Do the Best Games Have Something in Common?

[StevenM]

Recipe for the best game.

Looking back through the most popular games, are there common elements that make them more enjoyable?

I thought just a little 'bout this. I've come up with:

- Many strategies and tactics available, but without dampening the difficulty. Problems with only one solution do not stimulate the rewards of using creativity. Makes the problem and solution more personal.

- Atmosphere. Sometimes what turns me off about a game, is a 'plain', shallow atmosphere. This would include the visual palette's being used, and the tone elements of the audio. That doesn't mean I prefer bright, colourful rainbow games. There are palettes that are better than others, which depends on a strong branding or theme of the general game.

- A game is like a song. I have played some 'bad' games, where it begins with point - shoot, then progresses with point-shoot, all the way to the end with point - shoot. It was like a bad song with the same measure repeating unchanging to the very end. With super-mario, there would be an intro, verse(s), chorus, and a conclusion. Level 1, 2, 3, castle. 4, 5, 6, big boss. Or in earlier final fantasies, there were 'periods'. Story period, fighting period, stocking up equipment and building abilities period, boss periods. A teasing pattern, with dynamic tempos, full and then thin, melodic with disharmony, all put together with professional artistry.

You people usually come up with better things. What is a generic 'recipe' for a good game?

 

[SpaceYeti]

A good game is one that's predictable. By that, of course, I don't mean that what happens is obvious, but that, if you pay attention, all the clues were there, even if you guessed incorrectly. It's kind of like what makes a good mystery or horror movie. Scary movie (though a parody) is the perfect example. Nobody guessed it was Doofy, or whatever the guy's name was, but after it's revealed all the pieces fit. Of course, video games aren't typically horror or mysteries (thank goodness), but the same concept applies. What you need to do should be intuitive if not spelled out.

Along similar lines, it has to be reliable. Taking the same action over and over shouldn't result in a lot of different things in similar circumstances. Inventory should be reliably accessible, doing seemingly harmless things shouldn't cause injury and panic, killing one chicken shouldn't make you instantly wanted dead.

It should also give the player some measure of freedom to control their character. Certain situations and activities may require specific combinations of buttons, but the player chooses that action. I actually hated God of War, because it's not really a "game" that you "play", it's a really long Quick Time Event. While I certainly prefer open worlds, I'm not even saying it cannot have a railroad plot or stage layout or both, it just shouldn't make the important things a character does to win the stage, or area, or quest a boring thing to do, or something it feels like they had no impact on

Of course, there's a rhythm to it, as well.There should be an opening to each different part of something, with mostly a common way of dealing with most threats with only a few variations of the same, basic threat, followed by a climax. Games are, after all, just interactive stories. I won't even claim the plot is super important, the "story" here can be simply the action and excitement, but it follows the same basic rules.

There should also be some down-time. This isn't too important if you can simply pause, but some of the best D&D sessions (just as an example) were ones where no battles were fought, it was just a bunch of RP. I think the equivalent in video-games is a safe-house of some kind. Somewhere where you can look through inventory and extra inventory, play with inputs, gain some information or plot advancement without threat of some kind, or just goof off.

 

[Yellow]

A good game needs a balance of instant and delayed gratification. With an eye toward long term strategy, but the option for mindless repetition if you want a distraction without the thinky pain.

It must have secrets and shortcuts that aren't easy to find your first run through, but allow you to skip to your favorite parts when you decide to play the game again.

There should also be a dynamic equilibrium between action and exploration. By that I mean, there should be moments of intense action to interrupt the normal game play.

That's all I can think of to contribute.

 

[The Gopher]

Yes, they are all good.

 

[onesteptwostep]

It depends on the genre, but with RPGs I think it depends on a couple of things: plot, input, objective.

The plot is the narrative which provide the objectives for you to enjoy smoothly the game. Objectives allow for a combinations of control inputs which provide a sense of creative freedom and rhythm. A sense of freedom and creativity, and rhythm derived by the controls (within the narrative/plot) is what makes the game enjoyable.

But that's really only for RPGs or MMORPGs in general, the single player games.

 

[Alias]

To make a good FPS, you need loadout variety, teamwork, good graphics (and by good I mean distinguishable, in lots of games these days it's hard to tell who you are.), and some form of long-term strategy.

That's why I love Team Fortress 2. Multiple weapons and weapon choices that allow individualization, 60s cartoony graphics that allow you to see everything, and certain classes with a focus on impacting the team in the long run.

Also you can goof off and dance and wear hats.

 

[Sir Eus Lee]

Re: Recipe for the best game.

Good games have very simple ideas behind them, but can be taken to additional levels very easily and have lots of variation. Like minecraft. It has a very simple idea and interface, but its become a very big thing for its simplicity, but also it's scaleability. If you look at a game that was simple, but didn't scale, like 2048 or flappy bird, they were both pretty addictive but that wore off because people get bored of thing that have no variation. But to compare phone apps with a pc game is a hard one. Pc games are generally more in depth anyway.

 

[Haim]

Nothing of what you all told are a must for a good game.
A good game world has a good personality,technically graphics and audio may suck, the gameplay might be endless farming(pokemon) and the story is cookie cutter,still you might play it and like it.

That is why some popular games seem like luck,Angry Birds for example.

 

[StevenM]

Nothing of what you all told are a must for a good game.
A good game world has a good personality,technically graphics and audio may suck, the gameplay might be endless farming(pokemon) and the story is cookie cutter,still you might play it and like it.

That is why some popular games seem like luck,Angry Birds for example.

So something along the lines of good product branding?

 

[Ex-User (9086)]

Recipe differs from person to person.
I specialise more in niche, hardcore strategies and rpg's, I wouldn't touch FPS or platformer games.

Every niche and demographics has areas of interest and focus, sometimes these overlap.

If we look at the totality of every target group, replayability and flow are the most important common factors. Most of the bigger games have specialists working on designing the flow experience for the average user. The balance of challenge and reward is adjusted to fit their average agility and mental capacity, so that they feel successful, engaged and rewarded for their work when playing.

With the biggest studios, another important factor comes to play, that is winning the marketing battle and review placement.
If the game studio or their product manages to convince the early adopters, or the game reviewers that their product is worthwhile, then there is a huge crowd of players who will play the game to join their friends who already play on multiplayer.
Many of the triple A games are chosen predominantly because other people play them and they facilitate group inclusion.

There was some market research, showing that the majority of people don't have a specific taste. They don't know what their expectations are. So it's important to create a convincing substitute and make them believe it's what they wanted from the beginning.

The big game has to only be average, what makes it so successful afterwards is the adoption from the community that the sales department has to achieve.

 

[Haim]

​

So something along the lines of good product branding?

Not at all.
I look it as a form of art,the more you put yourself into it the batter it is.
If look at a "good" art it is like looking at a person,a personality.
In this part subjective enter,what kind of personality you like?
Do people really know what they like?

The personality I like is unique,a lot of new things to see,physical action,non generic crap(like shooters),not doing the same thing all the time.
But all that is just in false theory,so many games are great none the less:
MGS,pokemon,ff7,megaman battle network(love the gameplay),dbz legacy of Goku,zoids legacy.
So there is no way to really tell what I like,but a game that I like have personality that I like.