Well, I think a good game is a game where you dont wanna
stop playing it. your hands are getting itchy from the force
feedback and your eyes are blood shot. you achieve the glow
As a gamer and somewhat of a game programmer, this is my opinion.

watch G4 tv...
G4tv.com

When it all comes down to it, you always have at least these 3 choices to make as a game designer:

a) Stop -- Leave the field and move onto other things in life. Generally, the earlier you do this in a project, such as during the design phase, the less expensive it is.

b) Get Pissed -- Rant about and vent your feelings about how the critics take bribes and players fall for hype. Eventually you realize how pointless this choice really is.

c) Go -- Keep going, that is. Say I was going to make a game about keeping hope and focus in hard situations, and the topic surrounded naval battles at sea or in space. Then one of my inclinations would be to study Great Britain''s triumph over the Spanish Armada in 1588. I would read everything I could, both on the subject and a little off, and develop a game idea that interests me.

Those are your choices at hand. Make a decision, and be true to yourself when you make it.



==================
Benjamin Heath
==================

quote: Original post by TechnoGoth
Arguably a good game is a successful one. The big companies know what makes a game sucsesful. Sadly that usual means stunning 3d graphics. Sadly quality gameplay seems to be on an the brink of extiniction.

Even in the indi market I haven''t seen much in the way of interesting games

Wow, I see why you have "Goth" in your name, you''re one cynical bastard. I''d like to here some of your super gameplay ideas that blow away everything else in the industry puts out (and then I''d like to see you implement one of them ). The idea that stunning 3D graphics sell is, for the most part, some kind of weird idea "game designers" like yourself have. Good graphics does not equal good sales. For example, Unreal 2\Unreal Tournament 2003 probably have some of the best graphics in a released PC game, but they didn''t sell anywhere near The Sims. Most people will say the GTA games don''t have the best graphics, but they are fun, and that''s why they sell. While most people will say Doom III looks better than HL2 (not that both games don''t look great) most people are more excited about HL2 because of the gameplay possiblities, and the general concensus is HL2 will sell a lot more copies than Doom III will. Sure, games need to look decent, but even with 2D games people want good artwork and animation.

Part of the problem is that there are some companies and designers out there that are trying to create new trends, almost to the point of telling you "this is what you wanted" when it might not be at all, but you buy the game anyway because it has at least SOME elements you like.

The best era for video games for me was from around 93-99, when new game technology was being invented all the time (textures, 3D hardware, new strategy paradigms, interface paradigms, massive online play, etc.). It all felt like it was going somewhere. Now it''s just "By our game cuz it''s better than the others!" or "It''s time for a new game, and, here I am!"

Back in the day when games were limited by their hardware.. graphics didn''t matter to much and game programmers had to actually think of gameplay issues that would make a game fun. Now with hardware far exceeding any limitations that software can create, programmers are trying to catch up by making these glorius 3D graphics and flashy effects. The games that do these the best are usually the best selling. But alas, lets look at a well known british company who proved that good gameplay without super flashy teched out graphics could sell extordonarily well on the market. Blizzard with their title starcraft. Starcraft''s minimum requirements were far less then what the market standard was for the time. Blizzard probably put as much work into creating the gameplay as another company would put into their flashy graphics.. yet both companys tend to make a quality product that sells on the market.
The point i''m making is that it doesn''t matter if you''re working hard on the gameplay, or if you''re working hard on the flashy graphics, or if you''re working hard on the content... as long as you''re making a quality product and have it neat and polished up, there will be someone that will want to buy it. Some people like graphics, some people like gameplay. Everyone has their tastes and thats what makes for a diverse market.
You could rant and wine about how games now a days suck.. but I bet that you, yes you in the peanut gallery, could not make a better product in the same amount of time it took the designers of the game you''re complaining about. You''re better off just to accept that not every game that comes out will be a beautiful glorious game. Its the way its allways been. There''s allways alot more "sucky" products out at any given time in ratio to "amazing" products. this goes with any market.

quote: Original post by Waverider
The best era for video games for me was from around 93-99, when new game technology was being invented all the time (textures, 3D hardware, new strategy paradigms, interface paradigms, massive online play, etc.). It all felt like it was going somewhere. Now it''s just "By our game cuz it''s better than the others!" or "It''s time for a new game, and, here I am!"

