A great game does need high-tech graphics.. Lets look at 3 great games, Baldurs Gate, Fallout and Archimedean Dynasty. Baldurs Gate used simple bitmaps to display the action but no one cared because it had a deep immersive story that the gamers really liked. Fallout has only mediocore graphics, but it''s wonderfull and unusual scenario ensured that people loved it. And finally Archimedean Dynasty was partially ruined because of the not-so-good engine they used, this because the stories behind missions were great, but the missions itself looked identical.

So rather than spending time creating yet another flashy 3d-gimmic, just work on a good background and storyline.

please comment :p

That was my post by the way

I agree, stories are not needed. Afterall good games are mainly/only multiplayer so there really isn''t a point. If you enjoy software products with a stories that is fine with me, just don''t call them games.

Graphics, well they are important but not in the way that most people think. Good game art is a specific type of art, highly functional and not focused on looking good. Game art plays the role of a font. Pretty fonts ruin the words written in them. Instead we want a nice quality font, something like Times New Roman. We don''t want notepad but it will do. What we really can''t have is one of those fancy fonts. That is how game art works, it must be invisible.

Realism is not to be thought about when designing a game, that''s a given.

Nothing is ever needed . However, do something well enough, and you can promote it on that basis.

Oh, and I totally disagree with you over Thief''s "crazy and over fantastical plot". If every mission was "enter a mansion, hide from guards, steal loot" then it would have been boring as hell.

And as for the anonymous poster who said "Afterall good games are mainly/only multiplayer"... well, that''s bordering on flamebait. Either make it subjective ("I only like multiplayer games") or back up your point with some facts!

ok I just popped out my dictionary:

1: A contest governed by set rules, entered into for amusement, as a test of prowess, or for money or other stakes.

That sounds like multiplayer to me. The 8th definition is more general and could cover RPGs and sims but basically multiplayer is part of the definition of game. I do think there are exceptions (primarily simple games like tetris or gauntlet) but that they are rare. One of the key parts of a game is the ability to win or lose. You can''t lose most RPGs, eventually you are going to beat the game. You will suffer setbacks and sometimes you will have to load up a saved game but if you maintain interest and keep trying you will eventually win. In a multiplayer game you go up against others. Sometimes you win, sometimes you lose.

Single player games tend to add layer upon layer of other stuff, sure there might be a simple game at the core but it is so buried in other stuff that it fits better into some other category. A lot of these single player games have more in common with films or books than they do with multiplayer games, so they don''t belong in the same category. The fact that they are programmed with DirectX doesn''t make them games. Chess is a game and so is football. These things have one thing in common: one side against another. That is part of the real definition of a game. Basically a game is a conflict where the outcome doesn''t matter. So hunting for food isn''t a game while capture the flag is. If there is no conflict between sides there can be no game.

Every game involves conflict or challenge; however, that doesn''t make every game multiplayer. Ther term multiplayer in the context of computer/video games refers to the involvement of multiple human participants as a prerequisite for the full "experience". There are tons of games that are playable from both the single- and multiplayer perspectives, with either different or identical objectives and scenarios to different levels of enjoyment. OTOH, there are games that cannot be played multiplayer, such as puzzle games, or lose a lot when played multiplayer (Have you ever seen a multiplayer story-driven action title? Why not? Because every player expects to be the center of the action, which creates confusion and destroys the chain of command essential to completing the mission).

Agreed, the vast majority of games have and need a multiplayer component - largely because AI often doesn''t present enough of a challenge, necessitating another human - but that by no means all good games are multiplayer.

"1: A contest governed by set rules, entered into for amusement, as a test of prowess, or for money or other stakes."

Is that the definition of the word game???????
Why don''t you check in your dictionary for the definition of "video games"? I think it''s a fairly new concept and should not be confused with the common "games" of the past. In that sense even stuff like final fantasy* is considered a video game.

"1: A contest governed by set rules, entered into for amusement, as a test of prowess, or for money or other stakes."

Is that the definition of the word game???????
Why don''t you check in your dictionary for the definition of "video games"? I think it''s a fairly new concept and should not be confused with the common "games" of the past. In that sense even stuff like final fantasy* is considered a video game.