what matters more in video games?

[Pandaprewmaster325]

does historical accuracy , realism , balance. matter more than fun? do you think balance can make the game boring if it becomes too balanced? what are some of the bad games that cared more about one of these 3 aspects than the game being fun ? and what are good examples of games that manged to get some of these aspects right while still being fun?

 

[FeelMyRash]

I think realism depends on the universe, genre, etc.

A Shooter game that takes place in a Zombie Apocalypse shouldn't have a Hunger System because the main point is to kill Zombies, whereas a Survival game set in a Zombie Apocalypse should have a Hunger System as that emphasizes the gameplay.

Not sure what you mean by "Historical Accuracy".

Balance matters more in Multiplayer games but is still important in Singleplayer.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

I think realism depends on the universe, genre, etc.

A Shooter game that takes place in a Zombie Apocalypse shouldn't have a Hunger System because the main point is to kill Zombies, whereas a Survival game set in a Zombie Apocalypse should have a Hunger System as that emphasizes the gameplay.

you mean if its advertised as a realistic then it must be that.

Not sure what you mean by "Historical Accuracy".

if the setting is set in ww2 middle ages and ages past etc

Balance matters more in Multiplayer games but is still important in Singleplayer.

and what if its both MP and SP

 

[Armelior_is_back]

That depends on the genre of games. If you play a souls-like, the combat must be good. A platformer with an iffy jump won't be saved by being pretty and having a good narrative.

OTOH Planescape torment is a classic for its story & characters despite the combat being at best meh, and pretty ugly IMO compared to its peers (BG, Icewind dale etc).

On the other other hand (yes I'm an octopus) I really liked Kingdoms of Amalur (also a RPG) for its combat despite the world, characters and story being super generic, which should have been a deal breaker for me usually, so...

As for historical accuracy, that's not really a thing in games. Even Civilization or Total War are usually at best at the same level as Hollywood movies : surface level (visuals, names).
When I conquered Rome to get rid of the pope as the Danish in Medieval 2 TW it sure wasn't accurate despite the soldiers looking like proper medieval knights...

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

That depends on the genre of games. If you play a souls-like, the combat must be good. A platformer with an iffy jump won't be saved by being pretty and having a good narrative.

yeah indeed the genre is something to consider the visuals point stand out very true even some most impressive visual games might end up be lacking at some areas that previous installments in the series have done better such as red alert 3 introducing a completely new economy mechanic despite the game being visually more impressive than red alert 2 its not as praised as its older brother the changes done to the gameplay did more bad than good

On the other other hand (yes I'm an octopus) I really liked Kingdoms of Amalur (also a RPG) for its combat despite the world, characters and story being super generic, which should have been a deal breaker for me usually, so...

i didnt know they had internet connection in the depths , gotta look that game up

As for historical accuracy, that's not really a thing in games. Even Civilization or Total War are usually at best at the same level as Hollywood movies : surface level (visuals, names).
When I conquered Rome to get rid of the pope as the Danish in Medieval 2 TW it sure wasn't accurate despite the soldiers looking like proper medieval knights...

i guess its cuz there is a line between what makes the game fun and whats not if its going to be very accurate to history neglecting gameplay as a whole then that becomes a serious issue .

 

[deepstrasz]

Virtual waifus ofc.

Stupid jokes aside, it depends on what one expects from a game. Does the game aspect matter (it should since that's what a game should be) or does the other stuff like the media (music/sounds/acting/visuals etc.) and story matter more turning the game more into a pseudo game or playable visual novel?
I for instance love for neither of the aspects of a game to be boring, meaning the gameplay should be good, same as the story and all other things.
But what I think should be important for games that have a story and are not sports/competitive like (i.e. multiplayer shooters or brawlers or whatever) is for the whole vibe to be representative of something, either the human struggle, try to go for a science-fiction or a philosophical what if, and definitely not follow some ideological or brainwashing agenda.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Virtual waifus ofc.

absolutely , this point stand 100/100 for real if no big titties in game that means its a 0

Stupid jokes aside, it depends on what one expects from a game. Does the game aspect matter (it should since that's what a game should be) or does the other stuff like the media (music/sounds/acting/visuals etc.) and story matter more turning the game more into a pseudo game or playable visual novel?
I for instance love for neither of the aspects of a game to be boring, meaning the gameplay should be good, same as the story and all other things.
But what I think should be important for games that have a story and are not sports/competitive like (i.e. multiplayer shooters or brawlers or whatever) is for the whole vibe to be representative of something, either the human struggle, try to go for a science-fiction or a philosophical what if, and definitely not follow some ideological or brainwashing agenda.

you know sometimes the question that is asked what do you play games for? if its story why not watch a movie what really sets video games from other sources of entertainment is gameplay and immersion when you watch a movie you dont feel like you are there it doesnt feel fulfilling to beat up the bad guy as it does in video games the problem is some games turn from a video game from a game to well an interactive movie one example is the god of war series turned from this hack and slash to more RPG style with a lot of emphasis on cutscenes and dialogue between characters , and well the last point is a bit hard today AAA games specifically cant survive not having a hundred thousand forced ideologies for "representation".

