What makes a "good" game?
Let me first state that this is a difficult question to answer, and here's why. Going back to the Socrates example, if he were asked that question, he'll ask you to define "good", and that is the nature of the problem. Not only do we have to deal with what sort of game type is being asked here (Computer game? Board game? Card game? Sports game?), we also have to determine what "good" here really refers to. It's already been pointed out by other people that the word is subjective, and some have even argued that it's pointless to even try to answer it. Depending on who you ask, you'll get a different response.
For instance, I know of someone who says it's a must for all good games to have 3D graphics. He'll never touch a game that's 2D, because he considers it as old, and therefore inferior. Would that automatically make all the classics like Doom as bad? An adventure purist would tell you that an engaging storyline makes a good game, but then not all games even have a storyline to begin with. Bejeweled and Tetris had no storyline, and yet those games boast high number of players and have been cloned by other games, which not only indicate that they were successful, but also that having a good storyline is not a necessary component in all good games. Many have argued that repetition is what "good" games shouldn't have, but Diablo, Maple Story and PacMan were hugely popular and enjoyed by many despite being repetitive.
There's just no one true success formula that can be applied to all games, because firstly, as mentioned earlier, there are many different types of games with different charactertistics (and so therefore will need to have the proper measuring standards that go according to at least gametype), and secondly, expectations vary for different individuals. As tempting as it is to simply declare that I'm abandoning the question because of the subjectivity, I risk being seen as either being lazy, or at worse, a copycat, so I'll attempt to stick around longer.
To simplify matters (or at least try to), let's attempt to discuss what good games in general might have. I use the word "might" here because it's not a hard and fast rule for all these to be implemented in the game for it to be "good". If you're not convinced, then hear this: movie sequels that try to copy all the ingredients that made the first one so successful tend to flop, because people tend to want to see something fresh, something that retains some of the charm of the first one, yet is different and interesting enough to justify the ticket price.
Since all games have rules regardless of the game type, I'll start from here. The rules ideally should be fair and the game mechanics balanced. If a game is skewed towards some people but not others, then the game developers run the risk of angering some players, because those players will feel that they've been cheated. Unfortunately, it isn't always that simple to create a bunch of rules that will be fair to all and exploited by none, especially if the game itself is complex, because rules are defined by Man, and Man is capable of making mistakes. The only thing he can try to do is to ensure that they are as fair as humanly possible. For some games, it might not even be possible to ever reach the state where the rules are perfect. Sony's Everquest is such an example. It's one of the oldest MMORPGs, and yet some groups complain about the game favouring certain class/es even today *cough*rogues*cough*.
The second thing that's good to have is replayability. It's regarded as one of the highest compliments to the game developers if people replay their game several times and *still* enjoy the game. Replay value is a tricky thing to implement though. Some would settle for tougher and/or faster levels that'll get their adrenaline pumping (very common in action games), while some would prefer seeing alternate story paths, solutions, characters, classes and/or endings (more likely to be found in RPGs and Adventure games).
The Quest for Glory (QFG) series took "replay value" seriously. There were three official class (Warrior, Wizard, and Thief), and one bonus class (Paladin), which resulted in different solutions, different story paths, and even different subquests, although the ending was (usually) always the same if you won. For instance, The Thief could join the Thieves Guild and was the only class allowed to sneak into the Harem and interact with the ladies, while the Warrior had to undergo a test to prove his might in order to join the Eternal Order of Fighters. The Wizard had the chance to discover hidden mysteries that can only be detected using magic and challenge other wizards in magical games and duels, like Mages Maze. The Paladin could help those that the other classes could not, like the Rusalka. In the fifth game, the class also determined which woman they could marry if they wanted to.
