the same thing in an adventure game and the only thing that changes with the game genre is the type of reward -- strategy games like Starcraft or Civilization tend to be more mentally stimulating whereas action games like Guardian Heroes or Spiderman are more about reflexes and coordination.

Also, I don't really think there's fun that isn't person specific. How entertaining something is almost entirely depends on the persons own quirks.

CM, remember that just because a game isn't fun doesn't mean it's not good. I believe I already mentioned that even poor games can be fun. That doesn't magically make them good though. Also, when you mention finding something rewarding, it looks to my eyes like you're talking about how much fun something can be. Like when you use a fun cheat on a not-so-fantastic game? That's just making it more fun. Accidentally finding level 6-66 in Mario World is closer to what "rewarding" would be, but that's more of a little extra either way you look at it. If there was some real effort involved on the player's part to get to this area, then you would have that reward or sense of satisfaction we're talking about.

I know that, I was asking or am asking for an example of what would be a not fun good game. Because all games get boring, but games are either good or bad to start with. Like I was saying, Big Rigs can be fun simply because of the humor associated with how bad it is. Wasn't there a game on Dreamcast about the sailor looking for his father, it was well made but many complained it got boring. Perhaps that is a good example.

I guess it depends on the viewpoint. I could use mapmaker to make a decent game very rewarding. All in all what is said generally makes sense, but in a way it's hard to say a game is good when it is never fun, because their aim is to be fun in the first place.

I guess it's like saying an educational video that is funny is a good video. But it has to be educational, which is it's aim. If it's funny and not educational, then it is not a good video if it's aim was to be educational. Games are meant to be rewarding to a degree yes (like most things), but they are ultimately meant to be fun, and while what may be rewarding and fun may very from one person to the next, unlocking that super secret character, level, or item that was hard to do isn't nearly as rewarding if it wasn't really fun doing it. That is just my opinion.

[Dja Majista]

Jun 19, 2008 20:49:46 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

Remember, if we wanted to distinguish between "sense of reward" and "satisfaction", there would have to be a reason to do so. Satisfaction and reward don't exactly appear or disappear out of nowhere as soon as you flip the power switch off; it's a collective sort of thing. Look at fantasy books for instance: people read those to get a sort of collective experience if you will. That experience (or REWARD) lasts as long as they're reading and some time after as well, depending how good and stimulating it is. It's the same thing in an adventure game and the only thing that changes with the game genre is the type of reward -- strategy games like Starcraft or Civilization tend to be more mentally stimulating whereas action games like Guardian Heroes or Spiderman are more about reflexes and coordination.

I can't agree with you here. The point of separating the two is to say that reward does not necessarily lead to satisfaction. The fact that they can exist independant of one another is all the reason we need to separate them. Now in the games you've mentioned, I see the satisfaction afterwards appearing from things like I talked about above: a great strategy or just a flat out gorgeous combo. These are things you remember. Just another day of dungeon crawling does not usually make one feel happy they spent the past five hours playing <insert jrpg here>. The thing about a game that rewards, is that it doesn't have to do much to keep you playing. My example with diamond mine was intended to show a rewarding quality, that in reality isn't that big of a deal, but the game tries to make you feel like it is. Look at WoW. The money is completely virtual, yet it means everything to the people who are playing. So getting a gold coin in game feels pretty good. Of course, if your not playing, you could care less. Also, a lot of what made pokemon addictive (for me anyway) was just leveling up and hopefully evolving. I remember wasting hours on my stupid game boy leveling up my charmander, while we were in a hotel nonetheless. And every five minutes of playtime was simply dedicated to getting that next level, my long term objective was to evolve, but each level meant I was one step closer. If I had gotten my head out of the game for a bit, I would have realized that this place had a pool with a hot tub and whirlpool.

Also, I don't really think there's fun that isn't person specific. How entertaining something is almost entirely depends on the persons own quirks.

