What makes a good video game

[tcr]

Hey I was curious to hear people's opinions on this.

What do you guys think are the elements that make up a "perfect gaming experience" and why? I'm less interested in reviews of certain video games, or what games you guys have played, rather use this thread for that.

What are some of your favorite series, and why are they your favorite? I'm most interested in this part, so please don't just list some of your favorite games, and if at all possible try not to just be super generic and say "games that are fun" because that tells no one anything and is way too vague.

I'll start off; the things that I value the most in a video game are world building, freedom for the player, and a challenging streak. Not necessarily just one of those, but to me a perfect game ideally has all three. My favorite games have been metroidvanias, or sandbox style games like Dishonored, or immense open world games like Skyrim (though honestly only Skyrim of Bethesda games would really rank up there as some of my favorites). Worldbuilding is huge for me, and I don't mean like, open world world building like Fallout or Breath of the Wild, but worldbuilding as in you just simply forget that you're even playing a video game. A game that you forget what your objective is, and all you want to do is explore more. Metroidvanias are perfect for that type of exploration, because you'll encounter so many upgrades that you are unable to access at the moment and you'll have to come back, so you better remember where the upgrades are that you saw. If you get stuck on a boss? Exploration, find some more missile upgrades or get the Shadow Cloak ability in Hollow Knight, or some other upgrade that may make a boss fight easier. To me, the little details are what can make or break the game. I remember the first time I played Metroid Prime, and you could see Samus' face when steam appeared on her helmet, or could see her hand in her arm cannon whenever you used the Xray Visor. Being able to connect these beautifully crafted worlds within the context of the game environment seamlessly, and just get lost in it. Dishonored is another example of this world building, with minute details like being able to influence events in previous levels. One example is during a level you enter a party, and you can sign the guest lodger with your name. Later in the game, there are newspapers and other notes that reference how you visited the party and to be on the lookout. Lore behind finding the bonecharms or runes and being able to connect the dots as to how those particular items got there, why they're there, or even clues in notes on how to get hidden items everywhere.

Freedom for the player is something that's super important to me as well. I think that a well-crafted game is not just a linear progression, that's more akin to a movie, or a book. Freedom to forge your own path, but not necessarily unlimited freedom to do what you want, is essential to me to immerse myself in the gameplay. Dishonored does this very well, with multiple avenues and paths throughout the game to do what you want, but it still confines you into a sandbox but disillusions you into believing that you have complete control of the levels. There is a linear path, but its like walking through the woods and getting from point A to point B, you can go any direction and still be able to get out if oyu just keep pressing forward. Metroid games do this very well as well, sequence breaking is by far my favorite concept. I don't particularly like sequence breaking in the prime series because it is almost always unintentional, but it can be done through glitches or some tricky maneuvers. In the 2d metroid games though the player has a ton of freedom to pick up random items out of order and find a new path through the game. The best levels are ones where the developed has like, an invisible hand, pointing the direction of the way throguh subtle cues that aren't outright telling you no, and then providing some creative means to bypass those cues.

Lastly, I really like games with a challenge. Something that doesn't necessarily have to be provided by a certain skillset, like Smash or other fighting games, but just something that tests the players skills that they acquire throughout the game. Dark Souls series' are excellent at this though often tend to fall flat once you get the hang of the bosses your first time round; they really punish the players for their mistakes but reward heavily for being able to think ahead and act reflexively. Again, the Prime series is possibly the perfect example of this I can think of, a game that you can limit the challenge yourself by collecting minimal upgrades and health containers and just dodging everything you can, and even if you get a good amount of upgrades then there are areas that are still incredibly difficult and push you to your limits to where after you beat them you wonder how anyone can stop you (Phazon Mines, Quadraxis fight). More importantly though is not just a hard wall level of challenge, but something maleable that the player can work around. A boss is beating you in Dark Souls and you don't know what to do? Farm souls and level up, and come back until you beat him. Use items to buff your sword, develop strategies as you memorize the boss moveset. Metroidvania boss kicking your ass? Try exploring more and finding more upgrades so you can beat them.

