The one thing that your games need to have.

[Not Lord Atkin]

I'm sure this has already been discussed before, chiefly because it's the kind of topic that would be. But at the same time, I personally haven't come across any similar topics so I thought, why not?

Here's the deal: Every player has that one thing they just need to have in any game they play. Whether they seek it out actively or they don't even know about it but look for it subconsciously, there's always that one crucial part of a game that they can't do without. For example, for some people this would be a story. My best friend, for instance, can't get into a game if there isn't a clearly defined context - it doesn't matter whether the story is good or not, he needs one to drive the gameplay. It could also be a combat system, good writing, pretty graphics... anything, really.

So my question is: What's your must-have feature that you can't do without in your games?

I'll start: I'm a sucker for good level design. I need to have a thoughtfully crafted environment put together by people that know what they're doing. This is also why I usually don't enjoy sandbox games all that much (most are just a bunch of buildings randomly slapped together) and why I could never get into procedurally generated games and roguelikes.

Your turn

 

[ShinyCharizard]

A good soundtrack. I enjoy a game so much more when it has a good soundtrack. It's why I like JRPGs so much, because they usually have the best soundtracks (Shin Megami Tensei games have the best soundtracks).

 

[Elijin]

Co-op.

There are exceptions to the rule, but I mostly play socially, so that shit needs co-op. The only thing more fun than a decent game, is a decent game with your friend/s.

 

[BathorysGraveland2]

An artstyle that is to my liking. This may sound incredibly petty for most people, but if the art style (not graphics, but the design itself) irritates me, I cannot play it. The biggest example of this are JRPGs, I absolutely despise the artstyles most games in the genre have, and because of that I don't play any. Dark Souls, however, I'm fine with due to having an artstyle I can dig.

Again, it sounds petty, but hey.

 

[The Wykydtron]

Nothing in particular, each game has different strengths in certain areas. I like mystery stories, anime artstyles and anything with good Visual Novel elements, but i'm not going to judge and pass over every game simply because they're not Persona 4 or Ace Attorney.

That said, yeah context or something that is just a survival mode. Though I think almost every game has a context to the gameplay nowadays so that's not worth fussing over.

I always had an issue with survival modes that never have a defined ending AKA you all must die eventually.

Yeah we hit wave 30 in Nazi Zombies! Then we all died thereby making the point moot unless you're into high scores. I suppose later ones have obscure story objectives which makes it a bit better but not by much and they're hard to focus on.

I like 2D fighting games and maybe, just maybe I can't fully into a game unless it has a Burst system. Even the subpar 1 Burst per round and you don't get the second if you won the first round BlazBlue system. I am biased though because I spent a whole year on UMVC3 watching FOOT-FOOT DIVE combos.

Honestly, Skullgirls would be so much better if it had a proper "Press X to not get viciously mauled for 20 seconds" Burst instead of the atrocious Infinite Protection System. Good idea on paper, fucking bad in practice. The moment someone figured out an 80% combo that dodges the IPS (they exist, believe me) they stick it on Youtube and voila, anyone decent has it down online.

Then anyone who does fall into the IPS will have immediately noticed it in training so they use it as a free reset because instead of, y'know making it unblockable for easily apparent reasons, they treat it as if it's just a regular Burst. Although it is not a regular Burst at all. It stops being something designed to reduce damage and instead ramps up the damage, probably instant death.

 

[Phoenixmgs_v1legacy]

I'll start: I'm a sucker for good level design. I need to have a thoughtfully crafted environment put together by people that know what they're doing. This is also why I usually don't enjoy sandbox games all that much (most are just a bunch of buildings randomly slapped together) and why I could never get into procedurally generated games and roguelikes.

I totally agree with this. I almost always hate sandbox games because their level design is so bad and all the missions just result in go to Y and kill X enemies. It's not that you can't have a good sandbox game because Mercenaries (the 1st one, not the 2nd one) showed everyone how to make a proper sandbox; you create the missions (the levels) as standalone areas with care to design and enemy placement, then you put all those areas on a blank canvas to create your world. Most sandbox games create the world first, then populate it with missions instead of the other way around. This is why Rockstar sucks at making sandbox games because they do it wrong. Batman Arkham City found a middle ground where it was a sandbox but there were also several linear areas like the museum.

I hate how everyone is like Game XYZ would be so awesome it was open world. NO!!! The bigger the world the less care goes into each part of the world, and most devs don't know how to make open worlds. Mirror's Edge is something people jump on wanting to be open world, the game was great because of the level design, and that goes away if you make it open world.

An artstyle that is to my liking. This may sound incredibly petty for most people, but if the art style (not graphics, but the design itself) irritates me, I cannot play it. The biggest example of this are JRPGs, I absolutely despise the artstyles most games in the genre have, and because of that I don't play any. Dark Souls, however, I'm fine with due to having an artstyle I can dig.

Again, it sounds petty, but hey.

I agree, I won't play Dragon's Crown because I hate most of the character designs. And I hate the artstyle of the Darksiders games so I won't play those either. Most JRPGs I can deal with but some just look too kiddy for me like Tales of Graces F but I can deal with Tales of Xillia. You are looking at the game the whole time you play so looks are important to a degree.

