What do you look for in a video/computer game?

Post Reply New Topic

I decided I'd put my view out, and rank the most important things I feel in a video/computer game.

Tie 1st place: Good story and interesting gameplay.

I am a very literate person, and so I hold many games with a good (and complex) story better than those with good gameplay and no story. However, without gameplay, such a story is little more than a text adventure. I want gameplay to be interesting and varied, and with freedom to play around with some things.

In order from best to worst:

Presentation (Both good graphics and sound)

Replay value

Balanced difficulty (I want it hard enough to challenge me, but not so hard that I throw my controller to the ground continuously)


Now if you want to ask me where to put some other values, ask. For example, I'd put 'good voice acting' under the story category, myself, although you may want to put it under the presentation category.

Oh, and technical quality is a given pretty much.

I guess all of those to some degree, except for replay value (I really don't care, and don't expect anything to have much replay value-I don't rewatch video or reread books generally either).

Gameplay is the most important of course, and I think the balanced difficulty is really part of the same thing. Except I don't care about it being balanced, I just don't want it to be too hard. I can't count how many games I've quit because they're too hard. Making something too hard is easy (many people don't seem to get that). Making something that plays well is hard.

The presentation of course can help suck you in to a game, and help make it more enjoyable.

Same for the story. I love a great story, and like the presentation it can help make up for somewhat deficient gameplay. It's not absolutely critical for me though, because a lot of games don't really have, and don't really need a real story.

My favorite games though notably have all these features. Fantastic, often emergent gameplay, fantastic graphics and audio, and fantastic stories.

I have tried to play games that supposedly have good stories but shallow gameplay... and I just can't get into them.

Usually the most important aspect of any game to me is control... I am very sensitive to how a game controls. If I get frustrated and die numerous times... through no fault of my own but just unresponsive controls... I just give up. Case in point, Kingdom Hearts. I really wanted to like this game... but I got frustrated by some stupid jump puzzle that I just couldn't stand it.

But yeah most important is just good solid captivating gameplay.

Second is probably music actually... which probably goes under presentation. Music creates an emotional connection with the game... that makes it hard to put down.

Graphics, don't care really. Actually sometimes I like purposefully bad grahpics... it lends games a certain aesthetic. I still play old rpgs, just as much as new ones. Good graphics are nice... but meh... no big deal.

Replay value... it's good if I get addicted to a game. But most games I just play through to try to beat once... then years later if I really liked the game I'll play through again.

Difficulty... this is kind of important. But I don't mind difficult games... I like games to have a really shallow learning curve. Games which I believe are perfect in regards to difficulty... the Metroid Prime series.

Last edited by Pugly on 07 Aug 2007, 10:13 am, edited 1 time in total.

If you ask me, voice acting should be put under presentation while the actual dialogue should come under story, because a good voice actor can sometimes redeem poorly written dialogue while a bad one could ruin Shakespeare. Although when both the actor and the dialogue quality match you can get some pretty spectacular results. The horrendously written and spoken dialogue of Resident Evil 1 is easily as memorable as some of the great stuff heard in games like Fallout, Half-Life 2, and System Shock 2 (who could possibly forget the opening lines spoken by SHODAN?).

As for me gameplay is tied with a well made, realistic feeling world, which I suppose would come under a mix of presentation (if level design comes under here. Although I guess it would fit under gameplay equally well) and storyline, since to feel real the way the world is built, both in its actual physical layout and in the way its history and people are written, needs to make sense. A good example of a place that feels real is Morrowind's Vvardenfell. It has its own ecology, economy (complete with a suitable amount of farms, plantations, mines, smuggling, trading ports, etc), politics, folk-lore, superstitions, and mythology, history (many accounts of which are conflicting and politically biased, just as in real life), and many other factors. Its lack of manufacturing facilities is made up for by the fact that most of the major stuff (ship building, equipment, clothing, primary resource refinement (such as saltrice, glass, and ebony),etc) takes place on the Morrowind mainland due to Vvardenfell not being of much interest to the Great Houses for an extended period of time (beginning shortly after the Battle of Red Mountain and ending a few decades prior to the events of Morrowind.). The ancient Dunmer strongholds located throughout Vvardenfell are all that remains of the time when the island saw major use as a base for secondary industries.

