Gamers: What impresses/interests you most about a game?

[hanselthecaretaker]

When I think of what impresses me most when playing a game, the underlying constant would have to be interesting level design. Aside from the functional basics that need to be in place to yield any enjoyment, this is one aspect that keeps me invested in the play space. The textures, lighting, post processing, etc. that dress it up are what I consider icing on the cake.

A close second would be physics, especially when implemented into combat, or general traversal and navigation within a play space. This is one area that is on the cusp of great advancements, and even small improvements are something to relish. Making your character feel connected with the world and that he/she/it can have an effect on something is satisfyingly immersive.

I suppose a third would be AI, but this is one area that seems to lag so far behind everything else that it's not yet nearly as interesting as it one day will hopefully be.

 

[CritialGaming]

Fun gameplay and a good story.

Story is probably the most important thing to me in a game, which is why I tend to favor RPGs. I can even overlook weaker gameplay if the story makes up for it.

When a game has both though....I'm blown away.

 

[meowchef]

As far as actually IMPRESSING me, it's going to be the enemy AI, realistic physics, super high res textures, lighting, etc. Just the stuff that attempts to make the world we are inhabiting a believable one.

As far as what interests me, I'm much more apt to play a game that has a great story, great characters, really interesting setting, etc. Half Life series, KotOR, Mass Effect series, Uncharted series, The Last of Us, etc.

 

[American Tanker]

What impresses me is great gameplay.

What interests me is exciting gameplay.

 

[Izanagi009_v1legacy]

I'm split on this

One part wants to have a gameplay over story perspective which states that the mechanics are more important than the narrative

Another wants the narrative of games to grow and mature

As such, i will conclude that I want a combination of both. I like a game that has both a strong set of mechanics and a narrative that allows the medium of gaming to become better every time.

 

[Maximum Bert]

An engaging experience the more levels it can engage me on the more I am impressed. Same thing that most impresses me with books and films and music etc I guess.

 

[CaitSeith]

It depends of the game. I love several games that are very different from each other; and what I adore in some of them is utter garbage or absent in others.

If anything constant between them is that they meet or exceed my expectations.

 

[G00N3R7883]

- Interesting story, characters and dialogue
- Player can make choices which affect the story in a meaningful way
- Quality voice acting
- Combat system has tactical depth (can be real time or turn based, determined by the player having a wide range of weapons, abilities and gadgets, fighting against a variety of enemies which have different strengths and weaknesses)
- AI (friendly, enemy, neutral civilians) a) doesn't do anything stupid and b) helps me to learn new tactics

 

[Silentpony_v1legacy]

- Interesting story, characters and dialogue
- Player can make choices which affect the story in a meaningful way
- Quality voice acting
- Combat system has tactical depth (can be real time or turn based, determined by the player having a wide range of weapons, abilities and gadgets, fighting against a variety of enemies which have different strengths and weaknesses)
- AI (friendly, enemy, neutral civilians) a) doesn't do anything stupid and b) helps me to learn new tactics

I would add more than just good voice acting. The lines have to be believable, and preferably loads of options. That was my biggest gripe with the Mass Effect series, actually all Bioware games, and the Fallout series. No one ever sounds like a person, or says something a person would. Walk up to a random NPC, "The molerats ate my corn again!" or "Asaris should be pure-blooded!"
Its never "Hey, sup?" or "Hot out here, pull up a chair and sit a spell."
I mean Fallout New Vegas missed a golden opportunity to have a campfire mechanic where you can just sit at a fire with a companion, sharing whiskey and food. The happier the companion becomes through food, drink and dialogue, the more boost you get the following morning. Who didn't want to pass the bottle around with Cass, have her play a guitar and single a country jingle.

I know its silly to add small talk and chitchat, but it'd improve immersion drastically.

 

[barbzilla]

It really depends on your meaning. Do you mean what makes me like a game, or do you mean what would impress me in a game that I either like or at least like enough to keep playing? Since I don't know, I will just answer both.

