Making a Good Game

[North888]

A thread inspired by some talk on the Beast's Fury thread. Basically...what makes a good game good? What can one do to make their game good? Just general discussion on how to make any product, especially games, the best product you can make it. To quote a great line by @Broken Loose:

The most important advice I can offer anybody who wants to make a game is to play games. Play them, pick them apart, understand what works and doesn't work and why. Why do Mortal Kombat 9's corners feel janky? Why does comboing in Launch Party Everyday feel so much less fun than comboing in Slightly Different Edition? Why does Persona 2 make me enjoy talking to NPCs more than Final Fantasy? Why does Ocarina of Time discourage exploration? How does Super Metroid teach you where to go through environment cues? Why does the level design in Sonic 2 encourage the player to ascend? What purpose does Victory cards having no use serve in Dominion? Play games, play them more, play the bad ones to see what they did good, play the good ones to see what they did bad, and try to pull the legos back apart afterward if you can.

Every bad fighting game could have been made better if the team who made them played more fighting games.

I guess I should share my opinion on the subject. I think a good game stems from not just from one's own vision, but from a group effort. Yes, great games can be made by few individuals, but having a large number of ppl with similar interests chip into an idea and add their opinions, issues, and points I feel makes a game a better experience. Games like Cave Story, made by one person, are feats of inspiration, dedication, and an understanding of what people enjoy as well as one's own genius. However, a game cannot be good just on ideas alone. You can't make a good platformer without knowing the basics of platforming. Who knows? That random suggestion you received might turn into inspiration and be a catalyst you need to get the ball rolling.

 

[majorgalaxy]

Tch...I dont know...I guess make a fighting game that you would want to play yourself I guess.

This same logic is also applied to cartoons shows that ended up really popular like powerpuff girls. So why not apply it to fighters?

 

[Sotherius]

interested in this discussion, while i don't have much to add, i'll read everything posted here.

One thing i must say is, something about Platinum Games, i don't know what their games got, but somehow i feel so good playing them, i even shout that wonderful 101 is probably my favorite game ever. The way they do things, is satisfying to kill enemies, even the qte's are fun most of the time, the bosses, everything is so good in a platinum game, that when i have something to complain about, i steel feel that the game is great (bayonetta 2).

And i'm kinda feeling the same thing with Skullgirls, since i started with fighters, when i picked 3rd strike, or USF4, Or MK9, is always this feeling that i'll never be good at it. And while in skullgirls i get destroyed the same as i get destroyed in other fighters, i feel good about the game, i feel that i can get better, i can see where i'm failing, and i can make some ideas of what i should do to get better, while in SF4, i get destroyed by something and i'm like: what i'm supposed to do?

As working with games, i am just becoming better with drawings so that one day i can leave the life of a normal job to work in the art department in some game studio, or i don't know, making my own project.

 

[Broken Loose]

Tch...I dont know...I guess make a fighting game that you would want to play yourself I guess.

This is the goddamn truth. Skullgirls exists literally because Mike Z wanted to make a 6-button version of Marvel vs. Capcom 2. My best games were all equal labors of love, and it's something that's obvious when you play them.

 

[Skullmageddon]

Here's another important question. What constitutes a "good" game?

I still play Billy Hatcher and Kirby Air Ride with my friend on a regular basis. Those are pretty awful games. But still, we have a lot of fun playing them together. We recognize what makes those games sub-par, but we've found a way to enjoy them to this day. It's easy for me to sit here and say that they're awful games (because in many ways they are), but I really do enjoy playing them. Some might say that's enough to make a game "good," but I would disagree. So what really makes a game good?

 

[North888]

Here's another important question. What constitutes a "good" game?

I still play Billy Hatcher and Kirby Air Ride with my friend on a regular basis. Those are pretty awful games. But still, we have a lot of fun playing them together. We recognize what makes those games sub-par, but we've found a way to enjoy them to this day. It's easy for me to sit here and say that they're awful games (because in many ways they are), but I really do enjoy playing them. Some might say that's enough to make a game "good," but I would disagree. So what really makes a game good?

That's the essence of what we're getting at here. MvC2 is a great fighter by all accounts, but a lot of the genius of it is accidental iirc. I mean, I enjoy Shin Megami Tensei games, which have huge, glaring flaws (especially IV), yet I still love them and keep coming back to them. I think something can have good points even when flawed. There are so many parts to the question that its probably impossible to quantify XD

I like to think the experience is the creation of the parts. It might not be sum total, or even above the sum, but as long as that experience touches us or creates some form of enjoyment out of us, it can still be viewed as a positive. Its why everything is so subjective.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Some might say that's enough to make a game "good," but I would disagree. So what really makes a game good?

Taste.

There's no such thing as good and bad in the realm of entertainment and aesthetics. It's purely a matter of subjective taste. Trying to make objective arguments about the quality of games is like arguing "who's the prettiest girl?" it all depends on what you're into. Somewhere out there, there's probably a guy who loves E.T on the Atari for whatever reason, and more power to him.

