What makes or breaks a game ?

[Vault101]

the difference between what makes me like a game and what causes me to stop playing I thik can be very small and very different for each person,

this makes me thaink about three similar titles, Oblivion The Witcher and Dragon age the main thing they have in common is that they are more or less high fantasy which really isnt my thing but anyway

the first two I couldnt get into but dragons age on the other hand is different

First the witcher- main point is it's boring, I really did try to get into it but Between the dullness of the main charachter and even the dullness of the fantasy world itself plus the fact that I kind of lost track of the enitire plot from the start..yeah. Another thing about the game is the whole Idea that your choices affect the story/outcome which is fine but the game acts as if its such a mind blowing idea we have to be remined of it everytime we make a desicion, I mean Geralt thinks to himself outloud *looks at the camera*

"Gee mabye things might have turned out differently if I chose a different path!" hint hint it kind of breaks the immersion a little

Oblivion- if youve seen the zero p review then you know all the little immersion breaking things, but what really put me off was the lack of dialoge choices, now in my perfect world rpgs and the such would use somthing like the mass effect method (one thing witcher did right) but I also don't mind line of text that much (like dragon age or fallout 3) Beucase it helps you get a sense of who your charachter is and you can also have some really funny dialoge

But in the case of Oblivion there was none of that dialoge was only there to get info, I didnt feel Like I was part of the world, I felt like a non-entity,

Dragon age- ok so this just goes to show how much of a sucker I am for story. Technically I should be really indifferent to this, its fantasy of the highest nature and very very very tolkein-esque somwhat cliche'd and as far as gameplay goes its tactical which means you have to think which means im terrible at it. But I acctually played this one through simply because it dose what Bioware seem to do so gloriously well,

very well-written story, world and charachters and has that cinematic feel without acctually being a cinematic, I mean I could have acctualy liked the witcher if it wasnt so dull since thease two games have a lot in common (hell they use the same engine)

so yeah I might get draogn age 2, it seems to be going down the mass effect route which I like (even though some fans don't like that idea)



anyway back on topic if you didn't read that ruge rant there (I apologise But Ive had thease thourghts floating around in my head for some time)

What makes or breaks a game for you? examples as well




I also think I found indiana jones in Fallout NV (a skeleton in a fridge wearing a hat ) and I got attacked by a gang of old ladies with rolling pins...

 

[x0ny]

For me, it would be true replay-ability which makes a game good. What I mean by this is not just falsely extending a game's replay value with achievements such as "kill 1000 enemies", or "headshot someone while stunned by a stun grenade and blinded by a flashbang with at least two squirrels behind you, an even number of which should be eating acorns".

True replay-ability is where it's still fun to do the same thing over and over, but at the same time does not feel like you're grinding, or does not induce grinding. Examples of games which exhibit this attribute include Counter Strike, Left4Dead, The CoD series and LittleBig Planet.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

It of course depends on what the game is and what it intends to do.

If its a game like Little Big Planet or Plants vs Zombies than proper characters and plot elements are unneccessary, but if its a game that has or at least tries to have a heavy story and messes it up than for me at least it totally breaks the game.

Its hard to explain but, for example, the original Call of Duty didnt really try to have strong characters or some big epic story, but because it tryed to make you have an understanding of everything that is going on other than your character by having you enter a virtual representation of some poor sod in some of the greatest battles of the greatest war of our time it sort of made up for having no real plot elements.
It wasn't great because it didnt have a heavy plot, it was great because it was so great that it didnt need to have a heavy plot.

But take Halo Reach, sure its fun to play but the game is constantly, in a way, screaming "Kill all the aliens because they're bad" all the time.
It tries to make you feel alot for the characters and what is happening to and around them but...it really doesnt.
Halo 1 was one of the greatest games I have ever played.
It was awesome, I found running around this mysterious ringworld and finding out what the hell is going on very fun and engaging, but unlike the later installments it had things in the game that sort of propelled the plot forward, rather than just rushing from point A to point B killing everything in your way, before you trigger some meaningless cutscene then some guy tells you go someplace and you repeat the process, a dozen times.

In short, CoD 1 did what it was meant to do and was great at doing it, while Halo Reach sort of did what it was meant to do (ie, very weak story to give way to good gameplay).
Im not sure if a decent plot was Bungies focus at all past H1, but does the great gameplay of the later games forgive their poor plot elements?
Im not sure if anyone here can really say for sure.

 

[Sixcess]

Controls I can't get to grips with would be the main reason for me to drop a game early on - like the necessity of using VATS in Fallout 3 because the FPS is bloody awful, or the camera system in Saints Row 2 (maybe it works with a controller but needing WSAD and the mouse just for running down the street... sigh. It's a pity that the only thing they didn't steal from GTA was the camera...)

