Search Unity

  1. Megacity Metro Demo now available. Download now.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Unity support for visionOS is now available. Learn more in our blog post.
    Dismiss Notice

What makes a great game.

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by glom1envisage0, May 2, 2012.

  1. glom1envisage0

    glom1envisage0

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Posts:
    167
    What makes a properly done game great: 1. An artistic style good enough to stop playing and soak it in like a painting at a museum. 2. Music that's emotionally charged enough that it also can "pull" you away from the game. and 3. If the game is the full package, it will have the two previous aspects yet still be so fun that the graphics can look like classic atari and still be enjoyable.
     
  2. burnpsy

    burnpsy

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Posts:
    107
    There is no catch-all answer to this, no matter how much people may try to define it.
     
  3. Morning

    Morning

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Posts:
    1,141
    A fun game is a great game
     
  4. drewradley

    drewradley

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    3,063
    Yes there is: hard work and dedication.
     
  5. burnpsy

    burnpsy

    Joined:
    Apr 14, 2012
    Posts:
    107
    That doesn't always make a great game, either. For instance, the people actually making a game can be as dedicated and hardworking as they want, but make something boring. Alternatively, they could be working for a publisher who doesn't wait long enough for them to clear out game-breaking bugs, or they could have a ridiculously small budget that doesn't let them do anything decent by any stretch of the imagination.

    All factors are reliant on other factors.
     
  6. yuriythebest

    yuriythebest

    Joined:
    Nov 21, 2009
    Posts:
    1,121
    I usually go by this formula:

    Code (csharp):
    1. if(gabeNewell.transform.position<100)
    2.   gameQuality=100-Vector3.Distance(gabeNewell.transform.position,transform.position)
    3. else
    4.   gameQuality=Random.Value*userSkill*userLuck*marketingBudget;
     
  7. drewradley

    drewradley

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2010
    Posts:
    3,063

    My point is you can't make a great game without a good dose of both of them. not that every game that is made by hard working, dedicated developers will be great.
     
  8. CharlieSamways

    CharlieSamways

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    3,424
    Thats not true. for example, Diablo 3

    LOLOLOL HATERS JOKE LOLOLOLOL.

    I keed, cant wait till the 13th <3 xoxoxo

    but no. thats a fools idea.
     
  9. Swearsoft

    Swearsoft

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2009
    Posts:
    1,632
    15th
     
  10. CharlieSamways

    CharlieSamways

    Joined:
    Feb 1, 2011
    Posts:
    3,424
    What?! Nooooooo.
     
  11. Duskling

    Duskling

    Joined:
    Mar 15, 2011
    Posts:
    1,196
    To be honest, what makes a great game for me:

    Replayability.

    I want to be able to play a game in multiple ways, with multiple characters down multiple paths with different skills abilitys pros and cons.

    That, makes a great game.

    Another thing that people always argue about is graphics.

    Great graphics != great game.

    Horrible graphics and good gameplay breaks immersion, for me. I'm talking about bad stiff animations, strange texturing, art styles that don't blend, the lack of shaders...

    Good graphics and good gameplay = good game.

    That's how I view it. You don't need to go head over heels making graphics. Graphics are what the characters see and are EXTREMELY important, but not as important as the gameplay itself.
     
  12. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    I stopped to think about some of the games I loved, but I can't find a common quality that is a sign of greatness, since they're so different. Surely, they all share some things. Mainly, a clear display of passion, dedication, and polish (and often great ideas). But that doesn't mean you will make a great game just with passion/dedication/polish - those are the basics. Just that without them you surely won't.
     
  13. dogzerx2

    dogzerx2

    Joined:
    Dec 27, 2009
    Posts:
    3,964
    I think a game can be great in many ways!

    There's a few things I think about:

    The player has to care about what's at stake in the game. He must not want to lose. But you have to be careful when putting too much at skate in the gameplay, everytime the player loses, he gets frustrated, so it's a double edged sword.

    A storyline could add drama to the situation, but it's hard to make a player "care" about something through a simple storyline, if there's going to be a storyline, it must be worthwhile the player's time, otherwise it'll do more harm than good. If a storyline is a must have, it must be easy to digest, and really really put things at stake, and it must have an impact on the player. If your game is going to be dramatic, you must first work to make the player attached to something in the game, and it isn't enough to say "this is your father, he's dying, save him" IMO... the player knows that' not really his father, you must work to immerse the player into the game, assume your player is an insensitive bastard, and he's probably going to skip the intro... STOP him from doing that (not by disabling the skip intro key), caught his attention with something, because the player doesn't want to waste his time saving some old man, he must really feel his father is going to die unless he ACTs in the game!! Drama is a good thing, means important things are at stake. I think drama sucks and we have enough IRL, but deep down it's what we humans care about. Make the player believe his wife is going to leave him, his toddlers are going to get kidnapped, his house will burn down in flames and his dog is going to run away; but first make him attached to those things, add value to the things he must save!

