The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
What do you look for in a game?
LibrarianThorne
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
First off, this isn't a poll thread. Rather, I'd like to hear some discussion on our favorite mechanics in games and, more importantly, why they're our favorite mechanics. Essentially, what is in a game that would make us want to play it.
I'll start off with my personal favorite genre, fighting games. I will always, always give a fighting game a chance even if it's awful dreck like Evil Zone or Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. With the popularity of shooters, and my playing of them, I have learned why I like fighting games so much. For all their simplicity (you get a helth bar, a timer, and maybe a super gauge in most fighters), there's no, for lack of a better term, bullshit when it comes to winning and losing. In Halo or TF2, me losing a match is not always dependent on my own skill at the game. Plenty of times, I don't see the guy who killed me, either because I wasn't looking far enough ahead to see the sniper or I couldn't turn fast enough to see a turret. However, in a fighting game, both players are given roughly equal access to the same resources and that puts the determinant (is that even a word?) of victory onto player skill. The mechanics, or lack thereof, in fighting games appeal to me so much more as a pure test of skill.
Now, I don't want this thread to devlove into FPS vs. fighters or other genre-based fanboy wankathons. The question is simple: Why do you play a given title? Do you follow a character and play games with that character damn the quality of the title? Do you follow developers and if so, why? Are certain mechanics in games (e.g. I love RTSes with little or no emphasis on resource mining) instant draws to you?
I'll start off with my personal favorite genre, fighting games. I will always, always give a fighting game a chance even if it's awful dreck like Evil Zone or Street Fighter: The Movie: The Game. With the popularity of shooters, and my playing of them, I have learned why I like fighting games so much. For all their simplicity (you get a helth bar, a timer, and maybe a super gauge in most fighters), there's no, for lack of a better term, bullshit when it comes to winning and losing. In Halo or TF2, me losing a match is not always dependent on my own skill at the game. Plenty of times, I don't see the guy who killed me, either because I wasn't looking far enough ahead to see the sniper or I couldn't turn fast enough to see a turret. However, in a fighting game, both players are given roughly equal access to the same resources and that puts the determinant (is that even a word?) of victory onto player skill. The mechanics, or lack thereof, in fighting games appeal to me so much more as a pure test of skill.
Now, I don't want this thread to devlove into FPS vs. fighters or other genre-based fanboy wankathons. The question is simple: Why do you play a given title? Do you follow a character and play games with that character damn the quality of the title? Do you follow developers and if so, why? Are certain mechanics in games (e.g. I love RTSes with little or no emphasis on resource mining) instant draws to you?
LibrarianThorne on
0
Posts
I want multiple costumes. I love dressing my characters. LOVE it. Different equipment needs to all look different.
I need lots of side missions. I want them not to matter to the main game but they should ALWAYS results in some sort of cool usable award.
I also need some kind of randomness. Random drops, random chance to learn a skill and the more the rarity the better. I have no problem with grinding a level 100 times just to get one weapon.
I love collection quests. It encourages me to play around and explore.
I like real Damage numbers and over all totals as ES did
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
MineCraft: Menetherin
Steam: Vloeza_SE++
Some of the best gaming times I've had are 4 man co-op rampages in Halo. Turn on most of the skulls and set it to legendary...so crazy and hectic and awesome.
Personally, however, what I look for in a game is depth, story, and character.
I have always been a Computer Gamer at heart. Though I had a SNES, Genesis, and Gameboy when I was growing up, I can't say there were any memorable games except perhaps for Shadowrun on the SNES. It was computer games that really brought me into the 'gamer' fold, and the first computer game I can clearly remember playing is Jedi Knight. It's still one of my favorites.
Later on, I came across those wonderful Black Isle games: Icewind Dale, Fallout, Planescape: Torment, and Baldur's Gate were my meat and bread of gaming. I could spend hours playing and get lost in the whole thing. Ever since then, I have made an effort to seek out games with story as the focus.
It seems as though fewer and fewer games try to develop a rich and fufilling story, which is somewhat of a dissappointment.
