The "General Games Chat" forum, which includes Retro Game Reviews, has been archived and is now read-only. You cannot post here or create a new thread or review on this forum.
Hi everyone, if anyone’s noticed this is the first time I’ve been back here for freakin aaaaaaaaaages, so go easy on me if this post sucks. Thankyou.
OK, to the question: What is the most important factor in a game? To answer this I will look into the categories that some game reviewers (specifically Gamespot) score games on. These are graphics, gameplay, sound, value and personal tilt. I will also throw Originality and Story/plot in for good measure.
First of all to graphics. Ok, yeah, so there’s all the “gameplay over graphics”, holier-than-thou-in-gaming-terms way of thinking, but I’m not so sure. How many times has your enjoyment of a game been diminished by that little niggling voice saying “Cor, those graphics are pretty shoddy/What?? Her lips are still moving in Japanese!!/The developers definitely didn’t put too much effort in This bit” etc? Don’t you hate it when some clipping problems completely smash the sense of reality that a game had been building so hard? One of my main complaints with MGS2 was that it was all grey grey grey wherever you looked. Obviously the gameplay is fantastic in MGS2, but this problem took something away from it. The same things work in reverse as well – the gorgeous, colourful graphics of the FF games largely distract you from gameplay that is, quite frankly, repetitive and often frustrating. For these reasons I think graphics are far more important than those hardcore, deep-down gamers pretend to think.
And on to Gameplay. It’ll sound like a direct contradiction, but obviously this is the big one(I didn’t say graphics were more important, just not so unimportant). There isn’t really a whole lot to say about gameplay – if it’s great then the game will almost certainly be good, and if it’s shoddy the game will be rubbish no matter how sweet the graphics, sound etc are. Obviously your own tastes in gameplay effect what you think, but that comes under “tilt”. One thing that I’ve noticed about games, which is to the advantage of gamers, is that in general a game with great gameplay will often have good graphics, sound and eveything else. I don’t know why this is, perhaps because the developers know when it’s a big project and put the effort in for everything, or they feel that if they’ve gone to the trouble of making a game with excellent gameplay in would be a crime to lessen their achievement with poor graphics and sound. Also true in reverse, if developers are just slamming out another rubbish game seemingly for the sake of it – like the endless army men games and the Disney licences – they are unlikely to bust a gut over the graphics and sound when the gameplay stinks. Just a thought.
Next on to sound. I think this is the most underrated category. You never see people in the forums saying “yeah, but just listen to those SFX!” or similar. Just think how much a good music and SFX add to the atmosphere of a game, let alone decent voice acting. How cool is hearing rival boarders come up behind you in SSX Tricky if you have surround sound? I don’t know about you tough guys, but the eerily quiet music in Silent Hill 2 scares the heck outta me! Some classic games like Grim Fandango, widely regarded as the best adventure game ever, wouldn’t be nearly as effective without the sound. The subtle blend of Mexican and noir-esque tunes fit every scene in the game perfectly, and definitely helped me lose myself in the world (I mean me myself personally, I didn’t get Manny stuck anywhere). I recently read a preview of Medal Of Honour: Frontline on the PS2 in which great emphasis was put on the use of sound – you can always hear the screams as your comrades die all around you, and the music crescendos perfectly when a surprise hits you in the face. Yup, sound is definitely a very important part of any game (except, I’ll admit, driving games, in which the constant roar/purr/choke of the engine can get on your nerves).
Value. Longetivity. How much game you get for your money. This is one of those things that has to be judged just right. A game has to be long enough to give the player a challenge and a sense of achievement when they complete it, but not so long that they get bored and leave it. In one form or another, value seems to be the most common complaints with games nowadays. The really good games are generally too short because the effort went elsewhere, and hardly anyone buys he rubbish games so it doesn’t really matter with them. Even MGS2 can’t escape blame in this category, with many players complaining that there are too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay. GT3, in many ways a great game, was scarred greatly by those endurance races because the developers couldn’t be bothered to add longetivity with more tracks or cars. Donkey Kong 64 is a great example of perfect value: There’s shedloads to do, hundreds of minigames, and at no point do you feel you’re being made to do stuff for the sake of it. Value, while not being a factor that will make or break a game, is definitely something to look out for.
