Adding onto this.Grufflenark said:
Gameplay being fun factor and how good it is
I base it on gameplay, replayability, music and sounds. Graphics only on specific titles.
Poll: How do you judge your games?
- Thread starter ToastiestZombie
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Gameplay being fun factor and how good it is
I base it on gameplay, replayability, music and sounds. Graphics only on specific titles.
All of the above.
Games with generic guns can be a bit of a let down, like in CoD an AK-49 feels and looks a lot different then a Scar
Gameplay is like the keystone for the rest of the game.
Story, because I like something new and entertaining.
Controls, because we've all play those games with the really bad controls.
Monitary value can be a point against the game because no one likes paying a lot.
Graphics/Aestetics (I'm aware of the difference) are to much of a facture but its nice to play a good looking game.
Games with generic guns can be a bit of a let down, like in CoD an AK-49 feels and looks a lot different then a Scar
Gameplay is like the keystone for the rest of the game.
Story, because I like something new and entertaining.
Controls, because we've all play those games with the really bad controls.
Monitary value can be a point against the game because no one likes paying a lot.
Graphics/Aestetics (I'm aware of the difference) are to much of a facture but its nice to play a good looking game.
Well, if after I complete a game (or at least play as much as I want), can I sit back and say to myself "Wow, that was a great game" unironically? If so, I would say it is a good game. That, for me, is all I need.
It's a combination of everything really, but mostly value for money. The only games I buy are big deal releases that I know I'm going to get my £40's worth. In fact I don't think I'll be buying another game until Gears 3 this fall. There's nothing worse than buying a game for full price and then finishing it completely in the space of a day or two. I don't have a lot of money so I like to make whatever I have count.
Longevity and gameplay. Some games aren't repetitive but they don't captivate the player long enough to play for long. An example of this is Red Dead redemption. I can't really tell you anything wrong with the game, but for some reason, I can't find myself playing the game for longer than 45 minutes at a time. Whereas a game like San Andreas I could play for hours.
I voted story. But story really is irrelevent. Pretty much every story is the same thing told over and over in a different setting. here are some unique ones out there, namely Portal, but overall, I don't find story more important. More accuratley I'd have to say how the story is told and the world that I'm involved it. It's a case by case basis though, I wouldn't for example, ignore Team Fortress 2 for the lack of story.
Were I a game reviewer, and I was only reviewing one aspect of a game, I would more than likely gauge it's quality based on the storyline. A quality story to play through more than makes up for lacking graphics, level design and, in some cases, game-play.
Normally, I base my opinion of games on these qualities: Storyline, Graphics, Game-play, Level Design, and Re-play Value.
When one plays a video game, I would expect (read: Hope) that they're playing it for more than just one aspect; such as Graphics, but most often, it is not to be.
Much of the time, I find myself enjoying a game that lacks in some, or many, aspects but excelled in one. This 'one' aspect, however, usually isn't graphics, as I only rate on graphics if the game has been in development for a LONG time, and is still lacking in many areas. In situations like that, at least passable graphics are expected. Poor graphics are a sign of poor effort.
One game I find that is somewhat balanced in the 'pros' and 'cons' is Ninja Gaiden 2.
Ninja Gaiden 2 was a great game graphically and game-play wise; Your character moves easily, agility is not hindered in any way, and attacking generally flows smoothly from 'A' to 'B'. The graphics are great, especially given that the game was Hella-rushed when compared to other releases that year.
However I found that the level design, Boss design, and storyline were absolutely pitiful.
There's absolutely no transition from area to area, you're just unceremoniously 'dropped' into a different level, and told you need to kill anything not human.
The first few bosses behavioral patterns ranged from 'Fucking Unstoppable Herculean Killing Machine' to 'Ouch I got a Splinter, here's my Weak Spot, Please Kill Me'.
One boss, I actually died without getting a hit on, then when I continued the first time, I killed him without taking any damage at all, none, not even a scuff on my boots.
Level design was specifically tailored to be cool-ish looking, but not in any way believably linear, or flowing. Certain areas, in the subway, for example, would have been physically impossible to form under ANY circumstances unless the patron Deity at the time said 'Hmm I think this will go... here... and face... this way... THERE, we're good'
There were areas in every single level where the only thing keeping me from leaving was an invisible wall that only enemies could pass through. Not even the courtesy of a pile of rubble or destroyed cars.
Anywho, this rant has gone on far too long. Point being: Judging a game on one aspect can usually only be based on either of these: Value for money, because it leaves the other areas open to be judged. Or Storyline, because even if the graphics, or the gameplay, or pretty much any other facet fail, a good storyline will carry a good game.
Normally, I base my opinion of games on these qualities: Storyline, Graphics, Game-play, Level Design, and Re-play Value.
When one plays a video game, I would expect (read: Hope) that they're playing it for more than just one aspect; such as Graphics, but most often, it is not to be.
Much of the time, I find myself enjoying a game that lacks in some, or many, aspects but excelled in one. This 'one' aspect, however, usually isn't graphics, as I only rate on graphics if the game has been in development for a LONG time, and is still lacking in many areas. In situations like that, at least passable graphics are expected. Poor graphics are a sign of poor effort.