 

[deepstrasz]

Hey don't forget the bubble cheeks in the middle!

Anyways, I feel a game without also teaching you something or being useful in other ways than just killing time and maybe some reflexes training, is kind of worthless. I like to think of games as works of art, as a whole, not only in what the calculations behind the visuals are concerned (gameplay I mean).
Video games can definitely have a sort of practical purpose, not to send specific intended messages but look at life or various themes from different and pertinent perspectives. The most useful ones would be simulators that actually leave some meaningful mark on the player. Compared to movies where you just watch and possibly think of the implications their story may pose, games could to a manner make the player experience the whole thing, and if choices are involved, they somewhat bring some realism in by letting the gamer enjoy more.
Long story short, video games should definitely be educative and not simply no brainer time eaters.
An example of smart game would be the Legacy of Kain series, well mostly the first and second Soul Reaver games which follow a puzzle oriented action gameplay and strong existential theme story up until the second was plagued by lame geek programmer minded influences. I'm sorry for Amy Hennig for that since she really tried to incorporate that crap into the fold. Must have been hurtful.
Another one could be the old Tomb Raider games which are also action puzzle and adventure based but don't really have a story. Regardless, train reflexes and problem solving to some extent.
But maybe better ones, depending on perspective, could be the Sid Meier, Chris Sawyer or Will Wright series of business development and city building and management, among others.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Hey don't forget the bubble cheeks in the middle!

without those its not a real waifu

Anyways, I feel a game without also teaching you something or being useful in other ways than just killing time and maybe some reflexes training, is kind of worthless. I like to think of games as works of art, as a whole, not only in what the calculations behind the visuals are concerned (gameplay I mean).

i always saw games as a work of art just like any other entertainment product the effort put into them cannot be underestimated well but in "modern gaming" that not the case sadly just flat and soulless crap to get fast cash.

Video games can definitely have a sort of practical purpose, not to send specific intended messages but look at life or various themes from different and pertinent perspectives. The most useful ones would be simulators that actually leave some meaningful mark on the player. Compared to movies where you just watch and possibly think of the implications their story may pose, games could to a manner make the player experience the whole thing, and if choices are involved, they somewhat bring some realism in by letting the gamer enjoy more.
Long story short, video games should definitely be educative and not simply no brainer time eaters.
An example of smart game would be the Legacy of Kain series, well mostly the first and second Soul Reaver games which follow a puzzle oriented action gameplay and strong existential theme story up until the second was plagued by lame geek programmer minded influences. I'm sorry for Amy Hennig for that since she really tried to incorporate that crap into the fold. Must have been hurtful.
Another one could be the old Tomb Raider games which are also action puzzle and adventure based but don't really have a story. Regardless, train reflexes and problem solving to some extent.
But maybe better ones, depending on perspective, could be the Sid Meier, Chris Sawyer or Will Wright series of business development and city building and management, among others.

yes puzzle games such as half life are indeed fun to play figuring out a puzzle yourself is way more rewarding than watching some youtube video , after playing so much half life and system shock 2 i started asking myself the question "why this is here?" in every box or object i see in games it made me inspect things a lot more carefully , another example is sudden strike games unlike other RTS games this has no base building and all you have is the troops you are given and some extra reinforcements you are not told how to capture or complete objectives you are given the tools and must figure it out yourself it creates some real neat scenarios leaving the player thinking and making plans studying surroundings etc it puts you in a difficult position as every man that dies in the battle cant be replaced a game that made me understand that the armed forces of any nation dont face 1 enemy that is the opposing force there is ,supplies ,terrain ,weather a great game for plan making , for warcraft 3 i would say a good reminder is the sacrifices needed to win , the dedication of arthas and maieve , and what addictions might lead to in grom case self destruction and harm to others , how mistreatment of people creates division and unneeded conflict in garithos and kael case while i dont think blizzard intention was to plan these lessons that is what i understood from the game to serve as a good reminder of some things and sometimes as a motivation you might say its cringe but it works .