Next on to personal tilt. This is arguably the most important factor – whether a game is your sort of thing. Personally I hate flight sims, so no matter how highly a reviewer might score one, no matter how urgently the magazines instruct me to buy one, I know I will never buy one. In reverse, I love adventure games, and they are in short supply, so I will often but adventure games that get relatively low scores (but not TOO low, I’m not made of money ;) ) If you have personal preferences one way or another over a specific genre then that can override all the other factors of that game. However, this isn’t really something developers can take into account very much, apart from not designing games that no-one on earth will buy (what was that bull baiting one?). This makes it possibly the most important category for players, but the least important for developers.
Penultimately: Originality. Although I believe that originality is the way forward with games – eventually we’ll get bored with the same old genres no matter how well they’re made – I don’t think it’s the most important factor in making a game good. None of the great games of today are particularly original, with the possible exception of Max Payne’s “bullet time” which is already being mimicked by countless other games. Originality often comes at a price as well – everyone was waiting with baited breath to see what Herdy Gerdy was going to turn out to be, but it turned out that the game itself didn’t know either – it was trying to mix so many ideas and styles it just became a confused mish-mash. So much for the original idea of pecking-order based herding. “Original” games often score lower in other categories as well as gameplay. Kuri Kuri Mix on the PS2 if a very original game – you guide 2 little characters, a bunny and a mouse (or something equally furry) with each analogue stick at the same time, which obviously takes masses of co-ordination. Unfortunately the game is plagued by very blocky graphics and an amazingly irritating soundtrack. Shame, that.
Last, but definitely not least, the story or plot in a game (and at this point Id like to congratulate you for getting this far, or curse you if you’re just skimming ;) ). I have always found that a good story is very important in a game, especially if it’s judged just right. I think Deus Ex is a great example of the perfect plot. It has enough twists and turns to keep you intrigued, but not enough to confuse you, like MGS2 (I think Ive listed every fault of MGS2 in this post. Apart from Raiden. 13astard.). I felt very ripped off when I discovered TimeSplitters’ so-called “story mode”. Im glad the game made up for it in so many other ways. A game doesn’t just have to be a FPS or RPG to have a plot. Personally I find fighting or racing games far more fun and easier to get into if you’re actually fighting/racing for a reason other than simply coming first. DOA is a good example of this. Yes sir, a good, balanced story is an important part of any game.
All things considered, I have to say that gameplay and personal tilt combined are the most important features of a game. What good is a fantastic game if you hate the genre, and would an FPS freak enjoy that nerf game? None and I doubt it, respectively. Coming in at a very close second, third and fourth are graphics, sound and story, in that order. That’s purely the order of importance I think those 3 things come in, you may disagree. Coming in at the bottom of the importance pile is originality, as I think we’d all rather play a fantastic game that we’ver all seen before instead of an original game that is, basically, cr@p.
Thanks for reading, and Id really appreciate it if you’d make a comment, constructive criticism, general criticism, searing criticism, whatever! It’ll be a joy to actually get some replies to a topic of mine (I think my personal best is still “funniest FOG moments?” at 16). Lol.
OK, to the question: What is the most important factor in a game? To answer this I will look into the categories that some game reviewers (specifically Gamespot) score games on. These are graphics, gameplay, sound, value and personal tilt. I will also throw Originality and Story/plot in for good measure.
First of all to graphics. Ok, yeah, so there’s all the “gameplay over graphics”, holier-than-thou-in-gaming-terms way of thinking, but I’m not so sure. How many times has your enjoyment of a game been diminished by that little niggling voice saying “Cor, those graphics are pretty shoddy/What?? Her lips are still moving in Japanese!!/The developers definitely didn’t put too much effort in This bit” etc? Don’t you hate it when some clipping problems completely smash the sense of reality that a game had been building so hard? One of my main complaints with MGS2 was that it was all grey grey grey wherever you looked. Obviously the gameplay is fantastic in MGS2, but this problem took something away from it. The same things work in reverse as well – the gorgeous, colourful graphics of the FF games largely distract you from gameplay that is, quite frankly, repetitive and often frustrating. For these reasons I think graphics are far more important than those hardcore, deep-down gamers pretend to think.