Though my point was to say the game's fun factor should only be reasonably universal (as with Halo, or maybe Starcraft), your point remains: fun should probably not be used as a measurement for greatness at all... unless of course we can find an instance of a not so great game that nearly everyone who plays it finds very enjoyable. Of course that would probably never happen. If anything, greatness should be a good way of telling how fun a game will be, not vice versa.

I guess it's like saying an educational video that is funny is a good video. But it has to be educational, which is it's aim. If it's funny and not educational, then it is not a good video if it's aim was to be educational. Games are meant to be rewarding to a degree yes (like most things), but they are ultimately meant to be fun, and while what may be rewarding and fun may very from one person to the next, unlocking that super secret character, level, or item that was hard to do isn't nearly as rewarding if it wasn't really fun doing it. That is just my opinion.

I completely disagree with your last statement. Satisfaction can occur completely independant of fun, and it does so often. You don't usually hear someone say, "Wow, I'm getting my ass handed to me by a comp! This is fun! ;D ." It usually goes something like this: "!@$# your stupid ressurection! Why don't you just die you stupid $^%@? I #@$!ing hate Gill! I am so gonna raid Capcom after this!... $#@%!!! Not again!!!" But after you finally beat him, the former person seems more likely to say something like. "Gotcha! Haha, that was so much fun. I'm glad I beat him! I wanna do it again. " Whereas the latter: "Fork yeah! Eat it you @#%$! YES!! Oh yeah, did you see that!? PWND! PWND!!! This is going in the record books for being the best PWNAGE ever!"

As to your first statement, I really like your approach, how your viewing this. A good anything is something that does what it's supposed to do well. A good game therefore must be reasonably fun. But the problem with this as we've all talked about above is that fun is varies from person to person, and from how you're playing a game. Fun factor alone is very very difficult to measure, so instead, when we look at greatness, we're looking at the specifics, the detail, the formula. As a game reviewer this is the best approach to take for a reason. If you can say that a game is great, and why it is great for it's genre this is much more helpful for readers. Say Joseph reviews TS3 and gives it a 9/10 saying it is excellent, and I happen to love FPS's, I can be pretty confident that I will have a fun time playing this game. Whereas, if I'm not into FPS's, I would still be able to respect TS3 for the great FPS it is, but could probably care less about looking at it. The thing about judging a game based on greatness, is that it offers a bit more objectivity in your opinion, and most of all it offers much more specificity than just saying, "It was fun for me. I hope it's fun for you too."

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

Jun 21, 2008 22:14:13 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

Jun 19, 2008 20:49:46 GMT -5 Sinistrous said:

Remember, if we wanted to distinguish between "sense of reward" and "satisfaction", there would have to be a reason to do so. Satisfaction and reward don't exactly appear or disappear out of nowhere as soon as you flip the power switch off; it's a collective sort of thing. Look at fantasy books for instance: people read those to get a sort of collective experience if you will. That experience (or REWARD) lasts as long as they're reading and some time after as well, depending how good and stimulating it is. It's the same thing in an adventure game and the only thing that changes with the game genre is the type of reward -- strategy games like Starcraft or Civilization tend to be more mentally stimulating whereas action games like Guardian Heroes or Spiderman are more about reflexes and coordination.

I can't agree with you here. The point of separating the two is to say that reward does not necessarily lead to satisfaction. The fact that they can exist independant of one another is all the reason we need to separate them. Now in the games you've mentioned, I see the satisfaction afterwards appearing from things like I talked about above: a great strategy or just a flat out gorgeous combo. These are things you remember. Just another day of dungeon crawling does not usually make one feel happy they spent the past five hours playing <insert jrpg here>. The thing about a game that rewards, is that it doesn't have to do much to keep you playing. My example with diamond mine was intended to show a rewarding quality, that in reality isn't that big of a deal, but the game tries to make you feel like it is. Look at WoW. The money is completely virtual, yet it means everything to the people who are playing. So getting a gold coin in game feels pretty good. Of course, if your not playing, you could care less. Also, a lot of what made pokemon addictive (for me anyway) was just leveling up and hopefully evolving. I remember wasting hours on my stupid game boy leveling up my charmander, while we were in a hotel nonetheless. And every five minutes of playtime was simply dedicated to getting that next level, my long term objective was to evolve, but each level meant I was one step closer. If I had gotten my head out of the game for a bit, I would have realized that this place had a pool with a hot tub and whirlpool.