So, for you, customizability is the main draw? Essentially, what you want to see in a game is that your character is (or has the appearance of) being unique?
@Tom: Plenty of games today have good stories, but the mechanics of a game often get in the way of that. I feel that if one is looking for a good story with characterization and a decent plot that books tend to walk all over video games. What makes video games unique is the ability to interact with a story, though as we're all aware that interaction is of inredibly varying quality and degree. You said that you're a fan of Black Isle games, and whilst I agree, I'd like to hear your inputs on JRPGs. Your Final Fantasy, Dragon Quest, and the like. Whereas, in my opinion, BioWare and Black Isle have stories that are very much involved in the player, it's always felt to me that JRPGs have very little to do with the player. Choices you make don't really impact the story and since, in an RPG, story is king this leads to a very fundamental question about player involvement in said story.
@Arrath. Couldn't agree more. The minute I see co-op play as an option in any non-sports game, my interest in the game doubles. The appeal of players vs. game is very much rooted in a desire people have to work together. However, in regards to a game like Call of Duty 4, would the game have more appeal to you if you had Xbox Live? Is the competitive multiplayer in a game like that worth the sacrifice of a co-operative campaign?
Most games you think have it in fact do not.
:^:
No, actually, not at all. I don't care if my character eventually looks like every other character people are playing as long as I have a lot of choices to pick from. Customizability is a huge draw as long as it has a verifiable effect. Take Phantasy Star Universe. While I find it fun to pick from all the clothes in the game, the fact that NONE of them actually affect anything gets boring really quick. However, picking classes, armors, weapons and what skills to use is great fun for me. Same as Diablo II; the skill system there is great as it makes every character play completely different.
I like a game with simple enough controls that if I don't play for a few months, I won't have to start with the tutorial again just to remember how to play. Trying to pick up and play Splinter Cell after not touching it for 2 months was alot like trying to remember a foreign language I learned in high school - I knew the knowledge was in my head somewhere, but I just couldn't use it.
I love a game with a great sense of humor. In fact, I'll look past MANY other shortcomings if the game can get an honest laugh out of me.
Finally, I like a game with a $20 price tag. When you buy a game for $50 - $60 you demand it last long, you demand it have the highest standards in all areas, you demand as close to perfection as you can get. When you get a game for $20 you are a much less demanding consumer - glitches get overlooked, graphics seem passable that would be an insult at full price, and the story doesn't have to move mountains. I really find that I can like a game more when I get it at a reasonable price.
:v:
The point of the thread is WHY you find things fun. We all look for fun in games.
In pretty much every game, UI matters quite a bit. If your 3rd person action game has not camera controls, odds are I won't play it for more than 2 minutes. (Example: Genji. Great game except for the lack of camera control. Unplayable IMO)
For an FPS, I look for framerate/graphics, interesting weaponry, good controls, and some modicum of plot. Online multiplayer isn't exactly crucial to me - the Darkness only has it on a technicality, I never got it working, but that didn't affect my enjoyment of the game. Whereas Resistance, which is an otherwise ho-hum game, has fucking outstanding online play, raising the bar quite a bit. If a game has an online co-op mode, it almost doesn't matter what else it has. Rainbow Six Vegas (on PS3) sucks donkey balls, technically speaking. Filled with lag, horrible glitches, etc. Yet I'll happily spend 8 hours with my clanmates doing terrorist hunts and getting smashed.
For a platforming type of game, I look for interesting level design, interesting characters (both story-wise and model/animation/movement). I look for good story elements, good graphics, and replay factor. An example of a game that pretty much nails all of these, with a bonus, is Ratchet & Clank Future: Tools of Destruction. You have awesome platform elements through level design, character design, movement options, hidden areas, outstanding graphics, etc. Then you have the added bonus of really neat weapons, and they add in replay with a New Game+ mode, upgrades to the weapons, and skill points. (Very similar to achievements for you 360 guys)
The games I sink the most time into, however, are sandbox games. Elder Scrolls and Grand Theft Auto have probably sapped over 1000 hours from my life combined. I love them because they give you a lot of options on how to spend your time, so it's almost as if they're multiple games in one. For instance, Oblivion allows you to play through it in a multitude of ways through different character builds. You can be a wizard, a thief, or a fighter, or any mix thereof, and the experience is different each time. GTA just has a shit-ton of things to do, so if you get bored of collecting hidden packages, you can go complete the taxi missions or something. In these games, I look for an interesting story, variety of shit to do, things to grind (stats etc), places to explore, and the ability to just do whatever the fuck I want.
