gunsmoke on 19/11/2010 at 15:26
Do you look for value? Like hours of gameplay vs. cost?
Do you look for a mindless action game to unwind after a long, stressful day?
Do you like losing yourself in a rich, detailed world?
Prefer story or gameplay?
Anything else?
Just wondering what you really want in a game to become your go-to game. Personally, I like hours of gameplay value, but set in a rich detailed world that I can lose myself in. Gothic 2 and Fallout 3/NV come to mind. Not against the other categories, but these are games that have really left their mark on me, and created a high standard against which i compare later-released games.
henke on 19/11/2010 at 15:36
Yes.
All of those.
Enchantermon on 19/11/2010 at 15:43
Story for me, with the interface coming in at a close second. If I don't have a story, I won't really feel compelled to complete the game for any reason other than "I started it, so I should finish it," which becomes boring fairly quickly. But give me a compelling story like those in Thief, System Shock or Half-Life 2 and I'm happy.
I also prefer, however, that it has a functional, but not overly complicated interface. System Shock 2 was a good example of this; the interface had a lot of information contained in it and a good inventory screen while still being intuitive and easy to understand. Psychonauts is another good example (even though the inventory/psychic powers menu suffered a bit from consolitis); a lot of information contained in a simple format.
addink on 19/11/2010 at 15:48
I, and I think most people, don't enjoy one type of game. My personal preference for games range from one-button casual games to sandbox living world immersive, emergent game play.
I don't like games that are purely scoreboard based. I like a bit of back story and/or levels to complete. And I really like it when a game allows you to become better at it, while still remaining challenging without (obvious) resorting to Oblivion-like auto-leveling NPCs.
Also, I've yet to come across an implementation of 'achievements' that doesn't rub me the wrong way. They always feel like a cheap tool for developers to lengthen the game.
lost_soul on 19/11/2010 at 15:50
I prefer lengthy games, where the things I do actually have some effect on the world. This was why I loved The Nameless Mod and DX 1. It doesn't have to be that complex, but even the ability to start the next map in a different location based on what I did in the last one helps immersion a lot. Another great example was SiN.
I also want levels that are vastly different from each other. It is no fun to run through generic tech bases that all look exactly the same. Unreal and SiN are again great examples of this.
icemann on 19/11/2010 at 15:50
All of those + games with options that aren't linear. Games where you can just do this, this and that to win but if you invest more time you see tangible benefits and rewards for putting in that extra time rather than just getting an achievement for it.
Take Fallout 3 / Vegas for example. You could go from start to finish in a short time, but the funs in doing all the side quests which give you new weapons, more xp, money etc that better assists you in completing the end when you do choose to do it but aren't required to do it.
Those are the games that I look for and enjoy the most.
Sulphur on 19/11/2010 at 15:55
TITS
someone had to say it
Enchantermon on 19/11/2010 at 15:56
Quote Posted by addink
Also, I've yet to come across an implementation of 'achievements' that doesn't rub me the wrong way. They always feel like a cheap tool for developers to lengthen the game.
I don't know; I kind of like them. They give a little more flavor and replayability to the game, I think. 'Course, the game shouldn't rely on them for it's replay value. Some of them also encourage you to be creative (like Half-Life's 2 achievements of pinning a soldier to a billboard, firing only one bullet in the entire game and carrying a garden gnome through the whole game).
Quote Posted by icemann
All of those + games with options that aren't linear. Games where you can just do this, this and that to win but if you invest more time you see tangible benefits and rewards for putting in that extra time rather than just getting an achievement for it.
QFT.
SubJeff on 19/11/2010 at 16:42
The easy answer is - something fun.
But in reality it's many things, and really complex. I like a good plot, and a good concept. But most of all it's about what I call The Interface.
The Interface is made up of 3 components:
1. The physical control system - mouse & keyboard, motion controls, control pad, etc.
2. The way the control system controls your Agent(s) in the game world - m&k in an fps in a way that feels natural (e.g. Thief), the way you move a 3rd person character (e.g. Batman Arkham Asylum) or your units in an RTS (e.g. Company of Heroes). This includes the HUD or GUI.
3. The way your Agent(s) interact with the game world. These days lack of lean and lack of mantle irritated me. Not being able to pass a 2 foot high wall because the jump isn't high enough and there is no mantle is unforgivable.
The reason I consider these components The Interface is because these are the things that translate what I do in reality, with my hands/body, to what happens in-game. Failure at any point, or with any interaction between those components, spoils things for me.
Prime example - Batman: AA on PS3. The reason I got the PC version was that with the mouse I can control the camera during combat much more easily. On the PS3 (and I assume Xbox360) you have to take your thumb off the attack buttons to control the camera with the right hand analogue stick. This is a failure, for me, of control system controlling the agent. On the PC the mouse controls both.
Other elements in the game, like plot, gfx, sound, length, etc are in many ways secondary. I found the plot in Dark Messiah a load of nonsense and it was way too short. But they got The Interface just right for me (I lament the lack of an editor and FMs still :( ). It's quite easy for me to categorise games into ones that get The Interface right and those that balls it up.
And if a game gets The Interface right and then has a great plot, writing, acting, gfx, sound, level design, length etc it's onto a winner with me. But first things first. You'd be surprised how many games I find gets The Interface wrong.
Koki on 19/11/2010 at 16:56
Goodness
