What makes a good game vs a great game?

[Dark Angel]

What makes a good FPS (first person shooter) game? What makes a great FPS game? Think back to the FPS games you have played in the past. What FPS games had you hooked? Which FPS games had you going back and playing them again after a few years? What was it about them that you enjoyed so much? The idea here is to remeber the basics that made a game so enjoyable that you kept going back to it again and again.

[crunchy superman]

Existence helps. ;)

I'd say the answer will be differ from person to person. For me, I want an atmosphere that really pulls me in. Graphics, sound, music & interaction combine to make a world that, when done correctly, become a whole new reality for a little while. This is why I despise unskippable cinematics - they completely ruin the environment for me.

[avatar_58]

First and foremost - the feel. It's a personal opinion, but some games just play like shit. If the game doesn't have a good overall feel to it then I'm immediately turned off by it. Games like Jericho.

Then the guns. Some shooters have terrible weapon selection, or weak feeling guns. Theres nothing worse than being handed a shotgun expecting to be a badass, only to have it sound like a clown horn.

Story, Atmosphere, Level design - it all comes secondary after that. If I don't enjoy the feel or the weapons I don't have much chance of enjoying the game.

However there are exceptions. In hybrid shooters like Deus Ex and System Shock I'm willing to put up with weak feeling weapons because it's not a full on action-based shooter. I'm also more forgiving on the feel, because I treat them closer to first person RPGs. Bioshock sort of wins in this case, because it feels like a solid shooter, has strong sounding weapons AND elements of a hybrid.

[Dark Angel]

I like a variety of enemies.
SHAPES:
• Bipedal (with multiple arms)
• Spider
• Blobs
• Fish
• Squid
• Alligators
• Miscellaneous robotic shapes.

SIZES:
• Swarms of tiny ones
• One giant sized guy that shakes the ground
o Like the Titan from Unreal

ABILITIES:
• Repair/heal and raise other enemies:
o Remember the Arch Vile in Doom
o Drakk (from Unreal 2): A mysterious race of ancient and extremely powerful insect-like machines. They had some repair bots.
• Shields that regenerate - so you have to get the shields down to do permanent damage and if you don’t finish him off and you come back later you have to get his shields down again.
o Starcraft had the Protoss that had shields that would regenerate. I have not seen this in an FPS game.
• Dodging – an enemy that dodges your shots like slow moving rockets makes you use a weapon that uses ammo which travels fast and can’t be dodged, or a weapon that does a wide dispersal of damage like firing multiple rockets.
o The Skarj from Unreal were good at dodging
• Flying
• Swimming
• Clinging to ceilings:
o Like the cave manta from Unreal.

WEAPONS:
• The Skarj (from Unreal) would fire two shots at a time which were harder to avoid.

[Bludd]

Polish helps.

[Mountain Man]

If there was an easy answer to this question then we'd have a lot more great games on the market.

The only thing I can really think of that makes a difference from the development standpoint is to test the hell out of your game. Valve brings in playtesters all the time, and they take careful notes as they watch the players to see if they get stuck, to if they're unclear as to what to do next, to see if the narrative is being effectively communicated, to see if they find they game too easy or too difficult, and, most importantly, to see if they're having fun. If they note any deficiencies then they'll rework the level and bring in a fresh round of playtesters and do it all again.

Sid Meier starts playtesting his games as early in development as he can. His first goal in any project is to get something playable as quickly as possible and then continuously add to and refine it throughout the development process. He's also not afraid to abandon an idea if it's simply not working (his dinosaur game is the most well-known example).

Blizzard takes their public beta testing very seriously and will routinely spend several months running a game through its paces and fine tuning every aspect of it.

It's the ones who skimp on the testing that usually push out a mediocre or a merely good game.

[themetal]

Good - Had Decent Single Player, Didn't really have a reason to play again though cept for co-op, multiplayer was decent.
Great- Had Memorable and easily replayable single player, fun multiplayer (more worried about single player though)

[Superczar]

I'd say a good balance of every design element - not just an overkill of one or 2 features (like gfx).

[Dark Angel]

1. I really like it when I can get easy updates online. Something that installs itself. I don't want to download it and then install it.
2. I also want an easy way to get new maps, mods, etc, etc... I don't want to join anything to get downloads.

[Dark Angel]

I'd say a good balance of every design element - not just an overkill of one or 2 features (like gfx).

Good input Superczar. Can you provide some examples of games that have a good balance of design elements?

