What Makes A Good Game?
 

Over the years I have spent a new house on video games and the like and in all of that I have perhaps four or five games that I keep playing, not because they are good games, but because they are superior games.

I think that those games all share some common traits that most new games have seemed to over look. Important features that keep people interested in the game and make for a truly good game.

I believe that game play as much as depth of play are key points to any game. What sperates average games from good games are the details such as moddability, support, and replayability.

Most games are a once through then toss in the box experience while other games are consitantly played and replayed.

We all have our personal favorites so I ask you, what makes a good game good?

For me it has to be involving with strong replay desire. It has to be moddable and well supported. The game play has to be fun, almost captivating in nature, and above all else, the has to be sufficently designed as to allow for a new experience each and every time I play by having significant and affective customizable settings.

Games like Tribes and later FarCry provided for breath taking expansive game maps that allowed players to advance upon a target in multiple way thus providing for the onset of tactics and strategies. These games set a standard with their non-liniar, non scripted game play. The same can be said about Space Empires IV, no two games are ever the same.

I enjoyed being able to make maps and mod Tribes which gave the game an edge over most simular games of the time. SEIV also provided for moddablity on an unprecidented level which unquestionably has been a key factor in its lasting appeal over the years.

However, SEIV has gone way beyond the typical 4x game by providing for extended customizable races and game settings. Most 4x games have locked in, limited or token settings such as those in GalCiv or MOO3 as recent examples.

SEIV allows players to play as any race they choose and they can even make their own. No other 4x game in the last five years has given the player so much unobstructive game play.

If more and more game developers would recognise the value of making their games easy to mod, with sufficent cheat protection, and allow for customization of the game settings then more and more games would become good games over average games.

Lets face it, what characterisitics do all of your favorite games share? Mine were, customizable, moddable, replayable, addictive, and allowed for emerrsive reality forgetting game play.

Not many games can make the claim to have all, but thankfully I found a few that did.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

One thing I have noticed over the years in games that I think are superior is how they handle the introduction of new things during a game - specifically the rate.

Take SEIV for example. You are constantly exploring, expanding (4x) gaining new techs, building more ships, upgrading, growing your population. Lots of games attempt to do this very thing. But think for a moment about the RATE at which you get these things. The optimum rate is one that truly gives you that "just one more turn" feeling so that I can get that XXX on the next turn. If the game is too long and drawn out, it may be good, but eventually you lose interest because it is simply too slow. Too fast a development rate and you'll master it and play it every which way you can and then get bored with it relatively soon. SEIV controls this better than any game I have seen.

This doesn't have to apply to only 4x or even strategy games. Any genre has to keep you interested for the long term, in whichever relevent way makes the most sense for that particular game. The pace at which this is accomplished is absolutely crucial to being a winner.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

I spent hours playing Frogger when I was a kid. I want a game to be fun. Everything else is a bonus.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Well, one thing that makes for a great game is the "one more turn" function. You have that in SE4, and other empire-type games. When I got a modern computer (a Pentium-90 Gateway back in 1995) I was obsessed by this game called, well, Empire. It was a public domain, DOS character graphic game, that I would just spend hours playing, trying to conquer the world of green blocks, in the middle of that blocky blue ocean.

Pretty much, anything that requires character development to increase survivability is going to suck me in. Back in the old days it was Moria, or Rogue. Then there was Warcraft, and now I still play Diablo II from time to time. Then SE4 was created to consume my free time.

I was never good at those twitchy, multibutton console/arcade street fighter games, which seem to be the only thing produced these days. Though, back in the day, my favorite was a game called Xenophobe. Not many people liked that game, but I seemed to have a knack for it and its strange controller. Go figure.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

I like a games that exercise my mind. Games that can allow me to think through problems and find answers. In order to play a game more than once, the problems must be changing or changeable. Games that make me jump over this rolling barrel... NOW. and Again, and another one... just don't do it for me.

Scheming, planning, seeing a "good plan come together" all appeal to me. If I can play it with others, that is an unexpected bonus.