What keeps me playing is usually either effortlessly good gameplay that becomes so natural I just have to think of what I want to do rather than what buttons I need to press to do it (games like Doom and Portal) or really engaging stories, where I'll push through annoying levels and turn a blind eye to wonky controls because I really really want to see what happens next (games like Fear Effect 1 and 2 and Final Fantasy VII.) Exploration is another big draw for me. I always like entering a new, visually distinctive location. Conversely if every level looks the same I start to lose interest. Yes, Halo, that means you.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

What keeps me playing is usually either effortlessly good gameplay that becomes so natural I just have to think of what I want to do rather than what buttons I need to press to do it (games like Doom and Portal) or really engaging stories, where I'll push through annoying levels and turn a blind eye to wonky controls because I really really want to see what happens next (games like Fear Effect 1 and 2 and Final Fantasy VII.) Exploration is another big draw for me. I always like entering a new, visually distinctive location. Conversely if every level looks the same I start to lose interest. Yes, Halo, that means you.

Its funny how depending on the player one thing could absolutely kill the game for them or make it seem brilliant, guess it just depends on the person.

Of course it raises the question of what should and shouldnt be in a game and what direction the game should take, like can a game with has mediocre everything but has awesome graphics be forgiven for its shortcomings?

 

[The Cheezy One]

Politics breaks a game.
Many designers really want to make an amazing game, but publishers and top brass don't want to offend a group or take a risk on a new idea, so just release bland, functional material.
When a publisher gives a designer free reign, you can get a pretty decent game. THQ are good at doing this, so we get immense games like STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, Metro 2033 and Saints Row

 

[Sixcess]

Of course it raises the question of what should and shouldnt be in a game and what direction the game should take, like can a game with has mediocre everything but has awesome graphics be forgiven for its shortcomings?

A game with awesome graphics but mediocre everything else isn't a game, it's a tech demo. At least in my opinion, but the fact that Doom is my favourite game, in all it's super blocky glory, should be a pretty clear indication of where I stand on graphics vs gameplay.

Funny thing about graphics. I started playing Half Life the other day, straight after finishing Portal. For obvious reasons the settings of the two games share a lot of similarities making comparisons easy and unavoidable. When I started playing HL I was very VERY aware of the nearly 10 years that separated the two on a visual level, but once the story drew me in and I started focusing on making my way through the game and shooting stuff I stopped noticing the graphics.

Nice graphics are good to have of course, but I'd definitely not regard them as essential to the success or failure of a game. WoW is the definitive proof that you don't need state of the art ultra realistic visuals to succeed. Minecraft is another, more recent example.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

Politics breaks a game.
Many designers really want to make an amazing game, but publishers and top brass don't want to offend a group or take a risk on a new idea, so just release bland, functional material.
When a publisher gives a designer free reign, you can get a pretty decent game. THQ are good at doing this, so we get immense games like STALKER: Shadow of Chernobyl, Metro 2033 and Saints Row

And Company of Heroes, Dawn of War...list goes on.

I just realised that THQ must be very, VERY awesome.
Like you get Activision, who everybody hates and which governs a bunch of neverending franchises with an iron fist (Tony Hawk, Call of Duty etc...) but then you have THQ which is all over the place and full of win.

The awesome thing is that designers with THQ have made awesome, original and well received titles.

People will get bored of Modern Warfare Whatever eventually, and then these titles could get the recognition they deserve.

 

[Super Toast]

snip

Okay, first of all... Footrot Flats for the win.

OT: I find the characters in a game to be a hugely important part. In Oblivion, the NPC's were ridiculously one-dimensional. I love that game, but it almost ruined it for me. Part of the reason I adore Psychonauts is because of how deep and well-written everyone in it is. For example, some of Benny's lines indicate that he has a crush on his best friend, while two different campers are part of a suicide cult and are trying to get Raz to join them.

It's... a weird game.

 

[The Cheezy One]

And Company of Heroes, Dawn of War...list goes on.

I just realised that THQ must be very, VERY awesome.
Like you get Activision, who everybody hates and which governs a bunch of neverending franchises with an iron fist (Tony Hawk, Call of Duty etc...) but then you have THQ which is all over the place and full of win.

The awesome thing is that designers with THQ have made awesome, original and well received titles.

People will get bored of Modern Warfare Whatever eventually, and then these titles could get the recognition they deserve.

I think of designers/publishers in terms of Borderlands (2K, another decent publisher) weapon manufacturers [http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Manufacturer]:
EA is Vladof, not necessarily the highest quality, but pump out enough games it doesn't matter
THQ is Hyperion (drool), accurate and hard hitting
Valve is, of course, Jakobs, with low rates of fire but pure damage
Activision, you have to admit, is S&S, low damage but long lasting

 

[Wutaiflea]

This is really one of those very subjective questions- everyone feels differently about this kind of thing.

I find it hard to say what makes or breaks a game for me. Lots of my favourite games and most hated games share similar features, but implemented differently.
I like complex levelling/upgrade systems with lots of customization, as long as they're clear and quick to use, but I hate fiddly micro-management that requires an hour of play time to tweak skills and equipment.
I like a steady difficulty curve, but I also like games that cater for ham-fisted shooting retards like myself by having a casual difficulty setting.
I like rich, well-developed characters, but the moment that character does something I consider to be defying their established behaviour pattern, I blacklist them under my "fuck you" list.