    I'm not saying you absolutely need a storyline to put things at stake, it's merely an aid. A game with no storyline, like tetris, is great because it's simple, there's no storyline, so the only thing at stake is the player's ego for losing because he wasn't fast enough or smart enough. It would be hard to make tetris better through a storyline, maybe make the player think he's disarming a bomb, but why would you do that? A storyline can be harmful sometimes, that's why if a game's going to have one, it better be good.

    Another point that can make a game more interesting, is unpredictability...if you can somehow bend the rules and surprise the player, he could feel for a moment your world is unpredictable, and a sense of discovery grows into him, and humans love to discover, it's in our blood!
    Good games do the extra mile! Imagine a painting, and the paintings frame, the painting ends when it meets the frame, that's what happens with most games, it's all about what's necessary for the game, and you pretty much know what's going to happen next. I think if a game is unpredictable, it can do a great job hooking the player into caring about progressing in the game.

    Another aspect, come to think of it, is progress. I think all games should make the player feel he's making progress, all the time, progress is reward for the player's time in our game. This is also a double edged sword in the sense often progress in a game means more content that has to made.
    This can be avoided with a bit of strategy. Place most of your rewarding frequency at the beginning, and slow down "progress" as the player becomes more hooked to the game. The more progress the character makes the more committed he is, and the more you can get away with not rewarding him. But the slower the progress, the higher the risk of player frustration, if the player becomes frustrated, you risk him quitting the game, and maybe never playing again!
    But still your best bet is to make him committed as soon as possible, fastest progress should be at the very start of the game. In fact, with so many games, players need almost instant reward after they've launched the game. If you can somehow skip any intro and menus, and start rewarding the player somehow instantly, you're a genius!

    anyway... rambling's over!
     
    Last edited: May 2, 2012
  14. Jessy

    Jessy

    Joined:
    Jun 7, 2007
    Posts:
    7,325
    ...only if gameQuality equates to blandness. ;-)

    I like almost everything about Valve except their games. Oh well.
     
  15. glom1envisage0

    glom1envisage0

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Posts:
    167
    Has the gamer who likes to spend lots of time exploring disappeared? Exploration/puzzle-solving is important to me, so long as the puzzle isn't too difficult that most people are likely to give up but maybe the average person's mind is less inclined to enjoy this style of game play nowadays. A good example I can point at is the difference between Mario64 and Super Mario Galaxy. From what I've played/seen(only a little at a Gamestop store, plus some Youtube video), Galaxy is too fast paced and makes me long for the larger, less crowded levels of 64.
     
  16. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    Personally, I hate this new trend ("new" as in "the last 15 years", sigh) where puzzles have to be easy. I want HARD puzzles! Especially in adventures! Otherwise they're just like watching a movie, and in that case I prefer a movie :p
     
  17. yls

    yls

    Joined:
    Apr 13, 2012
    Posts:
    195
    Great ideas here.

    I think It would obviously depend on the player and the game ! I find myself attracted to different game for different reason :

    For some of them I wanted other people to play the game : Beyond God and Evil, Portal
    I wanted to be part of this word : Mascarade : bloodline
    I was interrested in the community : Minecraft
    Great challenge and replayability : Bonzai blast, Tetris
    The game make you feel somethings and is cleverly design : Katawa Shoujo
     
  18. Meltdown

    Meltdown

    Joined:
    Oct 13, 2010
    Posts:
    5,816
    +1

    A game has intrinsic value as long as it's fun to play.
     
  19. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,051
    Whilst understandable, the danger of making things hard is that you lose large numbers of players. Not simply because the game is too hard (though that happens frequently), but due to large number of potential players simply not having the time to invest in a hard game.

    For example, if they only have an hour a night to play a game and for several nights in a row they are stuck on the same puzzle (and don't want to simply look at a walk-through) then they will just move onto a different game, one which will reward their time spent. The issue being that if they don't feel any reward for trying out endless possible solutions the fun can quickly evaporate. Of course if they do use a walk-through then the game has lost its difficulty and so once again there is a loss of 'reward' for the act of playing.

    Its a tricky situation to reconcile, certainly more could be done, such as ensuring there is never only one puzzle to solve at a time, having failed solutions provide some form of 'reward', even if its just a funny side-effect to encourage continued play, having harder puzzles that are not story/game completing critical etc.


