#21435 - aaronphughes - Sat May 29, 2004 3:31 am
As all of us have played numerous video games, I would like to know what people consider makes a good game. Let?s face it, 90% of all games on all platforms are terrible. To be honest, some are so bad I would like to demand a refund. It never seems to matter how much better the hardware gets, the only difference is that the sucky games are impressive to look at, but they still suck.
One of the reasons I presume most of us like the GBA, is simply because the games can?t rely on flashy graphics to sell them. We like playing the ?old school? games that were actually fun like Mario?s, Zelda?s and Metroids.
So, what games stand out as being fun and most importantly why? One of the most fun games that I was addicted to recently was Advanced Wars. The graphics in that game were purely secondary to the gameplay, and served their purpose only to show you the position of the pieces. In fact I eventually turned off the animation of the fighting scenes to speed up the gameplay, which really reduced this game to the graphic engine of the 8-bit NES.
I also like Metroid, Castlevania and Zelda games, mostly for the adventure/exploring aspect and getting more and more weapons and finding the secrets.
What I hate about bad games are mostly when your control is limited. Case in point is Super Ghouls n Ghosts. This game I loved on my Sega Genesis. However when I bought it for my GBA, you no longer had the ability to shoot straight up or down. So many times enemy ghosts just appeared right above my head and then descended down on me to kill me, it was very frustrating.
Another game (series actually) that I really hate now is the EA sports hockey games for the PC. My favorites are NHL98 and 99, where the gameplay was very fun and addictive. However starting with 2000, the push towards graphics took top priority. In 2004 when you take a shot, the camera sometimes does a Matrix like 360 degree pan around the shooter. It looked cool the first 50 times, but after a while I really got sick of it. Especially since scoring seems to be based on a flip of the coin. Sometimes you just skate over the blue line, hit your shoot button and it just goes in, other times it does not. What is frustrating is that I do nothing different each time, I think the computers random number generator just came up with ?oh it is time to score now?.
Anyway, as players and developers I think (hope) that nobody ever sets out to make a terrible game, but??
So, what makes a game good and why? Also, what makes a game bad and why?
AH
#21438 - sajiimori - Sat May 29, 2004 4:39 am
Honestly, I've found most games on GBA to be pretty bad so far. I haven't seen them all of course, but Aria of Sorrow is the only one I've seen that didn't make me think, "This has been done before, and better."
What makes a game good depends a lot on the player, and most rules you try to make have exceptions.
Should the controls be simple? How about Tie Fighter or Mech Warrior where you're controlling something that isn't simple?
Is more freedom better? How about Bionic Commando, the classic platform game where you couldn't even jump?
I might say balance is good, but some people like things to be over-the-top with lots of big explosions.
Obviously games should be challenging, right? I've known people who liked Doom, but only in god mode. And solitaire is perhaps the most played computer game in history.
Honestly, the only semi-objective measurement I can think of is that games should be bug-free.
#21439 - ScottLininger - Sat May 29, 2004 6:12 am
Something to keep in mind: the things that make a 2-minute-game entertaining are quite different from what makes a 25-hour-game entertaining. You need to define your target playtime before you can dissect the experience.
Beyond that, I'm a huge believer in three things: storytelling, human interactivity, and competition. Almost everything humans choose to do with their free time is motivated by one (or a combination) of these three things.
Good storytelling is the thing that will make you sit and read a 1500 page novel. And, good storytelling is the thing that will keep you coming back for more, no matter the medium. Whether it's the next installment in the Metroid series or the next Buffy episode or the next Poirot mystery, it's the one "magic sauce" that can take any set of raw gameplay and make it worth spending time with.
Human interactivity is sorely lacking in most GBA games, due to the nature of the platform. That's one of the reasons I'm so excited about the wireless capabilities of the DS. I also think there are tremendous possibilities with online communities, shared game assets via link cable, and other approaches, but as yet no one has done too much with this.
Then there's competition. Often this overlaps with human interactivity, but it can also be against non-human entities. It's often a motivator -- the reason we will play that annoying level ONE MORE TIME to solve it (though personally, I think that wanting to see the next chapter of the storyteller's vision is just as strong.)
