What defines a "good" game?

[TheHomelessHero]

Gaming arguments on the internet often times come down to "this game is crap" or "this game is good, I don't care what haters think". Seeing these arguments made me think to myself, what makes a game good? Is it the story? The controls? The addictive gameplay? I started to think why I enjoyed some games, but hated others. Why did I enjoy Saints Row IV, but disliked the Third? I eventually came to the conclusion that a good game (for me at least) is a game that is able to take most if it's individual aspects, and have it coincide together well enough for an experience that feels complete.

What about you escapists? What do you feel defines a "good" game?

(By good, I mean enjoyable, it need not be perfect or even great, just enjoyable)

 

[soandnb]

I don't think there is any one right answer. Everyone has a subjective opinion on what they consider is good.

That being said, I feel like there are certain aspects that help influence a general consensus on how good a game is. Things like how it engages with the player and challenges him or her.

 

[Specter Von Baren]

Just as their are subjective opinions on this amongst gamers, I have subjective opinions on this amongst games I've played. I can't point to any one thing that will make a game good for me. The only constant is that I have no time for games that are stagnant, aka simulation games (Like flight simulators).

 

[KarmaTheAlligator]

A game that I either don't want to finish because I'm having a blast and don't want it to end (if it's heavy on the story element), or one that I'll replay again and again (if the gameplay is the focus). It basically needs to keep me interested throughout, offer a challenge when I want it to, be as easy as could be if I'm in the mood, and never have more frustration than fun in it.

 

[Smooth Operator]

Well that really is highly dependent on the person in question, I often have to remind myself that around the age of 10 I found all games great because I never really did judge them, and at the age of 15 I still found most of games great, the flashier the better, and only very very slowly did I develop a taste for quality games in the years to come (heck I even know gamers who haven't developed a critical eye for games at the age of 30).

And when you go to the internetz the most likely hot headed commenter on the other side is someone really young who just wants to get a word in but hasn't really got experience in judging games.

 

[Mid Boss]

Depends on genre! Gameplay isn't as important in an RPG and, adversely, story isn't important in an FPS. I love Thousand Arms for the story and the characters even though the game play was complete crap. You wouldn't be able to get away with that in an action oriented game.

 

[Timotei]

To me, this question has always been boiled down to:

1). Do I enjoy playing it
2). Does it feel like a chore
3). Am I compelled to progress

If I largely enjoy the experience of a game while playing in whatever way I intend, then it gets a check in that department. Second point is if it feels its length or feels like a chore at any point (i.e. am I forcing myself to play further), which if it is, likely I'm not enjoying the game and thus will consider it good, but there are some parts of games I enjoyed where some things felt like a chore ("Hey cousin, want to go to a strip club?), which of course the last point covers. If at any point I like I'm wasting my time and could be playing a better game, I stop. A game has to make me want to continue playing it, even if it possibly has a few rough spots.

 

[Ratties]

Think most games are decent. Of course most people don't know the difference between crap, the fact that they hate the genre. Know they ***** and complain about a brawler because all you do is kill wave after wave of enemies. Yeah the game is decent(sometimes really good) they don't like the genre. So many bullshit complaints about decent games over the years. Of course you do have those games that are so full of glitches, or shitty controls, they are unplayable. Pretty much hated by everyone. Reviews of games sometimes like to nitpick on crap because they suck at the game. "Ah no, the game is to hard so it gets a 7.3." Know you are just sitting there thinking, "well yeah." Of course it's hard, yet that doesn't make it bad, just not good for beginners.

 

[Yopaz]

There isn't really an objective definition of what makes a good game. However it has to be well programmed and functional.

Everything else is up to opinion. However I consider Bioshock a good game. I don't like it and believe me, I've tried several times.

 

[Guffe]

A good game for me is a game that has more good traits than bad and has me continue play the game.
All games have flaws or "aren't as good in this section as they could be" but when there are more good things or a few so good things that they outweigh the bad, then for me that's a good game.

 

[Slenn]

There are a number of reasons. But generally for me, the best games I've ever played fall into either one of two categories:
Critical Thinking and Judgement (Starcraft Brood War, League of Legends, Touhou 7 (&6), Armored Core 3)
- This is a quality that I always look for in a game that I own. The more that it challenges me to be better at the game, the better. The more that it actually stretches my brain in ways I didn't expect, even more the better! I really like it when progress in the game means I have to level up myself, NOT necessarily leveling up the character I play as. Like in Brood War when I have to think of a different strategy in order to progress. Or in LoL where I have to learn how to be a better team mate to support the rest of the game. Or in Touhou where I have to know when and where to move out of the way of the projectiles and I have to concentrate at the task at hand. Or in Armored Core games, where I have to change specific parts to fit a new kind of strategy for a mission.

