What is a definition of a "good game" for you.

[okblacke]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Text-based games? What sort of reflexes would you need for them?

Anyone remember "Kingdom of Kroz"? Scott Miller wrote that and made enough money on it to found Apogee software. Apogee went on to hire those kids who wrote "Commander Keen" before spinning of into their own company, id. Apogee, itself, later became "3D Realms", makers of "Duke Nukem 3D".

"Kroz" is "Zork" spelled backwards. Apparently Mr. Miller was a little frustrated by text adventures (though Apogee had a few).

"Kroz" also pioneered the "distribute the first few levels as shareware, make 'em by the rest" model which was successful enough to turn "Doom" into a smash hit, and change it from shareware to retail.



Oh, sorry.

[ok]

[flipside]

Originally posted by DrSpike
A game is good if it neither bad nor average.

EDIT Shite joke about games removed.

Tautology?

[Zero]

Originally posted by Skanky Burns
Text-based games? What sort of reflexes would you need for them?

clearly you dont have L337 hax0r typing skilllzzzzzzzzz! type fast mofo!!!!11!!!!!


No seriously... what about mavis beacon teaches typing? Its a "text based" game.

[General Ludd]

Actually, Uplink requires reflexes. It's not entirely text based - it has a GUI, but no real graphics. You need to be quick with the mouse and a fast typer if you want to be able to pull certain things off. Being able to scan over lists of files and identify certain ones helps too, if you can call that a reflex.

Since it's a hacking game, I guess you really do need '1337 hax0ring typing skilz"

[DrSpike]

Originally posted by flipside

Tautology?

Yes........but with good reason, since a good game is just one you enjoy. Of course one can try and extract gameplay elements that you enjoy, but even an element you wouldn't normally choose can work in a certain game.

[Zero]

Originally posted by DrSpike

since a good game is just one you enjoy.

I dunno, I dont enjoy certain games (virtua fighter 4, CtP etc) but find them to be good games. I figured everyone would see that good games doesnt have to be enjoyed by someone.

Then wouldnt all that game reviews from gamespot and ign be useless and waste of time? If you can only judge good games by enjoyment, I dont care whether the reviewers enjoyed it... I dont want to hear if he enjoyed it.

[DrSpike]

Sure, there are times when you can recognise the quality of a game but it doesn't float your boat if it isn't in a genre you like.

Hmm, but you like fighting games..........why not VF4 if it is good?

[lord of the mark]

Originally posted by Zero


clearly you dont have L337 hax0r typing skilllzzzzzzzzz! type fast mofo!!!!11!!!!!


No seriously... what about mavis beacon teaches typing? Its a "text based" game.

geez, if only "MB teaches typing" (which POTM enjoys) and all the language software that includes games were counted as "games" instead of educational software, think of what that would do to game sales stats Would sure do wonders for PC game sales vs console games

Now if only some of the great game designers would get into the ed software market

Sid Meier's French:
"Bonjour Pierre"
"Bonjour Marie"
"Pierre, je desire ton ville. Voici mon armee"
"Ah, Marie!"

[Zero]

Originally posted by DrSpike
Sure, there are times when you can recognise the quality of a game but it doesn't float your boat if it isn't in a genre you like.

Hmm, but you like fighting games..........why not VF4 if it is good?

Well I like playing it when I have a player who can play at around my level... but thats only for comps, not because i like the game.

- I dont like it cause it feels way tekken 4ish. And I dont like tekken 4 too much either.
-VF4 Lacks eye candy. Because its mostly realistic moves.
-Character variation are too subtle for my taste. (unlike capcom games where theyre so distinct even first time players can see the difference)

Its a solid game. I can imagine a much more indepth game in vf than sc2, and it merits both aggressive and defensive type of play, but I enjoy playing sc2 more, because of personal pref. But it is still a good game. Nothing can change that.

[hexagonian]

If it creates a believable atmosphere within the context of its world, then its a great game.

'SMAC' is a great game, but I do not play it because the atmosphere does not appeal to me. Still, I admire it as one of the most creative games ever made.

'EU2' (within the context of world history) is an exceptional game, and since I am interested in that aspect of history, it rates very high for me.

Same with 'Pharoah'.

[Paul Hanson]

Two words: Deus Ex

[EternalSpearman]

For me, the main thing that makes a game good is game-play. It's the core of all games, in my opinion. Sure graphics are nice. And a good interface has definite advantages. All those definitely help make a good game, but those are minor compared to the game-play. Game-play is what makes games like Dominions and Nethack good (for those of you not familiar with Diminions or Nethack, they are games with very primitive graphics but lots of features (i.e over 400 spells (Dominions), or lots of things to do with almost any item (Nethack)).

[Jaguar]

A game must provide me with interesting choices that require thought. That can be anything from Civ to Tetris to Halo.

[Jethro83]

Freedom of choice is one thing to me that makes a game great. Being good/evil in Neverwinter Nights, Light Side/Dark Side in KOTOR; and being a bounty hunter, corporate hack or one of many different kinds of criminals in Freelancer for example.