And on to Gameplay. It’ll sound like a direct contradiction, but obviously this is the big one(I didn’t say graphics were more important, just not so unimportant). There isn’t really a whole lot to say about gameplay – if it’s great then the game will almost certainly be good, and if it’s shoddy the game will be rubbish no matter how sweet the graphics, sound etc are. Obviously your own tastes in gameplay effect what you think, but that comes under “tilt”. One thing that I’ve noticed about games, which is to the advantage of gamers, is that in general a game with great gameplay will often have good graphics, sound and eveything else. I don’t know why this is, perhaps because the developers know when it’s a big project and put the effort in for everything, or they feel that if they’ve gone to the trouble of making a game with excellent gameplay in would be a crime to lessen their achievement with poor graphics and sound. Also true in reverse, if developers are just slamming out another rubbish game seemingly for the sake of it – like the endless army men games and the Disney licences – they are unlikely to bust a gut over the graphics and sound when the gameplay stinks. Just a thought.
Next on to sound. I think this is the most underrated category. You never see people in the forums saying “yeah, but just listen to those SFX!” or similar. Just think how much a good music and SFX add to the atmosphere of a game, let alone decent voice acting. How cool is hearing rival boarders come up behind you in SSX Tricky if you have surround sound? I don’t know about you tough guys, but the eerily quiet music in Silent Hill 2 scares the heck outta me! Some classic games like Grim Fandango, widely regarded as the best adventure game ever, wouldn’t be nearly as effective without the sound. The subtle blend of Mexican and noir-esque tunes fit every scene in the game perfectly, and definitely helped me lose myself in the world (I mean me myself personally, I didn’t get Manny stuck anywhere). I recently read a preview of Medal Of Honour: Frontline on the PS2 in which great emphasis was put on the use of sound – you can always hear the screams as your comrades die all around you, and the music crescendos perfectly when a surprise hits you in the face. Yup, sound is definitely a very important part of any game (except, I’ll admit, driving games, in which the constant roar/purr/choke of the engine can get on your nerves).
Value. Longetivity. How much game you get for your money. This is one of those things that has to be judged just right. A game has to be long enough to give the player a challenge and a sense of achievement when they complete it, but not so long that they get bored and leave it. In one form or another, value seems to be the most common complaints with games nowadays. The really good games are generally too short because the effort went elsewhere, and hardly anyone buys he rubbish games so it doesn’t really matter with them. Even MGS2 can’t escape blame in this category, with many players complaining that there are too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay. GT3, in many ways a great game, was scarred greatly by those endurance races because the developers couldn’t be bothered to add longetivity with more tracks or cars. Donkey Kong 64 is a great example of perfect value: There’s shedloads to do, hundreds of minigames, and at no point do you feel you’re being made to do stuff for the sake of it. Value, while not being a factor that will make or break a game, is definitely something to look out for.
Next on to personal tilt. This is arguably the most important factor – whether a game is your sort of thing. Personally I hate flight sims, so no matter how highly a reviewer might score one, no matter how urgently the magazines instruct me to buy one, I know I will never buy one. In reverse, I love adventure games, and they are in short supply, so I will often but adventure games that get relatively low scores (but not TOO low, I’m not made of money ;) ) If you have personal preferences one way or another over a specific genre then that can override all the other factors of that game. However, this isn’t really something developers can take into account very much, apart from not designing games that no-one on earth will buy (what was that bull baiting one?). This makes it possibly the most important category for players, but the least important for developers.
Penultimately: Originality. Although I believe that originality is the way forward with games – eventually we’ll get bored with the same old genres no matter how well they’re made – I don’t think it’s the most important factor in making a game good. None of the great games of today are particularly original, with the possible exception of Max Payne’s “bullet time” which is already being mimicked by countless other games. Originality often comes at a price as well – everyone was waiting with baited breath to see what Herdy Gerdy was going to turn out to be, but it turned out that the game itself didn’t know either – it was trying to mix so many ideas and styles it just became a confused mish-mash. So much for the original idea of pecking-order based herding. “Original” games often score lower in other categories as well as gameplay. Kuri Kuri Mix on the PS2 if a very original game – you guide 2 little characters, a bunny and a mouse (or something equally furry) with each analogue stick at the same time, which obviously takes masses of co-ordination. Unfortunately the game is plagued by very blocky graphics and an amazingly irritating soundtrack. Shame, that.
