Topic: What makes a great game... great?

I've seen a number of people on these forums claim that the Nintendo Switch is never going to compete with the PS4 and Xbox One as it simply isn't powerful enough to play the same great games. Now although this is technically true it got me thinking about what makes a game great. I suppose my issue is if a game is truly great surely it has more going for it than just graphical power and depth, characterisation, story, play-ability etc should be much more important. I'm sure we've all experienced the over hyped graphically intense games that play like rusty spigots so I guess the question I'm asking is what elements truly matter when it comes to making amazing games. If it is graphics that matter can you give me examples of when the looks of the game has been integral to the players enjoyment and if a downgrade in graphics (for example to port it to the Switch) would ruin the experience.

Criticism and all of the things involved, like a game being great or bad, is subjective as a whole and any kind of objective review being objective is complete fiction. Sure, you can try to be subjective in a review and hold your views of ... basically anything to these standards but it is impossible for man to strip himself of his likes and dislikes.

With that said, sure, if a game is collectively called great, or even a masterpiece, you're rather likely to like it as well. But likely doesn't mean, you necessarily will. At the same time, you may hate a collectively disliked game but you may even like it. So what makes a game great? To be honest, you should rather ask yourself, what do I want from my games? What type of genre do I like? What do I focus on, story or gameplay? What are dealbreakers for me? Do I like a very difficult game or am I just there to enjoy myself? And to get back to your issue, is graphical fidelity important to me?

That's why a good reviewer sums up the game, its story, aesthetics and gameplay before giving a number to what (s)he feels is a good indicator for her feelings towards the game. To give you not just a 'I like it', 'I don't like it' and a few points why, but an indicator whether or not you'll like it.

Again, to get back to the issue of da graphics. In my opinion, and mine alone, the graphics are great enough that everything above would be just the cherry on top, not a deal breaker. Plus, they can only put so much hair under a NPC's armpits until I stop noticing because I'm playing a game here and just watch a movie. To me, framerate and resolution is a lot more important. Plus, when every PS4/XOne game has reached graphics that can match real life, every game just looks the same. The more graphically and design-wise outstanding releases are a lot more memorable to me. But that's just my humble opinion.

@MegaTen Very interesting video and really does open your eyes to Nintendos design principles. I suppose one of the questions I'm asking is if Nintendo are capable of making some of the greatest games of our time with great design and well thought out mechanics does the "power" of the system actually matter?

@GoldenGamer88 I get where you're coming from, and I agree to some extent, but it is absolutely possible to do an objective review or critique of a game, but to do so the parameters of what makes a game great has to be laid out. So we need to know what sort of craft is need to create an enjoyable experience in general. That doesn't mean all games that follow the parameters to a tee will be great, but it is a way to objectively review quality. There are critics who does this for movies and theatre, I haven't seen anyone doing for video games, but it is possible. Video games as a medium is extremely young though, compared to theatre, but it should be possible to come up with some universal parameters to help objectively critique games.

On the whole, it isn't really useful to gamers unless they themselves want to develop games, as you say, the most important thing is whether the person playing the game enjoys it. Not what everyone else think.

I'm not sure how you went from the question ''What makes a great game great?'' to ''Tell me why graphics are that important.''

I think the logical fallacy you're making here is that of ''graphics vs gameplay''. That if a game looks good, the gameplay (or characterisation, story and ''play-ability'' as you put it) can't be that great, and vice versa. Nor do '' good graphics'' refer to a realistic art style. Graphics is a very broad term and it includes everything from resolution to art style. Whether a game looks good or not is also unrelated to whether the game itself is good IMO.

Personally, I think that because games are a predominantly visual medium, I prefer my games to look good. I don't really care about the art style, as long as it fits the gameplay and the genre.

What I think makes a great game great depends on the genre. I'm not looking for immersion in a 2D platformer, I want tight controls and a solid level design (a David Wise soundtrack is also appreciated). However when I'm playing a 3D game I am often looking for immersion, but that's something that varies from person to person and is the result of a multitude of things.

@BigBadJohn ''does the "power" of the system actually matter?'' It does. I played The Last Guardian last year, and I fully understand why that game wasn't possible on the PS3. They aren't pushing the graphics in that game at all. It looks more like a remastered PS3 game than a current release, but that game contained one of the most realistic AI systems I've seen. Impressive considering the entire game is built around it. And remember, if power didn't matter, we would all still be playing on an NES. A game like Breath of the Wild wouldn't be possible on the Wii, a game like Splatoon wouldn't be possible on the N64. More computing power also means that developers get to play around with new and different gameplay features that wouldn't be possible otherwise. I also think that, from a graphical perspective, games with a realistic art style benefit more from an increase in hardware power. That's another thing that can increase the immersion.

