What constitutes a "good" or "bad" game?
aspieRommel
Icrontic politicoIndianapolis, IN Icrontian
The other night, I was playing Call of Duty 4: Modern Warfare (I do that when I get bored and don't want to play any other game) when my mother walks into my room and asks why I am playing a "bad" game. Now, I do admit, I play games like Grand Theft Auto V, Red Dead Redemption, and such. But when she said that, it got me thinking. I have heard games be called "Good" or "Bad" based on their content, appearance (graphics, sound, etc.), or both. So I wanted to ask your opinions. What, in your opinion, constitutes a "good" or "bad" game?
0
Comments
I usually judge on a few criteria; Story, Playability, Design, and "doneness" as well as how new it is.
Example: Minecraft, Minecraft is good. It's very playable, decently and interestingly designed, and seems pretty well done in a sense of there is nothing that feels like they half-assed anything to met release date.
COD (at least in my opinion) may be high quality in graphics and gameplay, but the franchise has gone stale for lack of time to grow and they just lamentably half-assed many key elements from what I've seen. Thus rendering it a poorer game.
Then there are some games like Binding of Isaac, that carry themselves on being new and fresh. (Then again BOI has to be seen to be understood)
What I am mainly saying is good/bad is a matter of personal taste. Much as how I am a fan of The Cog is Dead and am proud to say I never heard of Iggy Izalea until recently, however many others can say the opposite. However if you wish to see a truly horrible game...
GAZE UPON IT AND TREMBLE!
Plot and characterization. These are the only metrics I care about.
I would like to know what makes your mother a credible authority in these matters. Regarding good/bad, I'd say that any game that I enjoy and makes me not regret spending time and money on is a good game. By default, games that fail that valuation are bad games.
This forever, but only for single player games. I also need decent mechanics, but decent is enough. Bad mechanics can ruin a game for me, but it doesn't need to have super mechanics to hold my interest.
Co-op games make it harder to appreciate a good story, and other metrics, like the need to work as a team, become more important. If my friends and I can get though the game without ever really having to work together to overcome the challenges, then it's not a good co-op game.
Similarly, competitive games have still other metrics. In fact, I prefer that competitive games have no story, or a very fluffy/silly/obvious story, so I feel safe ignoring it and concentrating on the contest.
Good game: Game I like
Bad game: Game I dislike
Really good game: Game I play obsessively and won't STFU about: see, Bioshock Infinite.
Really terrible no good game: Game I dislike that people insist on playing anyways like jerks: See, Battlefield 4.
good: story telling (am i immersed in it?)
soundtrack (am i actually listening to it or did i just put a random podcast in the background)
bad: opposite of what i just said
GOOD:
An involved storyline
Characters that i can love(miss you foehammer)
if open world, lots of variety in game play, ie quality side quests, crafting, exploring, factions, looting, skill trees, character customization/development.
If not open world, simple/intuitive controls, i dont like spending a ton of time optimizing in non open world games.
BAD: opposite of above, plus...
super linear game progression
any game that pretty much requires that you die many times to progress (im talking to you, Too Human)
micro transactions...ill pay for the damn game, just dont make me grind for weeks for lame gear or progress, with my only other option being spending real money to buy virtual money.
@drasnor I am not saying she is. I was just saying that she said what she said.
So, your bad is not...
dont know, never played it
Does she mean bad as in "it sucks" or bad as in "naughty"?
I interpreted it as a moral quandary rather than one related to quality.
As for my 2 cents.
Characters that develop over the course of the story, or at the least have enough of a personality to carry over the course of the game.
Solid mechanics: I've played some games that from a sheer gameplay perspective were so awful that I had to put them down there were others that were so intuitive and developed that I couldn't put them down.
Story: I don't ask for much a lot of games I play are RTS but I also appreciate stories that aren't hamfisted down my throat, Dark Souls's handling of story telling was (Until I 'mastered' the controls) my main drive for continuing to play the game I wanted to find the items and uncover the world they created.
I also dislike cinematics that take control away from me to progress the story (Like my character getting knocked unconscious) up to those points I've generally been kicking ass and taking names why destroy the power fantasy so utterly because you couldn't find a more clever way of progressing the story. Some games have made it so you fight off a lot of people or get in an epic fist fight which you know you're likely going to lose but hell at least it at least tries to uphold the illusion that you're a gun-toting badass. (tldr gaming entitlement?)
From a moral standpoint I don't have too many issues, I will say that games that make me shoot civilians or police officers make me uncomfortable. (I suppose there's a disconnect with Nazi's and the other common 'enemies' but that opens a whole other can of worms that I'm sure would make me equally uncomfortable were I to pursue it.)
Payday 2 is a great example from that standpoint, I love the game to bits it works great it's got characters whom I've grown to love (Hoxton for example) and it's got enough re-playability that even back when it only had 10 heists I played it for hours on end. Despite that however I never quite got over the nagging sensation at the back of my skull when I shot the civilians/security guards/police officers, etc. (A nagging that strangely wasn't there during the Big Oil Mission when I was shooting up a bunch of Skinhead Bikers but eh.)
maybe thats part of why you enjoyed the game...it engrossed you to the point that you had real quandaries about killing virtual "good guys"
For me some first person shooters give you a sensation of urgency that other games don't quite add up to. If you are in your imagination on the battlefield taking the fight to the enemy, be it for freedom, or a cause, or to just save your own butt, you get this sensation of urgency and immersion in the mission that you might not get from a less intense, less violent game. That isn't to say I always want to play that, I mean I'm a Pac Man and Galaga enthusiast too, but those games don't give you that quick hit of dopamine like knowing you are going to shove a grenade down some filthy Nazi's throat if he does not rip you apart first.