Last, but definitely not least, the story or plot in a game (and at this point Id like to congratulate you for getting this far, or curse you if you’re just skimming ;) ). I have always found that a good story is very important in a game, especially if it’s judged just right. I think Deus Ex is a great example of the perfect plot. It has enough twists and turns to keep you intrigued, but not enough to confuse you, like MGS2 (I think Ive listed every fault of MGS2 in this post. Apart from Raiden. 13astard.). I felt very ripped off when I discovered TimeSplitters’ so-called “story mode”. Im glad the game made up for it in so many other ways. A game doesn’t just have to be a FPS or RPG to have a plot. Personally I find fighting or racing games far more fun and easier to get into if you’re actually fighting/racing for a reason other than simply coming first. DOA is a good example of this. Yes sir, a good, balanced story is an important part of any game.
All things considered, I have to say that gameplay and personal tilt combined are the most important features of a game. What good is a fantastic game if you hate the genre, and would an FPS freak enjoy that nerf game? None and I doubt it, respectively. Coming in at a very close second, third and fourth are graphics, sound and story, in that order. That’s purely the order of importance I think those 3 things come in, you may disagree. Coming in at the bottom of the importance pile is originality, as I think we’d all rather play a fantastic game that we’ver all seen before instead of an original game that is, basically, cr@p.
Thanks for reading, and Id really appreciate it if you’d make a comment, constructive criticism, general criticism, searing criticism, whatever! It’ll be a joy to actually get some replies to a topic of mine (I think my personal best is still “funniest FOG moments?” at 16). Lol.
Well done for GAD!
PCManiac wrote:
> Can I add multiplayer to your list? Multiplayer is a must-have for me.#
And paragraphs, please use paragraphs!!
Oh, and well done for the GAD by the way. :)
I'm sure that if you space out things like this topic a bit more, it'll be easier to read your posts and reply to them making sense. Maybe more prizes will also come to you!
> Can I add multiplayer to your list? Multiplayer is a must-have for me.#
And paragraphs, please use paragraphs!!
Oh, and well done for the GAD by the way. :)
I'm sure that if you space out things like this topic a bit more, it'll be easier to read your posts and reply to them making sense. Maybe more prizes will also come to you!
Congratulations on the GAD
They're all valid poitns, but then can't all of the points made come under "tilt". There are many people that will write off games because they aren't on the console they own, which albeit stupid, can make or break a game.
Take Pokemon for example. The first two games were original, and were regarded as good, even if they did appeal to kids, but the relentless cashing in on it made almost exclusively for kids. Pokemon haven't been around for ages, and hopefully it will stay the same, but the image and reputation a game has will influence people more than any amount of substance it can offer.
Tomb Raider: A great game, with characters that appealed to its target audience, and offered a great, innovative game. Over the coming years however, the series of games have decided to make a quick buck, as it were, but still appealing to its primary audience, young male teens.
The most important thing in a game, in my opinion is longetivity. This does not just apply to video games, but to all games.
To make a game last long however, it needs to offer something new every time it is played, which is why games like chess, poker etc. have lasted so well. These games offer a different challenge every time, and opponents adjust their game to yours, and vice versa.
Another thing that invokes longevity, I think, is hi-scores. People, especially these days like to know that they're the best. Games like Pac-Man, Space invaders etc all had high-scores, which acted as a target for other gamers to try and beat, with every player having the opportunity of raising the standard for everyone else.
There are games that are original, have great gameplay, graphics etc, but will ultimately be forgotton as they have no lasting features.
Crazy taxi was a great ame in its own right, but offered no sort of lasting challenge. GT3 however offered many races, for differing skills, cars, even weathers, so buying a new game may prise you away from a game for a few days, but the lure of finishing the game drags you back.
I disagree with the MGS2 comments, as on completion of MGS2, using the code, you can compare results with other players across the world, as well as trying to complete the game, collecting all of the dog tags. I don't think it is possible to complete the game in a few hours collecting all the tags.
Longevity in my opinion is the most important thing in a game, but the most important thing FOR a game is its image.
If, like many XBox games (Munches oddysee, Halo) the games are hyped out of proportion, then the game will be popular, because people are superficial, they will buy a game because of the hype the are surrounded with, be it FMV or actual screenshot. Some will be dissappointed if the game is not perfect, but the hype can get peoples expectations too high, and this is bound to happen.
MGS2 was very much hyped, although the time spent in it making every soldier react realisticly to their surroundings and actions going on around them, and so the hype was justified.
