What makes a game good?/What is the perfect game?

Originally Posted by Tigerboi

A game selling better than another doesn't make it better.

I've seen this phrase thrown about a lot on the internet.

I just want to know, what makes a game "good?" Because, as far as I know, the "good" games usually sell less than the "bad" games.





Also, what makes the "perfect" game. And don't just say that the perfect game "appeals to absolutely everybody", since by that logic, Wii Sports is the best game ever.

I also want to know why people don't see simplicity as a selling point.

Originally Posted by Double A

Also, what makes the "perfect" game. And don't just say that the perfect game "appeals to absolutely everybody", since by that logic, Wii Sports is the best game ever.

First of all I would like to say screw Wii sports.

Now I think that what makes a good game is basically one that someone wants to reply again even after you beat the game. A good game is one with good story and gameplay machanics. Thats my opinion what makes a good game. Now I don't think that there will ever be a perfect game, it simply can't be done.

Simplicity seems to work for Little Big Planet just fine in my opinion.

Originally Posted by LightHawk

Now I think that what makes a good game is basically one that someone wants to reply again even after you beat the game. A good game is one with good story and gameplay machanics. Thats my opinion what makes a good game. Now I don't think that there will ever be a perfect game, it simply can't be done.

"Good story" means different things for different people.

Originally Posted by Double A

"Good story" means different things for different people.

yes and some people would rather have a crappy story with good gamepaly, I was just saying what was a good game by my standards; everyone is different.

I believe a "good" game is one that has very enjoyable gameplay, and story. In order for a game to have this equal balance of being labelled as "good", there should be good gameplay and good story. Not excellent or superb gameplay or story, because every game has some flaws or loose ends.

But what if a game has only good gameplay, or only good story? Would you still think of it as a good game? Well to my understanding of the term "good game" if a game only had good gameplay or good story, and lacking in the other department, then I would call it a mediocre game.

A perfect game would have to mean that the game has no flaws in it what-so-ever.

As far as the whole sales issue goes with game. If game A had higher sales than game B, to my understanding, game A would be the more popular one. I think sales represents how popular the game or series of games is.

I can't say what makes a good game, because that's all opinion. Personally, I consider immersion to be one of the most important factors in my gaming experience, while others find it to be just a nice addition.

However, a "perfect" game would be a game where you couldn't find someone who saw a flaw in it. For instance, I'll use the classic example: Super Metroid. I have never spoken with someone who could find a legitimate flaw in that game, so, by definition, it is perfect.

Originally Posted by LightHawk

yes and some people would rather have a crappy story with good gamepaly, I was just saying what was a good game by my standards; everyone is different.

By that logic, every game that is genuinely liked by someone is a good game.

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

I believe a "good" game is one that has very enjoyable gameplay, and story. In order for a game to have this equal balance of being labelled as "good", there should be good gameplay and good story. Not excellent or superb gameplay or story, because every game has some flaws or loose ends.

You must obviously hate much of the racing genre, as well as pretty much all Nintendo-developed games with Mario as a playable character.

Again, "good story" means very little unless you can elaborate. To me, a "good" story is a simple one that interferes very little with the gameplay and isn't convoluted.

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

But what if a game has only good gameplay, or only good story? Would you still think of it as a good game? Well to my understanding of the term "good game" if a game only had good gameplay or good story, and lacking in the other department, then I would call it a mediocre game.

Again, just about every Nintendo-developed game with Mario as a playable character, as well as much of the racing genre.

Originally Posted by Dark~Knight

A perfect game would have to mean that the game has no flaws in it what-so-ever.

Well obviously.

Now define a flaw, please

Originally Posted by Anji

However, a "perfect" game would be a game where you couldn't find someone who saw a flaw in it. For instance, I'll use the classic example: Super Metroid. I have never spoken with someone who could find a legitimate flaw in that game, so, by definition, it is perfect.

So a game can be "perfect" even though, hypothetically, people might not like the game for rather unrelated reasons (e.g. "I don't like the genre and the gameplay that accompanies it", etc.)

It depends on the kind of game as well. Someone mentioned Wii sports earlier. Wii sports, to me, is fun as hell. But, of course, there is absolutely no story. Does that make it a bad game? I don't think so. It's specific with the Wii because of it's tendancy to put out mini game based games like Wii sports and resort and all that. But those kind of games are still fun. Team Fortress 2 is some of the most fun a person can have while holding a controler, but again, lack of story (at least one that most people know about). Stories and plot in a game are great, but only if the game needs it. Like Zelda, Zelda would suck without a good plot or a good story, it can't really be just mini game based.

Um, yeah, hi Double A, nice to meet you. Now why are you trying to make a debate out of a thread where you have specifically asks for opinions?

There's no such thing as a perfect game, and standards by which we measure a good game are not objective. I personally have a few different standards, because a game is a medium that can be several things; it can be a vessel for storytelling, and if I'm looking for an immersive story that it has to have something I can get my teeth into (so a level of depth to each story element, character backgrounds, histories, cultures ect, the more complicated the better) and well as an original plot (I cannot stand clichés) which has some sort of meaning to it. I also love getting to know a group of interesting characters. If I'm looking for a story, then the gameplay can get away with being fairly dull as long as I'm looking forward to delving deeper into that games world and advancing the story.

