32 replies to this topic

[Terrified Virus]

Hey everyone! I have been wondering lately, which aspects of games do you like the best and are most important? For me, I can't really decide on whether graphics, audio, or story is the best, but those are my top three choices. The other categories are gameplay, glitch-free, etc. You can also make up your own category, such as "creativity". Thanks for replying!

[Chris_Devl]

Gameplay. It's the only thing differentiating games from other media. You can get story, audio, and graphics, etc elsewhere, but gameplay you can only get from games (AND it's what makes games games), so it's the most important, everything else is extra.

Playing a game for the graphics would be like watching a movie for the background music.

It annoys me when game developers release games with bad gameplay and then don't even mind it. It happens a lot still..

I would say that's just my opinion, but I don't feel like that's an opinion, I beleive it's fact.. But then again, perhaps THAT'S just my opinion..

[Terrified Virus]

Gameplay. It's the only thing differentiating games from other media. You can get story, audio, and graphics, etc elsewhere, but gameplay you can only get from games (AND it's what makes games games), so it's the most important, everything else is extra.

Playing a game for the graphics would be like watching a movie for the background music.

It annoys me when game developers release games with bad gameplay and then don't even mind it. It happens a lot still..

I would say that's just my opinion, but I don't feel like that's an opinion, I beleive it's fact.. But then again, perhaps THAT'S just my opinion..

Ya you are right, but what would a game be without good graphics or audio? Unless it is one of those extraordinary ideas such as Minecraft, I don't know if it will be any good.

[Robert3DG+]

Sound is very important and often neglected. Good sound design can make even the most outlandish games more immersive.

[Joh]

its graphics, period.

It doesn't make your game any better(it does in a way), but its what will make people play it.
Theres a reason why people, including myself, always want pics in game topic, its to know what the game looks like, a pic should give you an idea of the game genre, what you do in it but inevitably graphics.
Don't get me wrong, i don't play a game for graphics, but i like to see (not read) what im getting.
(theres also the big red flag such as default gm sprites and google mash up but bad player made graphic dont mean much)

A good game on the other hand has nothing to do with good graphics, good gameplay should be top, followed by no glitch and good musics.

[Chris_Devl]

You know what? That would be a GREAT way to test out your game design to see if it's any good. Strip the game of all graphics, audio, etc and replace em with ****ty cubes and beeps and then hand it to a bunch of testers. See if they have fun playing the game or not. If they don't, your games pre-release popularity is the result of graphical or audio gimmick and the playerbase will only be disappointed after release. If they DO have fun still, then the game is going somewhere and worth investing in quality graphics and audio.

[Robert3DG+]

You know what? That would be a GREAT way to test out your game design to see if it's any good. Strip the game of all graphics, audio, etc and replace em with ****ty cubes and beeps and then hand it to a bunch of testers. See if they have fun playing the game or not. If they don't, your games pre-release popularity is the result of graphical or audio gimmick and the playerbase will only be disappointed after release. If they DO have fun still, then the game is going somewhere and worth investing in quality graphics and audio.

This is only true to some extent.

In many cases a game graphics and sound are part of the neat package that makes the game memorable.

In example, say exploding enemies is satisfying because of pretty effects and loud boom.
The movement is fun because of the player intricate running animations.
Gaining points is satisfying because of the sparkly pleasant noises you hear upon retrieving them.

Things like this are often secondary to gameplay and design but none-the-less hold a very important part. You should always strive to get a graphical and audio idea for the game as early on as possible and try to test with relevant resources.

[Chris_Devl]

You know what? That would be a GREAT way to test out your game design to see if it's any good. Strip the game of all graphics, audio, etc and replace em with ****ty cubes and beeps and then hand it to a bunch of testers. See if they have fun playing the game or not. If they don't, your games pre-release popularity is the result of graphical or audio gimmick and the playerbase will only be disappointed after release. If they DO have fun still, then the game is going somewhere and worth investing in quality graphics and audio.

This is only true to some extent.

In many cases a game graphics and sound are part of the neat package that makes the game memorable.

In example, say exploding enemies is satisfying because of pretty effects and loud boom.
The movement is fun because of the player intricate running animations.
Gaining points is satisfying because of the sparkly pleasant noises you hear upon retrieving them.

Things like this are often secondary to gameplay and design but none-the-less hold a very important part. You should always strive to get a graphical and audio idea for the game as early on as possible and try to test with relevant resources.

Yeah I agree things like graphic styles and music are great ways to make a game memorable, but I'm talking about replayability or addictiveness..

I guess priorities should change depending on what you want the point of your game to be.. Memorable, addictive, replayable/long-lasting, innovative, experimental, simulation, etc.