Although no longer stressed in the Sherlock Holmes books, he used heroin to keep his mind active when not on a case. I would much rather use games instead.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

For me it's the "one-more-turn" feeling that defines a superior game over a good game. Now as Slick mentioned this feeling is created by the rate at which you get things. Equally important is how significant these things are. I think this is where space empires makes a difference.

Compare it to civilization. Roughly that game creates its one-more-turn feeling with 2 types of "waiting". First of all it's the relative long term projects of research. Second it's the short term projects of building units. Units in civ are simple and linear in a way, the more high-tech a unit is, the stronger it is. Allthough there are a few things to spice this up (like flight and nuclear weapons and the resources aspect) it is my feeling that civ comes down to that in the end (don't get me wrong, I'm a great fan http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/happy.gif).

For a game like Space Empires it's not that simple.
First of all it allows players to design units. Units can vary in size and strength from a simple escort to that full-blown defensive starbase that turns a warp point into an impenetrable wall for enemy ships. Thus waiting for a new unit can be anything from a short process(for a cannon fodder destroyer) or very long(for a game-balance-changing new baseship). Furthermore even the very powerfull, expensive, "takes-long-to-build" baseship has weaknesses. It's not allways a case of the bigger, the better.

This is because research is much less linear in space empires. Choice being the key word here. You can actually chose which techs you are going to develop and in what order. A lot of other games offer you limited choice (You have some choice, but the big milestones have to be researched in a certain order). Again compare to civilization, you can't race towards electricity while you are still fighting with cavemen. An effective ship design(being the offspring of good research CHOICES and maybe even a clever combat tactic you have developed in your mind) can totally shift the game's balance. This makes the "one-more-turn-waiting" to finish building that newly designed ship, or to finish that cleverly chosen research project just a lot more interesting.

What also adds to the feeling of "one-more-turn" is the sheer magnitude of some projects. Just take the simple invention of "Ice planet colonization", it can really can double your growth potential. Take dyson spheres, technology to blow up stars, create black holes, create planets or technology to board, take over and analyze a high-tech ship from your opponent. There are numerous other examples and they have one thing in common, they can alter the gameplay environment and the balance in ways I have never seen before in this kind of game. Logically it makes waiting to finish that project much more interesting.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Hi, welcome to the forum. Carrot?

Para: You want complex? Try this: http://home.cwru.edu/~jnt5/Planarity/

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

What about the cheese Narf? Not giving out the cheese anymore? http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/frown.gif I remember my first cheese http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Definately the 'just one more turn' feeling helps a game to stay fresh...if it's like a good book you can put down, you want to keep playing just to see what will happen next...

For lasting playabliity in the marketplace and all I would think that being able to be modded and improved by the fan base is almost a requirement now. There are many games that if they didn't have a modding community would have fell by the way side...

Kana

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Well, he can have cheese if he wants. I just thought a rabbit would like a carrot.

I have been forgetting the cheese, though.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Just one more turn does it for me. Little things that make me want to see the results of my actions (Im just going to peek to see if it worked) but then I end up deciding a next move based on that which ends up forcing me to go ahead and put all the decisions in. Oh well then I might as well hit process. Hmmm I think I will just take a peek to see if that worked. AARRGGHHH!

Also my favorite games are ones where I do NOT feel like the goal is to figure out what the programmer wanted you to do. I like games where the setup or the game options or the map are so involved that you feel as if you are actually coming up with your OWN methods and tactics. Ones which, possibly, the programmers didnt even consider. What I love about both SEIV and Dominions (over in the other forum)is that it supports so many different playing styles.

Gandalf Parker

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Hmm. As far as I can tell it comes down to striking precisely the right balance between fast moving objects that explode at little or no provocation, really big guns, really big swords, really big swords-that-are-really-guns, zombies, ninjas, zombie ninjas, and hot kung-fu chiXXors with inadequate bust support.

Addictive. Gives me a strange urge to research stellar manip and remodel some warp-points.

You're right, rabbits don't like to eat dairy products (unless you count chocolate). Mine doesn't anyway. However, he does like to eat :
- toast
- crisps (any flavour except cheese & onion)
- popcorn
- Banana peel (not too ripe)
- Extra hot bombay mix
- modem cables
- furniture
- Doorframes/ skirting boards
- bank statements/ cheques/ the gas bill
- grapes
- Rice cakes
- Ryvita
- Ankles

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

I think since this is a SEIV form most people will agree that SEIV shares a lot of the set of attributes that we (the form members) believe make a game great. If this question was posted on another game form for say a First Person Shooter type, I would expect some different opinions of what makes a game great.