If you pick up most modern game design books, what they instruct you on is more the process of analyzing games, prototyping, and iterative design. They are not going to tell you whether you should put the goomba on platform A or on platform B. They tell you how to go about planning and making the game that you want to make or that you think will appeal to a lot of people.

A good example of subjectivity: Some people say Ikaruga is their favorite shooter because it's more like a puzzle game than a shooter. Other people say Ikaruga is their least favorite shooter because it's more like a puzzle game than a shooter.I fall somewhere in between. I like the creative and gimmicky patterns, but I ultimately prefer my games more twitchy and reflex oriented thanks to random elements. I do appreciate what Ikaruga has going for it though, as a nice change of pace.

To me, the important thing is being able to understand logically what you like and why you like it. Then, not only can you discover games more to your tastes, but you might be on the road to making one as well one day. That taste is not for everyone though, and cannot be expected to be for everyone.

 

[MetroKoolAid]

Making a good game isn't about the size of your group. Sure, having more people can bring some great ideas to the table and give you an idea what other people want from a game. The thing is not everyone knows what they want. This quote form Henry Ford really explains it well:
“If I had asked people what they wanted, they would have said faster horses.” A great example is Minecraft. Notch made Minecraft as a little project and never expected it to blow up as big as it has. People weren't asking for it, now it's one of the greatest selling games of all time. Yes you can have a team that understands the pros and cons of fighting games, knows how to fix the cons while making the pros better, and have amazing art/sound, but it doesn't guarantee a good game. It has to be unique in some way shape or form. Skullgirls for example, I don't know of any other fighting game that allows both players to have different sized teams. Surprise people by taking risks and making them want something that they didn't know they wanted. People didn't ask for a zombies mode in Call of Duty World at War, now when a new Black Ops comes around people will be upset if there's no zombies.

 

[Ambiguity]

Here's another important question. What constitutes a "good" game?

I still play Billy Hatcher and Kirby Air Ride with my friend on a regular basis. Those are pretty awful games. But still, we have a lot of fun playing them together. We recognize what makes those games sub-par, but we've found a way to enjoy them to this day. It's easy for me to sit here and say that they're awful games (because in many ways they are), but I really do enjoy playing them. Some might say that's enough to make a game "good," but I would disagree. So what really makes a game good?

Could you explain why they're bad? Just curious as to your analysis and standing on those 2 games specifically.

 

[North888]

Of course, having a large people chip into a project could easily dilute it down if you're trying to make everyone happy. That being said, it boils down a lot to taste. Now, you can still plan and have strategy and tact to your game. In fact, planning and design are super important as well. If the placement of enemies/objects/everything are just random with no sense, it could be jarring and end up turning the person off from the project creatively, which could easily negatively impact their veiw on said game.

 

[Midiman]

I feel like you should definitely try to make Your Vision more than anything else, but allow a majority of consumers to enjoy your product by making it as accessible as possible.

Additionally, you should understand the mechanics and rationale of the things you enjoy or tend to make;
Why does Shovel Knight eschew lives?
Why does Freedom Planet use the Lives-N'-Continue system instead?
Why does Dark Souls have such delay (average) on most attacks?
Why does castlevania have this? Why do other games like Mega Man lack them.
Why does Sonic enforce the idea that the "higher" lane is the fastest?
Why does Axl work the way he does in Mega Man X8?
What does he do differently than Zero or X? How does he change the way you approach a level?

You should fundamentally understand the cause and effect of mechanics in the thing you plan on creating. You should fully understand what you intend to make, and that's JUST MECHANICS. There's plenty of things you need to have to compliment your formula too, like Level Design (Content), Visual and Audio (Feedback), and Access (Input); OK, Those categories are probably pretty hipster-sounding but you get what I mean

You should understand how to take small pieces and integrate them to a product that stands out!. This tweet even gets the jist of it
https://twitter.com/baconandgames/status/559766214067499010

interested in this discussion, while i don't have much to add, i'll read everything posted here.

One thing i must say is, something about Platinum Games, i don't know what their games got, but somehow i feel so good playing them, i even shout that wonderful 101 is probably my favorite game ever. The way they do things, is satisfying to kill enemies, even the qte's are fun most of the time, the bosses, everything is so good in a platinum game, that when i have something to complain about, i steel feel that the game is great (bayonetta 2).

My opinion is that it's Polish. 100% Polish. Platinum Games are all about having incredible feedback, responsive controls, and intriguing, no-nonsense mechanics. On top of all that, they tend to have some of the more useful accessibility features. Bayonetta and Metal Gear Rising are incredible testaments to all of these, and making a list of factors is probably

Here's another important question. What constitutes a "good" game?

A good game (in my opinion) is something you can understandably play and it tries it's hardest to be consistent and fair while offering some amount of challenge or interest. Even if you do not care for the mechanics or style of game, you should be able to at least enjoy it and never feel as if you are fighting against it to enjoy it?

