Good Games...

#1 That's gonna be different from person to person. That's why we have different genres. I like a long game with an involved storyline that twists and turns. Some people like simple puzzle games that is redundant in gameplay, but simple and adictive in concept. In the end though, if you have a learning curve of over a half hour, it won't be as successful. Control schemes need to be easy across all genres. Graphics and sound are important, but not so important as to sacrifice plot or gameplay. The key: Immersion. Make the world outside of the monitor displaying the game melt away. Make the player only see the game and not want to quit until he has accomplished a certain goal that he has set for himself. If you can make the player yell profanity at his game as often as he yells "ALLRIGHT!" then you have a fun game. If there is anything that makes the player's eyebrows raise, then you have a successful game. Be original, yet stick to the tried and true fundamentals. Confused yet? (C:

#2 very well said jeremy - as I agree myself.

It'll be more than difficult - if not impossible for everyone to have fun at a certain game.

Your question is a bit vague as well, as this can differ in so many ways - which as jeremy said, why there is genres.

To me, I like plots or some sort of a storyline to follow, fast action - action thats constant and doesnt waver too much, gotta be original too - cant have your old chaingun in every game ...

#3 Really when it comes to action, constant is great, but after playing Deus Ex I decided that if you chop it up, it can be really cool too. The game never really had any 10 minute long action scenes in the first place, but it got pretty close sometimes (if you insisted on killing/knocking out every guard you could). It also had a kind of thriller storyline type thing where you'd have people explaining things while you do the mission, so while you are sabotaging something you'd have a guy explaining another little bit of the conspiracy, kept your mind going. After you'd be done with a few missions, there'd always be a little opportunity to mess around, get random items, etc, but you didn't really have to wait if you didnt want to. You could go, get the mission, and not spend 1 second outside of conversation standing still, if you wanted to. I think the player can set the pace better than any level designer.

Still it's tought to beat constant, involving action. Any game that keeps me really involved for at least 2 hours gets huge approval by me.

#4 I like this question just because it makes me think about why I like the games I like.

Let's see...IMO Twisted Metal: Black is the absolute best game I've ever played (and I've played many many games). I completed it with every character, unlocked everything that can be unlocked and still play it with my friends. So the question is, why? I'll list:

1) Gameplay was dead on. Controls were natural, physics rocked, challenging AI.

2) Level design - Levels have excellent design and are interesting. Some were small, some huge allowing for different tactics on each level.

3) Character design - Their stories ROCKED. Each of their cars matched the personality of the character to a T. Not enough can be said about the character design in this game.

4) Car variety - Each car has a specific special attack, facilitating a variety of tactics at your disposal. Also, the cars were balanced incredibly well.

5) The carat leading the horse design. Some levels have secret objects used to unlock new characters and new levels. This made me want to explore each level. Every third level or so, a new piece of the characters story was unlocked and displayed to you. This also kept me playing.

6) Graphics - The overall atmosphere in this game is excellent. From the people running around on the battle ground to the Zepplins flying over head on the prison level. Weapon effects were dead on and the cars were animated in different ways to show the current weapon selected.

#5 The entertainment value of the game dictates whether or not a game will be enjoyable to the individual user or not.

Vague answer? You are damn right it is, and why is it so vague because different factors for each individual game are what makes it entertaining, you cannot create a list or forumula for a "good game" because it will never apply the same way twice.

Logan

#6 I can, and did, create a list for a single game and what I thought was great about it though. The one thing that could be gleaned from such a list is the concept of the Total Package.

TM: Black had everything they set out to do with excellent quality. It wasn't just another FPS wannabe. I would say that the best ANY developer can do is to not do anything half assed. If you are going to have multiple characters, do it well (balanced, development, etc.) If you are going to have multiple levels, make ALL of them interesting. The one thing that every good game has in common is the "What's next?" factor, or the reward for continuing to play. Whether it's level 120 in Tetris, or getting all 100 packages in GTA III. Screw this up, all thats left is crap with pretty colors.

Edit:
It actually would be interesting to list every game you enjoyed playing and why. There are bound to be things that fall into many of the different games and genres. I fail to believe that some "truth" couldn't be gleaned from such a poll. Hell, the entire "science" of psychology is based on less :p

#7 The kind of computer games that I find addictive and that I've noticed friends do as well are those games that persuade the player that they are taking on a role. To immerse the player inside another world and allow feasible interaction with it's contents and other players whether AI or real.

The ones that provide rewards for work done in whatever format that may take and allow the player to create higher-order complexities that evolve from simple gameplay interactions.

They can provide sensory stimulus that would ordinarily not be available. They can appeal to peoples darker sides and give them an outlet for vanity, rage, domination, anger, greed. Alternately you could provide an outlet for competition, collaboration, leadership.

Whatever your game is, I'm convinced that appealing directly to multiple combinations of the above is what makes the game addictive to a certain concensus.

Appealing to the mind of the player is a powerful way of thinking about your game design. At work we developed a 3D XRay scanning product for security where we present stereo images to an operator. We play all sorts of little 'tricks' on the mind using imaging to do the hard work in the operators brain. We can fool the operator into thinking something is happening when in-fact it's not. Writing a game is similar to this, that's why the immersion is so important.

Please don't take this as trying to kill this discussion, quite the contrary, I find discussions on the nature of games very interesting. There is definately not enough discussion on these forums regarding this subject.

There is alot to be learnt about analysing why certain games work and others don't. Some people will attribute a success to great graphics or failure to poor sound. Whether it is true in the specific case is not important but to seek the answer generally is.