One game I find that is somewhat balanced in the 'pros' and 'cons' is Ninja Gaiden 2.
Ninja Gaiden 2 was a great game graphically and game-play wise; Your character moves easily, agility is not hindered in any way, and attacking generally flows smoothly from 'A' to 'B'. The graphics are great, especially given that the game was Hella-rushed when compared to other releases that year.
However I found that the level design, Boss design, and storyline were absolutely pitiful.
There's absolutely no transition from area to area, you're just unceremoniously 'dropped' into a different level, and told you need to kill anything not human.
The first few bosses behavioral patterns ranged from 'Fucking Unstoppable Herculean Killing Machine' to 'Ouch I got a Splinter, here's my Weak Spot, Please Kill Me'.
One boss, I actually died without getting a hit on, then when I continued the first time, I killed him without taking any damage at all, none, not even a scuff on my boots.
Level design was specifically tailored to be cool-ish looking, but not in any way believably linear, or flowing. Certain areas, in the subway, for example, would have been physically impossible to form under ANY circumstances unless the patron Deity at the time said 'Hmm I think this will go... here... and face... this way... THERE, we're good'
There were areas in every single level where the only thing keeping me from leaving was an invisible wall that only enemies could pass through. Not even the courtesy of a pile of rubble or destroyed cars.
Anywho, this rant has gone on far too long. Point being: Judging a game on one aspect can usually only be based on either of these: Value for money, because it leaves the other areas open to be judged. Or Storyline, because even if the graphics, or the gameplay, or pretty much any other facet fail, a good storyline will carry a good game.
Limiting me to one category is a sin, and probably why I'm NOT a reviewer by nature. If I can't express my feelings to the fullest on the good and the bad, then I cannot review your piece.
As a hobby-ing reviewer (started writing for the site a mate of mine runs about five months ago), I would say value for money would be the best category to review something by, closely followed by controls as the main facts people want to know are:
Is it worth the financial outlay?
Is it easy to pick up/intuitive to use?
Some of the best games have a long shelf life (Just Cause 2, Oblivion, KOTOR) and some of the other best games have really simple controls (Gears of War, Super Meat Boy, Halo). But of course, it never comes down to just one thing. How good a game is is dependent on the mish-mash of the whole product, from story to graphics to controls to acting. Everything.
Personally, when choosing a game for myself, I judge it on whether or not I think it's cool and I'll like it. Gears of War 3? Hell yeah, I'ma get me some of that. WoW? Eehhhhh, not so much.
Is it worth the financial outlay?
Is it easy to pick up/intuitive to use?
Some of the best games have a long shelf life (Just Cause 2, Oblivion, KOTOR) and some of the other best games have really simple controls (Gears of War, Super Meat Boy, Halo). But of course, it never comes down to just one thing. How good a game is is dependent on the mish-mash of the whole product, from story to graphics to controls to acting. Everything.
Personally, when choosing a game for myself, I judge it on whether or not I think it's cool and I'll like it. Gears of War 3? Hell yeah, I'ma get me some of that. WoW? Eehhhhh, not so much.
The first and most important factor that will make me like or dislike a game,is each ability to suck me in and get me immersed while playing it. If a game manages to make me feel like I'm really there while I play it,engaged in the situation that is happening in its world,is a good game IMO.
For example a game that makes me think while I play it "oh the bad guys want to kill me,I have to kill them first because I have to save the day" is a good one while a game that makes me think "oh,the developers included another bad guy here,what have they prepared for me next" is a bad one.
A good game will manage to transfer me all the feelings the protagonist would feel in the situation he/she is in.
The secondary thing that I look in a game is how much it will keep me interested playing it.
For example a game that makes me think while I play it "oh the bad guys want to kill me,I have to kill them first because I have to save the day" is a good one while a game that makes me think "oh,the developers included another bad guy here,what have they prepared for me next" is a bad one.
A good game will manage to transfer me all the feelings the protagonist would feel in the situation he/she is in.
The secondary thing that I look in a game is how much it will keep me interested playing it.
Gameplay and story. Gameplay for multiplayer games obviously, and sometimes Story can be more important in an RPG (Mass Effect). Usually gameplay is the most important though.
Gameplay, replayability, graphics can help but i'm not a graphics whore, story but the biggest one is "Is it fun?"
Memorability, if that's even a word. If I (after months) still remember a few moments of the game because they were so fascinating, fun to play, funny or whatever, then it's a good game. Special moments like those usually outweigh a game's flaws.
This is why all the games on my top-fav-whatever-list are games that are far away from flawless, but just so damn memorable.
This is why all the games on my top-fav-whatever-list are games that are far away from flawless, but just so damn memorable.
Enjoyability. If I'm not enjoying myself, than what's the point? To finish the story? I'll just read some spoilers thanks. Some people would disagree and push through depressing or frustrating games just to see how the story plays out, and that's fine. But not me, I just want to have fun.
