[General Discussion] Question: What makes a game fun for you?

So I was browsing another forum, and reading a thread made by someone who was talking about how they used to raid in WoW (World of Warcraft), and other people either arguing for or against this method of gameplay.

In WoW, raid means to run through a dungeon (known largely as an "instance", because it's a private dungeon for you and your group/raid. If someone else goes in the instance, they get a seperate dungeon, which is the exact same thing as yours, but they get their own dungeon, just like you, and you two will never run into each other in there) several times repeatedly with 5-40 other players (although 25 is the limit they put on newer dungeons), in an attempt to get one of the bosses in the dungeon to drop a piece of equipment for your character which would make you really powerful. However, you may not always get something that you can use, or if there is an item you can use, but there are other players who could also use it, you may lose the roll to win the item.

Now imagine having to do this for 4 hours a day, 4-6 days a week, and if you don't take part, then you're looked down upon or seen as someone taking advantage of the hard work of those other players (really, read some stuff about WoW and you'd be surprised at the attitudes some players will exhibit).

Anyway, the point of this topic is, what makes a game fun for you? While my question is largely focused on the MMO (massive, multiplayer online) games, this could easily be applied to single player games as well.

For example, do you play the game because you like the graphics? Or the controls (such as a racing or fighting game)? Or do you play the game because you enjoy the storyline in it, or the characters? Perhaps it's the multiplayer aspect of it, and it's a game you can enjoy with friends and family?

I'm just curious because it seems like many games seem to increasingly focus mostly on the graphics, and place less emphasis on other areas of gameplay, such as the story, or the controls. Looking at the Nintendo Wii, they're obviously not going to win any awards for graphics if going head to head with the 360 or the PS3. But yet they're selling out of systems and games like crazy, because people find the games to be very fun, due to the nature of the Wiimote and the fact that many of the Wii games are fun to play with other people. So Nintendo must've did something right.

Personally, I have nothing at all against great graphics. I just feel that the story in the game (and the characters) should be worth telling, so that I want to play it, to see what happens to my character as I progress through it, and to explore the world that the developers worked hard on creating. I'll let weak gameplay slide if the story is good, but if the story feels weak, it won't motivate me to finish through it to see what happens at the end (this happened to me with Final Fantasy 8 and Chrono Cross. While I love the music in both games, and they had pretty cool graphics for their time, I kept getting lost in the storyline, couldn't figure out what was going on for the most part, and gave up after a while. I never got around to coming back to finish them either).

For a more recent example, in Elder Scrolls IV: Oblivion, I liked the beginning story, where you have to find the king's lost son, who can save the world from the demons who are opening portals to your world. And I loved the vast amount of side-quests available. I think I got so involved in side quests that I forgot to save the world for about two months lol. Some stuff I didn't like in the game was that it seems like they hired exactly 3 voice actors to do the voices for the many, many inhabitants of the world. It's probably nitpicking, but when I hear a male breton sound exactly the same as a male orc, who sounds exactly like a male lizard (I forget their name in the game), then it kind of ruins the immersion into the world (same thing with the women. I loved the one where all the poor beggar women sounded like a young 20-something woman, but when I asked them about the Gray Fox, if they didn't like me enough, they suddenly reverted to sounding like a 60-year old woman who was losing her voice. It's one of those you have to see it to believe it types, but it's really funny when you see it happen lol).

The open-endedness of the game was kind of a drawback too, by the time I did want to get back to saving the world, I had gotten so many quests that I forgot which one was the one for the main plot, and spent about an hour trying to figure out where to go, and more importantly, what to do in order to get back on track of it. The demons could've conquered the world in the time I spent lollygagging around the Arena, just running around the world to explore its many caves and dungeons, and trying to steal stuff and sell it to the black market just because I was tired of never having enough money lol.

And for those of you who do play WoW, do you tend to prefer to take your time leveling, or just get to the max level right away and start PvP (fighting other players), or raiding non-stop? Or are you sick of both options and wish for something different (such as playing alts)? For the record, I love WoW's level 1-69 experience, but the PvP and the raiding in my opinion is poorly done, and could've led to much more (I was looking forward to taking part in the instance "Battle of Mount Hyjal", which was the last stage in Warcraft 3, but looking at all the stuff I have to do before I can even take part in that battle just turned me off).

