The top 5 features of a Game

#1 In my opinion the top 5 in no order:

1)Gameplay : has to fit it's intended audience, if it's a fun light game, it should be such, if it's a deep strategic game, thats what i expect. But there are some common ground which seperates good gameplay from poor ones.

a)Clarity and competence in execution of the design. This has much to do with UI/documentation/level design and programming.

b)Novelty of the gameplay, not something revolutuonary, which is rare, but more distinguishing features which can rasies the game above others within its genre.

c)Completeness, a vauge variable, basically a measure of user expectation and how often the game meets them.

2)UI design : I feel UI can make or break a game. From all the games i've played, the most memroable ones are those which eliminate the boundary between the game and the user through an efficent and intutive UI design. From the keymap, panel layout, and mouse interface which not only meshes seamlessly with the game but also empowers the user.

3)Sound and music : Sound and music can boost a good game into a great one. Sound/music has such a powerful subconcious infulence on the player, it cannot be ignored. I've tryed playing some games without sound, there was a noticable depreaction in terms of quailty of gameplay and atmosphere. Like anything, if done poorly, it will have a determinatal effect.

4)Graphics : I like good graphics, though under some condition i'm willing to make exceptions. If im playing a solo-developed independent game, i'm willing to see through the graphics, for the gameplay, if that's what they are selling. For commercial games, I dont make any exceptions. If the game isn't as good looking as it's contemparay, that is a neagative insentive to play that game. As an artist myself, I think i can say what makes graphis good :

a)Level of detail : all the small things, where you look where you shouldn't and see the hand of the artist.

b)Overal cohesion of design and look and feel: The pixel detail of objects have to match within a scene, the UI has to have good color and complementary color schemes, the movement between panels must be thematically and logically arranged, and the art / sound much compelment each other.

5)Performance : If a game runs dog slow, that is a major reason not to play it. A game must perform adequately under its normal gameplay load. Conversly if it runs blazzingly fast, but lacks all those other features above, I'm not going to play it either. This is the least of the 5 i would say. Included in this criterion is load time, save time, start up time, gameplay during normal load, ability to switch out of the game and minimal crashing events.

Good Luck

-ddn

#2 In order...

1) Gameplay
2) UI - Control & Feedback
3) Sound and Graphics (Information content, not how pretty it is)
4) Performance, esp. loading times
distant 5th) Music and CutScenes etc.

#3 RTS
1 - UI
2 - Gameplay
3 - Performance
4 - Sound
5 - Graphics

I need to be able to move, select and build units as fast as possible without having to think about it. Units have to be balanced, levels must load relatively quickly with no sudden pauses or slowdowns during large battles. Sound and graphics can be overlooked so long as the game runs in at least 800x600 and looks KKND level or higher.

FPS
1 - UI
2 - Graphics
3 - Performance
4 - Sound
5 - Gameplay

I need to be one with my gun. I play these games for a relaxing half hour or so of good-looking carnage. The maps should be built so that the game will not run slowly at any point, AI must be able to dodge incoming fire without completely annihilating me. Gameplay only comes in because I want some interesting guns or twists.

RPG
1 - Storyline
2 - Gameplay
3 - UI
4 - Sound (Atmospheric music in this case)
5 - Cutscenes

I don't care about graphics in this type of game, can be purely text-based and, so long as the story line and gameplay are engrossing enough, I'm happy. I do like cutscenes for major advances in plot though (Like FFVII, love that game). Music is a must for this type of game, but can't be repetitive or out of place.

#4 1 - Graphics & Gameplay (tie for #1)
2 - Music and sound
3 - Details (little things you don't normally think about but add up and make a difference in the long run)
4 - Compatibility (users can't like it if they can't run it)
5 Performance

#5 Regardless of the game genre I feel there is only one feature that makes a game great or makes it a side-note in gaming history...

How well does the player get engrossed with it

If someone falls in love with a game and can truely picture themselves in the situations that they are throw in a game they will remember it for a long time, they will take about it at the water cooler, and they will get their friends to purcahse it.

IMHO engrossment into a game comes from a care balance between design, programming, and art. Each of these cannot be too strong to overpower the others and they cannot be too weak as to make a noticable hole in the game.

Aside from that any other feature is just a feature that is covered under one of these three categories.