A bad game is one that is poorly designed and inconsistent, and a good one is one that is consistent with it's rules, if that makes any sense?

It's the difference between, say, Freedom Planet and Sonic Advance 3.

 

[Mike_Z]

Here's another important question. What constitutes a "good" game?
[snip]we've found a way to enjoy them to this day.
[snip]So what really makes a game good?

Of course what two people consider "good" will vary, but I would say the following:
A game is good when the things that you'd decide to do to "make it fun" if it were bad, are the things the game already wants you to do as regular play.

There are of course ways to screw a game up mechanically, like the air control in Braid, but I will assume the developer got the mechanical parts correct. You do need to have someone who knows "feel" on the dev team, though.

Also @North888 per your original post I think a good game, play-wise at least, more often comes from an INDIVIDUAL rather than a team. Sure, it usually takes a team to make the game, but lots of the games that I think are good, or are recognized as good, were mostly the result of oversight by a talented individual who was in charge or de facto in charge of the team. They certainly took input from the team and testers etc, but the final decision was up to THEM. As a result, the game was a cohesive whole that approached the vision of what that one person wanted the game to be.

Conversely, the games that I think are bad (that I have personal experience with the development of) were ruined by one person.

 

[guypercinn]

Well in the realm of graphics in games, what reaaallly counts to me is DECENT ANIMATION. You can have the most advanced shaders out there, astronomical polygon counts, gorgeous, sprawling environments, dynamic real time lighting, and yet, the moment I see your characters animate like buggy stiff paper dolls all immersion and believability is out the window. Too often I see big name AAA games boast all the graphic nonsense I mentioned, then I see the characters move and interact. And it looks terrible. Skyrim had this problem. I couldnt help but laugh every time it tried to look badass when it played one of those epic kill animations and the characters jerked around like badly articulated action figures being slapped together and kept clipping through each other.

Platinum games and Team Ninja are really good with animating their stuff. The action is smooth, quick and when someone gets hit it looks like it hurt. Not only that, they have great game feel. You can always tell, even in the most hectic situation EXACTLY when one of your hits landed on an enemy. And it'll look damn fine when you do it, too.

As for gameplay, game feel is important. If it's an action game, having a quick response when a button is pressed is really important. Giving clear feedback, visually and sound wise as to whats happening is also important regardless of genre. Player needs to know basic things like when they're getting hurt, what objectives are, etc.

A question you should ask before you put things in your game: Does this make the game more enjoyable for the player?

I think it's also very important to discourage repetitiveness. Give the player incentive to not do the same thing over and over again, to use different weapons and/or tactics whether it's through different enemies to fight, different rewards to be earned, different objectives, or even penalties.

One last thing, the team needs to have A VISION. A CLEAR VISION. Something they want to make to appeal to someone. Too often Ive seen long running game franchises get watered down by game devs who try to make it appeal to everyone. They strip out its more demanding and deeper aspects that appealed to its former fans and simplify it to the enth degree to try and give it mass appeal, in the end leaving it a bare-bones shell of what it once was pleasing nobody. When you try to please everyone, you please no one.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

per your original post I think a good game, play-wise at least, more often comes from an INDIVIDUAL rather than a team.

From all the old interviews with Capcom/Konami/Etc. developers, this seems to be consistently true. There was always somebody with a strong idea of what they wanted and how to pull it off.

A good game (in my opinion) is something you can understandably play and it tries it's hardest to be consistent and fair while offering some amount of challenge or interest. Even if you do not care for the mechanics or style of game, you should be able to at least enjoy it and never feel as if you are fighting against it to enjoy it?

A bad game is one that is poorly designed and inconsistent, and a good one is one that is consistent with it's rules, if that makes any sense?

It does, but a lot of those things are still subjective and relative. "interest" and "well/poorly designed" are subjective. The difference between consistency and variety, or when its acceptable to break from either (if ever) is also a matter of opinion.

IMO games, like all art (regardless of whether one thinks games are art or not...) are subjective. It all comes down to vision.

That might be common knowledge to some people, but I've seen enough nonsensical arguments on the internet trying to prove the "objective superiority" of one games "design philosophy" over another, to know that some people don't get that and cannot tell the difference between tastes and facts.

 

[North888]

To respond to your end point there, @Mike_Z, when I say a group, I mean a group united behind a vision. No team will get anywhere with competing visions. I know this all to well. The guys working with me on my own project have all too often attempted to sneak of force in their own ideals. It was enough that I had to give the boot to a good friend of mine who had been supplying plenty of inspiration and encouragement along the project. Now? It's focused. There's discussion and we all have a good time, but we know the end goal and don't spend time fighting over whether my vision is right for my game or not.

My overall philosophy towards games has evolved recently. No more is the game about just arbitrary engagement, but rather whether I can look deeper and see flaws or greatness in areas underutilized. I find myself analyzing and attempting to find some meaning in what I'm playing, whether bad or good. I've grown to believe a good game has to not only leave you feeling satisfied, but leave an experience that will stay with you, make you think on it, or look forward to it again later.