 

[ZAI_ZER0]

Honestly? What makes any game fun is most of the time entirely arbitrary. Good games don't need any balances, realism or anything similar to it like historical accuracy to be fun. What they should be is to be just what they are supposed to be, fun games, with a sprinkle of challenge that makes the said game last worthwhile. All of the other things can be bypassed to a good extent, and are not necessarily required for any game in particular to exceed in order to be fun.

It should be noted however that all of this does not mean in good portion of the cases. Ghost of Tsushima, at least to me, would not be as half as fun if it were not for the authentic and historically accurate portrayal of its setting. Remove anything remotely historical and authentic about it, but keep the gameplay as it is, and what would you get is a fairly decent game indeed, but would be ultimately regarded as nothing more than a joke that is only good when it comes down to humor that can border on the levels of "The Room". The closest example of visualization of what would Ghost of Tsushima be like if it did not had authenticity behind it would be the "47 Ronin" movie... so yeah, that stuff was bad. And I mean really bad. Thankfully you'll manage to get yourself a good laugh before ultimately leaving the theater in disappointment on the fact that you've wasted money on the otherwise painfully trash movie.

Overall, it all depends on what kind of game are you trying to make. Want to make a proper and challenging game that is filled with actual historic and cultural value that can also be educational in a way, making it more fun than it should be on the surface level? Ghost of Tsushima already tells you how to do that.
Alternatively, just buy yourself Postal 2 if you are in for nothing more than unadulterated humor, OP and sometimes broken game mechanics, all while being completely nonsensical and unrealistic with its portrayal, while also being quite literally a good and challenging game.

 

[Armelior_is_back]

I think the example of Ghost of Tsushima makes a good point : fairly standard ubisoft-them-up gameplay-wise (from what I've seen and heard, didn't play it, stupid exclusivity ) but it nailed the atmosphere.

Not sure about the educational value though, the whole "samurai value duels, attacking form the front, honor blablabla" is bullshit.
The famous bushido dates from the 18th or 19th century and samurais used bows and later firearms just as much if not more than katanas. Still better than The last samurai movie I suppose.

So a good game is one that nails the point that's more important for what the devs want to convey, even if some other aspects are not as good.
It's rare to have everything at top quality for a game, even more than for a movie.

 

[ZAI_ZER0]

I think the example of Ghost of Tsushima makes a good point : fairly standard ubisoft-them-up gameplay-wise (from what I've seen and heard, didn't play it, stupid exclusivity ) but it nailed the atmosphere.

Absolutely. The atmosphere is top notch, especially considering when that game in question was not even made in Japan, and yet despite that, the lead devs managed to earn the position as tourism ambassadors at the Tsushima island. That on itself is a great achievement.

Not sure about the educational value though, the whole "samurai value duels, attacking form the front, honor blablabla" is bullshit.
The famous bushido dates from the 18th or 19th century and samurais used bows and later firearms just as much if not more than katanas. Still better than The last samurai movie I suppose.

LOL, it sure is indeed infinitely better than that The Room wannabe dumpster fire of a movie. Though personally, I would not call samurai duels and presentation of values like honor "bullshit", which of course despite being overused trope, was delivered in actual proper way and with more nuance, rather than sorely relying on the sole cliche that you would often see while watching similar media related to feudal Japan (looking back at you, 47 Ronin).

And honestly, if the lead developers managed to get themselves a literal position as the cultural ambassadors at the island of Tsushima from the Japanese government itself, then the game did truly encapsulate in the essence what was in fact life back at those times, making it a great game to learn something from it if we take that into the account above all else.

So a good game is one that nails the point that's more important for what the devs want to convey, even if some other aspects are not as good.
It's rare to have everything at top quality for a game, even more than for a movie.

Obviously, developers clearly knew what the message and overall theme of the game was going to be, and they did their homework. Some companies however in the game industry, in all honesty and shame... do not even try.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

Obviously, developers clearly knew what the message and overall theme of the game was going to be, and they did their homework. Some companies however in the game industry, in all honesty and shame... do not even try.

looking at you call of duty vanguard , they turned the battle of stalingrad from house to house fighting to roof to roof jumping assassin creed simulator

 

[ZAI_ZER0]

looking at you call of duty vanguard , they turned the battle of stalingrad from house to house fighting to roof to roof jumping assassin creed simulator

NO WAY LMAO, for real? Haven't played Vanguard, but if true, then what were they smoking in the studio while they were designing and making the game in question?

 

[deepstrasz]

NO WAY LMAO, for real? Haven't played Vanguard, but if true, then what were they smoking in the studio while they were designing and making the game in question?

Maybe it's the commando part of history

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

NO WAY LMAO, for real? Haven't played Vanguard, but if true, then what were they smoking in the studio while they were designing and making the game in question?

just look up videos for it no need to even play it