Though my point was to say the game's fun factor should only be reasonably universal (as with Halo, or maybe Starcraft), your point remains: fun should probably not be used as a measurement for greatness at all... unless of course we can find an instance of a not so great game that nearly everyone who plays it finds very enjoyable. Of course that would probably never happen. If anything, greatness should be a good way of telling how fun a game will be, not vice versa.

I guess it's like saying an educational video that is funny is a good video. But it has to be educational, which is it's aim. If it's funny and not educational, then it is not a good video if it's aim was to be educational. Games are meant to be rewarding to a degree yes (like most things), but they are ultimately meant to be fun, and while what may be rewarding and fun may very from one person to the next, unlocking that super secret character, level, or item that was hard to do isn't nearly as rewarding if it wasn't really fun doing it. That is just my opinion.

I completely disagree with your last statement. Satisfaction can occur completely independant of fun, and it does so often. You don't usually hear someone say, "Wow, I'm getting my ass handed to me by a comp! This is fun! ;D ." It usually goes something like this: "!@$# your stupid ressurection! Why don't you just die you stupid $^%@? I #@$!ing hate Gill! I am so gonna raid Capcom after this!... $#@%!!! Not again!!!" But after you finally beat him, the former person seems more likely to say something like. "Gotcha! Haha, that was so much fun. I'm glad I beat him! I wanna do it again. " Whereas the latter: "Fork yeah! Eat it you @#%$! YES!! Oh yeah, did you see that!? PWND! PWND!!! This is going in the record books for being the best PWNAGE ever!"

As to your first statement, I really like your approach, how your viewing this. A good anything is something that does what it's supposed to do well. A good game therefore must be reasonably fun. But the problem with this as we've all talked about above is that fun is varies from person to person, and from how you're playing a game. Fun factor alone is very very difficult to measure, so instead, when we look at greatness, we're looking at the specifics, the detail, the formula. As a game reviewer this is the best approach to take for a reason. If you can say that a game is great, and why it is great for it's genre this is much more helpful for readers. Say Joseph reviews TS3 and gives it a 9/10 saying it is excellent, and I happen to love FPS's, I can be pretty confident that I will have a fun time playing this game. Whereas, if I'm not into FPS's, I would still be able to respect TS3 for the great FPS it is, but could probably care less about looking at it. The thing about judging a game based on greatness, is that it offers a bit more objectivity in your opinion, and most of all it offers much more specificity than just saying, "It was fun for me. I hope it's fun for you too."

I see what you're saying but I don't buy that. They might not say out loud that being beat is fun, but making it that far in itself was a rewarding enough experience to make it that far, whether it was the first time playing, or in multiple times playing, otherwise they wouldn't go through the headache of fighting him. So it might not be as rewarding as winning at times, but it's rewarding. I'm sure it's easier to remember having a hard time with something and beating it rather than just blazing through it, that is just how real life is.

[Sinistrous]

I hate getting to these things so late.

Jun 21, 2008 22:14:13 GMT -5 Dja Majista said:

I can't agree with you here. The point of separating the two is to say that reward does not necessarily lead to satisfaction. The fact that they can exist independant of one another is all the reason we need to separate them.

Remember, we're talking about "sense of reward" not just "reward". A reward can be anything you receive for something; that's not what we're talking about. We are referring distinctively to that feeling that the player gets as he/she's accomplishing a task and afterward.