Post your thoughts below, let me know what to you makes a perfect game. Give exmaples if you want, but don't make that the only part of your post, in fact try to only briefly touch on the examples as this thread should be more about game design than video games as a topic.

approved by Martin

 

[Merritt]

To me, a perfect game is largely about the gameplay. That's not to say that story isn't important, or that a good game can't be largely carried by its story, but generally what makes me sink hours and hours into a game isn't the story but the actual playing of the game.

So with that out of the way, what's good gameplay? This is obviously incredibly subjective, so this is just my personal take on it, but to me it comes down to the difficulty and how the game teaches (and challenges) the player. A game which can be breezed through is fine from time to time, but it doesn't leave a lasting impact. Something you have to work towards accomplishing is much more rewarding when finally completed than something where it never feels like you were in any real danger of failing. In short, a game should be challenging, it should be something to fight against and master.

Something intrinsically tied to difficulty though is how the game makes itself difficult. Controls need to be tight and elements of randomness should be something the player decides to take on if it's present at all - the player should have the option to engage risk for reward but also have the option to minimize or eliminate risk and turn things into pure skill at execution. The only one the player should be able to blame is themselves for not being good enough yet to overcome the challenge.

Teaching the player should be something the game does naturally, not something spoon-fed in a "safe" way. For this I'd like to use an example of Celeste, which is by far one of my favorite games of the past few years. Celeste's teaching of the player how to play takes two forms. First is that there's a controls menu where you can rebind things (at least on PC, not sure what it does on console) and see what each button does which is a basic standard that every game should have and some don't. The second is that a very few times throughout the game, a crow will tell you a button or combination of buttons and a simple graphic showing what that's supposed to accomplish. This happens generally right before the game will demand that you perform this technique immediately in order to keep moving and will keep forcing you to use this technique generally until the end of the level. And that's all for Celeste teaching the player the controls and what the buttons do.

The main 'teaching' Celeste does is accomplished through a tough but very good difficulty curve. Aside from telling the player the basic controls, Celeste's teaching style is to throw the player at a screen filled with obstacles and let them have at it. However, everything is completely fair in those screens. There's no "whoops wrong spot here's hidden spikes", things are presented to the player and they're allowed to figure it out. Failure is going to happen, and happen very often, and to me that's a good thing. Having the player fail and try again is the best way to teach them and force them to improve. The important line to make the player not get discouraged is how the failure is treated by the game. Having failures be punished harshly is a good way to make the player very cautious of failing and risk averse. This isn't really a good thing, because it really is only by being able to fail that the player can discover something new. Celeste treats failure as a quick and easy thing to recover from - death returns you to the start of the usually relatively short screen you died in. Upwards of 90% of the time, the player can get back to the point that they were at in about twenty seconds but now more knowledgable.

Improvement is something important. Even though the game shouldn't stop challenging the player, it's important to show how the player's grown and gotten better. This can be something as simple as bringing back challenges from a while previous, now as nothing more than a footnote to the actual challenge at hand. Not only does this help encourage the player by displaying that they've gotten good at the game, it also encourages replaying the game to display their skill in parts that were previously a major problem to overcome. Making a game desirable to replay is very good, and it's something that only gameplay can really accomplish to a major degree since it's hard for a story, graphics, or sound to entice somebody to play again.

In short, a game should be challenging and teach the player by presenting them with obstacles they have the tools to overcome with proper planning or trial and error. A great game shouldn't try to make the player feel powerful by telling them that they're powerful, but instead by bitterly trying to beat them down fairly and letting the player decide that they're powerful for getting past that last boss or jump or stage.

 

[earl]

i don’t really think there is such thing as a “perfect” video game, but there definitely are things that got close to it for me.

My (thorough) experience with Hollow Knight has really shown me just how much pacing matters in a game- I never felt stuck at any point in the game, as if I found a dead end I could just explore aimlessly and inevitably find a completely new area or item. This meant at no point was I ever truly frustrated at the game, as there was always something else to do if I was stuck on the Mantis Lords or whatever.