All that said, I'll play almost any game if it has good graphics, good controls, and a good story.
Personally, I don't find the time investment in a game that isn't blindingly fun to play, or contain a story that I enjoy worthwhile. Might have something to do with being kinda short on time to use for gaming.
People find the Wii fun. I don't judge them. It's not like we're ever going to agree on what's fun or what isn't.
Title asks what I look for in a game? Fun is a pretty good answer.
I absolutely agree with this, and it makes the revelation of actually finding good writing a fantastic treat.
I'm also a fan of online co-op, as that can make any game more accessible, and more dynamic, from my experiences.
(Please do not gift. My game bank is already full.)
I understand that. I'm an avid reader myself, but part of the reason I like the games I listed is because they give a person that opportunity to be part of the story and shape it themselves.
As far as JRPGs go, I can't really say too much. I honestly haven't spent much time playing them. However, I will say that I have always been a fan of the Final Fantasy games. Their stories are rather good, even though they do not allow as much player choice.
I think JRPGs have a place, especially when it comes down to their story. Some people want to be the center of the game, making their own character and playing that character out as the story progresses. And there are some who would rather have predesigned characters that they can grow familiar with. As you said, in an RPG, story is king.
We're not trying to agree on what's fun.
And the OP was asking what mechanics are your favorites and why. "Fun" is a vague, incomplete and, quite frankly, wrong answer.
For non-competition games, we'll call them 'art' games, I'm looking for just that. Art. Art can be an interesting narrative (metal gear solid 2, beyond good and evil), it can be the creation of atmosphere (stalker, silent hill), it could be visual design (folklore, psychonauts) or it could just be some other intangible quality altogether (shadow of the colossus). But something that will turn me off a game is a big budget spent on flashy narrative techniques that nonetheless hide a boring, unoriginal, hack plot line (not naming any games in the interest of curtailing a flame war). It's just a waste of money is all. For these kinds of games the only thing I'm looking for out of the game play itself is that it isn't too frustrating or distracting from the larger 'art' of the game, but also that it contributes in some meaningful way. For instance, Silent Hill's atmosphere is impossible without an interactive component, as was unfortunately displayed with the movie.
I guess simplicity sums up my tastes pretty well; my favorite kind of game is one that I can press "start" at the title screen and start immediately. Think Sonic the Hedgehog or Sin & Punishment. No cutscenes, no naming my character, no customizing armor or whatever. This is partially why I like fighting games so much. I've recently logged hours and hours onto the Neo Geo Pocket Color SNK vs. Capcom, for instance.
As far as stories are concerned, I'm not really interested in them except insofar as they tie a game together and can be an entertaining diversion from the action (think Elite Beat Agents or Space Channel 5). I tend to ignore any plots that are overly-complex or heavy on cutscenes. I have absolutely no idea what the story behind Starcraft is, for example, despite having played the game to death. I have no idea if Diablo has a plot that goes any further than "this is your guy, go kill the devil."
Of course, as Strarcraft and Diablo demonstrate, there are exceptions to my usual tastes. But generally I won't touch an FPS or JRPG with a ten-foot pole.
I also love a certain style of FPS map, and Halo seems to have most of them. I don't really understand what secret sauce they put in there, but I've enjoyed much better shooters a little less than I should have because the level design didn't have that obsessed-over feel.