Logan

#6 Man graphics should come last excpet for pointless, mindless, shoot anything that moves fps games, and even then if they manage to get the gameply great then it won't matter. There are too many games *cough*quake3*cough* that focus more on graphics and then the gameplay sucks (I don't care what you people say, the AI was so bad and non-realistic. not stupid but too smart, no locational damage, and the weapons are far from balanced, just so they could spend their time on getting pointless curves that noone pays attention to anyway excpet the people trying to sell the game and for technology demos). Anyway. Good graphics are a great addition, don't get me wrong, but if you have to sacrifice gameplay for it because of you want top of the line graphics then it's not worth it. Then again pretty screen shots do sell games but mostly when boxed. In ESD it's a whole different ballgame because you really have to rely more on demos then screenshots.

but whatever htat's just my 2 cents

#7 Anyone that says graphics should come last needs to realise that people don't find out about anything else until AFTER they open the box or download and play the game.

Paraphrasing what you said in more detail, the average joe walks into a store to buy a game, has no idea what the game is about, never saw any reviews, is totally ignorant of anything a "gamer" knows about games... What does he base his purchase on? More than likely he bases his purchase decision on the screenshots on the box.

You could have a game with the best gameplay in all history, but poor graphics sitting on a shelf right next to a game with poor gameplay, but good graphics and the average Joe will buy the one that has better graphics.

Gameplay is important, I'm not saying otherwise (that's why I said it ties for most important). All I'm saying is that graphics can bring in lots of sales (so can gameplay, but again, that's why I say they tie).

You may be right about ESD being different; However, chances are a demo with nice screenshots will get more downloads and hence get more exposure...

#8 Although this is slightly off topic and branches more into the presentational/marketing aspect of a game. Daniel has made a good point that people do look at the pretty pictures when they are in a store looking at which game to buy.

But chances are they are going to buy the game with the best marketing hype attached to it (and the most lucrative shelf space). This is probably the greatest factor in game sales, even if the game sucks eggs and shouldn't have been released in its current state ().

There are a lot of visually impressive games on the market and looking at the boxes or marketing material you are slightly impressed by what you see, but do you still buy the game because it has some pretty pictures on the back of the box? No. You buy the game because the marketing engine has made X title sound like it will give you the Game design, the programming, and the graphics that will produce a killer title.

But the presentation and marketing is not a factor of game design, which this discussion is about, so any more discussion on it should be ignored.

I agree that Mathew Shapiro was slightly incorrect on his statement that graphics should come last and alluded that you can ignore them in favor of programing and design.

You need all three, and you need them in a harmonious balance if you want to achieve a great game. By great I mean a game that most people with an intelligence will agree was incredible. A game that you can install right now and its still just as good as it was when it first came out.

Logan

#9 I didn't mean to ignore it but i just meant you shouldn't make great graphics at the expense of gameplay. There's a reason people still play text games.

#10 A note about my ranking. I include AI in gameplay and if we had to rank the top 5 aspects of gameplay AI would be #1 (Multiplayer is good but it comprises only about 5% of my total game playing so good AI is much more important)

More generally, I don't think the original question was intended to be about what sells games but rather what individuals consider to be important. On that basis you can't say that anyones ranking is wrong.

But while we're on the marketing topic, most of my game purchases are based on recommendations (mostly from friends) not box covers. I agree however that screenshots do play an important part as far as getting the word-of-mouth ball rolling, but desginers notes are also an important source. In their most limited form these notes can just be game features but a full description of the design goals and decisions is very useful in judging whether or not a game will be good for you.

#11 depends on the games marketing. if youre marketing a boxed shelf game, then you need bleeding edge graphics. if youre making an esd or mail order only game, then graphics arent as important as addictive gameplay. word of mouth is going to sell more games of this type than anything else. most garage game spinoffs are going to be niche games.

i totally agree with the spirit of shapiros post. game companies are waaaay too hung up on graphics at the expense of other features. q3 and ut are perfect examples. you get this GORGEOUS blond with NO brains. great for a week or so then its on to something that can maintain your interest. as for maintaining a balance, its a good principle, but only as a rule of thumb. its like learning the rules as an artist - you learn them so you know when and how to break them.
as far as im concerned, i would be happy to see V12 games that improved on every aspect of current games BUT graphics. graphics have leapt out in front of every other feature of games and are very good now, to the point where im thinking that theyre almost 'good enough.'
I know that will never really be true until games achieve photorealism, but c'mon, tribes looks better than most cartoons for chrissakes! the the other aspects of games need much more attention.