The game also awards mastery in a way that feels meaningful, with new runs and/or Godhome rewarding just how well you understand the mechanics of the game. It also helps that it’s difficult to the point of giving you that rush when you beat a boss- that hard to describe feeling is pretty important to me and has been a rarer and rarer sight as I’ve grown up.

But yeah, I guess I agree with the above posters in their views on what makes a perfect game.

As a last point though, soundtrack is also pretty important for immersion- if the music doesn’t fit, chances are the ball had already been dropped.

 

[tcr]

ftr "perfect" is not meant to be objective, video games as art are gonna be tailored to everyone's taste so when I say "perfect video game" i mean what concepts do you like rather than what objectively is the best concepts

that said keep these responses coming i like this

 

[HailFall]

Metroid is probably my favorite series. I think there are quite a few things contributing to the games being so fun. The atmosphere inspires a sense of wonder, and makes you want to explore. There are lots of secrets for those who can find them, and it's fun looking for them.

Possibly my favorite thing about metroid games is sequence breaks. Metroid zero mission, super metroid, and metroid prime all have a lot of these, and it makes the games have lots of replayability. The majority of super metroid's sequence breaks require skill based tricks that take a lot of practice. It's actually possible to fight the bosses in reverse order in that game if you're a skilled enough player. Metroid zero mission embraces the sequence breaks, and intentionally allows you to play the game out of order with things like secret passageways (this was a REALLY good choice, i think). Metroid prime actually removed the bug that allowed you to do the first sequence break, which is getting space jump early in the wii version of the game which i think was a bad idea. In fact i think the worst metroid games are the highly linear ones like fusion and other M that tell you exactly what to do and force you to do that.

 

[doublenikesocks]

I really really enjoy games that favor exploration. Games like Metroid, Zelda, and Pokemon all have a heavy exploration element. They make you feel like you are really in that world and encourage discovery. All of them have strong lore to back it up. Games like this are the games that I remember long after I stopped playing them regularly; contrary to most FPS games which I discard after they lose popularity.

The only FPS game I enjoyed as much as Nintendo exploration games was Battlefield 3. It had much more of an emphasis on map design and gamemode design than other FPS games (recent and older) which makes the gameplay more fun and diverse. When a map allows creativity, that is when FPS games are interesting.

 

[ThatLurker]

A 'perfect game' is purely subjective.

Some people prefer sandbox-type games with no aim, others want a concrete objective. Many love roleplaying elements. Roleplaying is not important to me. Some people like competitive, others cooperative. Game design is a new field of study, people are still figuring out the basics with different theories about what makes a good game.

Some people prefer cheap fast food, others want their food a little higher maintenance. Many will like sweet flavors. Sugary things are not important to me. Some people like heavy foods, others light foods. Culinary arts are mostly figured out and even have hard sciences to explain what and why food is good. It's still a matter of opinion, and really about finding a niche.

 

[tcr]

A 'perfect game' is purely subjective.

Some people prefer sandbox-type games with no aim, others want a concrete objective. Many love roleplaying elements. Roleplaying is not important to me. Some people like competitive, others cooperative. Game design is a new field of study, people are still figuring out the basics with different theories about what makes a good game.

Some people prefer cheap fast food, others want their food a little higher maintenance. Many will like sweet flavors. Sugary things are not important to me. Some people like heavy foods, others light foods. Culinary arts are mostly figured out and even have hard sciences to explain what and why food is good. It's still a matter of opinion, and really about finding a niche.

ftr "perfect" is not meant to be objective, video games as art are gonna be tailored to everyone's taste so when I say "perfect video game" i mean what concepts do you like rather than what objectively is the best concepts

that said keep these responses coming i like this

 

[Lotus]

Tbf it is obvious that it is impossible for any game to satisfy everyone because people favor different things. But here are some stuff that I believe that no game should be:

1. Pay to win
2. Too much luck factor or luck factor has too much influence to the outcome of the game
3. Very harsh environment to newcomers due to an immense time required to have mechanic reach acceptable levels
4. Game's graphics content jumps between the border that separates SFW and NSFW (not even gonna link examples on this one)

Now, I have not played all of the games I have linked and this is just purely based on my personal opinion but I hopefully got my thoughts across. There are some other things that video games should avoid:

1. Chat is not regulated so toxicity / trolling is extremely prevalent and offenders are mostly unpunished
2. Certain group of players transform into idiots irl

Any game is going to have one of these flaws but a good video game will try to listen to playerbase and take steps to solve problems even if the whole thing is too big to manage.

