next »

[stevesan]

Yeah, I'm sorry to join the dog-pile, but it's a meaningless question. What makes a game good is almost entirely subjective. As Dragonmaw stated, it might be meaningful to ask the question about a genre, but I am wary of even that (admittedly, so was he).  For example, I love the streamlined nature of Brogue, but that might be the thing that turns off a lover Dungeon Crawl. (or Nethack). 

I would say that what makes a game good is what you like, and as developers we should try to make the games we like.

Well said, sir. Well fucking said.

[stevesan]

And just because something is entirely subjective doesn't mean that we can't make meaningful progress. That's a false intellectual dichotomy. We can still share ideas and philosophies with the attitude that what works for one may not work another, and vice versa. Video games are such a rich, exciting medium to work in!! To boil it down a small set of guidelines or a single philosophy is to cheat yourself of its vastness.

[Derek]

This is a meaningless discussion.  "Good" means nothing.  Here's a list of things that might make a game "good":

Fun                 (SMB3)
Deep                (Chess)
Compelling          (DOTA)
Exciting            (Quake)
Moving              (Passage)

That's just a tiny sample.  A game might be one (or many or none) and still be thought of as "good".

It can't be completely meaningless... I mean, you chose 5 games: SMB3, chess, DOTA, Quake, and Passage. If it were meaningless, you could swap those games out for Cheetahmen 2, Superman 64, Bubsy 3d, Tattoo Assassins, and a bagel, and we'd be none the wiser (cue canned joke about Passage/the bagel).

Some games are more gooder and some games are more worser (i.e. less gooder).

[Haite]

Hi, I am new here, but I have to agree with the OP. There should be, at least, guidelines to make good games, because other midias like, paint, films, book, all have this. I think that people are afraid of this question because we have so many "uncommon games" that a general rule doesn't feel right, but I belive that they are exception, or at least we should consider they exception for now, because we have to get a starting point to base theorys and guidelines.

[C.A. Sinner]

Yeah, I'm sorry to join the dog-pile, but it's a meaningless question. What makes a game good is almost entirely subjective. As Dragonmaw stated, it might be meaningful to ask the question about a genre, but I am wary of even that (admittedly, so was he).  For example, I love the streamlined nature of Brogue, but that might be the thing that turns off a lover Dungeon Crawl. (or Nethack). 

I would say that what makes a game good is what you like, and as developers we should try to make the games we like.

Well said, sir. Well fucking said.

Brogue is actually pretty popular with hardcore roguelike players (including me) and has a lot to offer to people who are familiar with Nethack, ADOM, Crawl etc. It's been one of my most played roguelikes for the past few months.

I know that's not your point, I just thought I'd throw that out there.

[Falmil]

I think the OP just posted this as an "ask and ye shall receive" type deal for some passing Internet deity to get the formula for good games. Such a guideline does not exist (or was perhaps long forgotten?)

[mirosurabu]

I do that all the time in art games threads.

[Paul Eres]

Hi, I am new here, but I have to agree with the OP. There should be, at least, guidelines to make good games, because other midias like, paint, films, book, all have this. I think that people are afraid of this question because we have so many "uncommon games" that a general rule doesn't feel right, but I belive that they are exception, or at least we should consider they exception for now, because we have to get a starting point to base theorys and guidelines.

again, i don't really see this -- what are these supposed guidelines to paintings, films, and books? i know professional artists, filmmakers, and novelists, and have talked with them about their fields quite a bit, and none of them ever told me that there are any guidelines about what makes works in their media great. other media vary even more than games do, not less. there's a greater variety of movies and novels than there are a variety of games, simply because they're older

[Noah!]

As an aside, I just looked through the OP's post history, and it seems that all but two of them are either new threads talking about one of his blog posts, or replies within one of the threads he's started. So it's reasonable to assume that he's using the forum to pimp out his blog/game.

(and i think he managed to slip in a link to his blog in those other two posts too...)

[Desert Dog]

As an aside, I just looked through the OP's post history, and it seems that all but two of them are either new threads talking about one of his blog posts, or replies within one of the threads he's started. So it's reasonable to assume that he's using the forum to pimp out his blog/game.

(and i think he managed to slip in a link to his blog in those other two posts too...)

And in those blog posts where 2 (by all accounts, excellent) tutorials on art, one on HUI design for smart phones, and 2 articles on game design.

So clearly nothing the indie game dev community are interested in. We don't want someone like that hanging about on these forums. Do we?   

[Noah!]

Well, uh, when the person in question could effectively be replaced with a script that pulls from an RSS feed...uh...no?

I guess it depends on what you want from your fellow forumgoers. Like, you might be fine with someone just wanting to push their stuff up for discussion without being willing to jump into the fray themselves. On the contrary, I like my members alive, and active. I want to feel warmth in their touch. Hear their soft cries when I prod 'em with a fork.

When I think about it, there's nothing wrong with what he's doing. I do like his articles, and his game looks neat too. And, were this someone more integrated into the community, I'd have absolutely no problem with what he's doing. But to just show up and start plugging his blog, without much interest in participating in the discussions of others?

[Paul Eres]

yeah, i think there's nothing wrong with what he's doing, but if he doesn't participate in any discussions other than discussions about his articles, he's not really a contributing member of the community. but there are a lot of forum members who only ever post about their games, the number of accounts below 10 posts is probably more than all the other accounts combined

[Paul Eres]

i agree with dragonmaw except for the part about desert dog making no good posts, he's made some good posts in the past. dragonmaw's point is just that moderators are not here to enforce politeness and respect. a forum with too much politeness and respect isn't a very good forum, since people would be afraid of saying what they really think without being banned for disrespect

[Haite]

Hi, I am new here, but I have to agree with the OP. There should be, at least, guidelines to make good games, because other midias like, paint, films, book, all have this. I think that people are afraid of this question because we have so many "uncommon games" that a general rule doesn't feel right, but I belive that they are exception, or at least we should consider they exception for now, because we have to get a starting point to base theorys and guidelines.

again, i don't really see this -- what are these supposed guidelines to paintings, films, and books? i know professional artists, filmmakers, and novelists, and have talked with them about their fields quite a bit, and none of them ever told me that there are any guidelines about what makes works in their media great. other media vary even more than games do, not less. there's a greater variety of movies and novels than there are a variety of games, simply because they're older

I'm talking about things like the thirds rule for art and hero's journey for writing. You don't NEED to follow them to make good stuff, but if you follow you have 90% of chance to create something at least decent.
I noticed that some company have created their guidelines, like Armorgames and Nitrome. When you play their games you will notice that they have somethings that they always put in their games to make it fun.
We are not talking about restrict creativity, but about study behavior of players, production, design and etc.
Maybe like some people said, a good game is just a group of good stuff together. But if that's it, how we have games that have good music, good graphics, good physics and still be bad? And how we have game that are poor in some of these aspects and be so amazing?
Stop thinking is always a mistake, but I understand why developers are being rough with this, so if no startpoint be set to we have a more deep discuss about, I will understand if this topic be left aside, at least for now...

[ortoslon]

Salen & Zimmerman's book Rules of Play is the closest approximation of the sought-for answer that i've seen. if anyone else has read it and could summarize it, please do (i can't be arsed and forgot most of it anyway)