- Melv.

#8 Great answer Melv!

I'm really sorry for what I said in my "3 years from now post", but I was a bit worried, with your answer knew that I would just go for it, and see what happens. You are the greatest person in the community that I know of, and Im realy sorry for doubting your work, and the work of the devs.

#9 Chris,

My previous post was not targetting at any individual so don't worry mate. I didn't even think you were doubting anyones work or abilities on the forum so again, don't worry.

I understand the appeal of fancy graphics and it certainly has it's place. I for one enjoy developing such code as the rewards come quick in terms of eye-fodder. I just think it's crazy-talk to discuss graphics as the crux to gaming, it's crazy. I do salute those who want these things in their games but I would hate to see it become an essential part of any game development cycle. Indies have got it hard enough without adding to the already large pile of essential elements that must feature in any game.

Graphics are important, no doubt but the hardware accelerated features found in cutting-edge graphics cards are *not* a requirement of any particular game.

The fixed-pipeline affords tremendous power to existing game genres and shouldn't hold back any form of game development.

Also, I thank you for your compliment but please, I don't see how I'm the greatest person in the community. There are others who deserve the title much more than I in terms on input and content. I guess we all have our own favorites, good knows there are others in this community who I equally admire.

Cheers Chris,

- Melv.

#10 Melv - Can I quote you? I think you're going to be required reading for how to identify the success factors in great game play, that was very concisely put.

This thread is nearly the exact question I wanted to pose for discussion, but not quite as specific.

GarageGames has made FUN the most important criteria for THE quality needed in a game to be published with GarageGames.

What is FUN?

It might be one the most subjective and hard to define emotional experience you can have. We seem to know it when you've had fun, in the human experience we tend to identify when we've experienced it "boy, that was fun" looking for the shared experience and re-enforcement of others that something was truly fun, but if you ask someone why something was fun or what was fun about their experience they might be at a loss for words to describe what the essence of fun really is.

I haven't had the chance to do much primary research on this topic, but it would seem like the physiological responses experienced during game play should have been studied by now in some depth and the responses associated with when a game is "fun" might also have been identified.

Jeff Tunnell and I have talked about what creates an Ah Ha! experience (which is great fun) in Chain Reaction and other more cerebral type games. This is just one small element of what makes a game fun and dare I say "addictive".

I think this topic is of extreme importance when you're designing a game, being a student not just of what you find fun, but what is fun about other popular games computer and non-computer (that might not be your uber game experience) is fundamental to the business of successful game development and marketing. When The Sims & Roller Coaster Tycoon top the sales charts and people seem addicted to MahJong or Pool there is an important lesson to be learned in understanding what different gamers experience in what they consider a great game.

So with that let the FUN begin.

#11 It's been my experience that there are base needs that a game can fill in a persons life (I can hear all the groans now but bear with me). In order for a game to be fun and addictive it needs to satisfy at least one of those basic needs. Two of the most commonly used basic needs in games are the need for friendship and the need for accomplishment.

For all of you nay sayers out there, this is why Counter-Strike was so well done. It had the potential of satisfying both of those needs. You needed to work as a team in order to win a match. Now for those of you who played CS religiously you know that the most important thing to you was probably your kill count. This brought in a theme of competetiveness which gave the player another chance to be successful and being the person with the most kill. Your team winning was still important but only because it gave you more money.

But what made Counter-Strike so addictive was the fact that it could satisfy your need for accomplishment and then in an instant make you feel failure. This same philosophy applies to puzzle games. The key to not loosing a player when they feel this sense of failure is to have a positive reinforcement. In other words the player must be able to feel like they will be able to accomplish something again next time. Seems obvious doesn't it?

For a puzzle game the best way to do this is to try to get a player to lose a match before they have reached a point were they don't think they can go on. That way if they play it again they will believe that they will be able to get farther then they did last time. If they do it will once again satisfy their need for accomplishment.


Alc

#12 Yes, please quote me Jay and yes, I totally agree with your post. As you say, the rewards from being a student of "why games are fun" are beyond comprehension.

Perhaps the root answer is undefinable or sits in the midst of a chaotic set of rules, who knows?

Either way, it's an interesting topic and should be the driving force of game design rather than graphical considerations.

- Melv.

#13 I agree with Melv. I also notice that as rules increase, the way in which we define fun is complicated exponentially. Here's a thought I came up with, if my POV can add to this subject:

Case in point: Anarchy Online vs. Mahjong

Mahjong is a very simple game with a very simple set of rules(Pong even more so, probably as simple as you get), and yet it is extremely addictive, despite it's relatively "unchanging landscape" of levels. The simple ruleset provides a very narrow path to reaching "fun" which is difficult to stray from.

Anarchy Online is, on the other hand, a very complex game with a wide path to "fun" and easy to stray from. Aside from the fighting, there are tradeskills and other aspects that complicate the goal of the game developers to make it fun. So many more things can go wrong in it's gameplay or rules system that it needs extensive testing to get off the ground, and once up and running, needs periodic game balancing and patching to refine it.

I think that no matter the genre, and regarding just about every component of a game, the KISS principle should be heavily employed.

Just remember that if you throw a kid into a room filled with fancy toys, they'll inevitably start playing with the cardboard box it came in. Tap *that* part of a persons brain, and you'll get them back for more, I think. Like MMP's let people use their imagination to assume the role of their character or the simple amusment of Pong, it all gets traced back to that cardboard box being used as a fort or being swatted repeatedly by a 10 month old.