 

[ThatLurker]

1. Pay to win

I wonder where casinos fit into this picture?

 

[mvtc]

Obviously it is different for everyone, but in my opinion it has to mainly do with two factors. The first is that the game has to have overall appeal to a person. This has largely to do with the mood/style of the game. Someone who is really into high fantasy and likes more complicated games will will be much more likely to enjoy a game like dark souls than a person who is more into simple mobile apps. The other thing is stimulation. We all crave satisfaction, and so games that satisfy our expectations (and those differ from person to person as well of course) will be a lot more enjoyable. Whether someone is competitive and gets satisfaction by besting other players (like most of us when we play pokemon) or even just making something really cool like a giant house in minecraft or something, we will enjoy a game that does this regardless of the before mentioned criteria.

 

[mvtc]

Tbf it is obvious that it is impossible for any game to satisfy everyone because people favor different things. But here are some stuff that I believe that no game should be:

1. Pay to win
2. Too much luck factor or luck factor has too much influence to the outcome of the game
3. Very harsh environment to newcomers due to an immense time required to have mechanic reach acceptable levels
4. Game's graphics content jumps between the border that separates SFW and NSFW (not even gonna link examples on this one)

Now, I have not played all of the games I have linked and this is just purely based on my personal opinion but I hopefully got my thoughts across. There are some other things that video games should avoid:

1. Chat is not regulated so toxicity / trolling is extremely prevalent and offenders are mostly unpunished
2. Certain group of players transform into idiots irl

Any game is going to have one of these flaws but a good video game will try to listen to playerbase and take steps to solve problems even if the whole thing is too big to manage.

You literally just described pokemon showdown LOL (besides pay to win, everything else though)

 

[Wimpod's Revenge]

Most importantly the gameplay itself must be on point. Big budget games that can´t even get the gameplay right are fairly common. If I am not enjoying the gameplay then everything else is instantly as worthless as the gameplay. Good graphics and music are nice but ultimately only dampen the feelings of being financially screwed when gameplay sucks.

 

[Mandarinas45]

I purchased this https://www.eneba.com/steam-just-cause-4-steam-key-global

If a game is not visually appealing, it gets annoying after a few hrs. JC4 is pretty good coming from reputed publishers, so...

 

[internet]

The nature of a good videogame, like that of any piece of art of entertainment, can't really be caught in a recipe. A lot of it is about polish - making minor adjustments so things feel juuuust right. Another big thing is realizing music, sound design, gameplay, story and graphics are one big whole. You cannot take the graphics, OST, gameplay, and narrative from arbitrary good games and expect good results to come out of shuffling them around.

 

[Injustice Always Prevails]

Tbf it is obvious that it is impossible for any game to satisfy everyone because people favor different things. But here are some stuff that I believe that no game should be:

1. Pay to win
2. Too much luck factor or luck factor has too much influence to the outcome of the game
3. Very harsh environment to newcomers due to an immense time required to have mechanic reach acceptable levels
4. Game's graphics content jumps between the border that separates SFW and NSFW (not even gonna link examples on this one)

Now, I have not played all of the games I have linked and this is just purely based on my personal opinion but I hopefully got my thoughts across. There are some other things that video games should avoid:

1. Chat is not regulated so toxicity / trolling is extremely prevalent and offenders are mostly unpunished
2. Certain group of players transform into idiots irl

Any game is going to have one of these flaws but a good video game will try to listen to playerbase and take steps to solve problems even if the whole thing is too big to manage.