 

[Mike_Z]

To finish my thought from before:
Part of the "good games come from individuals" thing is - you either have what it takes to be that individual, or you don't. And, as with any other artistic talent, most people don't have it*. Plenty of games that end up bad were led by individuals who had just as much influence as they would have had over good games, but they didn't have The Touch. Not everyone who wants to lead a dev team and make a game, should.
So I guess the summary should really be: A good game comes from an individual with a cohesive vision and the talent to know what really makes up that vision, backed by a team who can execute on that person's direction and also understands what the eventual goal is.

* And if you have it, it may only be for certain games. I wouldn't put myself in charge of an MMO or an FPS, for example.

 

[Mr Peck]

As someone who has worked on lots of games of varying quality, this is true. A bad project lead/creative director can really destroy a project even if the rest of the team is decent, and it's the worst.

 

[mcpeanuts]

Why do Mortal Kombat 9's corners feel janky?

I always assumed this was because of fatalities. Like, if the game ends in the corner, you still have enough space to do your whole fatality animation before the camera changes.
But MKX doesn't have this problem so maybe that's not it.

 

[Pickles]

Midiman touched on this a bit, but I think when making games you really have to be open to feedback. Mike's line on Ultrachen about how after skullgirls was released it was no longer "his game" really stood out to me, and I agree completely. Being able to accept criticism and make (or not make) changes to your game based on player feedback, even if you don't necessarily agree (e.g. the superjump experiment) is a really important skill to have. Obviously there can be exceptions, everyone's seen the quotes from Kamiya about disregarding test group feedback on Viewtiful Joe which was still a good game, but those cases are the vast minority. Don't assume you're some visionary who knows better than your entire player base and expect to make a game people enjoy.

E: Of course this doesn't mean "automatically accept all suggested changes", you are a game designer and your players are not, so use common sense and discretion, just don't assume your game is perfect if the vast majority of players are asking for a change.

 

[mcpeanuts]

everyone's seen the quotes from Kamiya about disregarding test group feedback on Viewtiful Joe which was still a good game,

I actually haven't seen these. Do you have a link?

 

[Pickles]

I actually haven't seen these. Do you have a link?

I was thinking of this image, so it's really only one quote from Kamiya but there's multiple quotes here.

Spoiler

 

[Skullmageddon]

Could you explain why they're bad? Just curious as to your analysis and standing on those 2 games specifically.

Billy Hatcher has a number of things that it did well, but it's ultimately just an uninspired and rather lacking experience overall. The character designs are fun and quirky and the music is decent, but the level design is often so simple and straightforward that it's only ever mildly challenging at best. The combat is also lacking in depth, meaning I can get through the entire game without ever having to think or change the way I play. The game itself isn't particularly bad in its presentation, but overall it's simply a rather boring game. The only reason I've been able to enjoy it over the years is because it has a fairly broken multiplayer mode that enforces the use of extremely aggressive and abusable tactics to win. In other words, the multiplayer is only fun because of how stupid and broken it is, and it's really only ever going to be fun with the one friend that I play it with. Anyone else wouldn't ever enjoying playing the game with me because they don't see the game the way I do.

Kirby Air Ride is similar. The main aspect of the game, races, is the most poorly designed aspect of the game. The mechanics don't feel solid, most of the tracks are simply annoying to race on, and most of the vehicles are not only awful but they're not fun to control either. There are a myriad of flaws that lead to races simply not being fun in that game. What makes the game enjoyable for me are the other game types. Top-down races are mildly fun, about as much fun as a single Mario Party mini-game could be. City Trial is the mode that I get the most enjoyment out of. The mechanics actually work fairly well within that mode, and the competitive aspect of the mode is a lot more dynamic than it is in the other game types. There is a lot more variation to gameplay within City Trial, which makes it an experience that I can go back to more often. It doesn't suffer from the poor stage design that brings down the quality of the races so much, and more of the vehicles become useful within CT as well. The game has decent visuals and well composed (orchestrated even!) music, it's just lacking in content. The main draw of the game is poorly designed, while the only entertaining aspects of the game are basically glorified mini-games.

A lot of the points I bring up are simply my opinions. I could break each game down in a more technical way, but that would take some time. This is about the most simple breakdown I can do of each game without getting into too much detail. While it's a little bit opinionated, it should still get the idea across.

 

[North888]

So since a game can be bad, but have things that still make it a solid and enjoyable experience, that can make it good. Kinda makes me think of the old 3D realms shooters. The backwards and maze-like level design, the sort of clunky controls, and the old visuals all make the games look like they've aged a bit poorly. Yet I still get a ton of enjoyment out of them. Hell, Duke Nukem Megaton Edition is one of my most played games on steam and probably one of my favorite games. Duke himself is memorable and the stages created by other players are memorable and creative. Even despite numerous issues with the CGi cutscenes and level designs, it manages to be a game I love.

