what makes a good game? (yet another ramble from mesosade)

[mesosade]

Mesoade's opinion of what makes a good game (sequel to why i'm losing interest in games)

Earlier in the off topic forum i talked on why i'm losing interest in games. this guide is to what games i enjoy of whcih are becoming scarce and why i'm losing interest in games.

I'd like to start with scripting. i've played games with terrible scripting and no plot whatsoever to be honest which can dramtically drop my interest in games due to the fact it would be hard to imagine a sequel or the actual point in the game. an example would be manhunt. i've seen manhunt but to be honest despite everyone saying "oh it rocks like you can proper like kill people of sumpfink like dat" i'd play it and end up thinking what the hell? oh i'm dead they revived and want to kill me again. OH YEAH great idea. i suppose in the sequel you die again and they rivive you again

games with good scripting make you anticipate the sequel badly. you'll wet yourself from the excitement of owning the game you've waited so long to see what happens next. a game which probably made me do the following was...yup you guessed metal gear solid 2. i have a habit of always referring to metal gear solid. that's because it always had what i wanted the graphics the gameplay replayibilty SCRIPTING and the like.
When i got my hands on MGS 2 I ran so fast i gave sonic a run for his money. (run lol damn that's gold)

what i'm saying is i don't think a game that has revamped graphics! but same storyline. ooo it's got extra weapons. different hairstyles wow! nad the like. I like the omg what's happens next. what happens at the end does he die does he live does he save the world? this was keeps me playing. i love to play original games but hatre to play thier sequels that consist of you suddenly losing everything you have and repeating the same pattern again with the exception of zelda (due to the fact they add so much more that this point isn't valid in it's case) metroid...loads of people love this i did i really enjoyed the first one on gamecube. then when i played echoes i was to find myself suffering from a rather big bump which made me lose all my badass powers which is the reason i played the first game to get not to have to play through the second one just so i could re-experince the saem powers with about 2 added new ones that suck anyway.

replayibilty is a big issue in games final antasy is probably on the fat cats of replayibility or the sims. replayibility makes it worth your money to buy the game. iw as looking forward to zone of the enders 2 but it was extrememly short and there wasn't much after the game. the game was great. BUT for a short time only. making me sell it to my local blocjkbusters

Graphics.
this isn't such a big issue with me but if i can tell that the developers have made bugger-all effort to make it look good it makes you worry on what the game is going to play like. A very popular example of this in action would be movie tie-ins dun dun duuuuuuuun my arch-enemy EA seems to make a killing of these. why people buy these i will never know. but i will say this once...

MOVIE TIE-INS ARE NOT GOOD GAMES. EVEN PATH OF NEO

originality.

right this is the nail on the top the icing on the cake the piere de resistance. originality. the reason for me writing my previous article which i mentioned in the introduction of this one. The only recent thing that has scraped any originality would be the wii. BUT few games for the wii are in that much original with all the ports being done where you can steer your car with por precision isn't exactly appealing. wario ware on the wii IS VERY APPEALING though to me. because with the idea of warioware is if it's released on a console with some outstanding gimmick every minigame on wario ware will consist of you using just that gimmick just like the stylus on ds.

the most original game i ever played was probably the eye toy. it was good when it first came out i was really looking forward to it and it was great fun when it came out. but the sequels are for some reason lacking...but more and more games have been incorparating the eye toy. and one of my most favourite uses is on lemmings is when you use yourself as a bridge and the like which to be honest despite the bad recognition between me and a wall. it was really great fun.

so my conclusion is

games must have a understandable proper sequel making script.

the graphics must at least be at some level acceptable/appealing

the replayibility must last me a millenium.

sequels must have a reason not just wow revamped graphics and director cut's


movie tie-ins suck.

i waste too much time typing crap like this....

if you actually read this feel free to comment.

and please remember to rep me!

(and to all mods and admins please can i have a custom title saying "rambling kid!"

[Yobumtin]

Yeah this is all true. I seem to have lost that interest in video games that I had when I was a bit younger. I still get that when playing old games. But new games don't really excite me as much. Like if I play snes, nes, N64 I get more absorbed into the game compared to newer games. I remember playing ocarina of time and I felt more involved with it. The music seems to make the player exactly how he should feel. The character's all have personality and they are more remembered. It doesn't really matter if there's no amazing graphics in the game because old games still get through to you on what kind of environment they're making

[mesosade]

Yeah you got a point. old games were'nt about graphics and they WERE the best. never thought about that.

[Accordion]

in my opinion there are three types of games:

imediate. [mostly the games of old, arcade stuff]
passive [ EA are the masters of these games, but unfortunatley nintendo seems a bit too interested in these as well...]
and
active [ i believe that these require the most effort, and becuase of this their market is reduced drastically

of course 'good games' are not the same for publishers and gamers.