Halo, good game, although the gameplay and plot were not groundbreaking. Many of the XBox games do focus on graphics, on account of that is its strong point, but soon people may get wise to it. There are good games on the XBox, but unless the emphasis is made on gameplay, and useful features (Not a 60Hz option), instead of looking better than the rest, it won't succeed.
People are fed up with TR, and unless substance is favoured to style, not just at Eidos and EA, people will get smart of this, and cashing in will be noticed, the games fail, and along with them, their consoles
Take Pokemon for example. The first two games were original, and were regarded as good, even if they did appeal to kids, but the relentless cashing in on it made almost exclusively for kids. Pokemon haven't been around for ages, and hopefully it will stay the same, but the image and reputation a game has will influence people more than any amount of substance it can offer.
Tomb Raider: A great game, with characters that appealed to its target audience, and offered a great, innovative game. Over the coming years however, the series of games have decided to make a quick buck, as it were, but still appealing to its primary audience, young male teens.
The most important thing in a game, in my opinion is longetivity. This does not just apply to video games, but to all games.
To make a game last long however, it needs to offer something new every time it is played, which is why games like chess, poker etc. have lasted so well. These games offer a different challenge every time, and opponents adjust their game to yours, and vice versa.
Another thing that invokes longevity, I think, is hi-scores. People, especially these days like to know that they're the best. Games like Pac-Man, Space invaders etc all had high-scores, which acted as a target for other gamers to try and beat, with every player having the opportunity of raising the standard for everyone else.
There are games that are original, have great gameplay, graphics etc, but will ultimately be forgotton as they have no lasting features.
Crazy taxi was a great ame in its own right, but offered no sort of lasting challenge. GT3 however offered many races, for differing skills, cars, even weathers, so buying a new game may prise you away from a game for a few days, but the lure of finishing the game drags you back.
I disagree with the MGS2 comments, as on completion of MGS2, using the code, you can compare results with other players across the world, as well as trying to complete the game, collecting all of the dog tags. I don't think it is possible to complete the game in a few hours collecting all the tags.
Longevity in my opinion is the most important thing in a game, but the most important thing FOR a game is its image.
If, like many XBox games (Munches oddysee, Halo) the games are hyped out of proportion, then the game will be popular, because people are superficial, they will buy a game because of the hype the are surrounded with, be it FMV or actual screenshot. Some will be dissappointed if the game is not perfect, but the hype can get peoples expectations too high, and this is bound to happen.
MGS2 was very much hyped, although the time spent in it making every soldier react realisticly to their surroundings and actions going on around them, and so the hype was justified.
Halo, good game, although the gameplay and plot were not groundbreaking. Many of the XBox games do focus on graphics, on account of that is its strong point, but soon people may get wise to it. There are good games on the XBox, but unless the emphasis is made on gameplay, and useful features (Not a 60Hz option), instead of looking better than the rest, it won't succeed.
People are fed up with TR, and unless substance is favoured to style, not just at Eidos and EA, people will get smart of this, and cashing in will be noticed, the games fail, and along with them, their consoles
Well done Toad-Boy
Wondered why I hadnt seen you on these forums for ages.....
You must have been writing this topic the whole time! "Whatta Whoppa"
You must have been writing this topic the whole time! "Whatta Whoppa"
Hi everyone, if anyone’s noticed this is the first time I’ve been back here for freakin aaaaaaaaaages, so go easy on me if this post sucks. Thankyou.
OK, to the question: What is the most important factor in a game? To answer this I will look into the categories that some game reviewers (specifically Gamespot) score games on. These are graphics, gameplay, sound, value and personal tilt. I will also throw Originality and Story/plot in for good measure.
First of all to graphics. Ok, yeah, so there’s all the “gameplay over graphics”, holier-than-thou-in-gaming-terms way of thinking, but I’m not so sure. How many times has your enjoyment of a game been diminished by that little niggling voice saying “Cor, those graphics are pretty shoddy/What?? Her lips are still moving in Japanese!!/The developers definitely didn’t put too much effort in This bit” etc? Don’t you hate it when some clipping problems completely smash the sense of reality that a game had been building so hard? One of my main complaints with MGS2 was that it was all grey grey grey wherever you looked. Obviously the gameplay is fantastic in MGS2, but this problem took something away from it. The same things work in reverse as well – the gorgeous, colourful graphics of the FF games largely distract you from gameplay that is, quite frankly, repetitive and often frustrating. For these reasons I think graphics are far more important than those hardcore, deep-down gamers pretend to think.