And I'm with Sajimori: though many of my GBA games get played more than any of my Gamecube or PC or Playstation2 games, they still mostly suck. When I want to have a good time, I invite friends over for a board game or whip out the roleplaying dice -- because these activities have ample quantities of ALL THREE of the above ingredients.
Usually, making GB games is more fun than playing them. Somebody needs to make a game about that. ;)
-Scott
#21445 - keldon - Sat May 29, 2004 11:33 am
I've got an article on this in the game developers mag - and if you read edge the answers are pretty simple.
Yes, those three areas are correct. A game is a test of skill, or luck. So competition is a major factor, but games like mario are at heart tests of skill.
Games like Eternal Darkness, with their amazing stories kept people playing a game they otherwise may not have had any interest in; although the exploration factor was great also, and the gameplay followed the rules of good a good game.
What are those good factors that amount to gameplay? Well you only need to look as far as a good game and analyse certain factors, and you will see how similar they are.
Take, for instance the time it takes Mario and Sonic to land; the time it takes to get from one end of a level to a next; the time it takes an attack to hit an opponent, and even the time it takes to make a successive hit and combo are all generally the same in most games.
These elements of timing are essential, as people feel a game too slow if say, your attack takes 1 second to take place after you hit the button. This is why many slow moves involve holding buttons for a long time, or moving slowly into the position the attack, etc.
But these factors must work together to give the game an intuitional feel. And that is why some games are great, and some are just okay.
#21461 - dagamer34 - Sat May 29, 2004 4:12 pm
I've tried writing a good response to this post about 6 different times, but have always edited it for some reason.
The game really just depends on the person. However, more importantly, it depends on the developer/publisher. How many times can you honestly say that a Nintendo game was down right bad? What about a Square-Enix/SquareSoft game? Or Naughty Dog?
Money makes a difference because all those companies have some. Lots of it too!
_________________
Little kids and Playstation 2's don't mix. :(
#21465 - tepples - Sat May 29, 2004 4:43 pm
| aaronphughes wrote: |
| Let?s face it, 90% of all games on all platforms are terrible. |
[url=http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sturgeon's_law]"Ninety percent of everything is crud." -- Theodore Sturgeon[/url]
| Quote: |
| To be honest, some are so bad I would like to demand a refund. |
First write a harsh review on all the boards, and then do one of the following: - Take it back to EBGames or any other store with a similar policy of giving store credit for used games, or
- exchange it for the same title and then return that.
| Quote: |
| How about Tie Fighter or Mech Warrior where you're controlling something that isn't simple? |
Is a TIE really much more complex than an Arwing? And when you think about it, what more do you need on a mech than forward, back, step left, step right, turn left, turn right, change weapon, and fire?
| ScottLininger wrote: |
| Usually, making GB games is more fun than playing them. Somebody needs to make a game about that. ;) |
Nintendo has created the new genre of "game tester simulation" in WarioWare. Or you can boot up RPG Maker or something for some other system.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21474 - sajiimori - Sat May 29, 2004 7:36 pm
| Quote: |
Is a TIE really much more complex than an Arwing?
|
Yes. TIEs have accurate speed controls, communication facilities, controls for weapon recharge rate, and a targeting system. More advanced ships have additional controls for shield alignment, shield recharge, weapon switching, redirecting power from shields to weapons and back, hyperspace activation, among other things.
And that's just the input facilities. In addition to the output that corresponds to each of the above, there is a 3D map display and seperate indicators for incoming enemy fire of various types.
#21477 - tepples - Sat May 29, 2004 8:51 pm
| sajiimori wrote: |
| TIEs have accurate speed controls, communication facilities, controls for weapon recharge rate, and a targeting system. |
Arwing model 64 has speed controls (C-down for brake and C-left for boost). The "communication facilities" pop up automatically whenever Slippy gets in a jam (as always), or you can press C-right to answer ROB64's call. It can switch from an untargeted low-power shot to a charged-up targeted high-power shot.
| Quote: |
| More advanced ships have additional controls for shield alignment |
In an arcade-style game, this could be autopiloted based on the data used to display the "indicators for incoming enemy fire".
| Quote: |
| shield recharge ... redirecting power from shields to weapons and back |
Use the weapons more, and it shifts power to weapons. But if you lay off the trigger, it switches full power to shields.