What makes me like a game:
The main thing that draws me into a game is the gameplay (obviously). If the game's play style is either so boring and repetitive or bad/unlikable (by me) that I can't make it more than an hour on it without needing a day or two of break, I will likely not finish it. I can't really pin down the individual nitpicks that really drive me off game-play wise, but here are a few. I do not like open world games for the most part since they usually spend more time developing the landscape and trying to cram enough content to fill it into said landscape that the content they did add is usually sub-par and repetitive at best. I am not big on games that hold your hand way too much (I'm looking at you and your 20 hour tutorial FFXIII), but at the same time I would like to know how my interactions affect the world I am a part of as well (I.E. story mainly). I can't stand back tracking, and if I have to do more than 5 hours of it over the entire course of a 40+ hour game, I'm done right then. Many many more here

I do not like it when the developers split up parts of the main story behind DLC's, Pre-Orders, Special Editions, Season Passes, and the like, and when that happens it tends to turn me off from the game before I even try it. That said, those I have tried I ended up liking until I noticed that I couldn't complete a quest they started in the main game because I don't own a DLC!

I can't handle repetitive combat! If I am expected to do more than 20% of my total played time in combat, the combat had better damn well be interesting and continue growing (adding techniques, skills, new enemies with new weaknesses, etc).

I really loathe games with way too much narrative. When I kill a boss, I don't want to be dumped into a 15 minute diatribe about your bad assedness or hear about how the boss used to be this really nice person who just lost it at one point and jumped into a vat of turn you into a psychotic bad ass or whatever. Just do what you need to get the point across and move on with the story. Besides, you should really be telling the story through the game anyway, not a series of videos after you kill each boss.

I can't stand quick time events (AKA: Press the series of buttons the game prompts you to or die because!). I'm not going into detail here, I just don't like it what-so-ever!

I do like games that tell a fun and engaging story through the gameplay and environment, I don't mind the occasional video of short to moderate length at most (5 minutes of solid cutscene is about my limit). I really like it when the story is so engaging that they can hide pieces of it and you have to explore to find out the unimportant details.

I prefer games with evolving gameplay. I don't mean that it starts as an RTS, turns into a Tactics turn based game, then to a JRPG, and suddenly a racing game out of nowhere. What I mean is the game keeps adding to the gameplay throughout the entire play length. I prefer it all to evolve the combat, the world, the story, the characters, and pretty much anything in the game.

I like it when devs know that player's are already used to a standard control scheme for most genres and don't try to re-invent the wheel every time they release a game, but at the same time I am always excited about new mechanics.

When game's don't let their previous entries determine what their following entries are going to be about. As long as it is still set in the same world or universe and the devs let you know that it isn't part of the same story as the previous, I am totally fine with it and often encourage it since it encourages fresh ideas in a stagnating industry.


Now for the other, what can impress me in a game I am playing that I already like:
When I have been playing it for more than 5 hours and didn't notice the time passing (especially if I have never played the game before), this absolutely astounds me and has only happened 4 or 5 times at most.

When a game suddenly kills off a main character and doesn't give you a way to take it back, provided it fits in the storyline and the way the character dies syncs up with the environment, characters, and atmosphere thus far.

When a game suddenly goes from almost about to stagnate to the point of me being bored (a death sentence for a game) to oh my god this is absolute amazingness! Why have I not experienced this before in this game? The best part is, it usually revolves around a feature or mechanic I thought I would hate and have therefor been avoiding it.

When a game manages to tell a complete story with character growth, plot twists (maybe, depending on genre), world growth, cause and effect, thorough structuring, good dialogue, great atmosphere, and most importantly a great plot line without needing to rely on cut scenes or long passages of text that pass for a loading screen between levels. This usually impresses me the most, particularly if they do it without cut scenes all together.


I could keep going all night, but my girlfriend tells me it is time to leave if we want to eat, so I must leave it short. Hopefully it helps you answer your question (whichever it may be).

 

[Saelune]

Freedom. There is a reason that open-world RPGs, particularly TES games are my favorite games. But also games like Pokemon, Dark Souls, even Dishonored and Hitman can appeal to me in that regard.

And minor details. I am not joking when I said that footprints in the snow is one of the biggest reasons I bothered to play The Division.

And the rain and its effects in Red Dead Redemption is my oft cited praise.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Yeah, I couldn't really say until I see/experience it.

I could point to actual titles and say 'this, and this, and that impresses me', but game concepts on their own..? No.

 

[Nuuu]

Gameplay is first, because it makes me want to come back and play the next day.

Next would be animation and effects, strictly because i'm personally interested in it, so I'm always got an eye out on it.

A really good story is pretty much last. I can't keep interest in long, drawn out, wordy or hidden stories. One that can not only hold my interest throughout, and also tie everything into an emotional climax at the end will always impress me.

Technically last, good AI. I actually get very impressed with good AI more than story and animation, but it's also usually the last thing I notice.

