What makes a top-notch game?

All discussions regarding Board, Card, and RPG Gaming, including industry discussion, that don't belong in one of the other gaming forums.

Moderators: The Preacher, $iljanus, Zaxxon

Post Reply
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

What makes a top-notch game?

Post by Zaxxon »

Back in 2001, I wrote a feature for Stratos describing the charactaristics that a game must display in order to be remembered near the top of the gargantuan pile of titles released. The piece was written coinciding with the 2-year anniversary of Unreal Tournament, and it's no coincidence that I used UT as an example of a game meeting the characteristics that I put forth.

Since that time, I've grown to love UT2004 as the true successor to UT99, and I believe that it has surpassed the pure joy that was UT99. So I think it's a fitting choice to use to begin this thread.

In my piece, I said,
In my book, games have to do three things right in order to be truly great: they have to pull the player out of his or her life and into the game, to the extent that the person playing the game forgets that they're playing a game. (Any of you who have sat down to play after dinner, then looked at your watch and realized that it's 3 am have played a game that meets this requirement. You know what I mean; quit pretending you don’t) Next, a game has to earn a perfect mark in the gameplay department--it has to be fun to play. (Duh) Finally, the game has to be replayable. A game can last 10 hours and be very good, but you'll never catch me casting a best-ever vote (and scarcely ever a Game of the Year vote) for a game that I don't feel like playing anymore after a relatively short amount of time.
I really believe that these three descriptors map to the best games out there. There are tons of qualities that can be brought up to describe an awesome game, but I think they all boil down to one of those three items.

Immersion

Let's take UT2004. This is one game that grabbed me from the get-go and provided me with dozens of sessions of play in which I couldn't have told you at the end whether I played for 2 hours or 8 hours without looking at a clock. The level of immersion is simply brilliant. Back in the day, I used graphics, enveloping sound, and a comfortable control scheme to enumerate the characteristics that made UT99's immersion level so high. I'm not certain that that's a valid description, however. The control scheme of a game certainly plays an important part in this--if you're worrying about which key to press or what button to click, your immersion level is damaged and you're brought back to the 'real world'--but I don't know that it's possible to describe exactly what captures your heart and pulls you out of your world and into the game's--it just happens, and I think it's a combination of things. In any event, UT2004 does this.

Gameplay

Similar to but distinct from the immersion factor is gameplay. One can be immersed in a game's world without being totally sold on its gameplay. The Longest Journey is a good example of this. TLJ's story was brilliant, IMO, and kept me plastered to my PC until I finished the game, despite some less-than-wonderful puzzles and fetch-and-deliver sections of the game. TLJ is a great game, but it's not at the top of my all-time list. UT2004, on the other hand, has nary a true flaw in its gameplay. Get a group together--or a group of bots, for that matter--load up a quality map or three (out of the hundred or so released with the game, or dozens more released since), and you'll be in gaming nirvana immediately, and throughout your session. Combine full immersion in a title with top-notch gameplay, and you're well on your way to the top.

Replayability

At this point you're likely scratching your head--if a game pulls you in and is eminently playable, wouldn't it stand to reason that it'd be replayable? Why yes, yes it generally would. But I'm not talking replayable in the 'It was so awesome I played it through again' sense. I'm referring to the I've got more than 200 hours of play notched with this game. Please find me a 12-step program sense of the word. Max Payne was an awesome game with regard to the first two criteria I've presented, but fell short in the replayability department.

Replayability can come from tons of levels or other content, random level generators, bonus packs, or community content; regardless of its source, it serves to keep you coming back, and continues to deliver the 1-2 punch described above so that years after a game's release, you're still as addicted as you were on release day. Diablo had it. UT99/2004 meets this criterion, as well.

What do you think causes a title to climb to the top of the stack and stay there? Do you agree with my choices of immersion, gameplay, and replayability? Did I miss anything? Is replayability really necessary? Why do we drive in parkways and park in driveways? Discuss!
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43488
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Post by Blackhawk »

In general I agree, but not on the replayability/length bit. That might affect value but it doesn't affect how good the game is. It also completely shuts out most story-based games, regardless of their quality, leaving you with nothing but multiplayer and open-ended titles.