[Morry]

I'll take the example of Blood, which I consider to be a great game:

- First of all, it was FUN! I have many memories playing the game back in the day, laughing as zombie cuts were catapulted across the screen from a bundle of dynamite or a cultist accidentally shooting a phantasm and watching them battle it out from a safe distance

- Weapon choices were unique and enjoyable, taking the standard set of weapons and making them more suited to the game's feel. Every weapon was useful, too, with most having different secondary fire modes to be used in various situations

- Enemies were varied and amusing. From talking hands to insane cultists to stone gargoyles, Blood had every horror movie monster you could think of.

- The game had character. Even though we hardly saw the main character, he still left the same impression as Duke Nukem, with hilarious one liners plentiful. Each map was a homage to an 80s horror film, with easter eggs and references littered all over the place. While the story wasn't exceptional, the variety of maps and style of play meant that story didn't really matter any way, it was the experience of each individual map that left lasting impressions.

As a big horror movie fan, the game created a last impression on me and I have played through and completed the entire game many times over the years.

[Kev_Boy]

A good game is enjoyable for people to play. A great game becomes an experience that, to be frank, everyone takes for granted. When a great game is made where every square inch looks 'just right' it didn't happen on it's own... and it wasn't magic either, people :p

[psyborg]

marketing (http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1054/1204522150_34c9b6bdfb.jpg)

[vcatkiller]

Something that pulls me into the gameworld, and makes me want to explore it. If the game has me wandering around the map, scouring for secrets and tucked away locations, it's got me hooked. If the game worlds are linear with zero exploration, imo it's an epic fail.

Note that this is less a "you must scour every inch of the level to find some item(s) to complete the level" and more a "this place feels solid and explorable, I wonder what's over here?" type thing.

[Superczar]

Good input Superczar. Can you provide some examples of games that have a good balance of design elements?

IMHO, some Build games (I think you can figure out which ones I mean), in their time. Perfect example of why I feel they were is by comparing them to say Quake (which was great in the tech area, but lacked in other aspects of the game, obvious jokes aside). Half-Life I thought was well-balanced too...

Some opinionation though always comes attached to saying "This game is well-balanced or great", because even great games have their detractors. Half-Life was a great game, but not everyone feels that way...

I'm by no means a game designer of any kind though, so my knowledge on the subject of obtaining good balance in a game is rather limited... :D

[Nessus]

The little things. But mainly the way it plays. The controls have to be spot on and then the weapons need to be satisfying. A matter of a few tenths of a second here and there in how weapons and characters react can totally make or break the experience. And the small touches bring it all together, that's what makes the GTA games so special.

[Jiminator]

a good game is fun to PLAY
a great game is fun to REPLAY

[Minty]

The story helps, but for me, its not all that important. My favourite FPS ever is probabaly Blood, then Doom, they had very little story. Those 2 games were so much more fun than any FPS that comes out today, why? Because they were just no nonsense fun, they had fantastic weapons and even better enemies to fight.

For Blood, some of my favourite things are pitchforking a zombie untill his head comes off then kick it around like a football, what game does stuff like that anymore? Chanting monks preaching and screaming as you set them on fire with a flare gun, what game these days? And the many film references used in the game which you just dont see these days. And the 2 very best levels in the game, the moving train, and the carnival, so much fun, but not these days.

Games arent much fun these days, they are too serious and focus too much on graphics, FPS games should be fun and slapstick like Doom and Blood, I realise they are both meant to be horror but they are fun horror, the cacodemon in Doom is probabaly the most funny monster ever.

[Dark Angel]

I agree Blood was a great game. The screaming zombies were funny. In unreal I shot off the head of a Skarj and his hand were looking for his head, this was a nice touch. I think humor is a definite must for a great game. I also think fear is a great thing to have in a FPS. The ambience of fear and humor are important ingredient for a great game.

The story line should also be solid motivation throughout the game.

IMO graphics does not make a great game.

[Minty]

Agreed, graphics do not make a game, but they should fit the theme of the game. I didnt like FEAR all that well, it was far too serious and too boring later on. I never noticed the Skarj looking for their heads once it was shot off, nice :) Those were the days, never again though, developers (and mostly publishers) just dont have a clue these days.

[The Stinger]

Doing something fresh always helps. Innovation is the key. :)
Replaying older games depend, in my opion, on the fact you've already played it before, or it's a very solid game.