And on to Gameplay. It’ll sound like a direct contradiction, but obviously this is the big one(I didn’t say graphics were more important, just not so unimportant). There isn’t really a whole lot to say about gameplay – if it’s great then the game will almost certainly be good, and if it’s shoddy the game will be rubbish no matter how sweet the graphics, sound etc are. Obviously your own tastes in gameplay effect what you think, but that comes under “tilt”. One thing that I’ve noticed about games, which is to the advantage of gamers, is that in general a game with great gameplay will often have good graphics, sound and eveything else. I don’t know why this is, perhaps because the developers know when it’s a big project and put the effort in for everything, or they feel that if they’ve gone to the trouble of making a game with excellent gameplay in would be a crime to lessen their achievement with poor graphics and sound. Also true in reverse, if developers are just slamming out another rubbish game seemingly for the sake of it – like the endless army men games and the Disney licences – they are unlikely to bust a gut over the graphics and sound when the gameplay stinks. Just a thought.
Next on to sound. I think this is the most underrated category. You never see people in the forums saying “yeah, but just listen to those SFX!” or similar. Just think how much a good music and SFX add to the atmosphere of a game, let alone decent voice acting. How cool is hearing rival boarders come up behind you in SSX Tricky if you have surround sound? I don’t know about you tough guys, but the eerily quiet music in Silent Hill 2 scares the heck outta me! Some classic games like Grim Fandango, widely regarded as the best adventure game ever, wouldn’t be nearly as effective without the sound. The subtle blend of Mexican and noir-esque tunes fit every scene in the game perfectly, and definitely helped me lose myself in the world (I mean me myself personally, I didn’t get Manny stuck anywhere). I recently read a preview of Medal Of Honour: Frontline on the PS2 in which great emphasis was put on the use of sound – you can always hear the screams as your comrades die all around you, and the music crescendos perfectly when a surprise hits you in the face. Yup, sound is definitely a very important part of any game (except, I’ll admit, driving games, in which the constant roar/purr/choke of the engine can get on your nerves).
Value. Longetivity. How much game you get for your money. This is one of those things that has to be judged just right. A game has to be long enough to give the player a challenge and a sense of achievement when they complete it, but not so long that they get bored and leave it. In one form or another, value seems to be the most common complaints with games nowadays. The really good games are generally too short because the effort went elsewhere, and hardly anyone buys he rubbish games so it doesn’t really matter with them. Even MGS2 can’t escape blame in this category, with many players complaining that there are too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay. GT3, in many ways a great game, was scarred greatly by those endurance races because the developers couldn’t be bothered to add longetivity with more tracks or cars. Donkey Kong 64 is a great example of perfect value: There’s shedloads to do, hundreds of minigames, and at no point do you feel you’re being made to do stuff for the sake of it. Value, while not being a factor that will make or break a game, is definitely something to look out for.
Next on to personal tilt. This is arguably the most important factor – whether a game is your sort of thing. Personally I hate flight sims, so no matter how highly a reviewer might score one, no matter how urgently the magazines instruct me to buy one, I know I will never buy one. In reverse, I love adventure games, and they are in short supply, so I will often but adventure games that get relatively low scores (but not TOO low, I’m not made of money ;) ) If you have personal preferences one way or another over a specific genre then that can override all the other factors of that game. However, this isn’t really something developers can take into account very much, apart from not designing games that no-one on earth will buy (what was that bull baiting one?). This makes it possibly the most important category for players, but the least important for developers.
Penultimately: Originality. Although I believe that originality is the way forward with games – eventually we’ll get bored with the same old genres no matter how well they’re made – I don’t think it’s the most important factor in making a game good. None of the great games of today are particularly original, with the possible exception of Max Payne’s “bullet time” which is already being mimicked by countless other games. Originality often comes at a price as well – everyone was waiting with baited breath to see what Herdy Gerdy was going to turn out to be, but it turned out that the game itself didn’t know either – it was trying to mix so many ideas and styles it just became a confused mish-mash. So much for the original idea of pecking-order based herding. “Original” games often score lower in other categories as well as gameplay. Kuri Kuri Mix on the PS2 if a very original game – you guide 2 little characters, a bunny and a mouse (or something equally furry) with each analogue stick at the same time, which obviously takes masses of co-ordination. Unfortunately the game is plagued by very blocky graphics and an amazingly irritating soundtrack. Shame, that.