Pokemans D/P: 1289 4685 0522
The biggest draw, for me, for any genre, would probably be immersion, tied closely to a game's plot, which is odd, because I realize that the vast majority of game stories are pretty mediocre. But, typically, if a gameworld feels somewhat alive to me, I'll enjoy the game. I think this is why I tend to play RPGs and adventure games. It's not for the hidden items or secret spells, but to discover another world. If that world is presented in a well-written manner, so much the better.
Depending on the genre, gameplay is typically number 2. I consider gameplay to be as important as plot in adventure games, if not more so. For example, I find Assassin Creed's plot to be permanently stuck in the "meh" position, but I'm still having a blast running on rooftops, slaying hosts of guards, climbing towers, and all that.
Next would be whether or not any part of the game passes my kick ass test. Admittedly, this is a very subjective test. Examples of things that pass the test:
The last strider battle in Half-Life 2
Mike Patton's voice acting in The Darkness
The sheer chaos one can create in a GTA game
Kefka ruining the world in FF VI
Being able to absorb a boss' ability in the Mega Man games
The humor in the original three Lesiure Suit Larry games
The (overly?) melodramatic love story between Fei and Elly in Xenogears
Bryan Fury, in general
Obviously, it's hard, if not impossible, to tell if a game will feature something that kicks ass when you first buy it. For me, games with a kick ass quality are the games I tend to replay.
As an aside, I actually think that the advent of better graphics and voice acting has negatively impacted my ability to enjoy RPGs. One of the things that really hooked me on the genre was the ability to take what was on the screen and transform it into complete win in my mind's eye. I was the kind of kid who would fantasize about what it would really be like to live in Vector with MagiTek armor walking the streets. More modern RPGs take that away -- there's not a lot to extrapolate on as most of the important details are filled in by the game developers. It kinda kills the magic, IMO.
I don't feel the same way with adventure games as a more detailed environment can lead to more interesting gameplay.
That's why I love Zelda, and always have - it isn't a traditional RPG, but you start as a weak, unequipped guy who eventually gets more life, better weapons, more items, ect. This is probably best highlighted in Wind Waker, where you have to stealth your way through the Forsaken Fortress the first time around, but then come back stronger and more capable and beat those fucking Moblins up. But you still know you need to get stronger when you meet you-know-who and he knocks you around. I mean, it isn't "gain more levels!", it's "just keep going, and you'll get there".
I just love actions RPGs for this reason, and why I'm not so into games where you remain stagnant throughout (original Castlevanias, for example).
My ideal game does both. It should provide me with a new, wonderful experience, on an emotional/artistic level. And at the same time, as I explore the game's world, I should feel the thrill of building up a mastery of its mechanics.
I think this can apply to a broad range of games, from Super Mario Galaxy to Guitar Hero. When you first pick up and play these games you're thrown in to a sensory experience unlike anything you've really experienced before, and it's wonderful. As you play the games more, you're motivated not only by your desire to see more of what they have to offer (more songs in GH, more crazy-ass planetoids in SMG), but also by the feeling that "wow, I'm getting better at this, I could never have made that jump/played that solo a few hours ago."
Rather than two completely separate sides to videogames, I see "experience" and "mastery" as intrinsically connected. The best games make you want to master them, not for a high score or whatever, but because mastering the game allows you to experience it to the fullest.
But on the whole, story is somewhat irrelevant to me. I will most certainly enjoy it if it's done well, but if it's not I'm willing to shrug it off. Good controls and high difficulty are big pluses for me, and to me anyway the two go hand in hand. I love extremely difficult games. Even if I can't beat them, which I usually can't, I have a blast throwing myself against what I assume to be the hardest shit that the developer can come up with. However, there is a way to do difficulty correctly, and a way to do it incorrectly. If I'm dying due to a sloppy control scheme or obnoxious game mechanics, then that's the incorrect way. An RPG boss that's 30 levels higher than the last guy I had to fought, forcing me to grind for a few hours, isn't difficult, it's just annoying. To a limit, tactics and clever strategy should be able to let me beat an enemy, regardless of level. On the whole I'm not a huge RPG fan, so the only example I can think of where this is done right is Pokemon, but I'm certain that there are others.