#12 For me it is rather simple:
1) Fun - you can call this gameplay if you want, but it is more than that. It has to do with the whole feel of the game. You could have great gameplay, but the creators could have no style in the game and it would be boring. Quake is fun, but you could take that same gameplay and switch it to a team of accountants running around adding numbers, and it would for the most part get boring. Unless the accountants were all wearing clown suits, then it would be a winner...

2) Clown Suits - You really live or die by these, but they could be what turns your marginal success to the next myst or windows...

3) Audio Content - If I have no reason to want to listen to my own cd's, then I won't be bothered by the fact that the disc of the game is using my precious CD-Rom slot...

4) Genre - Honestly, I won't play a game that offends me either morally or intellectually. Throwing those out, I probably won't play an FPS version of Barbie Dream House either. So a game that I will enjoy will have to be a type of game I like. I am more willing to play, say, a game based on The Hobbitt than one based on NASDAQ.

5) Graphics - I like my games like I like my comic books. I don't want art that is distractingly bad, but I also don't need art that requres me upgrading my CPU and my vid card. Somewhere in-between lies my Graphic Utopia. Think Monkey Island...

Well, there is my probably less than informative thoughts. I hope I didn't offend anyone. Yeah!

#13 I mostly play Quests and RTS and here is what i look for:

1)Good story , no bullshit , no cliches , and if posible
fused with the game , not just a between the mission text
(in an RTS =Starcraft must have the best story i have ever seen in a game).

2)Gameplay :can't play it if the controls are buggie or hard to master(again Starcraft is easier even than AOE2 that appeard after i think).

3)Graphics : eyecandy!!!!!!

4)Good Cut-Scenes , i prefer cinematics because their better looking(Starcraft movies were great especialy the BrooWar intro).

5)Good music , music is much important than speech to me because it has a bigger contribution to the general feeling.

#14 1) Enjoyment (FUN factor)
2) immersiveness (graphics and sound)
3) originality (NEW FEATURES!!!)
4) re-playability
5) AI (not just computer players, but pathfinding etc)