Sorry for making a long post, but I wanted to give you examples so you'll have an idea of what I'm trying to ask. Obviously I dont' expect an essay for your reply, but try to make it something more than "I like Sonic because it's fun". If you say that, why is it fun to you?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Fun to me has to do with how good the gameplay is.
I don't need a story or good music, graphics to have fun.
If the game has a speedy & friendly interface, moves quickly so I can do stuff at faster rates, and is something that matches my interests well, it would definitely be fun.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Intuitive controls and levels/events made by intuitive developers.

Mostly this means action/combat/chase/whatever sequences that have a degree of challenge that doesn't completely insult my skills, but at the same time are fluid and playable enough that I can get them right in a few tries without RSI and/or hair loss. Frustration is an instant buzz-kill.

It's essentially the difference between Zone of the Enders and Armored Core. I know I'm going to be grilled by the AC fans for this, but I found ZoE to be more immediately playable and fluid, with AC's controls too exacting and clunky. I know there are enthusiasts for such things, and AC is doubtlessly a better mech-combat "simulator," but I much preferred getting in my 'mech and immediately opening up the can of whoopass with a few well-timed button presses than learning targeting, weapon switching, lock-on, lateral motion...

A more extreme comparison but also indicative of what "does it for me" (lol Spaceballs) would be ZoE vs. Virtual On. Those who've played VO know what I'm talking about. ...Correction, those who've tried to play VO with the Dreamcast controller know what I'm talking about.

The other bit I mentioned, intuitive action scenes, are the kind you see in games like Haven: Call of the King or (maybe to a lesser extent, due to the Simon thing) Indigo Prophecy/Fahrenheit. There's a lot going on, or the sense of dramatic tension is high, but the game doesn't saddle you with 10,000-button sequences to memorize and perform with a margin of error less than 1/10 of a second. Interactive enough to keep you engaged, but forgiving enough that you can take screwing up a few times without wanting to throw your hands up in defeat.

Oh, and don't cheat. "Accidentally forgetting" that I pressed the goddamn jump/block/attack button just as the zombie is about to rip my throat out is a surefire way to get your game put back in the box, on the shelf, and covered with a layer of dust 2 inches thick. Not to mention losing all potential future sales from me.

Finally, gameplay mechanics aside, have a good soundtrack. Again, Haven:Call of the King is a great example. For one of those "the game nobody ever played" titles, it has one of the best soundtracks of its generation. Sure, it's no epic masterpiece like Shadow of the Colossus, but it was refreshing, upbeat, and fun. Other examples...let's see... Castlevania needs no introduction to VGM fans, but it's pretty mainstream as VGM goes anyway. Xenosaga, Parasite Eve, Nocturne, and Valkyrie Profile are also all among games I'm willing to play for their music alone. Incidentally, they also all (mostly, XSII is the exception in the gameplay dep't) implement the elements I mentioned previously: fluid gameplay that engages the player without punishing him/her for minor slip-ups.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What makes a game fun for me is a lot more complicated than simply reducing them into their atomic parts. I find the graphics vs gameplay debate wholly tiring and childish. I'm not even sure if I can adequately describe why I enjoy some games and not others or why I enjoy some games more so than others.

I don't believe there's a winning formula for developing a great game. You can have top notch graphics and gameplay and story and the rest of it but there's also that indescribable thing (maybe charm) that a game either has or hasn't and you can generally tell the moment you pick up the controller which can ultimately mean the difference between a fun game and a dreadful one.

For instance with Everquest II it had better graphics, better sound, better music, voice overs and generally speaking more everything the original didn't and yet once all those parts came together the overall experience wasn't anywhere as good as the original. Everquest was simply more fun.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

To me it's mostly the story, I can't get into a game that has (main) characters that I would love to drown. That's why I didn't like FFTA, I liked the end when Marche stopped talking.

I can do crappy graphics, annoying sounds, and bad voice overs. It's just those characters.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Klaus

To me it's mostly the story, I can't get into a game that has (main) characters that I would love to drown. That's why I didn't like FFTA, I liked the end when Marche stopped talking.

I can do crappy graphics, annoying sounds, and bad voice overs. It's just those characters.

Pretty similar in my case. The story is the biggest thing, but I won't even start playing it if the game is not part of a series that I like, or developed by a group that I like, etc. Call me a fanboy, but I like to stay within series or developers.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Gameplay and Story are pretty important to me, but I am more into games that have a good community and good PvP. Thats why i'm really in to MMORPGs. There is nothing like interacting with people from all over the world and nothing compares to fighting against another person in-game. I am currently playing a great MMORPG that has provided these features. Its called Corum Online and it was a huge hit in Japan and Korea over the last couple of years. It was recently brought to the US by a company called GPotato. It is a lot of fun! If you are into MMORPGs, than I would highly recommend this game!