I'm also a sucker for a well-written plot. KOTOR definitely doesn't disappoint. I felt so tied into the plot, and into the interactions with the main characters. And not to reveal much, but towards the end, where everything hits the fan, my heart was racing. I had to go for a run for an hour, and hit a punching bag for half and hour to shake off the adrenaline (maybe I exxagerate a bit).

The Ultimas from V to VII: Part 2 also had compelling plots (afterward nothing really added up anymore). SMAC is another great example, and I still find myself thinking of some of Santiago's quotes to psyche me up and Yang's quotes to get focussed.



I also like a game that makes me think about my actions for any reason. Again, KOTOR delivers, with my being conscious of actions that would drop me down to the Dark Side; Neverwinter Nights for similar reasons (though Lawful/Chaotic is another alignment scale to worry about since I'm usually a monk and supposed to be lawful).

SMAC and Civ III make me think strategically not just where to place my settlers/troops, but about the tangled web of alliances and vendettas that is soon woven (and where I will stand in them).

And Freelancer gets me thinking about how my reputation stands with the many different groups (legal or otherwise) and how much danger I'm getting myself into by associating with a certain group or targeting a certain group in the missions I accept. Not to mention the kinds of ships and weapons available with friends in the right places.



Finally, a game that is open to modding really earns its longevity on my hard drive.

[Ben Kenobi]

What makes a game great?

There are many good games out there but the capacity to mod a game is where a game really extends beyond the original concepts of the designer. Contrast Civ 2 with Full Throttle. Full Throttle is a good game because of the storyline, but once you wrap up the game, there is little desire to play the game again. Civ on the other hand has so many scenarios, you'll never finish them all.

Another quality that comes to my mind for a great game is simplicity. Look at MOO3, where you have to let the computer work for you just so that you can play the game. Compare that to something like go or Chess, where the game may appear simple to play, but each decision has a huge effect on the outcome of the game.

[Spiffor]

See sig.

[mrmitchell]

The most important part of a game is replayability, you don't want to spend $50 on something you'll only play for maybe 10 to 20 hours. You want a game that will give you lots of detailed storyline and environment, multiple difficulty levels, and then when you're bored of singleplayer, a multiplayer mode that will keep the game in CD trays (or consoles) for years after its release date.

Finally, once the original game has been beaten to death, and multiplayer hours have entered the thousands, more replayability comes with MODS. If the game can be satisfiably and deeply modified, you will never grow tired of it...ever.

Then, gameplay. Is the game anything revolutionary? Is it new stuff to master? Is it good to play?

Content and storyline. Is the game exciting? Do you feel like you're Parker, picking off Ultor gaurds? Are you really Cleopatra, and did you really just conquer the Mongols?

Graphics are a nice feature too. They don't have to be realistic, they just have to "fit" in with the game, for example, you don't want the new airplane simulation to look like pacman.

Learning curve/control--how easy is it to learn the basics, without being easy to beat? And, is the interface nice and crisp, or would you rather have a whale rammed down your throat?

Attention to detail, as well. It's often the little things that can take a game from ordinary to kick-ass.

Finally, a community can help extend a game's replayability by a full game-life-span. Usually the community requires replayability to begin anyway, but Civ meets the replayability requirements, and beats the snot out of them too (complexity, difficulty, multiplayer, modifiable, and community). That's why you still see an alive-and-well MP community even with the dinosaur known as CIV II.

[Carolus Rex]

A definition of a good game for me is a game where you start with, say, two settlers at, say, 4000 BC and the goal is, say, to found a Civilisation and make it thrive.

Carolus

[DrSpike]

You could be on to something there CR.........maybe you could make a quid or two out of your idea.

[flipside]

Originally posted by DrSpike
You could be on to something there CR.........maybe you could make a quid or two out of your idea.

Nah. A turn based empire builder. That would never work.What kinda people would be sick enough to play that. Sad ..
-*flipside-baying mob*-*baying mob-flipside*-

[Elias]

A good game has to get you deeply involved and has to have you think about it when your not playing a good game needs get you exited to play it and while your playing it. if it gets you to panic at some times that is a good thing. Graphics arnt always important but they are nice to have but it needs to go hand in hand with good game play a story line. my pc actually goes back to the 1980's and has been upgraded many times but there are still a few old games on there like starflight 2 and Larn you may know it better as rogue. well Larn has no graphics you are a little square and you are trying to save your daughter it was a favoriate game of mine its one of the best recreation's of D&D i have ever seen on the pc. Now for starflight 2 it has a great story line and is very diffucult and has a very deep plot that leves you gusing until the end. I wont spoil it for you but I suggest you get it I think it was made in 1987? well I think its older then me.

[da_hal]

imho, a great game is one that gives players imaginative freedom. i don't like most football games because it's basically an exercise in rock-paper-scissors. however, some games allow you to make your own decisions, and have an engine with enough room to allow different strategies to work.

for games where you have to find/do x, y and z in a particular order, i got bored of those about 10 years ago with daggerfall. however, i still play some of those games that have historical or wide sentimental value, such as ultima 4.

after i found apolyton, i'm sure morrowind and thief and deus ex will find their way to my harddrive. but until then, i can wait.