[Talos]

Three things for me:

Attention to detail.
Believable characters.
Strong story with lots of player involvement to build up emotional aspects.

[Morry]

They should inform the CEO of Monolith about this thread haha, much love for Blood.

[Minty]

They should inform the CEO of Monolith about this thread haha, much love for Blood.

Yea and if he comes here I also want to tell him that Blood 2 was pants, it has NOTHING on Blood 1.

For me, a great game doesnt have to have believable characters or a strong story, they really depend on the type of game it is. Infact, I havent had as much fun in any recent FPS as I have from the ones in the 90s, they just arent as fun anymore because they concentrate too much on story and characters, just my opinion but id rather have more Bloods, more Dooms (not Doom 3), More Dukes, more Alien Breed 3d's, with less FEARs and Crysis' (or Crysi)

The best FPS recently for me is Condemned.

[Dark Angel]

The Stinger said "Inovation is the key".
What do you think about having a game that can sense your fears and it gives you more of what scares you? What if the game puts you through a set of standard things that scare people and senses your reactions? Perhaps it could sense how much and how fast you move the mouse, to see how jumpy you are. Or what if you hooked up a pulse monitor and it tracks your heart rate? This would be innovative.

[Malgon]

There're a lot of aspects that can seperate a good game from a great game, but solid gameplay mechanics are usually a good place to start.

[thefly]

Well, oddly enough, I love a FPS that has great deathmatch action. But not really in current game context. The most fun I've ever had playing a FPS was Rise of The Triad when I would play modem deathmatch games against my best friend or his brother (and Wiederhold a few times [and Peter and his brother Adam]). I'm not good enough these days to compete in serious deathmatch online...

That said the custom ".RTS" files from ROTT and DUKE3D really made those games great to me. Wieder once had a website when he was at the University of Texas that was great for maps and rts files. I was probably in junior high at that point. I guess nostalgia has me tied to all of that.

I hope DNF has something like custom RTS.

[Dark Angel]

There're a lot of aspects that can seperate a good game from a great game, but solid gameplay mechanics are usually a good place to start.

What does "solid gameplay mechanics" mean to you? Could you be specific?

[Malgon]

For me (in FPS here), solid gameplay mechanics usually relates to simple stuff like how good the shooting and movement speed feels when playing. If these aspects are good, then you get the impression that the developer has thoroughly playtested and tweaked it so you can have the best experience possible. Solid gameplay mechanics can also mean that I'm willing to overlook other factors like a weak story for instance. Likewise, when a game has poor elements like sluggish movement, shoddy mouse aiming, weak feeling weapons etc., it does kind of put the game off to a bad start. (Although it can be redeemed with other factors sometimes).

Ultimately you'd want every bit of the game to hold up and be great, but for lots of people, if the main point of the game (eg. shooting in an action game) is weak, they will be turned off instantly. Hope that helps explain it somewhat. :)

[YicklePigeon]

The keywords that everyone so far has missed and I get the feeling some are looking for is: focus and drive.

It matters not a jot if there are 60 different types of enemies, 20 weapons, and 200 levels in 10 different geographical areas. What, however, does matter is the focus because if you've ever played a game with lots of levels or weapons etc, has it ever gotten to the point where the game in question feels more like a chore to complete rather than a fun game?

Ask yourself, the original Unreal. It would satisfy Dark Angel's craving for a variety of enemies, but it was boring then after the first few levels and it's just as boring now.

How about a strategy title? Any strategy title. Have you ever been going through a single player campaign only to get so far and become bored by the story? Or worse yet stuck? Sure, you could become supremely skilled by dying repeatedly from the enemy AI, but more than likely you'll either abandon the campaign and go to multiplayer (if it exists), cheats or another title.

Drive in a game isn't just racing a vehicle around a track/circuit, it's about the personal feeling the game gives to incite you into completing it. The original No One Lives Forever kept me going throughout it's 60 levels with (for me) a very interesting story, by being different to every other FPS I'd ever played on the PC through it's very nature and wanting to know what happens next and have I been right in predicting the story from all The Man From U.N.C.L.E. episodes I'd watched?

I'll probably get lynched for this (*cue predictable users "lynching" me*), but I only started to feel any sort of drive in Prey more towards the end. And then it was over. The game tried to get me driven about what was going on by kidnapping a girlfriend I do not care about (I didn't even know her! I'm not that kinda guy! :P) and then me (I like me).