#15 1)Story
2)Gameplay
3)Variety
4)At least satisfactory graphics
5)Innovation

#16 1. Story.
It is the story that will make a game memorable for me. When I feel like I am in a vintage (not antiqe, but not old either) game mood, I don't pop in Quake or Diablo (yes, they have stories, but fairly weak ones), I start up Civilization II, X-COM, or Fallout.
"Wait a second!" You might ask, Civilization hasn't a solid storyline. But I didn't say storyline, did I? Story is different from storyline. Storyline is a set path from A to B. Story is the feeling that the player is in a living, breathing, changable world. In Civilization this came as the interaction between civilizations in trade, treaties, or conflicts. In X-COM the player is allowed his choice of research from point A to point B, eventually ending in a battle on Mars. At any point between the beginning of the game and the end of the game, players are given boundless decisions about how the aliens will be dealt with. I find that immensely enjoyable. In Fallout the world had more side quests than storyline quests. Some would require you to asassinate a gang leader (in your own gruesome fashion) or retake a person's farm from ghouls, or find a suit of the ever-coveted power armor (I always thought it was dumb that you couldn't lift it from dead Brotherhood guys. That was my one complaint).
Anyway, I realize that I have written many lines about only the first thing I like in games. I'd better get to the rest before I fall asleep!
2. Gameplay.
This one is fairly simple. A game that is easily accesable, both in the UI and in the flow of the game. Under this falls the Blizzard-coined cliche of "Easy to play, hard to master." I think one reason Blizzard has never produced a bomb was because their interface was so well concieved. Units are built from structures, click on the structure, build units. Simple enough. In other interfaces I have seen the steps are more complicated. Units come from structures. Build units from a sidebar that come out of a user-defined place that may or may not be the place that unit was produced. This is more steps than are neccecary. Complicated games are hard to get into. Starfleet Command Volume II (not mine, I am borrowing it from a freind. I disown myself from Star Trek games even though I find the series' immensely enjoyable to watch.) was very hard to get into, even though the gameplay once in 'the groove' was enjoyable, intense, chalenging, and entertaining. I still think that the Gorn were cheating though.
3. Graphics and Music
I lumped these two together incorrectly, but it serves my purpose for now. They are completely different in stance, but complete similar functions in a game. Graphics make the gamer pause and look. In awe he thinks, How did they do that! It is incredibly enjoyable to be suprised by what would seem to be an ordinary game. When I first saw the Halo movies, all I could think of was, Holy Crap! That alien got sniped from a freaking mile away! That made me very excited about Halo (it still does. I want to drive the alien tank with the big blue blasty turret thing! It has reflective paint too!).
Anyway, graphics are the thing that pulls a person to a game. It is the story that keeps a person playing.
Music plays a similar role, but not quite. Music I have found plays a part in affecting the emotions of the gamer. The first time I noticed that was when I downloaded the .midi files of all the songs in Final Fantasy VII. When I heard certain tracks, it brought an unexpected response. Further, I could pinpoint when each song was used, even after not playing the game for two years. A more current example--and to me much more powerful one--is Homeworld. I somehow got an .mp3 file of the chorus from Homeworld singing Agnus Dei, the main song of Homeworld. This song is played at key times throughout the game to enhance your emotional response. The song is played in the beginning of the game when you first see the mothership, when you return to Kharak and find it burning (and in the end-mission FMV), and at the very end of the game when you return home and retake your home planet. All of these events in the game have an important emotional significance. The Agnus Dei track only enhances that significance.
4. Sound Effects.
Unlike music, sound effects are to flesh out the game world. When a sound effect is done well, it is original, fits the sound-effect generator well, and is used at appropriate times. It is my opinion that good sound effects are a bonus, but unless the sound effects are truly cacophonous, I don't think that sound effects make a big impact on how I percieve the game.
5. Voice.
Remember in High School (maybe some of you don't) the standardized rubric sheet? It was a way of evaluating papers based on how well they did in certain areas. The system is whacked because it doesn't differentiate between good writing and writing that does well on the rubric. In any case, one of the sections was Voice and Tone. Voice and Tone was the name for the writer's style and whether it was apparent in the piece. Voice is similar to that. Voice is a mixture of many different fields that come together in creating a game of a certain aura. Movies directed by Tim Burton have a distinctive flavor to them. All of his movies have a strangly surreal quality to them. That's Voice. Fallout had a very 1950's feel to the GUI and to all the items in the world (burnt out cars, computers, buildings, etc). That is voice.
Voice makes up my number 5 because it is one of the things that makes a game interesting to play. Fallout was interesting because everywhere you went there was more almost-1950's crap laying around. If you were lost you could consult your 1950's-ish pip-boy to help you out. I find voice both entertaining and crucial to coninuing the illusion of being someone else. It is often harder to pretend to be a lead character in a game when the world you pretend to live in is so similar to the one you really do live in.

Well, that completes my list. It is about 12 times longer than I thought, and I should've been doing my LitComp homework instead. Maybe this will be my LitComp homework. Kill two birds with one stone.

BTW--"Kill two birds with one stone" How? I haven't even been able to kill one bird with one stone. Blast it all!

#17 Holy Crap! I did write a lot didn't I.
The worst part is that I do have better things to do!

#18 1) gameplay (if its not fun i wont play it more than once)
2) graphics (if it doesnt look good i will be less likely to give it a chance)
3) a point/story (im getting sick of quake III and Unreal tournament and games that dont really have any point, just killing)
4) imersiveness (if it doesnt feel right it just sint the same)
5) Originality (ive played plenty of fun generic games but its nice to have somethign new everynow and agian)

#19 1. gameplay/fun if it dont take at least aweek to finish its no fun

2.story

3.the next story/game/sequill (the mor the better

4.afordabilty

5. the source

#20 1. gameplay
2. gameplay derived from AI
3. gameplay derived from level design
4. gameplay derived from story
5. gameplay derived from audio/visual stuff

Game play is really the only thing that matters TO ME. All the other "features" should be there at the service of gameplay. Unfortunately, "gameplay" is a slippery and elusive term, and few have tried to develope a vocabulary for seriously discussing game design as an art form (Greg Costykian comes to mind ) that might be a nice thread to start...

The result is that Marketing and Ad people have to latch on to other "features " to try to sway the buyers...so we get features like "Mind blowing Graphics" ,"fully immersive 3D world" and "epic story" promoted on the box and magazine ads.

When is the last time you saw a game ad that listed "fun to play" as a feature ?

That said, other things will matter more to the buyers. There is a certain level of technological sophistication a game these days must have, or it will be ignored as "old" . Ya gotta have purty 3D! Ya gotta have tons of cool levels! etc...so for the purposes of a PROFITABLE game, the above list doesn't necessarily apply