In action games, good controls are key for this. A great example is the original Ninja Gaiden. The game is hard. But it's not because the controls are poor or the level-design is unfair or somehow luck-dependent, it's simply because you're not good enough yet. As you practice at it, your game will improve and ultimately you'll become poetry in motion. Though much, MUCH easier, the 3D Mario games are great at this too. You first pick up the controller, and Mario will be a clumsy fool. It takes him a few seconds to build up any kind of momentum, and he can't make sharp turns well. But once you start to get the hang of things, he moves incredibly gracefully.
As far as I'm concerned, visuals have been adequate since Mario 64, so I won't frown on a game for bad graphics or art direction. However, if they're well done, it's certainly worth some extra credit. As are remappable control schemes.
http://www.audioentropy.com/
Step 2: Do something new and interesting with your game in at least one area. Great and unique art direction, a cast of characters that ISN'T designed solely to make 14 year old boys say "sweet' (or, for that matter, get a stiffy for polygonal titties of impossible proportions), a truly innovative gameplay mechanic twist, or some attempt at actual artistic merit be it through mind-bending gameplay, art direction, theme, atmosphere, or any combo of the above.
If you do those things I'll probably enjoy your game pretty much regardless of genre. But that's the ideal, I enjoy plenty of games that don't have those two features. Which is good, since there are surprisingly few games that met these 'lofty' (i.e. sadly low) standards.
[Edit] Also, I could just quote and lime all of Qingu's post.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer
I really like the plots of Final Fantasy games and the story is probably the main reason why I play them. But I don't think even the most linear of these stories would work, at all, as books or movies.
I talked about a moment in FF4 in another thread, which is one of my favorite moments in videogames. It's when
This was a compelling plot twist, for sure, and when I was 12 I thought the game's weird blend of sci-fi and fantasy was unique. But thinking back to what made that so awesome, it wasn't really the story, or what happened in the narrative. It was the fact that you actually got to experience first-hand what was going on:
(I think the exact same thing applies to MGS. If the interactive experience in that game wasn't so robust, nobody would give two shits about its plot.)
Sadly, nowadays instead of actually being able to do that, they'd just show you a fancy CGI-cutscene and then let you select locations from a menu of where you want to land your ship. Games have definitely become more like interactive movies since FF7. But in doing so I wonder if game-makers have forgotten why exactly people become so attached to these fictional worlds and stories. It's not because you show us them in hi-def CGI, it's because you let us explore them ourselves.
Shadow of the Colossus is the counterpoint to this trend. The story from the cutscenes is fleeting. You get most of the game's story, as well the history of its world and its emotional drama, from riding around the land and engaging in weirdly empathetic battles. The strange mixed feelings you get when you stab a colossus in its head and see the black blood shoot out and the pained expression in its eyes does more for narrative than any cut scene.
There are no set mechanics for fun, and if you want to get all uppity about it then it may be time to point out that everyone is going to have a different perception of whats fun and whats not.
And I don't look for characteristics that make a game fun. I mean, there is a difference between being a good game and being a fun game. A game having what I would consider to be needed to be a good game (Interesting story, good gameplay, etc.) might not make it fun. There are many good games which I do not find fun and thats not due to some arching, constant flaw, it's because something about them just doesn't make them just don't make them enjoyable to me.
I'm not going to go out and buy a game just because it has features x,y and z... I'm going to get it because it seems fun to me.
This.
I was actually worried about Mario Galaxy in this regard, since it had been so long since I'd played a 3D platformer that I was having bad DK64 flashbacks. But Mario got it totally right - the items you collect are really just another way of saying, "You beat the level!" instead of you needing to grab fifty magical whoozits spread all across the world just to open some fucking door.
Saying "I like fun games" is like saying "I like pretty paintings." What makes them pretty?
Also: I disagree that non-fun games should be classed as "good" for the same reason I disagree that boring-assed literature should be classified as "good." I think good art should engage you.
Most people want fun from games. Saying you didn't look for it would be much more interesting.
dream a little dream or you could live a little dream
sleep forever if you wish to be a dreamer