The problem with going down the "alternatives" route for game developers is that it's time-consuming to come up with alternatives and difficult to make sure that it doesn't upset the game's balance. The developers of QFG admitted that it was difficult balancing the classes and that it was essentially making three/four games for the price of one, and in terms of profit, that's not a very good thing, but I'll get to that later. Developers might prefer increasing the speed and difficulty to thinking up alternatives as it's less demanding. For some games, there isn't a need to add in or change anything because the outside factors would handle that, like playing a game that involves luck, or the weather. It should also be noted that no amount of alternatives or variable settings would help if the player doesn't even enjoy playing the game to begin with.
Flexibility would also be something good to have in games, which is linked to player control. Players would like to be in full control in whatever they do, but truth is, they can't have complete control of everything, especially in a game, because there are restrictions that must be obeyed, like the Laws of Physics and Probability, as well as the rules of the game. At the same time, the restrictions generally shouldn't handicap a player to the point that he fails if he doesn't take any path but the One True Path, which brings us back to the point about the game rules being fair. Ideally, a game should be flexible enough to allow the player to explore his options and let him decide from there what he wants to do. Giving players the impression that they have some level of control in a game would appeal to them psychologically, because people in general like to feel that they're in control. Not all games need to have this. Puzzle games usually have a one true way of solving things, and people generally accept it.
The learning curve ideally should also be observed. Simple learning curves are generally regarded as the best among game designers, because you want as many players to be able to pick up the basics of the game easily as possible. Some people do get put off if something is needlessly complex. At the same, people do expect to be challenged, so the game has to get progressively more difficult as the player gets used to the controls and such. It's a issue that game developers take very seriously - how does one design a game such that it's easy to learn and yet difficult to master? This also leads us back to the question of balance and fairness. In retrospect, a lot of factors are tied in with balance and fairness of rules.
As mentioned earlier, quite a number of games have repetition, and some were even hugely popular. Repetition is an important component for games in general because it makes it easier for people to pick up learn how to play the game, which also ties in with the learning curve factor. Repetition is what trains the player, so that they know roughly what to expect from a game, and would know what to do in order to advance in the game. For example, the gamer playing an RPG learns through repeatedly killing monsters that his character earns experience and loot, and both of them would help make his character become more powerful the more monsters he kills. However, too much repetition, and the game risk becoming a bore. Again, how much repetition is needed for a "good" game is an issue of balance.
It's getting late, and the post is getting too long, so I'll talk about how certain groups would perceive that question another time.
For instance, I know of someone who says it's a must for all good games to have 3D graphics. He'll never touch a game that's 2D, because he considers it as old, and therefore inferior. Would that automatically make all the classics like Doom as bad? An adventure purist would tell you that an engaging storyline makes a good game, but then not all games even have a storyline to begin with. Bejeweled and Tetris had no storyline, and yet those games boast high number of players and have been cloned by other games, which not only indicate that they were successful, but also that having a good storyline is not a necessary component in all good games. Many have argued that repetition is what "good" games shouldn't have, but Diablo, Maple Story and PacMan were hugely popular and enjoyed by many despite being repetitive.
There's just no one true success formula that can be applied to all games, because firstly, as mentioned earlier, there are many different types of games with different charactertistics (and so therefore will need to have the proper measuring standards that go according to at least gametype), and secondly, expectations vary for different individuals. As tempting as it is to simply declare that I'm abandoning the question because of the subjectivity, I risk being seen as either being lazy, or at worse, a copycat, so I'll attempt to stick around longer.
To simplify matters (or at least try to), let's attempt to discuss what good games in general might have. I use the word "might" here because it's not a hard and fast rule for all these to be implemented in the game for it to be "good". If you're not convinced, then hear this: movie sequels that try to copy all the ingredients that made the first one so successful tend to flop, because people tend to want to see something fresh, something that retains some of the charm of the first one, yet is different and interesting enough to justify the ticket price.