[Terrified Virus]

I love the idea of stripping a game down with its graphics, sounds like a fool-proof way of testing your game to see if it is fun. However, Robet3DG has a point, it is the graphics and explosions that make Call of Duty or Battlefield that awesome war-based game.

Edited by Terrified Virus, 26 May 2012 - 07:05 PM.

[JAk HAk]

Game play is obviously foundational, since it's games we're talking about, but everything else is also of high import. Graphics don't have to be top notch for a game to be enjoyable, but the worse they are the more distracting they are. It's the same with audio and story and setting.

Furthermore, many of those aspects are what drive the game play. What separates Click the Clown from Call of Duty? In both games, you move the mouse around and click on stuff. Call of Duty would be far less exciting if shooting people didn't have the gun animations, the blast graphics, the bullet and explosion audio cues, the target getting hit and a dying animation playing, or the underlying story of "he's a terrorist and needs to die" existing.

Imagine that the game is instead just clicking on moving boxes on the screen and getting points for doing so. It's the same base mechanic, but a lot less interesting. But even just changing one of the aspects above or altering it somewhat can make the game less fun. If you shoot a guy and there's no death animation, it's less fun. If you don't know who you're shooting, or you shoot someone that you would rather live, it's less fun. If the wrong audio or no audio plays, it doesn't sell the scene as well and immersion and fun are lost.

So they're all important. Don't undervalue anything in your game while making it, or you'll end up with a less-than-optimal result.

[dannyjenn]

The best game should have the perfect balance between graphics, sound, gameplay, and story.

However, I'd say that the number 1 most important aspect is gameplay with the story in a close second. As chris_devl said, gameplay is what makes a game a game. You literally cannot have a game with no gameplay. Although the gameplay can be very minimal and the game could still come out good, which is why story is so importan. A good example of this is the typical text RPG / text adventure. No graphics, no sound, and minimal gameplay (consisting only of typing stuff in or selecting from multiple choices)... yet it can still be a great game. However, you technically don't even need a story, as there can be text games with practically no story as well (for example, text-based puzzle games or text-based card games... but typically they aren't as interesting). Third priority is graphics... you usually need graphics in order to portray the enviornment. Graphics are what make people want to try your game to begin with... even the game with the best gameplay or story will get no players if the graphics are crappy (unless of course, the nature of the game does not require graphics in the first place... but even so, crappy graphics drive people away. Graphics should either look nice or not be in the game at all). I give last priority to sounds... sounds contribute to the environment and can improve the game but are generally the least important aspect (unless the game depends on sound as part of the gameplay, for example, DDR or a game where a certain sound is used to inform the player of something). My game design teacher would disagree... we were taught that sound is even more important than graphics. But I don't believe that at all.

Graphics (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Sound (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Story (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Gameplay but nothing else is a game but most likely a very crappy game.

[Terrified Virus]

The best game should have the perfect balance between graphics, sound, gameplay, and story.

However, I'd say that the number 1 most important aspect is gameplay with the story in a close second. As chris_devl said, gameplay is what makes a game a game. You literally cannot have a game with no gameplay. Although the gameplay can be very minimal and the game could still come out good, which is why story is so importan. A good example of this is the typical text RPG / text adventure. No graphics, no sound, and minimal gameplay (consisting only of typing stuff in or selecting from multiple choices)... yet it can still be a great game. However, you technically don't even need a story, as there can be text games with practically no story as well (for example, text-based puzzle games or text-based card games... but typically they aren't as interesting). Third priority is graphics... you usually need graphics in order to portray the enviornment. Graphics are what make people want to try your game to begin with... even the game with the best gameplay or story will get no players if the graphics are crappy (unless of course, the nature of the game does not require graphics in the first place... but even so, crappy graphics drive people away. Graphics should either look nice or not be in the game at all). I give last priority to sounds... sounds contribute to the environment and can improve the game but are generally the least important aspect (unless the game depends on sound as part of the gameplay, for example, DDR or a game where a certain sound is used to inform the player of something). My game design teacher would disagree... we were taught that sound is even more important than graphics. But I don't believe that at all.

Graphics (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Sound (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Story (and other aspects) but no gameplay is not a game.
Gameplay but nothing else is a game but most likely a very crappy game.

^
|
| Genius
|


Lol. I probably agree with this the most, as in all good games, all of these things are balanced.

Edited by Terrified Virus, 26 May 2012 - 07:50 PM.

[Fledermann]

The idea and the gameplay mechanics are the single most important aspect of a game. The visuals and sounds should help delivering the playing experience. "Graphics" is a suboptimal term anyway. Technically, the graphics from "A Link to the Past" are completely inferiour to the graphics of "Ocarina of Time". But many people consider the visuals in ALttP more pleasing. James Portnow suggested the term "Aesthetics".