I wonder then, should one focus on just a single, core ideal in their game? Or should they look at it with multiple purposes in mind? Like, a platforming squarely set around platforming puzzles based on the game's basic premise? Or would it be wiser to try and not only create puzzles based on the basic premise, but also make the game memorable in other ways, such as a compelling character or other intuitive challenges aside from just platforming puzzles?

 

[Sotherius]

I have a thing with sonic adventure DX, i mean, the camera is bad, Big the cat sucks, while amy levels are cool, her running is not good, so you have to jump a lot. Some Sonic and Tails stages have some weird physics, but in general, the way sonic, tails, knuckles and gamma controls, i love it, the jumps, the speed, the flight, the gliding and the shooting, also, the soundtrack is amazing, and the levels are fun, with a lot of different ways to reach the goal, and the game i like the pacing of the game in general.

While the voice acting is terrible, i just love the adventure storyline.

In general, i love Sonic Adventure, but i know it has a lot of flaws

 

[fenster]

It's the difference between, say, Freedom Planet and Sonic Advance 3.

*cough* :/

It's good other than select Acts being too long (which, in the same vein that the Advance series mirrors part of the evolution of the genesis titles, is also a problem of Sonic 3&K).

I wonder then, should one focus on just a single, core ideal in their game? Or should they look at it with multiple purposes in mind?

I don't think it's so much that games can't be engaging in multiple different ideal ways if you wonder what to focus on, but rather you don't sidetrack your development on frivolous details and what parts you DO work on you put true effort and care into. And more importantly, that you do it in an effective matter in terms of cost in a way that makes sense.

Final Fantasy 13 is imo the biggest and most obvious bad example of the latter point. Most of the game's development was spent on just making loose art assets without putting together any cohesion to the story or world in a way that makes sense to play through in a game, and the battle system wasn't decided upon till after they had already made their first trailer that had a mock-up idea of some battle system where they decided to just try and run off that vague flashy trailer for inspiration. They struggled a lot with trying to get the battle system just right, but they managed to get something pretty good, frequently the battle system is the only thing people compliment about FF13. Meanwhile the rest of the game is still too concerned about tying its complicated mythology to sister projects that they lose sight about what they actually need to implement for the story in front of them. They ended up with so many useless-but-prominent characters and boss fights that make zero sense because they hadn't actually planned out the story properly. It's very clear if you play FF13 that the game is just a bunch of loose art assets dangled together by a string that happens to have a solid combat system, which shows where the effort went into when push came to shove. Not including everything that came with developing their own engine, it lead to a project that was super bloated and cost way too much time and money, leading to problems with FF14 and Versus/15 now.

 

[tekkaxe]

Taste.

There's no such thing as good and bad in the realm of entertainment and aesthetics.

I think there is an objective good and bad in the realm of entertainment/aesthetics, beyondthe arena of taste. For example:
-Choosing shots in your film that don't convey the purpose of a particular scene
-audio mixing that makes dialogue unintelligible or hurts the audience's ears
-Choice of color and contrast that makes subject matter indistinguishable
-weak poses or acting in an animated shot, that inadequately convey the scene's intent
-ill-conceived pacing/plotting that result in scenes that don't serve story
-character design that lacks intention
-Field of view unsuited for the required action


The list goes on.

While the points that I selected might be more readily associated with film, the idea is that some stuff adversely affects/reflects on your product/project/piece.

The mistake we often make is that we think something is good because we like it, rather than acknowledging that we like something that is bad. We can like something in spite of it being bad, and that's fine. But I think it's something worth understanding, especially if we're talking about things from a creator/development POV.

 

[Midiman]

*cough* :/

It's good other than select Acts being too long (which, in the same vein that the Advance series mirrors part of the evolution of the genesis titles, is also a problem of Sonic 3&K).

I should have explained better, Sonic Advance 3 was the only contrast I could come up with atm. I also should make it known that I like Sonic Advance 3 :^P.

I find the bigger problem with the two games here is that I feel that Freedom Planet's rules and levels are far more "consistent", where Sonic Advance 3's are not; There is no "Cheap Death" in Freedom Planet that isn't explicitly warned to the player that it will kill you, where in Sonic Advance 3, this rarely is the case? Additionally, Enemies being TOUCHED hurting you and having them peppered in sections where you're encouraged to go fast kind of ruins things for me, but this is a rarity that sticks with me.

Opinions probably hurt this thread more than I'd want them to :(

It does, but a lot of those things are still subjective and relative. "interest" and "well/poorly designed" are subjective. The difference between consistency and variety, or when its acceptable to break from either (if ever) is also a matter of opinion.

I should put it like this: A game, to me, is objectively well designed if I learn the systems and rules necessary to play properly and they are rarely changed in a way that doesn't make sense or seems unintentional than intentional.

