 |
Of all the things that make up a game, what is it that defines a really
good one?
I remember actually doing this report with a computer group I go to. So
I thought it might be an interesting thing to write up. So here goes...
What exactly is it that makes people like a game over another? What makes
a game in a certain genre superior to another game? What are the main
defining points for the ultimate RPG? Or RTS? Or FPS?
There are countless things that I could list for the above. Too many to
list, and so I shall simply go into a few of the ones that bring a lot
of debate and attention:
Is it the graphics? Would Final Fantasy have been so widely acclaimed
had its graphics not been quite so groundbreaking as they were? The summoned
monsters and the detail on the enemies and environments are something
to drool over to be sure, but I can't help but wonder what it would be
like had the developers stuck to the graphical setup of the earlier games
in the series. It would not have detracted from the gameplay one bit,
but would we have liked it so much? Would UT2003 have sold without the
incredible detail on the maps or models? Or the ragdoll physics? Or the
weapon effects?
Or does FF sell instead on its overall excellent and involving storylines?
FF7's was incredibly absorbing, and I did find myself feeling for and
caring about the characters portrayed, and the events happening to them,
while FF8's was a much more run-of-the-mill affair. Although I digress,
a story does not apply so much to other genres, I feel that if there is
to be a storyline, it should be one not simply tacked on as in Timesplitters.
They could have just given us the levels without a plot and it would've
been as good. Or Quake 2. There WAS a plot...but did anyone ever actually
figure it out? UT had a plot, too. But was there even a need to think
of one? All these games are exceptional in their own wonderful rights,
all are FPS, but no-one cared about the plot, because there wasn't a need
for one. Deus Ex, now there's a need for a plot. But DX is part RPG...
Perhaps its the amount of time the player actually spends playing the
game? I mean, if I go out and I spend £40 buying a game, I expect to get
some use out of the damn thing. I'm not asking for unfairly weighted and
unnecessarily hard (a la Quake 2), I mean a long, involving and yes, challenging
adventure where I'm continually taxed along a well-balanced learning curve.
I always got that through RPGs like FF, shooters like Urban Strike and
even platform games like Sonic or Crash Bandicoot. I never felt like anything
was out of my reach, but I was challenged enough by my enemies to see
the Game Over screen every now and then. Metal Gear Solid had a similar
effect (to a lesser extent, since it was sadly so short-lived). Final
Fantasy 7 and 8: average game time around 75 hours and still I haven't
found everything in them.
However, at the other end of the scale, we have MGS. Incredible game,
love it to bits, but I kick the arse out of it, finishing it in two and
a half hours flat on Extreme mode because I skip the FMVs. Two and a half
hours' gametime. Admittedly, there is replay value afforded, and rewarded
by the stealth cam and bandana. Even with such a short game time, I got
my money's worth from it, as I replay it as I do my other favourites.
Now we come to 'Bot' Support and Multiplayer Gaming, in games like FPS
and RTS. As a gamer with a slow connection, I find myself more atoned
and attuned to offline gaming. I go to LAN parties. I do well at LAN parties.
I would much rather play against humans who are human and hence make mistakes,
rather than a set of bots on Godlike who seem infallible, and who you
find pulling off shots that not even God Himself could have achieved.
But what I did like about Unreal Tourney was the ability to customise
each bot's strengths and weaknesses, and so one could feel as though each
bot was different, and individual, from every other. I configure all my
bots seperately, giving one or two sniping skill, one or two the urge
to camp, another being a maniac who jumps around with a flakkie...just
like a human player might be attoned to doing. And I ensure that my team
are always more inept than my opponent's. Of course, MP is a must for
any FPS these days, and rightly so. And so equally rightly there must
be appropriately varied gaming modes for play. DM, TDM, CTF, Objective
Match, and anything else the game might care to grant us all are must-haves
for any FPS worth its salt.