Gaming can make you scream in adrenaline fuelled joy at reaching a goal, be it munching more dots than anyone else or last man standing. There are many different types of games involving reflexes, accuaracy, inventiveness, control, (if I did reviews I would score each section of a game indivisually) but they all offer a goal that invites a player to get better. What makes a great game for me is offering me a new way to reach those goals. (Zelda's freedom, Mario's hat possession etc etc). What might make achieving those goals better for other folk is looking prettier. There are 2 types of gamer*. Those that like to climb the same mountain and appreciate the different view because of seasons, time of day / night, weather etc. Then there are those that want to climb different mountains. *The third type that don't climb mountains aren't gamers lol.

It's a tricky question. I would say that gameplay, story and graphics can all help make a game great. If these 3 factors are better, then the game is usually better.

However, there's so many counterexamples to this. Visual novels are often lacking in gameplay, but they can still be fantastic experiences due to having an excellent story. Pac-Man is still fun to play even without any story. And there's plenty of good games that have poor graphics.

So, I'm struggling to objectively define a great game. The best answer I can give is to define greatness based on how much enjoyment I got out of playing it.

@Octane here here! That about sums up my opinion on the matter.

Gameplay, gameplay, gameplay. That's what makes a game good. If it's a platformer, it's gotta nail the game world's sense of gravity and motion and convey that through the controls. If it's an RPG, the menus have to be responsive and intuitive, not hampering the action but instead progressing it fluidly. If it's an adventure game, it's gotta feel good to control the character to the point where exploration is addicting and not a chore.

I've played games with graphics to blow your mind that really sucked in the gameplay department. I've played games with excellent graphics AND excellent gameplay.

For ME (please take note all future posters lol), gameplay trumps graphics every time, BUT graphics can make an otherwise "bad" game bearable AND graphics must aid the gameplay in order to have an overall successful game. You can't just ignore graphics, no matter what anybody says (though hrm... I don't know... I would say PONG and the reason we even have a Namco Museum have something to say about that). And when gameplay and graphics unite seamlessly, you have a top game.

I know people really disagree with me over story, so I won't belabor the point, but I can take or leave a story in video games. If I want a good story, I read a book or watch a movie, generally. Some video games have great stories, and that's nice, but I don't think it's necessary to having a great game. Some of the most beloved games of all time, including some modern entries, have meager (even none) stories. I just don't think it's a necessary part of the formula.

For me :
1. Gameplay ! Graphics are not everything, just look at FF XIII case (Graphics = Wow, Gameplay = Nah)
2. Quirky & Funny. Look at Miitopia case.
3. Appropriate. No NSFW contents. Look at Nintendo that can bring more Kiddie and Kid friendly games.

I suppose the reason I'm asking this question is because of a debate I've been having with a friend of mine. Whenever he is looking for a new game he "shops with his eyes" and unless a game has bleeding edge graphics he won't look twice. He dismisses anything Nintendo as kids games and truly believes the only way a game can reach epic status is by having near photo realism. For me graphics are important but they are just one element that make a great game and actually I personally don't view them as top of my priorities. I'm not sure though if my obvious Nintendo bias is pushing me towards this opinion and wondering if the immersion from the graphics in a game could elevate an okay game to an amazing game.

Yes I think if a game is ok (which means fine) and has outstanding graphics this alone can make it a great game, because the game was at least fine to begin with. This of course does not mean that if a game is not technically impressive it can't be a good game. I also think that just technical features nowadays are extremely overrated, I don't care about awesome technical features just for the sake of it, I want my games to be beautiful to look at and today you don't need to use the most recent and powerful technologies to achieve that. Many games on Wii and Gamecube were pleasant to look at, even some games for the PS2 were absolutely good looking. I even like a few PS1 games' graphics but here I'm going a little borderline I admit. Some Super Nes games are absolutely beautiful still today. But some people don't care how beautiful the game looks, how beautiful are its environments and its characters, some people just want their games to use the latest graphic engines and the most powerful video cards, and as long as the games do so they feel happy no matter how the games actually look.

@BigBadJohn I would argue that The Order 1886 proves this best: It had INCREDIBLE graphics, but was bashed to next year for it's boring and semi game-play.

As someone who grew up with Nintendo, I've come to value gameplay above all else, unless something is outright old or ugly looking.

@Grudgebearer I've yet to play The Order myself, but was the gameplay itself actually bad? I think the issue was that there wasn't enough gameplay, at least that was what I remember. That's a different thing altogether I think. Just like how some people enjoy visual novels, I think that a game that relies heavily on cut-scenes can still be enjoyed as a piece of entertainment.

it needs cats and boats. Preferably combined.

@kkslider5552000

@Octane I'd say look up some reviews. Of what I've seen, the game is stunning but boring.

And that's why it's the best Zelda game.

@Grudgebearer Well, let's ask @rallydefault I think he recommended the game to me a while ago.

@Octane At any rate, graphics only truly shine when they improve gameplay in my eyes.

Imho, Terraria is a great game, yet it has "retro" 2D graphics. I've put over 700 hours in that game, as compared to a game that looks great, like Middle-Earth: Shadow of Mordor (50 hours). I've got an old PC game from around 2000, that being the first Spellforce, and yet I've clocked around 480 hours of enjoyment at least.