Ooh boy, I had a lot of time to burn on this one, and man is this post long. So I divided it into headers to make it easier on readers.

I find it funny how the points you list perfectly describe Pokémon Showdown! (perhaps aside from Pay to Win), and you link to Pokémon Showdown. I guess you don't take too kindly to Pokémon games. Funny how you spend so much of your time in Smogon, a forum DEDICATED to said Pokémon games and especially Showdown.

While what Lotus says here does seem fairly appealing in an ideal world, I think this post is worded a bit too strongly. If I were Lotus, what I would have said is "...here are some stuff that I personally have a problem with." , not "...here are some stuff that no game should be." The reason being that just because some games don't cater to your personal interests doesn't mean that this is the quintessence of what a game shouldn't be (in other words, a bad game) – don't forget that there are other people playing, after all.

Personally, I could take what you said about the other games such as the Clash games – while you're not entirely correct about what you say (I did research on them and I (regrettably) played the games myself), it's easy to see why people would think that way, and what you said about those games don't really bother me because I think they have their own myriad of problems, even if it's not the one that you identified. For the most part, what you say doesn't really bother me.

Although the toxicity for me is personally hilarious (some people come up with very creative insults), I can understand why some people would be bothered, but unfortunately I don't think it's realistic to expect video game companies to be able to completely handle this sort of thing. One example is Blizzard forums and Smogon forums who regularly feature extremely heavy censorship. Despite this, people find ways to be toxic anyways (sometimes it including the very moderators who claim to fight this sort of thing). So I don't know if we can expect game companies to be able to stamp out toxicity completely, if Smogon and Blizzard are any indication. Same goes for "transforming into idiots" – much of this lies outside of the control of game companies, and I don't think it's very fair to arbitrarily blame game companies for what unrelated people do with their games.

But I heavily disagree with what you say about point 3, as I found no indication of Starcraft (1 or 2) having "an immense time required to have mechanic reach acceptable levels" (I have no idea what this means, but judging from the context of your post I'm assuming it's something bad, and it has something to do with learning curve). I don't think that learning curve is inherently a problem with games even if it's time consuming to get good at a game. Especially when you have someone as competitive as me, who enjoys competing with others and striving to improve, I can tell you from firsthand experience why I think point 3 isn't a problem from a game design perspective.

point 3

Just for the record, I don't think it's bad for you to criticize Starcraft – I personally have a lot of problems with it (namely the super-whacko balance and the developers promising better communication yet failing to deliver - not to mention one of the head developers being very...unique). It's just that I disagree with this particular reason for criticizing Starcraft – I think you should have played a little before making this claim. The learning curve isn't all that intense (it's really not that difficult to play at an intermediate level), and even if the learning curve is super intense as you claim, that's not inherently a bad thing – having to practice to get good at a game isn't something that should be discouraged, it just means the game is aimed at a different audience, one that is more competitive.

First off, I don't agree with your point on Starcraft. Starcraft doesn't require an immense amount of time required to reach acceptable levels – in fact, you can understand the basics after a few games, it's not all that challenging. The learning curve is intense ONLY IF your goals are extremely high and you want to compete with Korean pros and the top 10 players in the world, or if you want to get good EXTREMELY QUICKLY. If your goals are lower and you don't want to rush to the top, then you can reach Diamond without all too much trouble if your goal is to compete – and without dedicating time to practicing might I add. In fact Blizzard has taken steps to make it EASIER for newcomers (F2, maps that make defense easier, better tutorials, and they even introduced a more casual Co-op/Campaign mode if you don't like ladder). If you don't want to play competitive, you can play Co-Op, a more relaxed version of Multiplayer that probably caters better to a casual audience. (I happened to peak Masters League in Starcraft II and currently have a lvl 300+ Ascension in Starcraft 2's Co-Op, so I think I have a slight idea of what the learning curve is like). If you'd like I can provide screenshots of my profile if you don't believe me.