Last, but definitely not least, the story or plot in a game (and at this point Id like to congratulate you for getting this far, or curse you if you’re just skimming ;) ). I have always found that a good story is very important in a game, especially if it’s judged just right. I think Deus Ex is a great example of the perfect plot. It has enough twists and turns to keep you intrigued, but not enough to confuse you, like MGS2 (I think Ive listed every fault of MGS2 in this post. Apart from Raiden. 13astard.). I felt very ripped off when I discovered TimeSplitters’ so-called “story mode”. Im glad the game made up for it in so many other ways. A game doesn’t just have to be a FPS or RPG to have a plot. Personally I find fighting or racing games far more fun and easier to get into if you’re actually fighting/racing for a reason other than simply coming first. DOA is a good example of this. Yes sir, a good, balanced story is an important part of any game.
All things considered, I have to say that gameplay and personal tilt combined are the most important features of a game. What good is a fantastic game if you hate the genre, and would an FPS freak enjoy that nerf game? None and I doubt it, respectively. Coming in at a very close second, third and fourth are graphics, sound and story, in that order. That’s purely the order of importance I think those 3 things come in, you may disagree. Coming in at the bottom of the importance pile is originality, as I think we’d all rather play a fantastic game that we’ver all seen before instead of an original game that is, basically, cr@p.
Thanks for reading, and Id really appreciate it if you’d make a comment, constructive criticism, general criticism, searing criticism, whatever! It’ll be a joy to actually get some replies to a topic of mine (I think my personal best is still “funniest FOG moments?” at 16). Lol.
OK, to the question: What is the most important factor in a game? To answer this I will look into the categories that some game reviewers (specifically Gamespot) score games on. These are graphics, gameplay, sound, value and personal tilt. I will also throw Originality and Story/plot in for good measure.
First of all to graphics. Ok, yeah, so there’s all the “gameplay over graphics”, holier-than-thou-in-gaming-terms way of thinking, but I’m not so sure. How many times has your enjoyment of a game been diminished by that little niggling voice saying “Cor, those graphics are pretty shoddy/What?? Her lips are still moving in Japanese!!/The developers definitely didn’t put too much effort in This bit” etc? Don’t you hate it when some clipping problems completely smash the sense of reality that a game had been building so hard? One of my main complaints with MGS2 was that it was all grey grey grey wherever you looked. Obviously the gameplay is fantastic in MGS2, but this problem took something away from it. The same things work in reverse as well – the gorgeous, colourful graphics of the FF games largely distract you from gameplay that is, quite frankly, repetitive and often frustrating. For these reasons I think graphics are far more important than those hardcore, deep-down gamers pretend to think.
And on to Gameplay. It’ll sound like a direct contradiction, but obviously this is the big one(I didn’t say graphics were more important, just not so unimportant). There isn’t really a whole lot to say about gameplay – if it’s great then the game will almost certainly be good, and if it’s shoddy the game will be rubbish no matter how sweet the graphics, sound etc are. Obviously your own tastes in gameplay effect what you think, but that comes under “tilt”. One thing that I’ve noticed about games, which is to the advantage of gamers, is that in general a game with great gameplay will often have good graphics, sound and eveything else. I don’t know why this is, perhaps because the developers know when it’s a big project and put the effort in for everything, or they feel that if they’ve gone to the trouble of making a game with excellent gameplay in would be a crime to lessen their achievement with poor graphics and sound. Also true in reverse, if developers are just slamming out another rubbish game seemingly for the sake of it – like the endless army men games and the Disney licences – they are unlikely to bust a gut over the graphics and sound when the gameplay stinks. Just a thought.
Next on to sound. I think this is the most underrated category. You never see people in the forums saying “yeah, but just listen to those SFX!” or similar. Just think how much a good music and SFX add to the atmosphere of a game, let alone decent voice acting. How cool is hearing rival boarders come up behind you in SSX Tricky if you have surround sound? I don’t know about you tough guys, but the eerily quiet music in Silent Hill 2 scares the heck outta me! Some classic games like Grim Fandango, widely regarded as the best adventure game ever, wouldn’t be nearly as effective without the sound. The subtle blend of Mexican and noir-esque tunes fit every scene in the game perfectly, and definitely helped me lose myself in the world (I mean me myself personally, I didn’t get Manny stuck anywhere). I recently read a preview of Medal Of Honour: Frontline on the PS2 in which great emphasis was put on the use of sound – you can always hear the screams as your comrades die all around you, and the music crescendos perfectly when a surprise hits you in the face. Yup, sound is definitely a very important part of any game (except, I’ll admit, driving games, in which the constant roar/purr/choke of the engine can get on your nerves).