    @OP
    The real problem is your question is way too subjective, what you may think is a great game I may think is de-risible and vice versa.

    None of the points raised in the replies (however important) are prerequisites to a great game, making a fun, polished game yes, but not necessarily a great game.

    Look at it this way, check out the IMDB topp 100 films, do you agree with the list? Are there films there that you don't think are great? Are there films there that you can't even 'acknowledge' are great (i.e not your sort of film, but you see why people think its great)?
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  20. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    Not completely sure about that, at least for what concerns adventures. Once there was a distinction between casual gamer and gamer. Now, to be on the safe side, all gamers are looked at as casual (at least with adventures), and everything is easier. But this way all "serious" adventure players are not interested anymore, and the adventure genre has kind of died (obviously, maybe the reasons why it died are completely opposite, but still). Hope I'm not going too off-topic :p
     
  21. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,051
    Adventure genre has never died, there have been plenty of releases over the last decade and a number of websites dedicated to the genre. They have disappeared from 'prominent' view though, few if any AAA releases of boxed products on consoles for example and even on PC their profile diminished considerably. Yet they were still there in the background ;)

    Neither have I seen a complete 'dumbing' down of the puzzles for 'casual gamers', though I welcome the death of obscure, nonsensical ones puzzles. Then again this is a whole other topic. I mean if I play through an adventure game and never get stuck for more than 10-15 mins on any one puzzle is that game too easy or was it well produced and fitted my ability to solve the puzzles? Is a game that takes hours or days of constant thinking to solve a single puzzle too hard a game, is it better, as I can no longer complete it? Its an interesting discussion.

    Don't confuse my statement about 'lack of time' as defining a causal gamer, the two are not synonymous. The problem with 'lack of time' is that gamers grew up, had families, needed to go to work, all those boring commitments that mean leisure time is at a premium, often fighting with a whole range of other activities that continue to grow. When your game time gets curtailed, the last thing you want is to waste hours of it on some hard puzzle or difficult game section. Not because you don't enjoy the challenge, but because you could be doing something more rewarding.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  22. TylerPerry

    TylerPerry

    Joined:
    May 29, 2011
    Posts:
    5,577
    Maybe a system that every time you fail a puzzle it makes it easier? would that satisfy hard core gamers? like if there are 10 versions of a puzzle and when you fail it gives you a easier one?
     
  23. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    @Noisecrime: ehe you're right about the time thing, sorry I misinterpreted. Time is actually why I don't play games that don't allow you to save when you like: no time to possibly go through one hour of gaming before being able to leave :p On a side note, I don't think a hard puzzle is good just because of the hardness. It depends on how it's done. If it's hard, clever, and you really feel rewarded when you solve it - meaning you don't go "wtf! this solution has no sense at all!" - than I vote for it! Oh I miss Space Quest and non-in-the-background adventures! :D

    @titanty: actually something like that would be a good idea. Or maybe having a difficulty settings for adventures too, where you can choose the full experience or the easier/blander one :p
     
  24. Noisecrime

    Noisecrime

    Joined:
    Apr 7, 2010
    Posts:
    2,051
    Aw man, don't you just hate it when games do that, or on say the xbox prevent you from moving or backing up you save games, presumably because they feel you are going to 'cheat' the game - i.e. reloading an old save when something doesn't go your way in game.
     
  25. ChaosWWW

    ChaosWWW

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Posts:
    470
    I have to slightly disagree with this. I've played games that I've considered a "great game" that wasn't "fun" necessarily, and I've played games that are "fun" that I wouldn't really call a "great game".

    Personally, I think a great game is where all of the elements of the game are strong and cohere. When I'm talking about "elements", lets just boil it down to game design, programming and production values. When I say this, I don't mean that all of these elements have to be excellent, I'm saying that they all have to be as good as they need to be to serve whatever purpose the game has. That means that the graphics can look more simplified if it makes the gameplay more coherent, the programming can be de-emphasizes to make a very strong visual impression, and even the gameplay can be de-emphasized to make a more impactful story. However, each element needs to be good enough to serve the purpose. If the graphics are unclear so you can't see what you are doing, if the programming has bugs or if the game design is unfair to the player, then these elements lessen the game's "greatness".

    EDIT: Although, these "flaws" could perhaps be used to good effect if you are a very good game designer, but as a rule of thumb they generally make a game worse.
     
    Last edited: May 3, 2012
  26. Morning

    Morning

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Posts:
    1,141
    This doesn't make any sense to me. How can a great game be not fun? If it's not fun sure it's not a great game then?
    Kinda agree on that not all fun games are great, but if they're fun then they're at least good.
    Unless you mean so bad it's good kind of games.
     