 

[Zhukov]

In no particular order:

- Satisfying gameplay
- Engaging story
- Good animation
- Good art direction

Obviously what constitutes "good" art direction and animation can be highly subjective.

More specifically, in games that involve melee combat I want the blows to have weight and a sense of impact. A lot of games just have you wave a sword through an enemy's hitbox and they lose a bit of health. Ever since playing The Last of Us that just isn't good enough for me anymore. Blows need to actually land not just phase through the target.

I like traversal systems that allow for grace a sense of flow. This is most of the reason why I love the Mirror's Edge games. (Also, distinctive art direction and the second game did an alright job of the aforementioned impactful melee combat.)

For another example, I can't stand traditional fighting games (Street Fighter, Mortal Kombat, Injustice etc) because of how they animate. They gameplay requirements of responsive controls and rapid attacks mean the characters move like spastic puppets.

A game doesn't need to have all of those things to interest me. I'll ignore my way through some programmer's fanfiction-level garbage of a story if it's easy on the eyes and there's really fun gameplay to keep me coming back. Likewise I'll stick around for a good story so long as the gameplay isn't too boring or frustrating.

 

[BucketHatAficionado]

For me it's defiantly gameplay; if the gameplay isn't any good, then I don't care about the story, visuals or anything else. I can appreciate a game that looks pretty or has a unique story, but if I'm bored or frustrated while actually playing then I stop playing. Ideally, a game will tell its story through its gameplay, like how Dark Souls builds its lore through level design, enemy AI, item placement, etc.

I also really appreciate it when a game doesn't assume I'm stupid and shows me through mechanics how to do something rather than just telling me or (heaven forbid) have some annoying side character monologue about how to progress.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

The most important thing for me in games is quality over quantity. I don't care how big your world is, I care how dense it is. For example, I'll take Horizon over Wildlands. I'll even take Dishonored's world over a Rockstar world because Dishonored's world gives you true freedom to complete its objectives, which is sorta the point of an open world game Rockstar (since you obviously don't know that). The reason I'm very careful about playing RPGs is because they are usually quantity over quality; I want a lean and mean RPG experience like the original Mass Effects, I don't want hundreds of quests that aren't engaging. Something like 20 quality quests that last say 2 hours each is much preferred IMO.

The second most important thing for me is allowing for player creativity. I think Arkane (with the Dishonoreds and soon Prey) is currently the best in the business at it. Watch ANY StealthGamerBR Dishonored Youtube video and the creativity allowed for by the game is just ridiculous. Even something like Horizon allows for quite the experimentation even though the optimum playstyles themselves are pretty simple and boring. This is the reason I like Watch Dogs far more than GTA, you have stealth and hacking options that you can mix and match between on the fly. Whereas in GTA, missions just result in going to Point B and utilizing cover shooting, which even Uncharted does better. Creativity and dynamics is why I felt the COD games were just basic FPSs. Whereas I could play MoH Warfighter that got panned by critics (and the campaign is 100% complete shit) but multiplayer was amazing because of the slide and lean mechanics. For example, if someone is shooting at you from your backside, you can slide to buy time while maintaining movement and move the camera to locate the enemy, then you can lean off the slide (keeping your character from being a still target) while returning fire to the other player that is probably shooting from a still and standing position PLUS you have less recoil because you're shooting from a crouch position. You can turn a disadvantage into a clear advantage though smart use of game mechanics. COD doesn't have shit on that.

Story is probably the most important thing to me in a game, which is why I tend to favor RPGs. I can even overlook weaker gameplay if the story makes up for it.

I'm all for good stories and better writing in games. But the sad truth is very few games (even RPGs) have good writing just because the writing talent just isn't in the game industry. Games are also developed backwards to where mechanics and levels are created first and then the writer has to come in and tie it all together, even Uncharted and Horizon were made like that. Until both those aspects change, you can get far better stories and writing in other mediums. Thus, even if a game has good writing for a game, it's usually not worth playing if the gameplay isn't up to snuff because I could just spend my time (and less overall time) watching a movie or TV show or reading a book and get a better story and characters. I liked Witcher 3's story and characters but that gameplay wasn't enjoyable at all. Sadly, I would've gotten better enjoyment watching a playthrough of it while also taking less time. If a game fails at gameplay, it fails at being a game IMO because another medium could've tackled the story in less time and with better writing. The phrase it was a good story "for a game" isn't a valid compliment just like saying the combat was good "for an RPG" basically just means the combat isn't very good. I bet you actually spend more total time in combat in Witcher 3 than Bayonetta. Do RPGs actually think their combat systems are good enough to spend more time fighting than you would in the game cited as setting the bar for combat? RPGs should be about ROLE-PLAYING, not combat. And if you want combat to be the main focus of your game (what I spend the most time doing), then have a fucking good combat system like Horizon or Dragon's Dogma and not just "good for an RPG". I'm not going to waste my limited amount of time playing through gameplay that isn't enjoyable to get to the good stuff. Just give me the good stuff basically, which brings my post sorta full circle to the whole quality over quantity aspect I want most of games, which also applies to really anything else.