When performing a great strategy or combo, that satisfaction and sense of reward is most certainly there, you might just not have noticed it because A) you're focused on the game and B) you haven't finished your task yet. When you finish it, that bit of satisfaction and sense of reward is a much greater one because now the tension is relieved (like the clouds making way for the sunshine *glitter* *faggotry*), your task is complete, and you were finally man enough to save the president!

I suppose if you really wanted to you could make an argument about satisfaction being the constant and reward being the big bloody aftermath, but the feelings would still be indistinguishable outside of their placement. After all, a minor chord is still a minor chord even if it's played a second later and twice as loud.

The thing about a game that rewards, is that it doesn't have to do much to keep you playing.
---snip---

You do realize that all of what you mentioned is part of the addictiveness, right? It's not the same thing as a reward. Rather than actually affecting the player, it just keeps them playing much like a losing gambling spree. They're related, yes, but that's just the nature of games and their content.

Though my point was to say the game's fun factor should only be reasonably universal (as with Halo, or maybe Starcraft), your point remains: fun should probably not be used as a measurement for greatness at all... unless of course we can find an instance of a not so great game that nearly everyone who plays it finds very enjoyable. Of course that would probably never happen. If anything, greatness should be a good way of telling how fun a game will be, not vice versa.

There is absolutely no "unless" about it. Even in the infinitely small likelihood that every living person found one specific game that was enjoyable despite the games abhorrent lack in real quality, that doesn't make the games quality bounce up, it just means that it was "lucky". What in the nine hells do you mean by reasonably universal, anyway? That kind of statement assumes way too much of the masses. Anything less than 100% isn't what I'd call accurate.

I know that, I was asking or am asking for an example of what would be a not fun good game. Because all games get boring, but games are either good or bad to start with. Like I was saying, Big Rigs can be fun simply because of the humor associated with how bad it is. Wasn't there a game on Dreamcast about the sailor looking for his father, it was well made but many complained it got boring. Perhaps that is a good example.

Honestly, I don't see much point in answering that. Even though fun factor is not a great qualifier in terms of overall quality (as it depends on more than just the content of the game), it is still the most common aim among game developers - you know, to make a fun game - so you'd be less likely to find games that aren't fun that don't have some huge failing that hurts its quality (also remember that there's a distinct difference between flaws and failings). Still, Shenmue - that "sailor-hunting game" you're talking about, that would be a good example. I played it a bit and it was pretty solid; not much fun but it was pretty engrossing. I'd like that to try that game again sometime, actually. Anyway, you could say a lot of adventure games do that (gosh, I really keep pushing those things, don't I?): they're not always fun in terms of that "wheeee" feeling, but they can really draw you in. That doesn't make them good though; what makes them good is what they draw you into and how well they do it.

Also, David, I wouldn't give Future Perfect a 9/10. It's really just an above average game with some nice charms about it. Maybe 6/10 or something. Actually, I've been thinking about switching to that "out of four stars" system. Four would mean great, three would mean good, two would mean average, one would mean poor, and none would mean an abomination upon us all. Of course, I could go between those for stuff like above average (two-and-a-half), very good (three-and-a-half), etc. etc. What do you think? I like it a lot better than that gay old grade-school-light stuff.

[The Big Daddy C-Master]

I see what you mean as in it's the most common aim therefore having that isn't enough to set it above the rest. But not having something that is pretty much concrete and the whole point makes it not great either. It might have "potential" as some may say, but it isn't really great.

The four start system makes sense. Timesplitters Future Perfect was a very fun and well made multiplayer game, the story was decent this time around but it wasn't the cream of the crop. I'd give the multiplayer a 9 or so and the story a 6.5 or 7.

Twisted Metal Black was a great game, it's one of the few games I can honestly say I have really no complaints on, there are no large flaws in it to me. Sounds are great, graphics were great, control was great, balance was great, just an all around great game. People who are new to the series might find it hard but even they enjoy it.