@Cliff_Forster She meant bad as in "naughty" like the stuff you see in the GTA series or something like that.
I think that's just the older generation talking, many folks from older generations look down on what people of younger generations do, not realizing they are doing exactly what their parents did to them. So it may just be a generational gap. (Noting of course that some older folks did not perpetuate this, they are what is known as "cool")
@aspieRommel - You just have to demonstrate that you have a clear understanding between fantasy and reality. My ten year old daughter plays TF2 and Titanfall because she knows actually shooting people is mean.... Who wouldn't want to hop into a giant mech and squash their enemy like a grape? We take turns playing sometimes to see who gets the best score (the kid is a prodigy). All things in moderation.
IRL I dislike firearms and the idea of actually harming other people makes me sick.
In video games I've made the distinction that what I'm 'killing' is nothing more than code so it doesn't bother me for the most part and I can enjoy it for what it is, entertainment.
@Cliff_Forster Yeah, that's how I am. I always say "It's better to do it in the virtual world than the real world." When I am having a bad day, nothing relaxes me more than shoving an RPG up someone's ass (I don't try to "noob tube" but sometimes it calls for it) on CoD: MW3 or MOH: Warfighter.
I think that we all to often forget what gaming is about - interactive fun. I love storytelling, and I want to be told a great story when I play a game, but at the core of it, I want to have fun while doing so. Story for story sake isn't enough all the time (see games like Gone Home. Meh.). Video games are meant to be fun, and once in awhile that means I shouldn't have a problem booting up a game that lets me run around and randomly blow stuff up.
Don't get me wrong, I really appreciate and love cinematic style storytelling in games, but I try to not take gaming in general too seriously.
Personally I feel that there are three main sections of this: is it a good or bad functionally/mechanically speaking, is it good or bad personally speaking, and is it good or bad culturally speaking.
Functionally and Mechanically: Is it buggy? Is it easy or reasonable to do what you want it to do? (responsive and intuitive controls.) Do you know what you are doing and how you are supposed to do it? Basically, does it do what it's supposed to do regardless of graphics, theme, etc. This is where I feel it is most important for determining whether it is a truly good game or not. This is part of why every now and then something will get Game of the Year, Decade, Century etc yet you've never played it, or you tried it and it just didn't mesh with you. For example, the main entries in the Half-life series. I've never played them and have no interest. That doesn't mean I think these are "bad" games in any form of the word? No. They just don't fit into my personal tastes.
Personal Preference and Content Limitations: What this thread is mostly covering, and the former is pretty self explanatory. The latter though is a meeting between the Functional and Personal. Does one feel that the game functions at a base level and can be called a "game"? Does the game not deliver on a personal factor? Is it excusable based on the games innate limitations by design, or is it something one feels it could have had? For example; I love a good story, but checkers doesn't tell one. So do I hate on checkers? No, that would be kinda absurd. I still like to play checkers regardless. The key point here is do I acknowledge whether I feel the game is functional enough to be called a game, and is what I want from it something it can reasonably deliver, or is it beyond it's intent and capabilities? Am I being selfish and unreasonable?
Culturally & Ethically Good Or Bad: This is the ethical side of it all, and has personal and full cultural sides to it. Is it culturally acceptable/tolerable where I live to play a game that has me shooting other human beings though they be electrons dancing across a screen? How do I personally feel about the actions performed? This has been covered in the last few posts. A recent example would be the game Hatred. In this game you play as a stereotypical loose-cannon rampage slaughterer in a very modern setting, and go around a town brutally butchering ALL who stand in your way. (coughrememberthatbitstylegamereenactingtheColumbineshootingscough) it looks solid on a functional level but it doesn't not personally interest me and I personally would not enjoy performing the action I saw in the trailer. Culturally it would likely be looked down upon in general (it was removed from Steam Greenlight for a period) but since it doesn't depict any actual events it would probably just be lumped with general public views on Manhunt and other such games.
Gamer and Game Industry culture can also be a significant factor in this. A common example would be brand/developer/publisher favoritism (fanboys/girls.) Is it an original Nintendo IP? MUST HAVE!/MUST AVOID! Is it made/published by EA? Nope! (On that note I was EXTREMELY looking forward to Dawngate (a new moba), but EA shut that down before the potential could be realized. Evidence points to the execs admitting they don't know what the game was but were expecting it to be a big cash cow like LoL or DotA but weren't satisfied at it's pace.)
There are many many factors all up in those general definitions and the answer is truly a personal view and generally unique to each game.
Summary Example:
Fan gush got pretty long so spoilered.
If we're talking about morally "bad" games, evil games, there is no such thing.
Games are a form of artistic expression. While there are some people who would call some books / paintings / sculptures / comics / video games evil, and even try to stop others from experiencing those media, those people are wrong.
Always.
Are there some art which are inipropriate for certain situations? Yes, that's a different question.