The learning curve only becomes problematic if you intend to reach the highest ranks. But if that's your goal, then the curve itself is not a problem, you just have to do some practice/maintenance. I see nothing wrong with players practicing if they want to improve at a game. I personally am of the belief that games should reward you for being skilled at them, and I think there should be rewards for practicing.

My main point is that if a game is difficult to master, that's not a bad thing – it just means it caters to a different audience. I see nothing wrong with that, and certainly doesn't make the game so bad that no other game should be like it.

What's next, piano is a bad music machine because learning the more intermediate pieces are too time intensive? And trust me, practicing even a moderately difficult song takes heavy time-commitment – memorizing the notes of the song, remembering the (de)crescendos and fortes/other dynamics, maintaining appropriate tempo which is liable to change at the drop of a hat, and learning appropriate pedal usage – not to mention interpretation if you want to go that route. You have to remember all this stuff (and more depending on some piece, which feature tiny notes that must be played in extremely rapid succession) if you intend to play piano well, and you have to make time for them in order to get good at them in a reasonable time frame. Not to mention that you have to repeat this process all over again if you intend to play other different pieces which have their own musical demands – especially when the pieces stretch for entire pages and feature repetitions and codas. Are we going to say that's a problem too, that piano is too time consuming? While this does apply to any instrument, I find this especially true for piano because of the fact that the other instruments don't feature such a wide range of notes as pianos do – pianos have several octaves that other instruments, like trumpet and clarinet, don't have, not to mention that stupid pedal. Are we going to say that piano is a bad instrument because of how much time it demands to get good?

Where does one draw the line for too much time exactly? And it's not evil if a game requires players to learn the mechanics and get good to reach a higher level. Oh the humanity.

Look, it's fine if you don't like the difficulty of the games, but don't call the game bad because you didn't want to learn.

Frankly, I'm getting tired of the attitude that "Oh it's difficult, it must be bad." Sorry, but some of us like playing for a (reasonable) challenge. Normally I don't get this worked up over complaints like this, but seeing how widespread this sentiment and the nature of the post I felt the need to speak up.

The learning curve only poses a problem for people aiming to achieve a high rank in those games – and if this is your goal, then, well, I hate to break it to you, but you gotta do some practice and you gotta do some learning. If your goal is to play in a more relaxed fashion and not really care about your win-lose ratio (or MMR in some games), then the learning curve shouldn't bother you too much as long as you can have fun in the game. If you don't have fun in the game, then you're free to leave, but that doesn't mean the game is bad (or, in your words, that doesn't mean the game shouldn't be this way.)

Some people like competing, some people like watching their skill grow. Are we just going to forget about them as well? This sort of game is exactly what they want, what I want. What about them, huh? This sort of game is perfect for them, I would hardly call that a bad thing. A game isn't bad just because it's too hard for you.

Learning curve is not inherently a problem, it just means you have to understand how the game works and you need to practice if you want to get better. It really isn't that hard and time-consuming to pick up and play the games you mentioned, it's something that I could understand when I watched my brother play this game at 8 years old.

However, for the sake of argument, let's suppose your right and that any reasonable person would agree that Starcraft's learning curve requires too much time to learn ("too much" being rather arbitrary, but whatever). That still doesn't make Starcraft a bad game (or a game that no other game should be), it just means it has a different audience – namely one that wants to embrace the challenge and get good at it. More casual players would get turned off, but if a player is willing to tackle this too-intense learning curve and try to play the game, they would love it. What I said previously really doesn't change if a game is too time-intensive to learn, my previous points still stand; it just has a different audience and you're not part of it. It still doesn't make it bad game. Difficult game doesn't equate to a bad game.

This is why games such as League of Legends, DotA 2, CS:GO, and to a lesser extent the aforementioned Starcraft games maintain their popularity even though LoL's, DotA's, and CS's learning curves are more frustrating and intense than Starcraft's: it's because people who play for fun don't care about the curve, and people who play for rank are willing to practice. How is learning curve a problem? Clearly the countless people who play them don't see an issue, and of the players who do complain, it is extraordinarily rare that they complain because of the learning curve because anyone who plays games understands the concept of practice.

