crimson875 wrote...
video game section.......
Hai, Hai, ill pm a mod so he can move this post to the video games section.
WhiteLion wrote...
Story: A game with a good story will make me want to keep playing. My biggest pet peeve with games is when they bring story elements to the forefront and then fail to develop it. It ends up with too many loose ends, or a crap ending. I felt FFX was a bit disorganized in this way. The game with the best story that I have played to date is MGS4. The characters were great, there was depth and explanation, and there were some truly amazing and epic moments. One of my favorite games of all time already, no question. Other games with good stories in my opinion include FF7, Fallout games, NWN2:MotB, Call of Duty 4(more for presentation than content), Grandia, and Metroid Prime(though told in a different way).
Gameplay: Games should be reasonably challenging and need to have variance in how they require you to complete obstacles. Challenges need to be interesting, that is if you lose, better strategies should be the answer, rather than being able to hit a button faster. Variance comes through good level design(such as Mario 64), customizable PCs(Neverwinter Nights), open worlds(Oblivion), options on how to "defeat" enemies(MGS4), powerful enemies that require special tactics(Metroid Prime). Of course, a game needs to generally not have broken abilities, horrid controls, glitch camera angles and such to allow good gameplay to shine. Examples of a few more games that I thought had particularly good gameplay, in addition to those above: Mechwarrior 2, Grandia II, Zelda: Ocarina of Time, and Mario Galaxy.
Sound: Very few games have had truly epic scores that I still remember(in fact, I don't think any really have had them. I know some FF7 music because it is so pervasive and then the Grandia main theme, but that's it). As long as the music and sound effects aren't overly repetitive and annoying, it's enough. An example of how not to do things was the battle of Endor level on Rogue Squadron II for gamecube where due to a glitch(I assume), Lando Calrissian would repeatedly say "We gotta buy more time" up to about 50 times.
Graphics: They should generally be acceptable for the time, at least. No one wants to play an overly ugly game, or one that simple lacks detail and imagination, but not every game has to push the limits of my CPU. I thought Armored Core 4 lacked in that latter department. Technically fine, but too many vast expanses of waste with nothing interesting. I thought that Assassin's Creed, Grandia games(especially the portraits), MGS4, and Metroid Prime had especially good or creative graphics for their respective times.
Controls: Something intelligent. If they can be customized, it's a plus. It's usually hard to ruin and otherwise good game, but there have been some truly epicly bad control schemes that managed to do it. I can't think of any off the top of my head.
Length: Honestly, I don't want an RPG that is 70 hours long. Generally, 20-30 hours tops is good for me for a main storyline. That's a long time to try to keep up an engaging story, and most RPGs struggle with even that length. Simply making a game longer to advertise more playing hours is no good to me. I'll get bored and give up playing if I'm not engaged by an RPG's storyline(like I did with Xenosaga). For some types of games, a solid multiplayer is equally important to having a good length campaign.
Replayable/Sidequests: Honestly, not that important to me for RPGs. If I go through the game once and feel that I was engaged and enjoyed the game, then I don't need 100 hours of pointless sidequests or to go back and replay the game. I loved MGS4 playing it through once. I'll go back to it at some point, but adding side missions irrelevant to the story at the cost of cutting into the development resources for the main game(as I thought Star Ocean 2 did) would make it worse, not better. Quality of quantity here. For games where the storyline/campaign is not that central, replayability is very important. No one would want to play an RTS more than once if there was only one faction and one map.
Technical Achievement: Xbox achievements and such? I never understood it and don't need it personally.
I agree with you, games should be challenging, not like "Two Worlds" for Xbox 360, beat that game in just 14 hours. Boss was so easy, killed him in two shots, i had alot of strength and used berserk, so basically i was a walking god on that game, it was really boring, no challenging at all. Unlike Oblivion, it keeps you thinking what you are going to do next, you cannot just run like a maniac towards a boss. Every MMORPG i played, they all have the same thing, is grinding and quests, a lot of walking. Really boring.
lathandien wrote...
Azzid wrote...
Yeah, i know that, but i wanted a discussion here, in what you are looking for in a game, AKA Serious Discussion (Read Rules) of why.
I think the serious discussion is for more than just video games, but what the hell? It's not like I'm the police.
Story THE MOST IMPORTANT PART TO ANY GAME. ZETTAI!(I love RPGs)
Gameplay: Has to be top notch. Game play is the 2nd most important, after storyline and it ties 2nd with longevity
Longevity: A good game is replayable, and makes you go back and correct your mistakes. I almost never use a guide on my first run through a game. Guides come second.
Sounds: The sounds should be the third most important
Controls: They have to be comprehensible, and changeable.
Camera view: first person or 3rd, it doesn't matter. I prefer a choice
Playability: If it's a good game, does that increase playability?
Technical Achievement: You mean like Optional quests in RPGs? Yeah, those are important.
Graphics: Who needs those for a good game?
Lol, same here, i never use a guide on my first run on any game. Guides are for noobcakes. Yes the controls should be changeable to a gamers' likings'. For Technical Achievement, yes that goes under this category, being able to choose which quests you wish to do and wish not, and that they will not affect you in the game if you deny any.