How ya doing, buddy?

The story. I actually don't care if the game has good gameplay or not as long as the story is good. That is why I enjoyed games like Rule of Rose, which has crap gameplay, but the story is amazing.

Obviously this is not applied to fighting games, where the story is crap in most of them.

How ya doing, buddy?

Well obviously gameplay, But I'll digress:

First and foremost, if the game is fun, it'll have a hook very quickly in the game. This is to lure you into the game. We all know that if we come into a game unbiased and don't find any hook of any sort by the first 2 hours, we'll stop playing because there's no reason to keep playing (unless you have infinite patience, then you might be willing to play a bit longer). So the first thing to do is to keep us, the player, interested.

Second depends on what kind of game it is. In an RPG, the story has to be filling, robust, and deep. The system for battle also has to be unique and cannot just boil down to you mashing the "Fight" command over and over again. I personally see RPGs as thinking games where it requires strategy to play. This goes for standard RPGs and the strategy strand as well. Action games have to require the player to have some sense of dexterity in their inputs. For example, it's not fun if you can just walk up to an enemy and press a single button for the kill. Sneaking around, gunning and doging fire, taking cover, any of these can add to the fun in action games. Racing games are a mixed bag though. I personally don't like Simulation racing games at all (ala GT, Ridge Racer, etc.) I suppose I get bored with them easily because I can't stay that interested since I'm no expert on auto parts and such. Mario Kart, on the other hand, I personally find awesome because it's a game that you and your buddies can get into and just have a blast, whether it's racing for a finish, or ganging up on a single player or whatnot. FPS games need to have some kind of story (Half-Life 2) or overarching theme (FEAR) throughout the game to be fun, as well as a good assortment of weapons (Counter Strike), since I find half the fun of FPS games to be, quite bluntly, shooting stuff. Party games are fun as long as you can get yourself and a group of your buddies into it. Mario Party 1 - 8 are all fun if you can get enough people to play.

But I suppose it boils down to what one likes. A Final Fantasy Fanboy like myself will play all Final Fantasy games despite what others may say about the game itself. Case in Point: Final Fantasy II sucks balls, but I'm still going to make myself play through it. (That's Final Fantasy II in Japan by the way, not Final Fantasy IV in Japan, which is known as Final Fantasy II in America, so don't kill me. ^.^) Of course, I haven't played anything past Final Fantasy X yet since I don't have a PS2, but that's beside the point. Back to the original point. Especially with games that have sequels or a history, if you liked one of them, you'll go into the others in the series with higher expectations. At this point, your love for the series may cloud the logic of the quality of the game. The game itself may suck balls, but if you keep telling yourself that it has to be good, you'll find it to be much more fun than, say, a person who has never played a game in the series before.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

There's no one right answer for this question because while you can get away with simplistic gameplay and great story in games like Rule of Rose and Siren, the same formula won't work in a fighting game where you need great framerate, depth, and characters. Also story isn't really a factor that affects a fighting game all too much. So while I think everyone would agree for the most part that every factor from;

AI
Graphics
Gameplay
Framerate
Depth
Size/Expanse
Characters
Innovation

All matter to certain degrees in defferent genres, there's no winning combination that takes it all, as someone else mentioned too. Also with the size of the market and the overal interests, likes and dislikes of the market also make it harder for a developer to pin-point what the consumer is looking for precisly and is one reason why sequels are a big thing right now, because developers know that thoes have already been "liked" by the consumer.

One thing that I will say on a personal level though is that things like game add-ons and special controllers do nothing for me. The mat in DDR, SteeringWheel VS Gamepad, Arcade Stick VS gamepad, Wiimote VS SIXAXIS or 360 controller I just stick with the original controller because these cheap tactics have never increased any fun factor for me and I get 99% of the enjoyment out of the software not the hardware. Therefore I like long, HARD, storydrivin games like Devil May Cry, God Hand, Tactical RPGs. This goes in hand whith why I'm not all that interested in the Wii right now, though I have a Wii, I probably won't be using it until Fire Emblem comes out, and I've already beat Zelda.

Most amazing jew boots

I like games that are challenging, but not impossible. Story is important, but there are also a few games out there without a decent story that are fun timewasters.