I could go on and on.

I think though, like a lot of people, it's comfortable controls and good story that keep me interested.

 

[IBlackKiteI]

And Company of Heroes, Dawn of War...list goes on.

I just realised that THQ must be very, VERY awesome.
Like you get Activision, who everybody hates and which governs a bunch of neverending franchises with an iron fist (Tony Hawk, Call of Duty etc...) but then you have THQ which is all over the place and full of win.

The awesome thing is that designers with THQ have made awesome, original and well received titles.

People will get bored of Modern Warfare Whatever eventually, and then these titles could get the recognition they deserve.

I think of designers/publishers in terms of Borderlands (2K, another decent publisher) weapon manufacturers [http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Manufacturer]:
EA is Vladof, not necessarily the highest quality, but pump out enough games it doesn't matter
THQ is Hyperion (drool), accurate and hard hitting
Valve is, of course, Jakobs, with low rates of fire but pure damage
Activision, you have to admit, is S&S, low damage but long lasting

Wow.

Thats an utterly brilliant analogy.

I imagine Ubisoft would be Maliwan?
Similar to the others but very different in its own way...?

Speaking of Ubisoft WHERE THE HELL IS BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL 2!!!!!?????

 

[SuperNashwan]

And I think of designers/publishers in terms of Borderlands (2K, another decent publisher) weapon manufacturers [http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Manufacturer]:
EA is Vladof, not necessarily the highest quality, but pump out enough games it doesn't matter
THQ is Hyperion (drool), accurate and hard hitting
Valve is, of course, Jakobs, with low rates of fire but pure damage
Activision, you have to admit, is S&S, low damage but long lasting

This also makes me wonder if there are any manufacturers who could be compared to the ammo regen class mods. They just keep making the same game over and over and putting it in a different box...

 

[SonicWaffle]

What makes or breaks a game for you? examples as well

How long it manages to hold my attention for. Sometimes I can have real fun with a game, like Dead Rising 2, but after a while grow bored of it and give up. On the other hand, Dragon Age managed to keep me hooked with the levelling, spell progression and story. Sometimes I'll just go off a game completely, and come back to it a year or so later. Maybe I'm just weird.

Also, lightsabers. Lightsabers almost always mean win.

 

[Soviet Steve]

For me it is whether or not the game is actually fun for me to play.

 

[Verlander]

The difficulty curve mainly. If it goes from walk in the park through to hell on earth in a matter of seconds, then it' game over. I also dislike repetitiveness, and long periods of inactivity (here's looking at you EVE)

 

[shadyh8er]

"...headshot someone while stunned by a stun grenade and blinded by a flashbang with at least two squirrels behind you, an even number of which should be eating acorns".

If they ever make an achievement like that, I'll quit playing video games forever!

OT: Replay-ability is a big one. Which is why I like games that are easily quotable (Uncharted 2) or have a lot of variability (Bayonetta).

 

[De Ronneman]

I think it's not just the gameplay or story, it's how they fit together. You can't have one without the other.

(why do I now hear the 'married with children' soundtrack in my head...)

Also, if a game has no realy story, it can still be good, if the setting at least fits. That's how Monster Hunter solves it. The story is stupid, ridiculous and causes me to be amazed at the hilarious cliches, but online it's really simple:
You are for hire. Do as someone tells you. You can read why on page 3, the very last, but you dont' have to. We know the reasons are all selfish, now here's a big sword and a monster squishy parts to stick them in.

Which, in retrospect, makes a pretty strong case for the whole "fun gameplay" aspect.

Nothing wrong with 'good gameplay, ridiculous story. I mean, doesn't everyone sometimes feel like just watching a stupid movie for the stupid of it?

And sometimes we like to watch a movie with a political angle to it, or something scary.

what makes or breaks a game is how it plays to the mood your in (or supposed to be in) when your playing it.

 

[The Cheezy One]

And I think of designers/publishers in terms of Borderlands (2K, another decent publisher) weapon manufacturers [http://borderlands.wikia.com/wiki/Manufacturer]:
EA is Vladof, not necessarily the highest quality, but pump out enough games it doesn't matter
THQ is Hyperion (drool), accurate and hard hitting
Valve is, of course, Jakobs, with low rates of fire but pure damage
Activision, you have to admit, is S&S, low damage but long lasting

This also makes me wonder if there are any manufacturers who could be compared to the ammo regen class mods. They just keep making the same game over and over and putting it in a different box...

Brilliant! I love it!

Wow.

Thats an utterly brilliant analogy.

I imagine Ubisoft would be Maliwan?
Similar to the others but very different in its own way...?

Speaking of Ubisoft WHERE THE HELL IS BEYOND GOOD AND EVIL 2!!!!!?????

Yeah, I was wondering who is interesting, mixing up the formula from time to time, with explosive results! How did I miss that?

oh, and take this longbow grenade of information! [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Beyond_Good_%26_Evil_2]