In some cases, a game's quality is even enhanced by having a shorter length. Some styles of game are, by their nature, repetitive. Max Payne is a fantastic example. Yeah, you could bust through it in ten or twelve hours, but if it was twenty-five, the novelty would wear thin, the weapons would get old, and you'd get sick of it before the end.

If anything, I'd say that knowing the right length to make your game is the key. In the case of Max Payne, the right length was 12-15 hours. In Baldur's Gate, it was 200. In Unreal Tournament, the right length was for the player to never get bored (helped immeasurably not by the game, but by its mod support.)
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

Blackhawk wrote:In general I agree, but not on the replayability/length bit. That might affect value but it doesn't affect how good the game is. It also completely shuts out most story-based games, regardless of their quality, leaving you with nothing but multiplayer and open-ended titles.
I believe this is something we've discussed and disagreed on before, Mr. Hawk. :) For me, replayability is an important factor to the game's ability to scoot up to the very top of my all-time list. It is unfair to story-based titles, but it is what it is. I loved Max, and I loved TLJ. They're great games, and in Max's case I don't know how they could have improved upon it significantly. But it just can't compete in my mind with UT or Kohan, and the bulk of the reason that it can't is that it's not as long-lasting. Fair? No. But it is there.
In some cases, a game's quality is even enhanced by having a shorter length. Some styles of game are, by their nature, repetitive. Max Payne is a fantastic example. Yeah, you could bust through it in ten or twelve hours, but if it was twenty-five, the novelty would wear thin, the weapons would get old, and you'd get sick of it before the end.
Agreed. Just not relevant from my point of view.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Post by Kraken »

Replayability and fun factor: A game must allow for multiple paths to victory or completion. More flexibility = more fun. A game that has only one "right" way to play isn't much fun, and isn't at all replayable. Yet, there must be sufficient structure to keep players from getting lost or wondering what to do. Ideally, the player has several options to pursue at any given point, and understands how to go about each one. These options are mutually exclusive. There must always be more to do than the player can achieve.

Fun factor: A game should reward the player on a regular basis, with some payoff at the end. The reward can be anything from a new building or unit, to a new ability, to new equipment, to a cutscene or story advancement. Winning/completing the game must provide a sense of closure, such as with a scoreboard, a summary screen or a video.

Immersion: This one's less important to me, as a strategy gamer. But a game should remain true to its setting/time period, and maintain a consistent character. Quality writing is very important to me, more so than realistic graphics. Civ3's original version had dreadful, juvenile text that was completely out of sync with the notion of ruling a civilization. It got better with the expansions and mods.
St. Mark
Posts: 65
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 10:55 pm

Post by St. Mark »

For turn-based strategy games, I think inducing the cliched, but so very satisfying/addicting feeling of wanting to complete "just one more turn" is the most important aspect in determining whether it is a top-notch game. I don't know if "immersion" necessarily factors in achieving this, but gameplay and replayability certainly do.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Post by Kraken »

Zaxxon wrote:For me, replayability is an important factor to the game's ability to scoot up to the very top of my all-time list. It is unfair to story-based titles, but it is what it is.
I'm with you on this one, FWIW. I almost never buy story-based games, because replayability is one of my chief considerations. Whether fair or not, I consider story games "disposable" -- play once and sell. They just aren't in the same league as open-ended games. Certainly this is just a matter of personal preference.
User avatar
Kraken
Posts: 43688
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:59 pm
Location: The Hub of the Universe
Contact:

Post by Kraken »

St. Mark wrote:For turn-based strategy games, I think inducing the cliched, but so very satisfying/addicting feeling of wanting to complete "just one more turn" is the most important aspect in determining whether it is a top-notch game. I don't know if "immersion" necessarily factors in achieving this, but gameplay and replayability certainly do.
That was what I was getting at by providing constant rewards. The one-more-turn feeling comes from expecting another little reward very soon.

I forgot one very important thing: There has to be a good chance that I will lose! It is absolutely no fun playing a game that you know you're going to win every time. If there's no challenge, why play? To this end, difficulty levels are a must. The challenge has to scale to players' preferences.
RashG
Posts: 46
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 4:35 pm

Post by RashG »

Max Payne (and the sequel especially) is actually very replayable, at least to me. The story is good and short so it can be played many times before it becomes boring, just like a good movie. I also play some points many times using different weapons and tactics. There are also many good mods for MP1 and many coming for MP2.