I think game design is more of an art than a science, with a big chunk of luck thrown in. When all the right factors align you get a great game. The mod ability give each user the chance to try their hand a aligning the right factors. SEIV is more than one game!

From the game sellers’ point of view, the perfect game is one that will get the most people excited enough to buy it, but then be board with it so they will be looking to buy the next game that hits the market, but still be happy. That way they can buy a really big house with all the money they make from selling the game of the month every month! (Note, This is an over simplification of the game sellers view, I’m sure things like customer satisfaction, repeat business, recommending games is also important.)

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

For me a game needs to be dynamic in terms of either gameplay or modding options, plus be in an area of interest to me such as space, city building, or hockey.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

The luck factor is very important in a game. Games are dependent on luck, in order for people to be addicted to it. You do something lucky, like defeating a superior fleet, and you want to try to do it again, this time with skill.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

There are two types of games that are my favorite: RPG's and strategy. I prefer thinking-type games to other types that require fast reflexes or hand-eye-coordination. So I don't play much of those shooting games or ones that require you to jump around and land perfectly on little platforms or fall to your death. I'm not good at those; I get frustrated if I keep dying after many attempts and I don't feel like spending hours practising.

I like games in which you can improve yourself by your efforts within the game. So in an RPG you complete quests or defeat enemies to gain experience and improve your character's skills and strengths. In SEIV you make your empire stronger by researching technology, colonizing, capturing enemy ships and planets, successfully using diplomacy etc. I find that a game is less interesting if your character or whatever you're controlling stays the same while the challenges you face keep getting harder as the game progresses. I want my character or empire to get better though the things I do, so that I can prepare for more difficult challenges as the game progresses. There is great satisfaction in looking back to an earlier time in the game and noticing all the progress you have made, and how you overcame all the earlier challenges that were difficult at the time, but are now insignificant because you're so much stronger.

Also, it's nice to have flexibility in the game, in that there is more than one way to successfully solve a problem or deal with a particular challenge. So in an RPG, when faced with some sort of quest, it's nice to have different choices. For example, say there's a locked door and the guard won't let you in unless you go and kill a certain monster and bring back an item and give it to him. Can you do other things besides killing the monster? Can you steal the key to open the door? Can you pick the lock on the door? Can you use persuasion to get the guard to let you in without doing the quest? Can you get the item without killing the monster? Is there some alternate entrance besides that door? Can you decide not to do this at all and go do something else?

SEIV has a great deal of flexibility in that you have complete freedom in what to research, how you spend your resoures, how you design your ships, what to build on your planets, what worlds you colonize, etc. That is great. A game loses replayability when there's few choices or if there's only one or only a few ways to win.

Another thing is that in a great game, if you keep replaying it, every so often you think of new and better ways of doing things that you haven't thought of before. So for example, in SEIV you might suddenly come up with a new way to design ships that's better, and so your strategy completely changes from the last time you played. Or in an RPG you think of a new way to use a magic spell that you haven't thought of before that gives you an advantage.

If there is some sort of puzzle to solve in the game, I want it to be solvable by using reasoning or investigating, not by tedious effort. For example, in an RPG say there's a combination lock that you need to open. I want to be able to figure out the combination by searching for clues and thinking. It's not fun when there are no clues available (or the clues are incredibly obscure) and you just spend hours mindlessly trying every combination.

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

For me, a game should be highly detailed and immersive. It should draw me in and make me care about what is happening in the game. If a game is immersive I think about it when I'm not playing. I plan strategy and worry about what the opponents are going to do next.

A perfect game, for me, should also be open-ended. If it's not a sandbox type of game, it should at most just give me a general goal or set of victory conditions. I don't like games with "missions" or a bunch of scripted or triggered events.

SE4 meets most of my criteria for an ideal game.