But then I may look for a quick action fix. These games also have to have original design elements, but also have to be challenging. Playable in short fixes is nice too; Megaman is a nice example of this, as well as an example of where graphics don't matter.

Some of my favourite games are neither of the above, though, and focus on a aesthetically beautiful world that is also immersive and atmospheric. They often have puzzle elements too, I've found. Oddworld, Shadow of the Colossus, Metroid Prime and Machinarium are some example. Story isn't particularly important if the world is inspired.

As for the sales thing, the very first line of the first post puts and end to that issue.

A perfect game cannot exist, because perfection is an infinite, and is not able to be produced. And the nature of games means making what one person would deem "good" is not going to carry over to another audience. For some people the best game might be an FPS, a racing, or a fighting game. It depends on people's preferences.

Can God make a perfect game? :O
And then make a game that is better than perfect? :O

Anyway, by the rules of game design a game is more likely to be well-recieved if:

- the goal is clear
- it can apply to a wide audience by applying difficulty settings for example.
- it has responsive controls

.... and I could go on forever. screw it.

Originally Posted by Sam

There's no such thing as a perfect game.

Originally Posted by Jodd

A perfect game cannot exist.

These two have the right idea.

A game is based around someone's opinion. You can think a game is horrible, but I can think the game is perfect. Saying there is a perfect game is saying that someone's opinion is better than another person's.

A better thread title would be, "What's YOUR perfect game."

Originally Posted by Double A

By that logic, every game that is genuinely liked by someone is a good game.

If that person thinks its good then to them its a good game, its all opinion based no more no less.

Originally Posted by Double A

You must obviously hate much of the racing genre, as well as pretty much all Nintendo-developed games with Mario as a playable character.

I don't hate Mario games. Quit jumping to conclusions and making a argument based on people's opinions.

Again, "good story" means very little unless you can elaborate. To me, a "good" story is a simple one that interferes very little with the gameplay and isn't convoluted.

I defined my understanding of a "good game" as well as you did. Let's leave it at that. Again, you asked for people's opinions, not for factual statements.

Again, just about every Nintendo-developed game with Mario as a playable character, as well as much of the racing genre.

You're wrong actually. Like I said earlier, quit trying to make a pointless argument out of people's opinions.

Well obviously. Now define a flaw, please

You asked what makes a perfect game. I answered your question.

Originally Posted by Double A

So a game can be "perfect" even though, hypothetically, people might not like the game for rather unrelated reasons (e.g. "I don't like the genre and the gameplay that accompanies it", etc.)

Well, sure, I don't see why not.

Super Metroid is definitely not my favorite game of all time, but I can't think of a game that is closer to perfection. Maybe Super Mario World, or Super Mario Bros. 3, but I dunno.

I'd love for someone to try and prove me wrong. Find a legitimate flaw with Super Metroid. I bet you can't. ;]

Originally Posted by Hombre de Mundo

Can God make a perfect game? :O
And then make a game that is better than perfect? :O

Anyway, by the rules of game design a game is more likely to be well-recieved if:

- the goal is clear
- it can apply to a wide audience by applying difficulty settings for example.
- it has responsive controls

.... and I could go on forever. screw it.

And God said "Let there be fun." and Tetris was born.

The almost complete and total lack of a story? The fact you need to beat all four bosses to enter Tourian, one of the very few things preventing it being totally free realm? The fact there was enough space for a tad more to be added (it didn't completely fill the cartridge)? I mean, they are all very minor points, but they exist.

Originally Posted by Crab Helmet

The almost complete and total lack of a story? The fact you need to beat all four bosses to enter Tourian, one of the very few things preventing it being totally free realm? The fact there was enough space for a tad more to be added (it didn't completely fill the cartridge)? I mean, they are all very minor points, but they exist.

Those seem like extremely small points, that hardly dampen the experience, and I find your third "complaint" to be rather silly.

Having a lack of a story isn't a minor point, and it's probably Super Metroid's biggest flaw. It would have been perfectly possible to point in a basic explanation as to why Ridley is alive AGAIN, perhaps flesh out the Mother Brain's motives a tad more, and so on. Samus suffered as character, really. The second point is minor, yes, but if you are speed-running, it does dampen the experience. The final one isn't silly. I want to get the full worth out of it. Plenty of SNES games completely filled their cartridges to the point there was no room left.

Just to let you know, Super Metroid is my 3rd favourite game of all time, after Majora's Mask in 1st and Seisen no Keifu in 2nd, but I still think it has flaws. I've never played a game that is flawless.

I think that having no story kind of did the game some good. I definitely prefer it to having an extremely bare bones story in it's place. It kind of helped with the atmosphere, I felt. I see your point though, and acknowledge it.

I guess what I meant to say originally was that Super Metroid is about as close to perfection as I've seen, and all of the "flaws" in the game are almost 100% ignorable.