Two words: Nova Bomb. If you really need more than two weapons equipped in one flight, then the game could remap B to cycle weapons. Or chord L+R+up as Doom for GBA does.
| Quote: |
| hyperspace activation |
Could do this with three consecutive boost+brake chords.
Some people want more of a simulator feel; others prefer an arcade feel. If you think of what are actually the orthogonal actions in your design, it's easy to simplify the controls for the arcade players by autopiloting much of the complexity away. I ended up with up, down, left, right, l_roll, r_roll, fire, change weapon, slow down, speed up, all of which fit comfortably on the Nintendo DS controller.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21487 - sajiimori - Sat May 29, 2004 11:34 pm
Tepples, I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there are simple games, and there are complex games. All I was saying is that complexity doesn't make a game bad, judging by the success of games like TIE Fighter.
Game designers can automate as much as they want (given the resources). SF64 could be simpler by automating responses to incoming messages. Of course, that restricts the design of the game so that there cannot be any situations where the player might not want to answer a message immediately.
Also, I don't see how button combos are simpler than keyboard presses.
#21490 - keldon - Sun May 30, 2004 12:20 am
| sajiimori wrote: |
Tepples, I'm not sure what your point is. Yes, there are simple games, and there are complex games. All I was saying is that complexity doesn't make a game bad, judging by the success of games like TIE Fighter.
Game designers can automate as much as they want (given the resources). SF64 could be simpler by automating responses to incoming messages. Of course, that restricts the design of the game so that there cannot be any situations where the player might not want to answer a message immediately.
Also, I don't see how button combos are simpler than keyboard presses. |
Good point; and one of the main points people fail to remember is that this, or that doesn't necessarily make a game good or bad. Take Battlezone for example, the original was simply up, down, left, right and fire. The newer PC version released had pretty much every button on the keyboard, but also had a multi menu system. It took me a few hours to get used to, was my first multi button game I played longer than 5 minutes; not to mention I don't like multi button games (well not on that scale); and I loved every bit of it.
Games such as smash bros melee require only one button for attack, but then tekken was more than great with four buttons. Street fighter really has 2 buttons when you think about it; punch and kick, just at different levels.
When you consider we are in a gba forum, we only have four buttons to play with, and you find that people will optmise their gameplay to suit it. It may be deemed as limiting in one way, but on the other hand there is the PC keyboard with many possibilities, which has plenty of games using too much buttons; or very few. There simply is no answer to the amount of buttons.
#21504 - tepples - Sun May 30, 2004 6:08 am
| sajiimori wrote: |
| I don't see how button combos are simpler than keyboard presses. |
A machine that needs button combos (a console or a handheld) is generally cheaper than a machine that uses keyboard presses (a PC). Thus it's simpler to flip enough burgers to afford such a unit.
_________________
-- Where is he?
-- Who?
-- You know, the human.
-- I think he moved to Tilwick.
#21512 - sgeos - Sun May 30, 2004 7:57 am
| aaronphughes wrote: |
| So, what games stand out as being fun and most importantly why? |
Greg Costikyan is blunt, and some people are put off by that. He wrote an article on what makes a game. After knowing what makes a game, it is easier to talk about what makes a good game. (There is some info on the DS in his E3 review.)
I just beat all the stages in SD Gundam G Generation F for the PSX. It's a 3 CD strategy game with over 110 stages and 500 - 1000 unit types (depending on how you count them.) I was sick of the game by the time I beat the last stage. At this point, I like games that end. Not only that, I like games that end fairly quickly and can either be replayed many times without being boring, or that have a bunch of optional areas. Potentially bonus areas.
I'm a sucker for beating big scary bosses. I'll take a good fight against one big scary thing over an army of rodents any day.
EDIT: The "E3 review" is a link to the log page. I expect the E3 info to make its way down the page as time goes on.
-Brendan
Last edited by sgeos on Sun May 30, 2004 9:10 am; edited 1 time in total
#21513 - sajiimori - Sun May 30, 2004 8:28 am
Did tepples just make a joke?? =D