Blinks in say, Kingdoms Of Amular are on purpose; Accidental Zips in Sonic 2 are not.
Walljumping in Mega Man X4 is on purpose; Throwing the same enemy in Gunstar Heroes to gain vertical height is not (although it's hilarious and doesn't truly affect much).
Being able to kill The End (?) in Metal Gear Solid 3 early is on purpose, Being able to "kill" Spade before he spawns in Freedom Planet is not


Pickles also makes a great point: Listening to feedback and understanding what actually benefits the game or is worth implementing or trying out is very very good.

I don't think it fully applies here, but Simple Mode in Bayonetta 2 and Drawing Mode probably don't truly affect difficulty to agree once you have to start learning to dodge, counter and use certain moves against new enemies and bosses and adds a fair amount of accessibility, for example.

I didn't expect Skullgirls to get the move data timeline when I showed it to Mike, but.. here we are?

 

[Squire Grooktook]

I think there is an objective good and bad in the realm of entertainment/aesthetics, beyondthe arena of taste. For example:

I used to think like this, but after a while, I had to throw this idea of objectives in the trash.

-Choosing shots in your film that don't convey the purpose of a particular scene
-Choice of color and contrast that makes subject matter indistinguishable
-ill-conceived pacing/plotting that result in scenes that don't serve story
-character design that lacks intention
-Field of view unsuited for the required action

These ones are all subjective to an extent. The "purpose" of a scene, what colors fit that scene or what they express, what counts as poor pacing vs fast/methodical pacing, the intention of a character design and whether that intention is admirable or not, what kind of camera shot is unsuited, are mostly subjective or interpretable. One person might find a film slowly paced, calling that a negative. Another might find it "methodical" calling that a plus. One person might find a character design lacks intention, another might interpret a clear intention in that design. One person might think a color doesn't fit a scene, another might think its beautiful or captures the emotion of the scene perfectly, etc.

-audio mixing that makes dialogue unintelligible or hurts the audience's ears
-weak poses or acting in an animated shot, that inadequately convey the scene's intent

These two are more in line with the "I'm sure there's someone out there who likes Atari on the E.T" kind of situation.

The mistake we often make is that we think something is good because we like it, rather than acknowledging that we like something that is bad. We can like something in spite of it being bad, and that's fine. But I think it's something worth understanding, especially if we're talking about things from a creator/development POV.

I disagree, I think the mistake we make is assuming that aesthetics can be inherently good at all. Moreso when we attempt to have convoluted forum arguments about why "my way is better!!!" (I like to sit on the sidelines and laugh at both parties during these). As much as I'd like to believe that a video game can somehow be aligned with Plato's Form of The Good, I don't see any rational basis for doing so.

When I talk about Odin Sphere, a game that I very much enjoy for the story/atmosphere, I usually call it a bad and mediocre game for various reasons. That being said, I only do so out of convenience, because saying "the game is subjective but I hate 90% of it and absolutely love the other 10%" is a bit of a mouthful. I'm sure there's someone out there who doesn't mind the repetitive boss fights that I hate because they just like those boss fights so much. Regardless of whether I like or dislike it, the actual quality of the title and severity of its "flaws" (if one even acknowledges them as flaws) are still subjective.

There is simply no factual basis for one game being "better" than another. It can be polished and logical, but it can still be boring as hell to half the gamers out there, and fun for the other half. Every thing that's a strength to one person can and will be a weakness to somebody else. Every thing that is irredeemable to one person can and will be a minor inconvenience to another. There is (almost) nothing universal in the realm of aesthetic quality, so the word "objective" becomes meaningless.

PS: If anything, with the emphasis on "feeling" and visceral reaction than narrative, game design is more comparable to music or painting than film, for which most of your arguments don't apply.

PSS: That being said, some things are close enough to being objective (ie the E.T Atari example) because 99% of all gamers would hate it, that we can talk about them as if they were. Again, only for convenience though. In truth, it is still not objective.

I'm certainly not arguing that everyone should abandon criticism and take a "everything is good" approach to games. IMO, the important part is explaining the logical reasons for why we like what we do. For example, why I like the experience system in the Souls games is based on some perfectly explainable, logical reasons, that are easily communicated to others. Others might not like it still, but by analyzing it, we can understand why it gives that feeling to certain players.

 

[tekkaxe]

I may not have been as clear as I could, which is the impression that I get from parts of your response. I was, and am, aiming to steer as far from debates of taste as possible. Hopefully, I can can clarify a bit below:
-----

These ones are all subjective to an extent. The "purpose" of a scene, what colors fit that scene or what they express, what counts as poor pacing vs fast/methodical pacing, the intention of a character design and whether that intention is admirable or not, what kind of camera shot is unsuited, are mostly subjective or interpretable. One person might find a film slowly paced, calling that a negative. Another might find it "methodical" calling that a plus. One person might find a character design lacks intention, another might interpret a clear intention in that design. One person might think a color doesn't fit a scene, another might think its beautiful or captures the emotion of the scene perfectly, etc.

I encourage you to reread my examples, taking into account the context, as well as the conversation at hand (making a good game, which implies design, which implies choice. More on that later.)