 

[CritialGaming]

snip

I get where you are coming form. For you the gameplay matters more. If the gameplay itself isn't interesting then the story isn't going to be good enough to keep you around, and that's fair.

For me though, I want a good story. Gameplay comes second, and I can get through just about any game so long as the gameplay isn't frustratingly bad. Zelda is a good example for me when it comes to this. Zelda is built upon gameplay, not story. And because there was a big lack of narrative all I had was gameplay which wasn't fun, or even very good for me.

Other people are the opposite. Gameplay beats anything else, because you can skip or ignore story, but you can't ignore gameplay. It all depends on the person really.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I get where you are coming form. For you the gameplay matters more. If the gameplay itself isn't interesting then the story isn't going to be good enough to keep you around, and that's fair.

For me though, I want a good story. Gameplay comes second, and I can get through just about any game so long as the gameplay isn't frustratingly bad. Zelda is a good example for me when it comes to this. Zelda is built upon gameplay, not story. And because there was a big lack of narrative all I had was gameplay which wasn't fun, or even very good for me.

Other people are the opposite. Gameplay beats anything else, because you can skip or ignore story, but you can't ignore gameplay. It all depends on the person really.

It's not that gameplay matters more, it's that time matters most. Most games probably have say 10% of your time dealing with story so if that 10% is bad, then it's not really a big deal when 90% of my time spent with the game is enjoyable (assuming the gameplay is good). However, if the gameplay isn't up to par, then 90% of my time spent is not enjoyable even if the story is good. Basically, why am I wasting 90% of my time for a good story when I can go to other mediums without suffering through bad gameplay to get that story?

Obviously, not all games have that 90/10 split but gameplay usually eats up the most time. There's stuff like Telltale games, Heavy Rain, Until Dawn, etc where the game is at least 90% story. Something like Mass Effect (the originals at least) was probably a 50/50 split. Witcher 3 was probably at least 25% story. Thus, with Telltale games, I really couldn't give a shit about the gameplay.

Lastly, very few games have good stories or writing because the industry has barely any writing talent and games are developed backwards. Even the games that are praised for story usually have lackluster stories when compared to other mediums like how Bioshock probably has the worst assassination plot I've ever experienced. You can probably count on 1 hand the number of games with legit good writing that come out each year. If you are gaming for experiencing good stories, then you're in the wrong medium IMO.

Note: I'd love games to have better stories. I rate games very harshly and rarely give out even 8s because the writing is so bad across the board. I had great fun with Dishonored 2 last year but how can I give the game a 9+/10 when the game would've been so much better with a riveting story and characters. That's why I don't get how games get all these high scores. A game has to not only have great gameplay to get 8s/9s but also have the same quality writing of a great movie/TV show/book. The amount of games that do both are as rare as a 4-leaf clover yet triple-A games get average scores in the 80s/90s with ease. Say a game gets a 9.2 and has basic video game quality writing. Now, if the game actually had amazing writing, it's not even a full point better then? That's just asinine.

 

[TheMysteriousGX]

Story, or at least characterization. Doom wouldn't have been nearly as interesting to me if DoomGuy hadn't been characterized so well. Take out those little ticks, general surliness, and deliberate not-giving-a-fuck-about-Optimus-Prime's-situation, and the game would have lost a lot for me.

 

[RedmistSM]

What impresses me is polish and personality. There's such a massive difference between something like Just Cause 2 and say, Punch-Out!! Wii. They're both great games, but one is a basically personality-less explosionfest with a fun mechanic for moving around, and the other is a real neat, focused fighting system against extremely well animated opponents that express their personalities well. Just Cause 2 is super fun. But it doesn't impress me the way that last one does.

I'd say my favorite games are the ones that manage to establish their own identity, have it be polished and likeable, and then also play really well.