Good day to all, for research I'm currently doing, for starting up a new class about gaming, I am trying to define what it is that makes a game good. We've already had a small discussion about this on the GarageGames forums and this led to a few great comments. GameDev.net though is home to an even larger community with both professionals and enthusiasts, who no doubt have some relaly good thoughts on the matter as well. I'd like to kick off a discussion to answer the question "What makes a game good?" To get started I'm posting some quotes from the mentioned thread at the GarageGames forums.

Quote: This is the kind of question that should be asked more often. I don't have a ton of time to contribute to this, but this is one theory I have of what makes a good game: (My core theories are bolded) Minimal time to action. When you are looking at FPS games, a game like CounterStrike runs in very short cycles. The time to action is short. The action is intense, and then you start FROM SCRATCH! (Well almost, you know moneys etc.) I personally feel this is one of the reasons Tribes was better than Tribes 2, and why I like Tribes LT so much. The time to action is minimal. The game is long, however your action is in intense bursts and you get back to the action quickly. (This counterbalances the long games along with infinite respawns, unlike CounterStrike). Marble Blast Ultra multiplayer is also similar. Short rounds mean people can play many rounds in one sitting, the minimum time investment for good gameplay experience is short. This means the player can mentally sit down and play the game without any hangups on thinking, "I must devote at least 15 minutes to this or it won't be a positive experience for me." They can sit down for 5 minutes and have a good game. Now, interestingly enough, this lends iteself to more additive gameplay. Beause time to action is short, and minimum time investment is low, the player will be very likely to sit down and play the game because they percieve it to take little time. Since the time to action is so short, and they instantly become a relevant part of the action, and continue to be in the position to take action which effects the game, they will sit down and play it for quite some time. Basically, I don't play games anymore unless I percieve them to have a low time investment. My brain renforces to itself that I, "don't have time to spend an hour playing games." Now I may sit down and play a game, like Marble Blast Ultra, for more than an hour, but that, to my brain, is ok, because I know that, at any point after the minimum time investment, I can put the controler down and walk away with a positive game experience. I think the minimum time investment in MBU is around 3-5 minutes. Since the level times are short, I can put the controler down at any increment of the minimum time investment, and have my desire for fun satisfied. I should really blog this, come to think of it. Anyway, I hope that helps you. I forget the last time a question like this was asked, but I hope it gets asked more often. I see questions all the time which I consider to be trivial, not because they are easy questions, but because they don't address the issues I think really need discussion. 'Does TSE support XYZ lighting model?' Who freakin' cares, man?! If it doesn't, here's a Siggraph paper, and HLSL...make it so. These are the questions there aren't books on, yet. (If anyone knows one please post it, though.) This is what should be discussed in gaming classes. There is theory behind everything, and it is important to examine these things. Pat Wilson - GarageGames employee

Quote: What makes a game good? I think that for most people, a game is good if it is enjoyable on multiple levels. Example: cool to look at, interesting to listen to, challenging to play, immersive, rewarding. I think that a game is great if it is enjoyable on most or all levels. I think that a game is outstanding if while being great it also breaks new ground in some way and suprises the player and raises the bar for enjoyment. I think that a game can also be great if it doesn't have all the bases of enjoyment down but has some groundbreaking element that makes up for being uneven. It doesn't make it outstanding, but it's enough to make it great. I say this with the assumtion that enjoyment is 'in the eyes of the beholder' and that some things in games are fun your you and make me wish I were never born when I have to play them. I hate MMOs but I love Oblivion, NWN and the Baldur's Gate/Icewind Dale games. I love single player FPS games, but only ever enjoyed playing Soldier of Furtune 2 in online multiplayer. I love love love any kind of sword fighting game... but the only sport game I like is snowboarding. I also love Turn Based Strategy games like Disciples 2 and Heroes V but I'm still staring at the box for Battle For Middle Earth. It's very complicated... I don't necessarily only like one type of game, but I definitely have likes and dislikes and some hates. EDIT: I would like to add 'eveness' to enjoyable. A game that is enjoyable on multiple levels and evenly enjoyable on those levels. Anton Bursch - GarageGames member

Quote: I've never liked the distinction between casual and hardcore gaming. It seems contrived to me. When I have hours to kill, I don't suddenly become more tolerant of longer loading times. They still annoy me. Nor do I keep the "deep story" games in the closet until I have half a day free. When I have 20 minutes to kill, my gaming interests dont change. In fact, I rarely if ever decide to play anything but what is my current game favorite because of time. All I do is play for a bit and save. HOMM5 is awesome, but its quite slow. Its my current game of choice. When I only have half an hour, I start a stage, then save it and continue later. I don't load up a bubble-popper game. If anything, that would give me a bigger feeling of wasting my precious game time. My interests just don't shift based on time like that. Maybe its just me. In every case, you're playing a game because you have some free time, and want to fill it with an enjoyable activity. What you consider enjoyable is dependant to your personality. Whenever I play games I'm engaging in what I consider "casual" activity. My definition may be different to other peoples, but I just don't view it as 2 distinct modes like that. I just play what strikes my interest. Gareth Fouche - GarageGames member

Any thoughts on the subject are welcome as they are sure to help me, and most likely others. Please do try to stay on topic.