  27. ChaosWWW

    ChaosWWW

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2009
    Posts:
    470
    Not necessarily, I'm thinking more along the lines of puzzle games or art games. Puzzle games can sometimes be very frustrating but really make you think in different ways, which I would consider a good thing. Art games are also all about making you feel different emotions through gameplay, and although most of them are pretty S***ty, some of them are very effective and I would consider a "great game". Hell, even some multiplayer games I wouldn't consider "fun" in the traditional sense of the word. If you want to get into higher levels of play in those games, it's often very stressful and intense, but those games are great for being so complicated that these higher levels of play can exist and for bringing people together by making them do a strange new activity.

    I think "fun" is a word that is used too loosely when applied to video games, which is weird to me. No other medium uses "fun" as a catchall for everything good. Just think of movies, books or music that you like and a lot of them you probably wouldn't describe them as fun. I think part of the problem is that nobody (myself included) really knows what "fun" means, it's a very vague emotion that's hard to gauge. Sometimes people describe video games as "fun" when referring to how easy the interaction between the player and the game is, and in that case all games should be "fun", but that's a very strange definition of the word. If you look for synonyms for "fun" you will find words like "pleasure" and "joy", and it might help to apply these words to what you might automatically think is fun. If you are playing a hardcore game of Counter Strike or are playing an art game, would you really call that a joyous experience? That's not to say these games are bad, it's just that they can focus on other emotional states rather then being strictly fun. That being said, most games are fun and most of the great games that I like are fun, but "fun" and "great" are not mutually exclusive when applied to video games, and I think that there could be some interesting exploration to be done in the opposite direction of "fun" in the future of gaming.
     
  28. lmbarns

    lmbarns

    Joined:
    Jul 14, 2011
    Posts:
    1,628
    On the point of players exploiting save mechanics to save before every boss fight in case they lose, what about a system that keeps track of their last 3 spawn points, and if they die it randomly picks one, taking some of the control away from the player?

    Otherwise, they can save whenever, log out, when they come back start where they were, but if they die it may send them back to 1 of 3 places. I guess they could save 3x if they knew that was the mechanic...maybe put a 5 min cooldown between saving.
     
  29. glom1envisage0

    glom1envisage0

    Joined:
    Apr 3, 2011
    Posts:
    167
    @Imbarns that's a good idea. I had a save at any point system that I recently changed, well added to so that now in some levels I leave off the option to save any time but have several check points placed either before or after an especially difficult obstacle. It wasn't totally my idea though, I have been trying to get mini-games on a site and a tester of that site proposed it because the levels had no save system at all.
     
  30. Morning

    Morning

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Posts:
    1,141
    You're right. Replace fun with enjoyable.
     
  31. Torsh

    Torsh

    Joined:
    Sep 26, 2011
    Posts:
    553
    I agree.

    I've searched for a more complex formula to what makes a great game, but so far have come up with nothing.
     
  32. Tobias J.

    Tobias J.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Posts:
    423
    hehe. Have you tried looking up a formula for Love? I think it would be only marginally harder to create.
     
  33. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    lol You can't teach love. You can only teach to remove the obstacles to the awareness of love's presence ;-)

    So maybe a fun game does a good job of removing the obstacles to happiness? But saying that, there are countless dark icky fear-inducing games and I still don't understand why some people love being scared.
     
  34. Morning

    Morning

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2012
    Posts:
    1,141
    Because fear pumps you with adrenaline.
     
  35. TehWut

    TehWut

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2011
    Posts:
    1,577
    Dark Souls.

    'nuff said


    (okay I will say)...they have focus, they have true artistic style, they have gameplay , story, and difficulty. oh god the difficulty. Losing players? around 2 million copies sold worldwide.
     
  36. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    Dman
    Damn I have to play that one! I loved Demon's Souls. Almost finished it when my PS3 overheated and died horribly, erasing all my savegames forever! F**k! Hated that, and hate consoles that don't let you backup savegames (unless you pay, that is :/).
     
  37. Tobias J.

    Tobias J.

    Joined:
    Feb 21, 2012
    Posts:
    423
    People aren't really scared of computer games or movies. A more apt definition would be 'thrilled' or 'surprised'.

    If they really scared you - made you afraid - you wouldn't be watching or playing it for the second time (or to the end for that matter).

    That said, I think Morning has a point. It's triggering something 'primal' in us, and yes, chemistry is probably a good part of it.
     