Other games I like include Patrician 2, Railroad Tycoon 2, Civ3, Tropico, Capitalism 2, Chariots of War, Pharoh/Cleopatra, Caesar 3 and Europa Universalis 2. I love managing resources, buying and selling, etc.

Another is Cutthroats, a game that puts you in the role of a pirate captain. You hire your crew and provision them and roam the Caribbean in search of ships to capture and loot.

I also like Alpha Centauri.

OOTP Baseball 5 and Title Bout Championship Boxing are more of my favorites. I love games that let me manage personnel.

I also play Steel Panthers World at War. It has lots of scenarios, but you can also just generate a battle and play it out. You can also rename your unit commanders, which is cool.

I really enjoyed SimCity 3000, but it crashed every few minutes on my machine so I deleted it.

It's not that I don't enjoy action games. I played Doom 2 for a long time, and I still play Quake. I also very much enjoy MechWarrior 3--in skirmish mode. But I'm just not interested in games that do the same thing as Quake or MW3 or the Command and Conquer games only with bigger explosions and more blood. So what? I have Grand Theft Auto 2--why do I need GT3 or 4 or 17? I like the top-down view much more than the 1st person view anyway.

I have a 6-year-old computer and have therefore been unable to enjoy any newer games. But from the reviews I read I don't think I'm missing much. These days the trend is toward more sophisticated graphics and prettier pictures. Bigger explosions, etc. That disappoints me because I buy and play games for the gameply. A game described in an article as the "best-looking game of the year" is of no interest to me. A review that takes up a lot of space talking about how great a game looks is a clue to me that it's probably short on the gameplay elements that I would find attractive.

I read a review of the relatively new city building game Children of the Nile that talked about how beautiful the game was to look at, but at the same time a step back in gameplay from Pharoh/Cleopatra. I just laughed. If the game looks better than Pharoh/Cleopatra but does not give me more options to manage my city and population, more resources to produce, more diplomatic options, etc, what's the point????

I'm 48 years old, and in the last 3-4 years I've begun to believe the computer game industry has passed me by. It's all flash and big booms, military shooters, sci-fi shooters, crash and burn racing games, etc etc etc. Games for people who rent "the hottest games" from a store and play them for a day or two, "beat" them and then hand them back in.

I've not bothered to replace my old computer partly for financial reasons, but also because there hasn't been any point. The sole online game I play, Asheron's Call, is getting a graphics update that will not allow me to continue playing. I wonder if I will ever bother to get a new computer, just to play one single online game filled with foul-mouthed d00d types half my age.

I've longed for a political type computer game, a kind of Sim Dictator where you can pick and fire your cabinet ministers, military officials, party officials etc etc etc, set your nation's policies and budget and struggle for power in a chaotic environment resembling that of the Soviet Union in the 1920s. "Enemy of the People" it would be called. Years ago I began developing a solitaire board game based on this idea.

But nobody will ever develop a computer game of this sort. The entire market appears to be oriented toward the young, short-attention-span crowd. Look at any gaming magazine.

Who's developing complex, satisfying computer games for grownups like me?

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

For quite some time I've been searching for two games. A space fighter shoot-em-up better than FreeSpace2 and a RTS to beat TA. For the FS2 beater I've all but given up, no-one is developing any similar sort of game, and Volition is too busy making FPSs based on the 'Red Faction' engine.

On the RTS front though I have found Dawn Of War, but a mere 9 months after it's release http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/laugh.gif A handfull of new features and the resource model that 'Z' tried for but failed to implement. Plus good graphics, excellent gameplay and comedy voices. The only down sides: high(ish) minimum specs and the 1.5Gb install size (plus a minimum of 1Gb freespace to install the v1.2 patch. A patch for ****'* sake!)

Of course my replacement for the 4x type SEIV game is easy: SEV (hopefully http://forum.shrapnelgames.com/images/smilies/wink.gif:D)

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Try this: http://starwraith3dgames.home.att.net/index.htm

Re: What Makes A Good Game?
 

Actually I think one should try to avoid dice rolls as much as possible in a game. As long as you get lucky it's allright of course, but eventually you'll have a streak of bad luck. That stuff can really ruin the fun in a game. I know it does for me, I hate it when I see my 3 dragoons lose to one soldier in colonization for example...