Creativity and Exploration (Legend of Mana, Metroid Prime, WoW (before I left))
- I feel like somehow this is a lost cause with games currently. However many people can call me out and say that there are plenty of games that I'm not aware of currently that do involve a considerable amount of exploration. But I still feel that there's a strong feeling that the exploration and creativity factor is overlooked and rushed through. For example, before I left WoW, I was still one of those people that valued questing over grinding in raids and dungeons. I loved poking at new things and trying things out. But every time I did, every person and their parents had already figured it out, and questing was a pain for them. As if it was wrong to take your time and slow things down.

 

[Soundwave]

The purpose of a game is to stimulate your mind. A GOOD game stimulates your mind WELL. This is why a game like Harvest Moon can be considered good (you have to plan ahead to maximize your daily profit while balancing numerous systems), and a game like Farmville can be considered objectively bad (you click on stuff, and come back the next day).

 

[Blunderboy]

Well for me, I have a simple criteria to determine a good game.

Did I enjoy playing it?

If yes, it's a good game, at least to me.
Sure there are some other criteria I have to follow on from that, but that is only to highlight games I think are great.

 

[FourCartridge]

Polish & Content. People who play games then to value those two above all else and will judge a game based on it. Course, going to one extreme(Uncharted, Bethesda RPGs) may be viable but most creators prefer some middle road.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Depends on genre! Gameplay isn't as important in an RPG and, adversely, story isn't important in an FPS. I love Thousand Arms for the story and the characters even though the game play was complete crap. You wouldn't be able to get away with that in an action oriented game.

I somewhat disagree with the start of this. With maybe one exception (Planescape: Torment) I love all of my favourite RPGs for their gameplay, not their story. Indeed, whilst I love JRPGs, I quite rarely find the story to be anything to write home about. I just really like turn-based, stat-driven combat.

It's why I like SMT so much, I think. Nocturne/Lucifer's call represents the absolute pinnacle of turn-based combat to me. It's strategic and challenging and filled with customisation that's limited in just the right ways. Sure, I enjoyed it's story, but I'd have loved the game even if it barely had one.

Whilst I can enjoy games that are light on gameplay I almost always play RPGs for the gameplay. That's just me, though, and it goes to highlight just how subjective all of this is.

 

[TehCookie]

C) All of the above. I judge games differently based on what I want from them.

For JRPGs I play them for the story, so I don't mind turn based battles as long as they're functional. In DMC I play it for the gameplay, so if the story is a load of crap I can ignore it and enjoy killing demons stylishly. In MMOs or open world games I want a huge interesting world to explore.

 

[Rainforce]

That you enjoy it, that's all.
Anything else is just people trying to justify WHY they like it.

 

[Abomination]

If I enjoy the game then it is objectively a good game.

If I do not enjoy the game then it is objectively a bad game.

This is based upon the fact that I am the Emperor of the Universe and My Word is Law.

 

[DeltaEdge]

I've given up on trying to universally qualify a game as good or bad. I tend to just speak about games relatively now, i.e., if you share X in common with me and element y found in said video game evokes a positive response from shared value X, then I think you will probably like this game, and vice-versa.

 

[Exius Xavarus]

As everyone else said, it's subjective to each person. For me, however, it comes down to how much I enjoy the game and how much I want to continue playing.

I'll use Kingdoms of Amalur: Reckoning as an example, as I appear to have an unpopular opinion about this game.

The gameplay is great(which I see most everyone agreeing with). The world is expansive and utterly gorgeous(I see mixed opinions on this, some often compare it to WoW and call it a knockoff). And the story is great(this is where I have the unpopular opinion). The core story deals with a person that lives outside the hold of Fate. They have total freedom and all the dangers with it. The Fateless One is a total mystery that is slowly unraveled as you play through the game. Even the Faction stories make sense. You remember those Faction questlines in every other open world RPG where you become leader at the end? Yep, that happens here, too, BUT.

Spoiler

The initiation quest has you investigating the Grave Thresh at Gorguath. It is discovered that Sir Sagrell has been killed and you reclaim his ring while every other Fae falls. You return and you become Sir Sagrell, playing his part in the Telling. Later on at the end of the questline, King Wencen has lost his courage and refuses to fight the Maid of Windemere, who seeks to take over the House of Ballads and rule over the Telling. You take up the King's Token and challenge the Maid of Windemere yourself. You become the leader of the House of Ballads after the final quest. Remember that King's Token you took up? You have become King Wencen. You are risen up to the leader, making sense within the rules of the story.

To me, all of the stories found within this game are fantastically done and I could play this game for hours. Not many people share my opinion. While the gameplay is great, I see it said they wish the gameplay was in another game because they didn't like Amalur itself.

In short, whether a game is good or not, wildly differs from person to person. That's why certain games are aimed at certain audiences.