---

I'll add the following:

- Good depth. It's kinda hard to explain this but I'll use a FPS example. I won't play an online FPS unless it has leaning, which is very rare for a console FPS. I've only ever gotten into play MoH Warfighter because of this. FPSs on the whole just feel so basic and boring to me as there's nothing you can do but literally move and shoot. Leaning adds so much dynamic to each and every gunfight that I don't get why it's not in every FPS, it fits on the control scheme of every FPS I've ever played yet it's just not there. I use the lean, not to lean around corners, but to lean back and forth in a gunfight so I can shoot and move (while not increasing gun recoil). I lean to correct my aim as it's easier and faster to lean right if your aim was a bit off to the left than moving your character or the crosshairs to compensate. Then Warfighter has a slide as well so if an enemy and I both spot each other in the open, I'll slide (for quick movement to evade while ending in a crouched position lowering my recoil) and I'll lean off that slide for even more evasion so the enemy is shooting at a moving target instead of a stationary target. That wins so many gunfights it's not even funny and it's something you can't do in COD or BF. The lean is such a minor feature but adds loads of depth.

- There has to be a challenge. Assassin's Creed are games where it's just impossible to die, the only time I die in those games when my stupid character falls to his death because the auto-platforming fucks up. What's the point in me inputting commands during combat and going through missions when it's almost impossible to fail or die?

 

[Squilookle]

The ability to access every map, game mode and item/vehicle/weapon etc without ever playing with another human being. If I can't play capture the flag against bots, then the whole mode is a write off for me. My enjoyment of a game should never, EVER be dependent on the actions of other people, unless it's specifically a multiplayer only/party game.

 

[Casual Shinji]

Adventure!!!

A game needs to make me feel like I'm about to set out on an exciting journey, and then bring the bacon.

 

[krazykidd]

Boobies Story . I play mostly for story , which is why i like jrpgs , so much. If a game has a good story , then i'm automatically invested and want to know what comes next.

 

[likalaruku]

A sword....90% of the game I own have swords in them.

 

[FoolKiller]

Here's the deal: Every player has that one thing they just need to have in any game they play.

Your original hypothesis is wrong.

The only way it would count in my case is if you consider "I want to play it/It has to entertain me" as a thing to have. But that doesn't really make sense so unfortunately I don't fall under that. I play every genre, and every format, so there isn't much to tie them together except what I already stated.

 

[Zanderinfal]

For starters, I'd say good optimization. If that doesn't count, next thing that comes to my mind is fluid and natural controls. After that I'd say a good GUI.

 

[scapefly]

incentive, excitement, entertainment - my games need to catch me both visually and strategically

 

[Qvar]

Darkness. It has to be gray & gray morality (Skyrim), sad (Limbo), have a good dose of black humor (Magicka), scary (Amnesia), be angsty (Bioshock), literally dark (Dead Space), or if all that fails, at least a harsh world where living beings go down like flies (every strategy game ever).

 

[Nazulu]

An artstyle that is to my liking. This may sound incredibly petty for most people, but if the art style (not graphics, but the design itself) irritates me, I cannot play it. The biggest example of this are JRPGs, I absolutely despise the artstyles most games in the genre have, and because of that I don't play any. Dark Souls, however, I'm fine with due to having an artstyle I can dig.

Again, it sounds petty, but hey.

Its not petty at all, and I'm disappointed in those people who thinks it is.

Everything put into a game should be handled well otherwise it can work against it. The art style actually represents the game and it can make it feel fresh and exciting on it's own.

Ot: That said, I have no idea what's the most important for me. I've played many different games and they've all had their different strengths. Probably design, level designs that are interesting and make the game feel bigger than it looks.

 

[Yuno Gasai]

For me, I'd say it's probably a tie between the characters and the story.

I need to be emotionally invested in a game before I can justify pouring hours into it. My connection to the story - or to the characters involved, - is the glue which will drive me to continue playing even if I'm struggling in a particular encounter or puzzle. Those are also the things which will stick most strongly in my mind when I complete the game, and what will inspire me to encourage my friends to play it, too.

Characters and story can take a backseat to multiplayer if the game offers me the ability to play co-operatively with my friends. I don't mind playing competitively, but I'm a team player at heart and I'd prefer to play alongside my friends rather than against them. Any game which scales well regardless of whether you're playing with two friends or five wins bonus points in my book, because it's not always easy to get the perfect number of friends together to play any given game at any one time.

On the whole, though, I play games for the experience. As long as the game I'm playing creates memories, I'm likely to enjoy it in one capacity or another.

 

[Rob Robson]

An artstyle that is to my liking. This may sound incredibly petty for most people, but if the art style (not graphics, but the design itself) irritates me, I cannot play it. The biggest example of this are JRPGs, I absolutely despise the artstyles most games in the genre have

I agree so much with this!

But the most important thing for me is: freedom.

A game that is a hallway with no branching paths or even side paths or hidden gameplay, is completely worthless to me. Games like Assassin's Creed. They are utmost torture to me.

Dishonored is a hundred million times better than Assassin's Creed just because it has a choice of gameplay style, and multiple ways to approach the end of a mission. That, to me, is the bare minimum.

As for the most important cornerstone of game design: story and/ or setting. Of course, in certain genres, story means little, but in the vast majority of genres, if a game has a poor story I will not give it as much as a look. A great story and characters can and will make up for poor gameplay or graphics. (But not always both at once.)

 

[Mister K]

First of all, characters. If I am going to spend a great many hours with them, then I want them to be likable.
Secondly, gameplay. I can't enjoy a game if it simply does not "feel" right.
Thirdly, art style. I don't mind if game does not have AAA-graphics as long as I like the design.