[question]quality and games

I was really wondering something lately, People judge games nwadays by comparing them to standards, other games, or everything else, saying that 'this game is good because' or 'this game is bad because', but, I don't know if it really matters.

I mean, video games are not meant to be good or bad, but to be enjoyable for some people, some games are really bad, like "Back to the future 2" on the master system (bad controls, automatic demo not working, difficulty too large because of bad control and design, I think this game was rushed for money)

But otherwise, some people will judge games by saying 'it is good' with arguments, but when they go to another game, they will say 'this game is bad because the story sucks', or 'this game is too hard' while others will say 'it is challenging and don't bother us with a story too long for it', in fact, I don't think games can be judge by other means that their controls.

Also, I think some people only want more, and will always compare a game to the best games they played

I was playing a beta of a "classic platformer", it wasn't "great" like some will say, but I enjoyed it a lot more than some "good games", so, I wonder, am I the only one to think that:

-the devellopement team shouldn't care about quality of their stories, or their graphics, or their musics, as long as the game is what they wanted to do, even if some will say it is bad?

I think I prefer doing a said "bad game" that feels like me rather than the best game of the world but isn't me at all

You're right about gameplay. Games have evolved into a completely new form of interactive storytelling in the last 25-30 years, but at their core, they're meant to beplayed. If a game these days has an amazing story and breath-taking graphics, but the game itself is a chore to play, then it's a bad game.

I think the problem, though, is there's so many different elements that go together to make a game these days, and you have to judge it as a whole. In the NES era, you just needed a flimsy premise to get started and the gameplay took over from there. These days, developers are expected to juggle every element equally.

I think that reducing a game to its controls is a bit of a shortcut and can be inherently wrong.

If it were the case, you could consider QTE the best control method available (the player is warned that he/she will have to press a key, then is told what key to press and experience the result of this key press) and so any game containing QTE to be great games.

Nevertheless, amongst "hardcore" players, those type of games (despite being still played nonetheless) are pretty despised.

I agree that great graphics/sounds don't make a great game (especially if the gameplay sucks), but on the other hands, sh*tty/inappropriate graphics/sounds added to a great gameplay can make the experience less enjoyable as well.

I also agree that to a certain extent, game reviewing (is it a good game or not) is somewhat a very subjective matter and a great game for someone will be considered a poor experience by someone else.

I guess it comes down to personal preferences (I prefer X type of game compare to Y) as well as personal experience (older players who have played "oldies" in their youth, compared to today's new/young players who discover video games with the current productions in their current state).

I'm 32, I never owned a console but always played on PC as well as consoles' games at my friend's/relative's.

Nostalgia plays a big part IMO amongst the people of my age. We have fond memories of games we have played in our youth, and we remember loving them.

But if you play those games today, the controls, graphics, sounds are pretty outdated compared to the evolution of technology and games we might have been playing in the meantime.

We also used to play those games because, at the time, there were less games made/available to us, and any game that was "good enough" would get our attention/love.

To come back to the original question, IMO, gameplay/controls are to be complimented by graphics/sounds/story; the entire package. It's the whole that make a great and coherent experience.

It's the basic of game design, think every elements of the game so that you deliver fun to your player without any discording element.

You're right about gameplay. Games have evolved into a completely new form of interactive storytelling in the last 25-30 years, but at their core, they're meant to beplayed. If a game these days has an amazing story and breath-taking graphics, but the game itself is a chore to play, then it's a bad game.

That's why the term "game" is antiquated to use for our medium as a whole. People start using the term "interactive experiences" and videogames are just a part of the whole.

Obviously people are going to compare. Also people are liking different things. As small developer you probably will not make it right for everyone (even the big developers can't). Good thing to have is some sort of "selling point", something that sets your game apart from the mass in a good way. Then you'll attract people that like that.

A console/pc game can have the best graphics and music in the world but if the controls are too complex then I'll lose interest and never even get to see if the story is the best or not.

Times that by a factor of 10 for mobile games.