After that comes presentation and balanced difficulty. The technical quality of the presentation doesn't matter as much to me as the artistic quality, though. I'd much rather have an interesting looking and sounding game from the early 90s than a generic looking and sounding game that has photo-realistic graphics and a full orchestra to play its bland music.

I started buying video games for my sons, when they were 3 and 5, so my focus has always been on innocent, mind-stimulating fun. This means mainly puzzle-oriented games (think: Mario64 or Bomberman). Now that they're much older (12 and 14), I allow them to play what we refer to as "flamethrower games", but I can't say I'm happy about it.

Am I supposed to assume this is aimed at fans of RPGs and FPS games? My own interests are pretty varied, I like everything from Need for Speed Underground to Starcraft or Neverwinter Nights, and my requirements are just as varied depending on each individual game. So while I might like one Shoot 'em up, I might not like a game from a different genre with the same qualities.

Having said that I went with your choice.

That's exactly the reason that I'd put it in the same category as Quatermass did: story.

No voice acting at all is better for the story than poor voice acting--it's that important. If things have a cheesy feel, it's hard to get immersed in the story at all.



Agreed! When I play a game that has a great story, but isn't very engaging otherwise, I feel like, "Why am I here?" It might as well have been a miniseries instead of a videogame.

In terms of gameplay, I think a mistake that some developers have made is to prize novelty over quality. Or rather, it probably isn't a mistake, in terms of what the target audience wants. But I'd rather see something familiar about the gameplay than something new but inferior.

After that, I'd place balanced difficulty. Too easy and why bother? Too difficult and it stops being fun. I'll never forget this one RM2K game, Phylomortis II. Written and programmed by an aspie, I'm almost sure of it. The story was very intriguing but it was so full of obscure references and puzzles that required a large scientific/mathematical knowledge base in order to solve, plus every single battle was as difficult as if it were a level boss. A review says of this game: "requires a rocket scientist to program (or understand for that matter!)" I couldn't do it, even for the story's sake.

Next is presentation. Music has an edge over graphics, in terms of importance to me. (Been spoiled by Nobuo Uematsu)

Replay value is not very imporant to me at this point in my life. I'm lucky if I have time to play a game through once, so I don't need to go back to it.

It seems like this is the case for a large majority of japanese games. I think we were spoiled with the quality of RPGs during the SNES times... we only played the best of the best.



Blizzard is probably your favorite developer then.

If I were forced to choose a favorite, it would be Square.

But if I were heading that company, I'd change direction a bit.

I'm a Nintendo fanboy through and through... but Square is close.

I don't really care for many Square games lately... spread too thin or something... well they are still good... but not exceptional. Dragon Quest VIII was the last great game I played from them.

You should have added "REALISM" because thats what i want in games,both grafx and gameplay and maybe sound too.

I'd put that under presentation, Unknown.

That's probably because Hironobu Sakaguchi left/was kicked out of the company. I've liked very few of Square's games that weren't by him. I'm hoping/expecting Blue Dragon and Lost Odyssey to be much better than Square's typical games.

Personally I didn't like Dragon Quest 8 much either (and have never liked Level 5's games). It looked nifty at first, and played okay, but...I can't remember why I quit...might have gotten stuck somewhere, or just got bored with it.

Dragon Quest games are sort of an acquired taste. It is just a classically good RPG...

I was a bit worried about the game... since I absolutely hated Dark Cloud 2. One of the few games I actually sold... I never sell my games.

But they stuck to what works with Dragon Quest VIII.

I want to beat Dragon Quest VII, but I haven't been dedicated enough. That game is just so massive... if you need good graphics though... do not play it.

I hated Dragon Quest 7 even more than 8.

I loved the original Dragon Quest, and still like it. Loved Dragon Quest 4 back in the day-not sure if I'd still appreciate it.

But 8 seemed pretty generic. Not bad (although I may have gotten stuck, I don't remember), but really nothing new.

I hate the Dark Cloud games though. Nowhere near as bad as those.

Replay value. This is why I favour multiplayer games.