In a nutshell, focus can be lost when a part of the development team doesn't come up to standards (e.g. the model maker makes a fantastic looking machine gun, the sound team makes it sound just like the real thing yet somehow better...but the programming team mess up by giving it a damage per bullet of 0.00000000000001. A toffee hammer would be more useful) and drive can be lost or even never gained if the game doesn't give you any reason to carry on - although that's more of a personal nature, a game that does have drive would be Diablo 2 if only for dangling multiple carrots at once!

Oh and Trackmania Nations Forever too.

Here's some more detailed concepts for people:-


Dying suddenly and unexpectedly in order to learn how to progress through the game is BAD.
Going from environment to environment just to satisfy a marketing quota is also BAD. People complained about F.E.A.R.'s environment, never realising that the city's warehouse and office block districts is where the story was based and didn't require an underwater world, going to Hell or a jungle.
It's an obvious thing that any part of a game (or anything else for that matter) isn't up to it, it'll show and be far more obvious and it's that if anything that would be mentioned. So if horrible voice actors were hired (many RPGs), for me the game is ruined.
A game being too difficult or too easy - the auto dynamic difficulty option is what I prefer. Because if a game is too difficult, few will complete it (and will go to gaming forums complaining it's too difficult) and if it's too easy, then lots of people will complete it, go to those same gaming forums and complain it's too easy.
And finally, to have clear and distinct goals to be completed of varying length but always omnipresent.


There we go, hopefully I've shed some light on the matter!

With regards,

Yickle!

[Hudson]

Polishing and attention to detail.

[Zztx]

A few pointers...

Having any one of the following people on your design team:
- Sid Meier
- Tim Schafer
- Shigeru Miyamoto
- Will Wright

A fair challenge, however difficult. There's a fine line between challenging and unfair. Don't get 'em mixed up. Fair punishment should be doled out only when the player makes a mistake, not sadism (unless you're making this game (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Takeshi_no_Chousenjou)).
Cases in point:
- Ninja Gaiden's adversarial camera.
- The exploitative "mind-reading" A.I. of various fighting games (old-school Street Fighter/Mortal Kombat).

Feel, in the context of aesthetics; when I fire a .45 pistol, it shouldn't feel like I'm firing a .15 pea-shooter. It should animate like a gun, sound like a gun, and hurt like a gun.
Good:
Blood
Black
Duke Nukem 3D
Counter-Strike
Bad:
GTA: San Andreas - Perhaps the only strong example I can think of off the top of my head, the gun sound effects are terrible. Play it again, then play one of the "Good" examples if you don't believe me.

Work well within the limits of your technology; don't let your reach (design ambition) exceed your grasp (technology), so to speak.
Cases in Point:
- Remember how many people tried making complex, detailed graphics on the NES and failed miserably? Remember how good the (simple) graphics were in Super Mario Bros. 3 compared to those games?
- Remember how the Super Nintendo didn't have a snowball's chance in hell of running the Megadrive/Genesis Gunstar Heroes smoothly because of the sheer number of on-screen sprites/action?
- Remember how fantastic Half-Life 2 looked for such modest system requirements?
The designers knew the limitations of their technology and what would/wouldn't work in terms of art direction.
Bad Example:
- Perfect Dark; arguably the best FPS for the N64, almost crippled by its horrid framerates.

If you're making any game where the player will be doing any moving around, whether on foot or on wheels, know a goddamned thing about LEVEL DESIGN. Aesthetic and flow: some designers will get at least one right, many more get neither. Every new place should feel distinct from the last one, and it shouldn't feel like a chore to go through, either.
Case in Point:
- Ultimate DOOM VS. Halo. I'd rather go solo through "Knee-Deep in the Dead" (8/9 level episode) than co-op through "The Library" (the longest, most monotonous stretch of hallway you'll ever play through).
Level design: it's that important.

Good games can look good, sound good and play good, but great games have character. The immersion that results from this alone can more than make up for any gameplay flaws.
Case in Point:
- Metal Gear Solid; I wonder how much actual gameplay time there is as opposed to cutscenes and dialogue. BUT, I played through that game multiple times, and I'll be damned if I didn't pay attention to those same cutscenes and dialogue every time.
- Psychonauts; Definitely not without its flaws, but it's been a long time since a game has had me so immersed in its world. It's like Harry Potter, but psychics instead of wizards, and awesomeness instead of dweebery. :p

And perhaps most importantly,
SURPRISE ME. You don't have to design within pre-defined genres, really!