Fledermann

[Meganinja]

Super Metroid: For this game, the gameplay is FIRST, with graphics and audio following. The story could have been left out completely and this game would still rule, but as it is the minimal story is a nice little motivation to play through the first time and adds a really nice lasting feel to the game that would otherwise not exist. So Super Metroid is a gameplay focused game, and it rocks.
Heavy Rain: This game focuses on story, period. Sure there is gameplay and you have choice over many things that happen. But it is ultimately a story, followed closely by graphics and audio. Gameplay is near the bottom, and yet this is an amazing game. This game would be much less meaningful if the focus had been put on making the gameplay fun and not on delivering the story.

These represent two games on opposite sides of the gameplay->story spectrum. But I love them both. I wouldn't tell either developer that they are focusing on the wrong thing. It all depends on what your goal is when making the game. If your goal is to make a really fun game to pass time, you should probably focus on gameplay. But if your goal is to tell a story and show the growth of characters, or to try and show people different ways of thinking, than focusing on story is probably the better option.

One thing to note is that almost all great games, as dannyjenn mentioned, have a good balance of graphics, gameplay, story, and sound. What ultimately makes a game great though, is what it is trying to accomplish and whether it succeeds in accomplishing it. Not whether it adheres to some specific and pretentious formula of gameplay/story/graphics/sound.

[Terrified Virus]

Super Metroid: For this game, the gameplay is FIRST, with graphics and audio following. The story could have been left out completely and this game would still rule, but as it is the minimal story is a nice little motivation to play through the first time and adds a really nice lasting feel to the game that would otherwise not exist. So Super Metroid is a gameplay focused game, and it rocks.
Heavy Rain: This game focuses on story, period. Sure there is gameplay and you have choice over many things that happen. But it is ultimately a story, followed closely by graphics and audio. Gameplay is near the bottom, and yet this is an amazing game. This game would be much less meaningful if the focus had been put on making the gameplay fun and not on delivering the story.

These represent two games on opposite sides of the gameplay->story spectrum. But I love them both. I wouldn't tell either developer that they are focusing on the wrong thing. It all depends on what your goal is when making the game. If your goal is to make a really fun game to pass time, you should probably focus on gameplay. But if your goal is to tell a story and show the growth of characters, or to try and show people different ways of thinking, than focusing on story is probably the better option.

One thing to note is that almost all great games, as dannyjenn mentioned, have a good balance of graphics, gameplay, story, and sound. What ultimately makes a game great though, is what it is trying to accomplish and whether it succeeds in accomplishing it. Not whether it adheres to some specific and pretentious formula of gameplay/story/graphics/sound.

Good points! I agree that most great games are balanced in all these subjects, but I never really thought of that until now!

[Snail_Man]

Super Metroid: For this game, the gameplay is FIRST, with graphics and audio following. The story could have been left out completely and this game would still rule, but as it is the minimal story is a nice little motivation to play through the first time and adds a really nice lasting feel to the game that would otherwise not exist. So Super Metroid is a gameplay focused game, and it rocks.
Heavy Rain: This game focuses on story, period. Sure there is gameplay and you have choice over many things that happen. But it is ultimately a story, followed closely by graphics and audio. Gameplay is near the bottom, and yet this is an amazing game. This game would be much less meaningful if the focus had been put on making the gameplay fun and not on delivering the story.

These represent two games on opposite sides of the gameplay->story spectrum. But I love them both. I wouldn't tell either developer that they are focusing on the wrong thing. It all depends on what your goal is when making the game. If your goal is to make a really fun game to pass time, you should probably focus on gameplay. But if your goal is to tell a story and show the growth of characters, or to try and show people different ways of thinking, than focusing on story is probably the better option.

One thing to note is that almost all great games, as dannyjenn mentioned, have a good balance of graphics, gameplay, story, and sound. What ultimately makes a game great though, is what it is trying to accomplish and whether it succeeds in accomplishing it. Not whether it adheres to some specific and pretentious formula of gameplay/story/graphics/sound.

Some great points in here!

+1

[Spyro Conspiracy Theorist]

Meganinja, those are good examples, but I don't quite agree with you on how they fit into a 'story/gameplay spectrum.' Super Metroid is, first and foremost, an exploration game. Without the story, there is no 'experience' for the player, because then there would be no non-abstract world. The story doesn't merely support the gameplay, and I certainly wouldn't say its just a 'nice little motivation.' They work together in practically perfect harmony, relying on each other completely.

As for Heavy Rain, I think that we've got a similar scenario. True, the conscious motivation for playing the game is the story, but the story on its own is kind of junk. It's the way we experience the story that makes it a great game. And gameplay is the method by which we do so. And the gameplay, on its own, is somewhat revolutionary, almost a new way of thinking about games, that sets it apart from all the other games with slightly-branching Saw-meets-sci-fi-meets-detective-mystery adventure games (of which they are a lot, actually; most of them are just really crappy). Of course, this gameplay is useless without a story to give it context, just as the story is useless without the gameplay as a vessel for experience.