-Shots that don't convey a scene's purpose: the scene's purpose isn't subjective. It's shaped by the will of the director/writer/whoever else is the decision-making authority. Is this a scene that is intended to be intimate? Why are we staging it as an extreme long shot? Do you have a bunch of choreography and want to show off some action? Then why are we on an extreme close up? Do you want us to feel a particular thing for a particular character at a particular moment? Then did the shot you chose support that goal or work against it?

A lot of this seems specifically film-y, but the idea goes for games too when you look at mechanics, art style, camera position, control scheme, cutscenes, and all the millions of other little elements that are selected on purpose.

-Choice of color/contrast that makes subject matter indistinguishable: I'm not talking about "i don't like that color. They should wear blue instead." Want us to see and clearly understand what's going on? Then why did you choose colors that make it harder to track things? Or hey, if you purposely wanted something to blend into the scene, then why did you choose a color that makes it almost impossible to ignore? Or did you want to illicit feelings of calm? And indistinguishable subject matter: what's the important thing in this frame? Then why is it colored in a way as to not draw importance to it? Definitely comes into play in games, a visual interactive medium.

-pacing/plotting stuff: I'm not talking about "I like slow movies vs I like fast movies". Pacing issues: is it a beneficial thing that the inciting incident to your story doesn't occur for 30 minutes, and the events leading up to it neither advance the plot nor build character? Or is it a beneficial thing that you have 12 hours of mandatory tutorial level before players actually get to the meat of your game? Or why were the significant elements to building your characters/story dropped on us in the last minutes of the experience? And plotting: do the events selected, and their position in relation to each other actually serve the point you're trying to get across and the feeling you aim for the user to experience?

-character design: In regards to character design, I didn't list stuff like tangents (that potentially flatten a drawing, draw the eye, confuse the viewer) and draftsmanship issues. Instead called out "intent". I wasn't as clear and thus it does sound very subjective, but I was trying to get across the idea of designs that don't convey the style and the purpose of the work, as defined by the creative decision-makers on the project, and/or the kind of incoherence you'd get from an unintentional lack of unity between styles within the same work. In games, that might also be "it is intended that players distinguish their units from enemy units/friendly characters from foe characters"... well then why were design decision made that work against that?

These two are more in line with the "I'm sure there's someone out there who likes Atari on the E.T" kind of situation.

But we aren't talking about whether or not someone prefers it like that:

Bad audio mixing: as in the case where looking at the decibel meter, there's peaking/clipping all over the place, to the point of audio distortion, unintelligible dialogue/audio cues, etc.

weak poses and acting (as in the choice of behavoirs for the character for the scene/moment): such as in the case of flat acting, generic acting, overly broad acting, unclear poses, uninteresting poses, poses that fail to properly account for weight distribution, poses that inadequately anticipate subsequent action... There's plenty of concrete stuff to gauge acting on, but lets go one further-

bad animation: such as poorly selected keyframes, poorly selected breakdowns/inbetweens, timing that doesn't correctly convey the weight, material or action involved (within the parameters of the selected style, whether realistic, cartoony, action packed, etc), sloppy arcs, joints or limbs popping, particular poses in a cycle sticking...

I disagree, I think the mistake we make is assuming that aesthetics can be inherently good at all. Moreso when we attempt to have convoluted forum arguments about why "my way is better!!!" (I like to sit on the sidelines and laugh at both parties during these).

That seems to be an issue of tastes and whose tastes are superior, which I tried my best to avoid in the examples I came up with.
Also, I focused on the technical aspects of things pertaining to aesthetics, which there are.

There is simply no factual basis for one game being "better" than another.

Please correct me if I'm wrong, but that's not the discussion at hand.

The title of the thread is "making a good game". Yes, there are a few assertions/assumptions in that statement:

1)That a game can be objectively good.
But it's important to note that the thread isn't "making a game that is better than game X" or "making a game that is universally enjoyable". If either of those were the thread title, then yes, this would be a discussion about taste and entirely subjective. And granted, the discussion does get further mucked up (especially in the case of games) because "If I didn't enjoy it, it must not have been good", right? Fun and our ability to enjoy a game is tied so strongly to our thoughts about how we evaluate games. And in the case that did come to an agreement on there being objective metrics for measuring creative works like games/movies... which of the list of 100s of criteria should be included in the case of videogames? While I wont go as far as to make that list, I will say that those list items exist. There are objective metrics.

2)That this is a discussion from a creator/creation/maker's POV, and not a consumer's POV.
The last line in my last paragraph is crucial to the reading of my post from earlier, and (I believe) an important starting point for the discussion:
"But I think it's something worth understanding, especially if we're talking about things from a creator/development POV."

There were a few times where your response to my point was "that's subjective, because someone might like it better that way."

If this was a conversation from a content consumer's POV, then you're spot on. Who cares about my metrics. If a person likes it, they like it. If they don't, they don't. And everyone out there will fall into one of the two categories for any number of seemingly arbitrary reasons. But design is about choice. It's about the skillful combining of parts into a whole. That's where the words intention and purpose (such as in a scene, or gameplay segment) apply. And in that's where an objective "bad" also applies.