  38. Demigiant

    Demigiant

    Joined:
    Jan 27, 2011
    Posts:
    3,239
    Red Dead Redemption thrilled me. Grim Fandango surprised me. Demon's Souls scared me - and I loved it. You're missing a point here: people like to be scared. That's why a scary horror movie sells. What they don't like is being terrified. But that's another story - and just a matter of terminology :p
     
  39. rhasami

    rhasami

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Posts:
    72
    For me...
    perfect game = perfect graphics * perfect graphics + perfect animation + gameplay;

    If the graphics are bad I don't even want to know what the gameplay is.
    I want to see something beautiful.
     
  40. janpec

    janpec

    Joined:
    Jul 16, 2010
    Posts:
    3,520
    Great game=great gameplay+ok graphic
    Great game=additcting and fun gameplay+bad graphic
    Great game=amazing graphic+great singleplayer campaing / story telling

    In the end, graphical part of game that you will play more than a day is the least important thing, everything related to code is way more important.
     
  41. PrimeDerektive

    PrimeDerektive

    Joined:
    Dec 13, 2009
    Posts:
    3,090
    So if I perfectly clone the gameplay mechanics of a game... did I make a great game?
     
  42. AmazingRuss

    AmazingRuss

    Joined:
    May 25, 2008
    Posts:
    933
    Your formula ignores gabeNewell.radius
     
  43. rhasami

    rhasami

    Joined:
    Apr 30, 2012
    Posts:
    72
    No, no, no... dont agree. :D:D:D
    First you have to please my eyes before I play your game.

    But isnt that nice, that we are all so different? Playing different games, making different games.
    There is a niche for everyone.
     
  44. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    Hmm. What makes a great game... .... the player? Is it really the game itself that `is great` or is it the emotional and mental responses and processes of the person playing the game that creates a happy experience for themselves as a result of playing the game? Isn't the game just a medium, a tool, for `bringing out` or triggering off certain responses in the player that they might not otherwise have been able to produce in themselves without certain stimuli? Does the game do great things to the player, or does the player use the game to bring out their inner greatness? Also remember the actual game itself is not the same thing as the meaning and value and benefit that the game creates - the fantasy, the interpretation, the experience, those all live inside the player.

    Think about what a game player is ... they're not just some robot or machine sitting there completely idly and passively in front of the screen waiting for your game to `cause them` to change and have a good experience. If that were the case all you'd have to do is show the player specific content and they'd spontaneously have a good time in spite of themselves. Players are people, with emotions and imaginations and fantasies and needs and desires and mental processes. They are PART OF the game. The game happens in their mind and in their perception. That the player even pretends that the game itself is the cause of their happiness, is itself a game, because really joy comes from within, it is not caused by something outside of you. I think most people do believe that they are at the effect of the world and that when it changes on a dime to give them happy stuff then they will be happy, and when it takes away the happy stuff they are no longer happy. So everyone is trying to find out what is the right happy stuff to put in the game to force the player to be happy. But happiness doesn't come from being at the effect of a game or `told what to experience` by the game. It comes from the game helping the player to open up to revealing the joy that is already an inherent part of themselves, to express themselves, to succeed for themselves, to meet their own goals and to enjoy themselves - note, enjoy THEMSELVES, not the game. The game is just a tool to reach that aim, a template with a bunch of props that the player uses to guide their fantasy. So maybe you shouldn't ask what to put in your game to try to force happiness on the player, but rather what to take out of your game to allow the player to explore and enjoy their own self.
     
  45. drb1992

    drb1992

    Joined:
    Mar 5, 2012
    Posts:
    36
    You know you have made a great game when you can take all of the aesthetics away, and the game is still fun.
     
  46. Ricks

    Ricks

    Joined:
    Jun 17, 2010
    Posts:
    650
    Exactly. However what precisely is enjoyable for someone differs from player to player. There is no all-in-one formula but you can aim various target groups. Basically I'd say that the average gamer does not like too much riddles or gameplay mechanics that can get you stuck in the progress of the game, resulting in frustration.

    This can't explain however how Demon's Soul was such a huge success, as players had to restart whole levels over and over again. Maybe the gameplay mechanics were so awesome they didn't mind another playthrough. Maybe it's like in Tower Defense games: once you lose you don't care about it, but instead you ambitiously try another tactic. It is really an art for a game to keep the player going, even if he loses.
     
  47. imaginaryhuman

    imaginaryhuman

    Joined:
    Mar 21, 2010
    Posts:
    5,834
    What makes a great game for me is that it's addictive, fun, has longevity/replayability, good animation, a game where I'm `comfortable` playing for over an hour, cool graphics is nice but it doesn't have to be a realism art style, polished, easy to learn/harder to master, emergent gameplay, has some originality/creativity, decent price, no ugly programmer art, has action and sometimes you can play with other people.