Some people would claim the 80s was the best time... It seems like whenever a person first gets into games is the best era for them, and eventually people just get tired of games. That''s my theory anyway.

Benjamin Heath
“a pawn in a pointless game” sounds so true which makes it also a meaningless game in the long run and it seems what we need is to have maybe a pawn in a meaning full game. The thing is that we are becoming distracted of priorities. A good game designer can make “a pawn in a meaning game” so where are the good meaningful games? All for a quick buck and we get cheap thrills like eating at a fast food dump than quality healthy food.

obscure
You are right about
“you are unlikely to develop the next "best game ever" by asking gamers what they want”

Also about what I said about the game industry being bigger than movies and music combined was on TV news story talking about the game industry. But I guess they were wrong or maybe they were talking about increase growth of it.

Infused
Maybe that’s what they meant that “10 years from now games are going to be bigger than movies”
Also this is true in what u said “There''s always alot more "sucky" products out at any given time”

No one
That’s called an addiction and I almost take your comment as if smoking is an addiction and that people need it but it doesn’t mean that its good and for the long run. Some games are hyped up like mortal kombat which that’s a bad game to many experts but a good bad game that favors people’s visual and gore lust.

Impossible
Hey I think the 80 had original games lol I think most games just add on to them since it was basically the beginning of games and they had to focus on game design than art.

Anyway I say a good game withstands the test of time. If u feel like playing that game again after all the hype and after all the hours you spend on playing it year ago then it’s a classic. It’s like music for movies in how classical music is better quality of music than now even though the music now sells more. In 10 -20 years from now u will see that classical music is still selling more than music now since that withstood the test of time since quality lasts longer. It’s too bad we get bombarded and waste our time with crap. If some cant understand how thing will go then look at the past in how classical music sells more than music form the 70’s, and that experts agree that classical is better since they have more of a music appreciation.

Take care

Classical, taken in the vague general context as anything from the Baroque period to 1930s orchestral works, doesn''t "sell better" because it''s inherently better than more recent music, but because it spans a centuries-wide period of time. Listen to a classical radio station and you''ll find that they generally don''t play all the best stuff all the time, but instead play bad Baroque interspersed with some good stuff.

Far in the future, the Beatles will likely become "classical" music. These songs are "classical" because they''re CLASSIC. Only the best of a time period can survive; the rest is forgotten to all but people who lived in the era or take time to study the period.

Games have only been around for a relatively short period, and so the number of classics we can point at is smaller, partially because we can''t agree on them, and partially because it''s still a fairly small total body of work, and HARD to sift through compared with music or art, or even movies. One has to take the time to load the game, learn it, and play it for an hour or so to get any definite idea of whether a game is "okay" or "great." (Though the worst ones can be identified fairly readily) To be able to say for certain often requires finishing the game, a process taking a day to several days.

Let''s face it, most creative works suck, compared with the best ones of their kind. Games aren''t doomed because of this; other media survive despite it. Bad marketing hardly ever completely dooms greatness, it just stops financial success from going to the appropriate people. Not a pleasing thought, but one that can happen to anyone in any industry.

quote: Original post by Warsong
Do most gamers suck in knowing what a good game is?[...]

Yes. Average people fail at any task involving any level of any kind of intelligence.

To make a game that sells, you just need to make a game that is both easy to understand and easy to master. Putting in ego boosters(ie: wave files that proclaim the player''s excellence each time he/she completes a simple task) is also a good idea.

quote: Original post by Extrarius

quote: Original post by Warsong
Do most gamers suck in knowing what a good game is?[...]

Yes. Average people fail at any task involving any level of any kind of intelligence.

To make a game that sells, you just need to make a game that is both easy to understand and easy to master. Putting in ego boosters(ie: wave files that proclaim the player''s excellence each time he/she completes a simple task) is also a good idea.

lol, That''s why democracy doesn''t work.

(Sorry for th OT post)

-Luctus
Statisticly seen, most things happens to other people.
[Mail]