And I need not even mention the AI opponents of certain RTS games, for
a two year-old could out-think them and out-play them. I'm not asking
for it to decimate me constantly. I'm not asking it to cheat me logistically
(a la Empire Earth). I'm asking for a fair fight where I MAY ACTUALLY
have a chance of losing or winning. An AI that adapts to my strategies,
my logistical standpoints, my troop movements, the way I coordinate my
attacks. And I want to have to do the same for it. I fear AI has too far
to come on RTS games. But AI makes such a game.
Next, we come to a factor that has raised and raged over and again. I
remember a thread I revived on the forum recently about whether Counterstrike
or Unreal Tourney was better. Counterstrike is aimed at a degree of realism
(even if it doesn't totally shoot for that goal), giving modern weapons
that you can't always survive shots from. UT gives futuristic weapons
in situations that no soldier would ever find themselves in, such as an
all out gib-fest where every man fights alone against every other. Are
the two meant to be compared? I think no, because they are so seperate
in their very method and style that to compare them is really impossible.
But I am veering off point again, lol... The point is, Realism. Should
a game aim to be 'realistic'? Do we all want to play games where you die
immediately when we're shot? Do we want games where we bleed to death
after a wound, or where our ability to run decreases as we continually
do so? I once played Action Quake 2, and I hated every living second of
it. Not the guns. Not the pace (I can cope with slow-ish games). But the
bleeding really took the fun out of the game for me. I don't want to sneak
around everywhere, I want to be in the action, at the thick of it all,
gun barking as it pumps round after round into my opponent in the aim
that he might fall dead before I do. To creep around the entire map hoping
I might find someone somewhere who hasn't seen me to shoot me in the foot
and thus kill me is....boring to me. This is not real life. If it was
real life, I'd do it the way shown in Action. But I'm not doing it for
real, so I wanna do it the FUN way! Halo, UT and 2k3 do actually have
the small degree of realism in that you're as vulnerable as anyone else
to whatever's being fired at you. A plas nade explodes near you on Halo,
you're gonna die, no matter what difficulty level you play. That is, in
a sense, 'realism'. And it's good enough for me.
And thus we come to our inevitable conclusion here. Only it isn't very
conclusive.
It is of course a matter of opinion whether any game has 'good' graphics.
It is a matter of opinion whether you prefer rushing around with your
trusty Hyperblaster, pulse cannon and railgun, or you'd rather be hunkered
down with an M4A1, a Stinger and a Beretta. I can cope with both of those,
but it's also up for choice as to whether the player can take multiple
hits from the latter three.
But yet, would the games function without any one of these things, or
more besides? Could you still love your UT if it didn't have the wonderful
variety of weapons it has? Would your Tiberian Sun be the same without
its dark and gritty visuals and soundtrack score? And could you live with
Jak and Daxter if it wasn't so hilariously cartoony? No, of course not.
They would become crap games. They would lose their identity, the things
we associate with them.
So what makes a good game? Well, everything about the game, really, and
the player's response to it. Some people think Penny Racers is good. And
that's up to them.
But game developers must learn to aspire to produce the greatest thing
they can in their particular addition to the genre. To make it as close
to one hundred per cent perfect to their design in every way, to absorb
the player, to make the player get into the game, to drag them kicking
and screaming into itself and not let them go. To put them in the thick
of it and make them have fun while they do it. No game is ever gonna be
universally accepted as brilliant. But it must appeal to those who like
the type of game, and they must get the game, and everything about the
game RIGHT, and FITTING for the game.
Good graphics are always a good start, but they must be the RIGHT KIND
of graphics for the game's style and design. Add in excellent and involving
gameplay, and it must be the RIGHT KIND of gameplay. Give us interesting
and differentiable weaponry/items. The RIGHT KIND of weaponry/items. And
there's no excuse for only giving us a small dose of it. Keep us playing
for thirty or so hours solid.
In essence, the game has to be right and fitting for itself. And the defining
points that make it up have to be good enough, and enjoyable enough, and
playable enough and it all has to gel together and amalgamate to truly
become a good game. For it could not function without them, and it cannot
function with one of them being mediocre, either. For in the house of
cards that is game development, if one's position is flawed, it can detriment
the entire game.
I've been your writer for today, I've probably been very confusing, but
I've tried to give insight into what makes a game good.
|
 |