Another example (even better one) is Alpha Centauri. It has a great story and even greater replayability.

In the end, at least for me, a good story is necessary for a game to be in the top list. Multiplayer is of course a different matter.
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43488
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Post by Blackhawk »

Yes. I think that's it, and why I disagree with Zaxxon's 'Replayability' point. A good narrative isn't always compatible with replayability (although there are exceptions, usually brought about through complexity), and to me, a good story is vital to Zaxxon's point #1 - immersion.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Zaxxon
Forum Moderator
Posts: 28118
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 12:11 am
Location: Surrounded by Mountains

Post by Zaxxon »

Blackhawk wrote:Yes. I think that's it, and why I disagree with Zaxxon's 'Replayability' point. A good narrative isn't always compatible with replayability (although there are exceptions, usually brought about through complexity), and to me, a good story is vital to Zaxxon's point #1 - immersion.
I definitely see where you're coming from, and I agree that the two aren't necessarily comparable. I'm just stating that for me, a highly replayable game will stick in my poor memory longer and ultimately finish higher on my list than a story-driven game with poor replayability.
User avatar
bluefugue
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by bluefugue »

Sid Meier probably came closest to the heart of it with the idea that a game should always give a player interesting decisions to make. That's why the Civ games and their ilk are classics. You are practically paralyzed with decisions to make... you can barely get out of your chair.

Still, it really does depend on the genre and such. There is a kinesthetic/balletic pleasure to action gaming which is not the same as the cascade of decision making you might find in a TBS or RPG game. Shooters provide the most immediate sense of occupying another world, though RPGs have always had a few entries that rival this (the Ultima Underworlds, Elder Scrolls, Gothics, etc.). Others might consider something like story to be a central part of a game's appeal, though IMO story is generally window dressing of better or worse quality. (In some cases, like Starcraft or PS:T or KOTOR, the window dressing can make a big impact on the overall experience...)
User avatar
Blackhawk
Posts: 43488
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 9:48 pm
Location: Southwest Indiana

Post by Blackhawk »

I don't define 'story' just as the central plot, but the background and detail in the world. That is one of the things that makes Morrowind appeal so much to me - if you read all of the books in the game, you'll see a huge backstory going on with hordes of detail and complexity in each of the races, in history, and so on. The central storyline is just a single factor in the whole 'story' that is going on with that game.

In a game with less access to that kind of detail - say a shooter - then consistency and reasoning behind its world design take its place and provide that backstory.
(˙pǝsɹǝʌǝɹ uǝǝq sɐɥ ʎʇıʌɐɹƃ ʃɐuosɹǝd ʎW)
User avatar
Odin
Posts: 20732
Joined: Tue Oct 12, 2004 11:29 pm
Location: Syracuse, NY

Post by Odin »

Replayablility is a characteristic of most of my favorite games, but I don't see it as a requirement for a great game. Immersion, gameplay and fun are the key factors for me. Immersion's a biggie. If I run into an invisible wall or an enemy does something profoundly stupid, I get yanked back to reality and it pisses me off.

Sith
User avatar
bluefugue
Posts: 911
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 5:10 pm

Post by bluefugue »

Blackhawk wrote:I don't define 'story' just as the central plot, but the background and detail in the world. That is one of the things that makes Morrowind appeal so much to me - if you read all of the books in the game, you'll see a huge backstory going on with hordes of detail and complexity in each of the races, in history, and so on. The central storyline is just a single factor in the whole 'story' that is going on with that game.
That's a good point, backstory can help a lot. Made a big difference in the middle Ultimas, for instance. The world of Britannia just felt more lived-in, with more history to it, than many CRPG gameworlds.
User avatar
SuperHiro
Posts: 6877
Joined: Wed Oct 13, 2004 2:00 pm
Location: Seattle, WA
Contact:

Post by SuperHiro »

I think developer support is very important also. NWN or ut2k4 any of Blizzard's games wouldn't be where they are without absolutely stupendous support.
Jeff V
Posts: 36414
Joined: Fri Oct 15, 2004 7:17 pm
Location: Nowhere you want to be.

Post by Jeff V »

95% of the games that survive more than one or two sessions with me are PBEM, so I guess that would be a must-consideration.
Post Reply