We've got to remember that while "fun gameplay" may be the conscious motivation for playing a game like Super Metroid, or "story" for Heavy Rain, "motivation" isn't the only thing we as a game designer must consider. We are, effectively, trying to create an experience. What motivates the player is only a facet of the experience as a whole, and not necessarily the most important facet.

When addressing the importance of the different aspects of a game, I really like to remember this bit from a book called "The Art of Game Design," by Jesse Schell. In that book, he gives us something called the "Elemental Tetrad," which divides the elements of a game into Mechanics (gameplay), Aesthetics (including sound), Story, and Technology. He says that these are all equally important, and all should be given equal consideration when designing a game. Which I think is the best way I've found of looking at it. No matter what the video-game (video being a loophole to avoid IF games, although I'm sure there would be a way to include those somehow), these elements all present equal potential to convey the experience you want for your game. Which is the goal: to use the elements of a game to convey the experience.

Now, the importance of aspects within these elements DOES vary, based on the experience you're trying to convey. "Addictiveness" and "replayability" aren't as important to the experience of a game like To The Moon, which is about trying to fulfill a man's dying wish, whereas "organic characters" aren't as important to a game about blowing up the faces of robot Nazi generals. The trick is to know which aspects of these elements will work towards the experience you're trying to create.

[Meganinja]

I see what you're trying to say Spyro, and you have a lot of good points. I was mostly talking about what was being focused on when making the game and the story in a generic sense. I suppose that's a little different than what is most "important" in a game. I doubt that when making Super Metroid the developers really spent as much time creating the story as setting up the gameplay and programming. Now that I think about it more though, I suppose in a sense that exploration, boss battles, and even music/sound effects all count as story. I guess I wasn't entirely accurate then.

I agree wholeheartedly that the most important thing a game has to offer is the "experience" that it provides. Although the feelings that each person has when in that experience will vary because nobody feels the same about everything. That's basically what I meant when I said I thought "what it is trying to accomplish and whether it succeeds in accomplishing it" was the most important thing.

This is such a dicey topic. It's very hard to try to say what is more "important" in a game. I think you and dannyjenn are right in that all the main aspects are equally important. I don't think this necessarily translates to what the developer's are focusing on during game creation, however. Actually, now that I've really thought about it even books and IF's could be included in this analysis. Although there is no "true" aesthetic in a book, the descriptions left in the book leaves an imprint on the reader's mind, which includes appearance, sound, smell, and even touch if the book/reader is imaginative enough. It is like an artificial aesthetic, but it is an aesthetic nonetheless. In this way the seemingly non-existent aesthetic may be as important as the story of the book or IF.

Thanks for the info, it seems like you and dannyjenn have hit it head on.

By the way, what is meant by the book you mentioned when it says "technology?"

[PWL]

its graphics, period.

It doesn't make your game any better(it does in a way), but its what will make people play it.

Exactly.
The graphics make people play it. Gameplay keeps people playing it.

[Spyro Conspiracy Theorist]

[...] I was mostly talking about what was being focused on when making the game and the story in a generic sense. [...]

Ahh, I agree with that entirely. Some things will definitely require more attention, depending on the game.

By the way, what is meant by the book you mentioned when it says "technology?"

It means the console and controller and tv, or computer, or game board/pieces, etc. I would also include the software (like OS, but especially the engine) in this category, even though it's not physical technology, because it's still the technology the actual "game" is built on. Other than the engine we use, though, since we're talking about Game Maker games, we don't really have much direct control over this element. We can, however, make sure that the game is supported by technology, rather than fighting it by running too slowly, or having a bad control scheme, or like how most wii games clearly shouldn't have wii controls, as a way to incorporate the technological aspect of a game into the experience without directly affecting the hardware itself.

(That's an awesome way to look at how IF games and books fit into the tetrad, by the way! I hadn't thought of it that way, but I think that's how I will now)

its graphics, period.

It doesn't make your game any better(it does in a way), but its what will make people play it.

Exactly.
The graphics make people play it. Gameplay keeps people playing it.

But that reasoning forces the question: what's more important, getting more people playing the game, or making the people who do play the game keep playing it? And is player-base really what we should be using to evaluate the "importance" of aspects of our game? I mean, if we're evaluating importance based on what gets people playing it, like how graphics draw them in, I'd have to say solid marketing is the most important aspect of a game. That will do a far better job of "making people play it" than pretty graphics.

Edited by Spyro Conspiracy Theorist, 28 May 2012 - 06:20 PM.