Value. Longetivity. How much game you get for your money. This is one of those things that has to be judged just right. A game has to be long enough to give the player a challenge and a sense of achievement when they complete it, but not so long that they get bored and leave it. In one form or another, value seems to be the most common complaints with games nowadays. The really good games are generally too short because the effort went elsewhere, and hardly anyone buys he rubbish games so it doesn’t really matter with them. Even MGS2 can’t escape blame in this category, with many players complaining that there are too many cutscenes and not enough gameplay. GT3, in many ways a great game, was scarred greatly by those endurance races because the developers couldn’t be bothered to add longetivity with more tracks or cars. Donkey Kong 64 is a great example of perfect value: There’s shedloads to do, hundreds of minigames, and at no point do you feel you’re being made to do stuff for the sake of it. Value, while not being a factor that will make or break a game, is definitely something to look out for.
Next on to personal tilt. This is arguably the most important factor – whether a game is your sort of thing. Personally I hate flight sims, so no matter how highly a reviewer might score one, no matter how urgently the magazines instruct me to buy one, I know I will never buy one. In reverse, I love adventure games, and they are in short supply, so I will often but adventure games that get relatively low scores (but not TOO low, I’m not made of money ;) ) If you have personal preferences one way or another over a specific genre then that can override all the other factors of that game. However, this isn’t really something developers can take into account very much, apart from not designing games that no-one on earth will buy (what was that bull baiting one?). This makes it possibly the most important category for players, but the least important for developers.
Penultimately: Originality. Although I believe that originality is the way forward with games – eventually we’ll get bored with the same old genres no matter how well they’re made – I don’t think it’s the most important factor in making a game good. None of the great games of today are particularly original, with the possible exception of Max Payne’s “bullet time” which is already being mimicked by countless other games. Originality often comes at a price as well – everyone was waiting with baited breath to see what Herdy Gerdy was going to turn out to be, but it turned out that the game itself didn’t know either – it was trying to mix so many ideas and styles it just became a confused mish-mash. So much for the original idea of pecking-order based herding. “Original” games often score lower in other categories as well as gameplay. Kuri Kuri Mix on the PS2 if a very original game – you guide 2 little characters, a bunny and a mouse (or something equally furry) with each analogue stick at the same time, which obviously takes masses of co-ordination. Unfortunately the game is plagued by very blocky graphics and an amazingly irritating soundtrack. Shame, that.
Last, but definitely not least, the story or plot in a game (and at this point Id like to congratulate you for getting this far, or curse you if you’re just skimming ;) ). I have always found that a good story is very important in a game, especially if it’s judged just right. I think Deus Ex is a great example of the perfect plot. It has enough twists and turns to keep you intrigued, but not enough to confuse you, like MGS2 (I think Ive listed every fault of MGS2 in this post. Apart from Raiden. 13astard.). I felt very ripped off when I discovered TimeSplitters’ so-called “story mode”. Im glad the game made up for it in so many other ways. A game doesn’t just have to be a FPS or RPG to have a plot. Personally I find fighting or racing games far more fun and easier to get into if you’re actually fighting/racing for a reason other than simply coming first. DOA is a good example of this. Yes sir, a good, balanced story is an important part of any game.
All things considered, I have to say that gameplay and personal tilt combined are the most important features of a game. What good is a fantastic game if you hate the genre, and would an FPS freak enjoy that nerf game? None and I doubt it, respectively. Coming in at a very close second, third and fourth are graphics, sound and story, in that order. That’s purely the order of importance I think those 3 things come in, you may disagree. Coming in at the bottom of the importance pile is originality, as I think we’d all rather play a fantastic game that we’ver all seen before instead of an original game that is, basically, cr@p.
Thanks for reading, and Id really appreciate it if you’d make a comment, constructive criticism, general criticism, searing criticism, whatever! It’ll be a joy to actually get some replies to a topic of mine (I think my personal best is still “funniest FOG moments?” at 16). Lol.