Graphics aren't too important. I think as long as you can identify what needs to be identified, it's good enough.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

What Slayer X said sums things up nicely.

For me personally though, a difficult (but fair) game is all the more enjoyable. No pain, no gain. Too much extraneous dialogue kills it for me though.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Slayer X

One thing that I will say on a personal level though is that things like game add-ons and special controllers do nothing for me. The mat in DDR, SteeringWheel VS Gamepad, Arcade Stick VS gamepad, Wiimote VS SIXAXIS or 360 controller I just stick with the original controller because these cheap tactics have never increased any fun factor for me and I get 99% of the enjoyment out of the software not the hardware. Therefore I like long, HARD, storydrivin games like Devil May Cry, God Hand, Tactical RPGs. This goes in hand whith why I'm not all that interested in the Wii right now, though I have a Wii, I probably won't be using it until Fire Emblem comes out, and I've already beat Zelda.

You should try playing Guitar Hero without a guitar and then play it with the guitar and see if you say the same thing...

For me, a game doesn't need great graphics, story, music, characters etc. to be a great game. What the game needs is consistancy. Everything must match each other properly, from graphics to story to gameplay to music. Everything has to support one another to make a perfect gaming experience. How about Disgaea with it's quirky music, characters, story and gameplay? Everything meshes together very well.

Guitar Hero does that with great music that makes you feel like you're really "playing" the song, as well as encouraging you to get better at the game itself just through playing. Top that off with some humerous, exaggerated guitar heroes to play as and you have a great time. Sure it's weak on story per se, but it is the single "funnest" game I've ever played.

God of War is another example of a fun game. The music sets the mood of the visuals, creating a dark atmosphere where you feel like you're at the location. The gameplay is fast and furious with the controls being very responsive. The story is amazing and very well told throughout the course of the game.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Essentially, I'm obsessive and clamoring for intellectual stimulation in my games.

Thus, I'm chained to platformers (COLLECTING), puzzle games (MIND-BLOWING CONUNDRA), and role-playing games and turn-based strategy or strategy role-playing games (BOTH, PLUS STORIES).

I, of course, appreciate quality games in all genres, but I'm willing to play lesser quality games if they fit those qualifications.

That's what makes them enjoyable to me. To be "good," objectively, music, sound, art design, and other aspects enter the equation.

How ya doing, buddy?

It has changed for me drastically the last decade.

Ten years ago, I only played games so having a nice, long storyline and a lot of extra side quests was what I needed. Good examples would be Final Fantasy VI, VII (hey, we're hitting the ten year anniversary...man, has it really been that long?!), Lufia II, and Suikoden. I also will admit though that having a severly limited selection also impacted what I wanted because ultimately I knew there were only so many games to play because there were only so many available. Hence, I played whatever I could get to the fullest.

Nowadays, it takes a REALLY gripping storyline combined with an awesome customization system, along with some fun side quests for me to enjoy a game. Generally I like the games to be in 2-D, as, save for Zelda for N64, I really never made it to 3-D games (that being ones I actually played to the end).

Of course, the Phoenix Wrights somehow are lacking in some of those categories so it's not a hard and fast rule for me. Furthermore, most pro wrestling games DON'T have a story and are just there for mindless fun with friends.

FELIPE NO

I like games with a medium difficulty curve.
If the game is too easy (Atelier Iris) or too hard (Unlimited Saga) then I won't be hooked to it, and it becomes more of a chore, completion-wise for easy games, and working with the little you have to go by for hard games.
Games that are medium or slightly above medium are just right for me, since you can manage them without too much difficulty, and they don't have any particularly annoying brain busters.
Hard games are awesome when several other elements are executed well (Disgaea) as well as open-ended games where the level of difficulty is up to you (Katamari, depending on your ultimate goals).



Although increasingly hard to find nowadays, an excellent story with plot twists are the jackpot.
The last time a story wowed me was Tales of Symphonia. There were multiple plot twists and they weren't all standard rpg fare. Granted, some might have found the ideas behind some of them to be cheesy, but even so, there were a couple of really great unpredictable ones mid to late game.



Various tasks for completionists is definitely a factor.
I love games in which there are so many tasks and sidequests and options you can take part it that will keep you busy for a while. I don't mean replay value necessarily, but rather a very long experience throughout the majority of the game is good. I like the idea of probably not being able to get everything without investing tons of time.