Since all games have rules regardless of the game type, I'll start from here. The rules ideally should be fair and the game mechanics balanced. If a game is skewed towards some people but not others, then the game developers run the risk of angering some players, because those players will feel that they've been cheated. Unfortunately, it isn't always that simple to create a bunch of rules that will be fair to all and exploited by none, especially if the game itself is complex, because rules are defined by Man, and Man is capable of making mistakes. The only thing he can try to do is to ensure that they are as fair as humanly possible. For some games, it might not even be possible to ever reach the state where the rules are perfect. Sony's Everquest is such an example. It's one of the oldest MMORPGs, and yet some groups complain about the game favouring certain class/es even today *cough*rogues*cough*.
The second thing that's good to have is replayability. It's regarded as one of the highest compliments to the game developers if people replay their game several times and *still* enjoy the game. Replay value is a tricky thing to implement though. Some would settle for tougher and/or faster levels that'll get their adrenaline pumping (very common in action games), while some would prefer seeing alternate story paths, solutions, characters, classes and/or endings (more likely to be found in RPGs and Adventure games).
The Quest for Glory (QFG) series took "replay value" seriously. There were three official class (Warrior, Wizard, and Thief), and one bonus class (Paladin), which resulted in different solutions, different story paths, and even different subquests, although the ending was (usually) always the same if you won. For instance, The Thief could join the Thieves Guild and was the only class allowed to sneak into the Harem and interact with the ladies, while the Warrior had to undergo a test to prove his might in order to join the Eternal Order of Fighters. The Wizard had the chance to discover hidden mysteries that can only be detected using magic and challenge other wizards in magical games and duels, like Mages Maze. The Paladin could help those that the other classes could not, like the Rusalka. In the fifth game, the class also determined which woman they could marry if they wanted to.
The problem with going down the "alternatives" route for game developers is that it's time-consuming to come up with alternatives and difficult to make sure that it doesn't upset the game's balance. The developers of QFG admitted that it was difficult balancing the classes and that it was essentially making three/four games for the price of one, and in terms of profit, that's not a very good thing, but I'll get to that later. Developers might prefer increasing the speed and difficulty to thinking up alternatives as it's less demanding. For some games, there isn't a need to add in or change anything because the outside factors would handle that, like playing a game that involves luck, or the weather. It should also be noted that no amount of alternatives or variable settings would help if the player doesn't even enjoy playing the game to begin with.
Flexibility would also be something good to have in games, which is linked to player control. Players would like to be in full control in whatever they do, but truth is, they can't have complete control of everything, especially in a game, because there are restrictions that must be obeyed, like the Laws of Physics and Probability, as well as the rules of the game. At the same time, the restrictions generally shouldn't handicap a player to the point that he fails if he doesn't take any path but the One True Path, which brings us back to the point about the game rules being fair. Ideally, a game should be flexible enough to allow the player to explore his options and let him decide from there what he wants to do. Giving players the impression that they have some level of control in a game would appeal to them psychologically, because people in general like to feel that they're in control. Not all games need to have this. Puzzle games usually have a one true way of solving things, and people generally accept it.
The learning curve ideally should also be observed. Simple learning curves are generally regarded as the best among game designers, because you want as many players to be able to pick up the basics of the game easily as possible. Some people do get put off if something is needlessly complex. At the same, people do expect to be challenged, so the game has to get progressively more difficult as the player gets used to the controls and such. It's a issue that game developers take very seriously - how does one design a game such that it's easy to learn and yet difficult to master? This also leads us back to the question of balance and fairness. In retrospect, a lot of factors are tied in with balance and fairness of rules.
As mentioned earlier, quite a number of games have repetition, and some were even hugely popular. Repetition is an important component for games in general because it makes it easier for people to pick up learn how to play the game, which also ties in with the learning curve factor. Repetition is what trains the player, so that they know roughly what to expect from a game, and would know what to do in order to advance in the game. For example, the gamer playing an RPG learns through repeatedly killing monsters that his character earns experience and loot, and both of them would help make his character become more powerful the more monsters he kills. However, too much repetition, and the game risk becoming a bore. Again, how much repetition is needed for a "good" game is an issue of balance.
It's getting late, and the post is getting too long, so I'll talk about how certain groups would perceive that question another time.
posted by Swift at
6:29 am
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home