So, content creator, hypothetical or otherwise, what qualifies your work?
(And no, not "what validates your work." That's a whole 'nother conversation that I'm not even trying to imply.)
And how do you go about making the qualitative factors of your game (in this case) better?

 

[Squire Grooktook]

the scene's purpose isn't subjective. It's shaped by the will of the director/writer/whoever else is the decision-making authority.

Yes, but that doesn't make a game good or bad. Marvel Vs Capcom 2, Battle Garegga, are examples of games where what players enjoy about them are at a fundamental right angle to what the designer wanted to create (in both cases, a game that was actually balanced).

Other examples

You answer a lot questions with more questions here. Such as why does the director do this and whatnot. These questions can be answered by the audience in their own way, in a number of ways. However your 1) and 2) points make it clear we're not talking about (just) the audience, so it's not worth further going back and forth between "well someone might like that" etc.

2)That this is a discussion from a creator/creation/maker's POV, and not a consumer's POV.
The last line in my last paragraph is crucial to the reading of my post from earlier, and (I believe) an important starting point for the discussion:
"But I think it's something worth understanding, especially if we're talking about things from a creator/development POV."

There were a few times where your response to my point was "that's subjective, because someone might like it better that way."

If this was a conversation from a content consumer's POV, then you're spot on. Who cares about my metrics. If a person likes it, they like it. If they don't, they don't. And everyone out there will fall into one of the two categories for any number of seemingly arbitrary reasons. But design is about choice. It's about the skillful combining of parts into a whole. That's where the words intention and purpose (such as in a scene, or gameplay segment) apply. And in that's where an objective "bad" also applies.

We can agree on that. Games are certainly subjective, but the creator question of "did I do a good job" or "could I have done more" or "did I accomplish my intent" are not.

Marvel Vs Capcom 2 and Battle Garegga are often polled at the top of their respective genres, and have both maintained a dedicated and competitive audience for over 20 years, but they both fail miserably from a creator standpoint (especially your above points related to "intention" and "purpose", since most of the games triumphs were unarguably accidental). They do however succeed in appealing to their audiences.

And that's why understanding subjectivity is necessary for a discussion of "how to make a good game". You have to understand that you are not trying to just make something that is polished or "good" (mvc2 is an awful game from these metrics). You are making something that is meant to appeal to a specific group. A demographic, a niche, a specific audience, whoever has resonance with the vision etc. etc. You cannot make something that appeals to all people. And there is no magic secret sauce of game design that will allow you to do that.

A lot of people in these discussions tend to throw around statements about "what is good game design" and "what is bad game design". But the specific choices you make depend on what experience goal you're going for and what audience you're reaching out to. Kirby's difficulty is good for kids, but it's not good for adults who want involved gameplay. It's not good game design or bad game design, it's part of what the game is going for.

Like I said in my previous post, one of the most important parts is understanding what you want to do and how to do it. What you want to do is not "good", it's a specific experience aimed at specific people. Whether your design decisions are in sync with that experience is objective, but the actual worth of the experience is subjective.

Saying "you shouldn't put the goomba on platform b because it's frustrating and that's bad game design" is a false, subjective (what is frustrating? why is it frustrating? could different people have different reasons for something being frustrating?), and inhibiting statement. Saying "you shouldn't put the goomba on platform b because your goal for the project is to create a game where you don't need to slow down and can keep moving, and that goomba requires you to stop and wait for him to pass" is a valid one. Maybe a game where you need to slow down frequently is good, and good for certain people, but it's certainly distinct from the "keep moving" experience.

 

[North888]

To counter your point, however, there are thing that do constitute bad design. Lack of any sort of defined goal or path, poorly explained or outright wrong descriptions or explanations, clunky or awkward controls that are not intuitive to the game (like making a grab Square + Circle on a PS4 controller), etc. There are notable BAD decisions and objectively foolishly things to do. Hell, one can practice bad game design by having a vision and then purposefully implementing actions or mechanics that go against or penalize the player for that vision.

 

[Squire Grooktook]

Well, to respond to two these:

Lack of any sort of defined goal or path

There are many open world games or artsy indie games that attempt to subvert this. I'm not nessicarily a fan, but I wouldn't call it a bad thing.

clunky or awkward controls that are not intuitive to the game (like making a grab Square + Circle on a PS4 controller), etc.

Of course, what constitutes clunky and awkward definitely are subjective. I personally find keyboards unbearable, but some people can't play on anything but. There's also the endless debate on whether "tank controls" can add to a survival horror game or are just annoying bullshit.

There are notable BAD decisions and objectively foolishly things to do. Hell, one can practice bad game design by having a vision and then purposefully implementing actions or mechanics that go against or penalize the player for that vision.

Sure, you could definitely have poorly thought out design, but whether a game is inherently good or bad is a different story.

The former is what this thread is trying to get at though, I think. A game that is well thought out in terms of achieving its goals.