Well, time for a Captain Obvious reply: a game is good if it's fun to play. A bit less obviously, I think a game is more about what it isn't than what it is: a good game is a game that isn't bad. Bad things are moments when you think "why am I doing this?". Typical examples are: long loading times ("why am I sitting waiting for my computer?"), repetitive or respawning enemies ("why do I have to kill this thing again?"; RPGs with their levelling up paradigm are quite guilty of this); seemingly arbitrary challenges, like a jump right on the limits of the character's capability, which a player will inevitably fail many times; computer players not realising when they're obviously beaten (RTSs: "why do I have to hunt down that last freighter for five minutes?").

To some extent I agree with the 'quick to action' point made by one of your quotees, although the popularity of stealth games might argue against that. But excepting web games, I don't think a short game time is important, as long as the action is continuous, and fun even if you are losing, which is the hard part of design. (Respawning FPSs are good at that, but if you're losing in a 4-way RTS game you have no fun for 25 minutes while the other three players carry on.)

I think what makes a game good is different for different people. Some like player skill, some like character skill. Some like micromanagement, some like a more abstracted interface. Some like story, some don't. Some like realism, some don't care. Some like a challenge that'll take them a long time to train for, some like a more casual romp through the game world.

Game is good to who?

It really varies too much and is subjective.



Go is a good game. It has been played by millions (billions?) of people over many millenia. It has simple rules and can be picked up in a matter of minutes. It has no plot, no story line, no graphics, no dice or luck elements. But it has a very high replay value.

Mancala is another good game that is thousands of years old. It has also been played by millions. It has simple rules and can be picked up in a matter of minutes. It also has no plot, no story line, no graphics, no dice or luck elements. It has a very high replay value.

Chess is relatively new (only 500 or so years). It has been played by millions. It has a slightly more complex rule set and can be picked up in minutes. It has no plot, no story line, no graphics, no dice or luck elements.

Nethack is a good computer game. It has been played by millions. It has survived over 30 years, which is better than any other computer games. It has a simple plot, no real story line, plain text graphics, and is extremely number-heavy. It has complex rules and can be picked up over several hours. It is addictive compelling because it uses random rewards, just like gambling. It is very replayable.

Settlers of Catan is a good desktop game. It has been played by millions. It has no plot, no story line, and is number-heavy. It has moderately complex rules, and is not something you just sit down to and play in a casual setting. It is very replayable.

Doom is another good game. It has been played by millions. It has a fixed plot, a fairly boring story line, all the graphics a high-end machine can handle, and is both repetitive and dependant on luck. It is not really replayable. Basically, it is a throw away one-time experience for normal hardcore game people.

Final Fantasy games (even tactics) are also fun, but not really replayable. They have been played by millions. Somebody might play a particular game a second time, or very rarely a third time, but that's not normal.

Pogo.com has a collection of good games. They have been played by millions. They have colorful simple graphics and (for the most part) simple gameplay. They can be picked up in a matter of seconds and played for a few minutes. They can also be played for many hours. It is very replayable.


Replayability is not important in today's short-term games, but is very important in the long term games.

There is a whole line of study in psychology trying to determine exactly what is, and what is not, fun and compelling in games. Some things are not fun but compelling/addictive. Other things are very fun but not compelling.

Here are some personal pointers from me while I waste compile time.

Try not to think of your game as a device made to have fun. Fun has a very flexible definition and doesn't help much when put on paper. Try to think of your game as a way to provide people with a new experience. Base it on a trial, an alternate existence, discovery, evolution, or fear.

Make sure your game world has a lot of personality. A game world that has personality can feel real without looking real. Text games deal exclusively in personality. Adding visualization on top of personality is great, but make sure you don't get confused between the two and add more v to compensate for p.

Don't give the player immersion-breaking abilities to balance gameplay. Instead, take away the AI's immersion-breaking abilities. GTA cops wouldn't need to spawn unmercifully around every corner if the player wasn't superhuman in comparison. Sorry, I'm only adding this one because I just finished playing [evil]

I see games as a form of Play. Play does not have to be fun (it usually is though).

Play is how we learn. This does not mean that games have to edutainment (*shudder*). For games to hold the interest of a player, they must provide learning experiences.

Gaining the skills and reflexes to take out a room full of demons in Doom is learning. Working out the best sequance in which to build and upgrade units in an RTS is learning. It is these experiences that will kep a players interest.

I actually think "Fun" is not the primary reason people play games. Look at WoW. In this game people do very repetitave tasks (grind) and even complain about it, but they still continue to play. Why?

Well there is a lot that they can learn. There are many races, classes, quests and areas to explore. Working out how to work in groups with all these combinations offers a very rich learning experience.

Learning is enjoyable. School is not nessesary learning, it is more the passing on of infomation (if you can tell the difference between these then you will know what I mean).

Trying to eliminate subjective terms I would say it is a game which does well what it sets out to do. Personally I do not particularly like stealth games but I do know the games which are good for it. A racing game like Gran Turismo is a detailed driving game, but isnt really always fun, but it is a good game because it provides a driving experience like no other. While Lego Star Wars is not a particularly challenging game is a good one because its fun, and potrays star wars in a new way.

It is generally easy to spot the bad games they appear lazy in either the graphics or the implementation of gameplay. I would say that all the games I own are good games because they do what they do and do it well(wether or not I actually like them). There are lots of bad games out there and they are as such because they are usually flawed in some or many ways.