If I was going to consider buying a game, it would have to have replayable multiplayer. I might enjoy a single player mode depending on the type of game, but without multiplayer I can only play it once no matter how much different playthroughs can vary.
I also require modability where it makes sense. In a tetris game, I don't really care, but in an FPS, RTS, RPG, etc, I want to be able to change things and make my own levels, modes of play, etc.

Since this is game design, the best way I've seen/considered/thought of to measure the 'good' of a design is comparing two games' ratio between 'meaningful player decisions' and 'rules'.

The higher the ratio, the more 'depth' to the game, and generally speaking the better the design. That of course ignores a few things, like the number of choices and the value/fun/satisfaction of the choices which make a design fun/good... but [imo] using that measurement of depth is the best differentiator.

Keep in mind that you're asking for the opinions of developers. We obviously love to build and create things. I doubt all players have the same perspective(s) as we do. Especially the majority gamer who just likes pressing buttons to kill things without requiring any sort of challenge. It is an entirely different playing experience, and they enjoy entirely different features.

A game has to have good game play, an awesome theme, a decent story line, and replayability.

If people don't play it, it's probably not any good.

Assuming equal exposure.

Of course, you could always blame the gaming audience, that's always productive.

Quote:

Original post by Kest Keep in mind that you're asking for the opinions of developers. We obviously love to build and create things. I doubt all players have the same perspective(s) as we do. Especially the majority gamer who just likes pressing buttons to kill things without requiring any sort of challenge. It is an entirely different playing experience, and they enjoy entirely different features.

I like pressing buttons to kill things without requiring any sort of challenge. [grin]

Well, maybe not that bad, but I like pressing buttons to kill things without challenges that require too much of my time. If I'm not good at a game and it'll take too much time to get good enough at it, then I won't play it. If I'm good enough at a game but a given challenge will take too much time, then I won't play it. Grad school's a huge time sink, free time is at a premium. Now, back to homework...

For me what makes a great game is if it's fun, if I like playing it then it's fun, this is a highly subjective question you are asking and I very much doubt that anyone will be able to give you a more definitive answer then If someone like a game then to them it is good.

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker Well, maybe not that bad, but I like pressing buttons to kill things without challenges that require too much of my time.

Keep in mind that I'm talking about REALLY liking the game. As in wanting to play it all day or every day all week. I have fun playing Pacman. But after 10 minutes, I'm bored with it. I played Fallout like a depraved zombie for weeks. Had to slap myself to eat, and things like that.

I'm just saying most indie developers puting so much time into their game don't want to make a quickie experience. They want to make an epic end-of-the-world experience. Mindlessly shooting things doesn't work well for such scenarios. Or at least not from my perspective. But perhaps from the 'other' perspective [lol]

Quote:

Original post by Kest Keep in mind that I'm talking about REALLY liking the game. As in wanting to play it all day or every day all week. I have fun playing Pacman. But after 10 minutes, I'm bored with it. I played Fallout like a depraved zombie for weeks. Had to slap myself to eat, and things like that. I'm just saying most indie developers puting so much time into their game don't want to make a quickie experience. They want to make an epic end-of-the-world experience. Mindlessly shooting things doesn't work well for such scenarios. Or at least not from my perspective. But perhaps from the 'other' perspective [lol]

I think that's a very narrow definition of REALLY liking a game. If asked, I'll probably tell you Tetris is my favorite game of all time; in other words, I'd tell you I REALLY like Tetris. However, unless I'm also doing something else (e.g. talking, checking out a new CD, baking cookies, etc.), you probably won't find me playing it for more than 20 minutes a pop. So, are you calling me a liar? [wink]

Or, look at it this way, there's probably been more man-hours per year dedicated to playing Pacman than Fallout or any AAA title. Same for Minesweeper. In fact, the proven replayability of Minesweeper puts nearly every other game to shame. That's part of what I was getting at with my comments on replayability.

I also think it's misleading (although possibly technically correct, especially depending on definition of "indie developer") to say that most indie developers don't want to make a quickie experience. There seems to be a large and healthy indie community making flash games.

In any case, I didn't see anything about "games that turn you into depraved zombies" or "games likely to be made by an indie developer" in the original post, so I feel my original post is valid. Any disagreement between us is likely due to a difference of definitions (I say I REALLY like Tetris, you say I don't).

Quote:

Original post by Way Walker I think that's a very narrow definition of REALLY liking a game. If asked, I'll probably tell you Tetris is my favorite game of all time; in other words, I'd tell you I REALLY like Tetris. However, unless I'm also doing something else (e.g. talking, checking out a new CD, baking cookies, etc.), you probably won't find me playing it for more than 20 minutes a pop. So, are you calling me a liar? [wink]

Of course not. No offense at all intended, but it is possible you're on the 'other' side. I'm not trying to draw any lines, but there is a pretty heavy distinction between the builders and slayers. Before I got into game development, I was a pure builder. I played fighting games, but other than that, it was all RPG or strategy. Game development absorbed most of my creative energy, so I started enjoying mindless blasting a lot more. But I'm still a builder. Even though I like mindless death and chaos a lot more now, I still get bored with it pretty quick.

Quote:

Or, look at it this way, there's probably been more man-hours per year dedicated to playing Pacman than Fallout or any AAA title. Same for Minesweeper. In fact, the proven replayability of Minesweeper puts nearly every other game to shame. That's part of what I was getting at with my comments on replayability.

Yep. That was my whole point. The majority of gamers are not builders. But in this forum (and all of GameDev), they most likely are. So it might not be the best place to seek game design advice, depending on the game type. If RPG or complex strategy (nearly all WIP indie games), then this is the place.

Quote:

I also think it's misleading (although possibly technically correct, especially depending on definition of "indie developer") to say that most indie developers don't want to make a quickie experience. There seems to be a large and healthy indie community making flash games.

Everything I've stated are my own theories. I have no numbers to back anything up. Sorry if I made anything sound like a fact.

Quote:

In any case, I didn't see anything about "games that turn you into depraved zombies" or "games likely to be made by an indie developer" in the original post, so I feel my original post is valid. Any disagreement between us is likely due to a difference of definitions (I say I REALLY like Tetris, you say I don't).

I wasn't targeting you. I'll just revert back to my original theory that most indie developers want to make a truely wicked game. Not just something interesting or something to make quick cash. They may resort to such games to learn or climb a ladder, but they're probably aiming much higher. I definitely want to make players forget they are playing my game. That's the whole point of it all for me. To make them lose themselves in my game world. It's fine to make a small and simple enjoyable tetris like game. But I doubt I would ask for advice on quality with such a game. But that's just me, and I'm totally off-topic, so I'll shut up now.

You really need to experience the good and bad of games for yourself if you want to infuse it into your game. It's a pretty complex question.