And I definitely see no issues with casual gaming – in fact, I encourage it wholeheartedly – but this isn't an excuse to call a game bad simply because it didn't fit with what you would have liked.

Clash series

I also don't think that Clash of Clans and Clash Royale are as pay-to-win/luck-reliant as you claim. Anyone who plays the game can see why this is the case. Clash Royale does not feature ANY RNG elements in battle (a welcome improvement over Showdown), the only RNG components are outside of gameplay, and even then, it's not all that difficult to compete with people who do pay (because of how level-up progression works – if you'd like I can explain it in more detail). Clash of Clans also does a good job juggling balance between paying users and free users, and it really isn't that hard for free users to compete with paying users (again, if you'd like I could go into more detail). It would explain why over 70% of their player-base are free to play and why less than 20% of their users actually pay, yet they remain profitable. I know all this because I (regrettably) sunk a lot of time into these games, having quit only last year, yet never dropping a single penny.

Now, this being said, I think the Clash games definitely have room for improvement and they don't really fit my tastes anymore, so I can see why you'd have a problem. Just make sure that if you intend to hate on the games, you do so accurately.

And yes, I did read your footnote of how you haven't played the games (so how do you know the games really are what you described, especially Starcraft?). Doesn't mean there aren't any mistakes here, and frankly I don't really agree with the concept of difficult = bad. And on a personal note, I would recommend playing the games (or at least doing a minimal amount of research) before you comment on them, otherwise you run a very high risk of being possibly incorrect in some aspect.

For the record, if you're going to accuse a game of being something, ideally you should provide evidence or, failing that, at least explain your reasoning. I don't demand evidence for everything (I think such an expectation is unreasonable, especially with the news being as whacko as it is), but at least explain yourself.

You can call this a triggered fanboy rant, an overanalysis, etc., I don't really care what you call it. You can think of me as an outraged keyboard warrior – your opinions of me matter little. My sole intent here is to set the record straight in case any of you get the wrong idea, and if you doubt my assessment in any capacity, I encourage you to play the games yourself and actually learn about the games. Facts don't care about your (or my) feelings.

Just because a game isn't how you like it doesn't make it bad. There can be other reasons on top of it, but this alone doesn't make it bad.

And about your point where you say that game developers should try to listen to playerbase, this much is true, but you have to remember that many players don't voice opinions that are very sensible to game developers, and the game developers have to appease their boss while discussing decisions that would have the best impact on their playerbase (which more often than not involves displeasing at least a portion of their playerbase), so it isn't this cut and dry. Now, with this said, some communication would be nice, but I don't think a game developer should listen to absolutely everything everyone says about a game. After all, how can they take steps to solve a problem if they don't even know where the problem is (or they're getting conflicting advice about a problem)?

So my question to the poster (Lotus) is, what is a game that makes you happy? You listed a lot of fairly popular games as games that don't meet up to your standards, so my question to you is, what is a game that does meet up to your standards? For curiosity's sake, can you link a game that you are happy with? Seeing as you take issue with a lot of games that a lot (and I mean a lot) of other people are happy to play. I'm all for people having their own opinions and playing what they want, but if you dislike so many games then what is a game that you do like?

 

[Mandarinas45]

Just stumbled across this article that is nearly identical to the topic of this thread, thought you guys might be interested in a read:
https://www.eneba.com/blog/what-common-qualities-do-the-best-games-in-the-world-have/

 

[Cresselia~~]

1. Good world building and introduction to the world.
2. Excellent storyline.
3. Good gameplay. Easy at first, but become increasingly challenging towards the end.
4. Professional grade graphics. Doesn't have to suit everyone's tastes, but must be objectively good art (at least, technically speaking)

 

[Siggu]

I just look for two things:
- Good gameplay. Preferably fun and straight to the point.
- Giving me a reason to do anything in the game. This is the reason I dislike the open-world genre, as they throw everything at you right off the bat... but don't give you any motivation to do anything.

Everything else is optional.