Finally, I don't think anyone will mention this, but overkill is my top criterion.
Best summed by examples:

Soul Calibur series, Virtua Fighter, KoF 2006 - You can hit your opponent over and over again after the round/match and in SC you can hear their screams.

Disgaea, Phantom Brave, NIS RPGs - spicy overkill attacks that are a far cry from the monotous swings of a sword or thwacks of a staff.

FF series - graphical overkill most of the time, especially summons-wise. Long winded and pretty animations are good, especially since they give usually proportionate rewards.

Tetris Attack, Puyo Pop Fever - long chain reactions give you verbal support, massive rewards, and flashy screen filling attacks. this also reinforces the idea of risk to reward which I also love. Longer chains leave you open to attack and give the opponent time to clear their field, but the reward comes in the form of massive attacks that your opponent will struggle with upon completion.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

Intuitive controls and levels/events made by intuitive developers.

I think this sums it up pretty nicely. Good graphics, music, story ect. can all enhance the experience, but nothing does it for me than having fun playing the game. It's why I believe that games are better when you play them simply to have fun, not to find out what happens next in the story. My favorite game of 2006 happens to be Terav, which doesn't even have a story, or any characters, but the game design was so good I didn't care.

Now don't take this the wrong way. I love a good story, provided it doesn't seem like a chore to get through it. I enjoyed Paper Mario TTYD because of it's simplicity. This brings up another point; I am not fond of artificial depth. Artificial depth is the addition of so many of anything to a game, whether it be moves in a fighting game, or items in an RPG. Really, games do not require so much customization when you rarely utilize any of it. Customizing/creating weapons or armor, all which change a few stats, aren't real fun, as I simply end up using the strongest or most effective weapons anyway. When you can barely tell the difference in how much damage you're taking between having a body armor that adds 80 defense or 75 defense, there really is no point. I think it's a lame way to increase the amount of stuff you can do. Many people will disagree with me, but I find Replay Value to be more important than doing as much as you can during one run, because most of the time, the sidequests and stuff are either not fun, or terribly monotous.

Difficulty for me isn't a factor. In fact, some of my favorite games are either pathetically easy (New Super Mario Bros), or insanely hard (Devil May Cry (still struggling on DMD mode).

Jam it back in, in the dark.

There are many aspects for things that make games fun for me. Now it depends on what type of game. I love FPS. Now give that game a free roam environment, and make it so that everything is destructible.(when I say destructible I mean even the landscape) That is a good game for me. Blowing shit up and killing people on a mass scale.

A good storyline, graphics, and killer situations also help with any game that I am playing.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Fun to me, It the game play and lifespan of the games...
Oblivion passes with flying colours for me!

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

For RPGs, a good story and a creative battle system usually make the game interesting and fun. A nice cast of characters is also good to have, and I'd rather have just a few heroes instead of too many that I'd never use. For puzzle games, I've found that the more addicting ones are always fun.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Another thing that I recently thought of is intelligent translation/dialogue/VO. I frequently play games around people who did not grow up with them but yet like to stand right in the next room and comment on the games I'm playing. I guess this is really a situational thing, but I prefer when games don't give them ammo to say how badly-made a game is (and of course subsequently apply that statement as a blanket stereotype to all video games).

Examples: Some dialogue in Xenosaga and Shadow Hearts 2/3. The "you're like me, bound by that protocol" part in the beginning of XS1 comes to mind. There's something about that whole exchange, among many others in the game, that's just...awkward. The dialogue doesn't flow, and so draws attention to itself.

A counterexample would be anything in the Legacy of Kain series. This has a thing or two to do with it being a North American-developed game written by native English speakers, but also with the quality and complexity of the dialogue itself and the talent of the VO staff hired to bring the characters to life.

Even Albedo, one of the coolest antagonists to hit RPGdom in ages, whose monologue to Momo about what makes people human is among gaming's creepier moments, utterly pales in comparison to Raziel's hate-filled invective against Kain when they first meet after Raziel's transformation at the beginning of Soul Reaver.

The lines, if only read and not spoken, are similarly unsettling.

"...fusion of fire and spirit. What else can we call you but angels? However, you lack reality, and that is what I shall provide you with!"

"I am your creation, Kain - now, as before. You criticize your own work. What have you done with my clan, degenerate? You have no right."

However, the wording of Albedo's brief foray into existential philosophy sounds just a mite too technical and stale to effectively convey the flavor of histrionics that I believe they intended to be bubbling beneath his placid exterior. Contrasted with Raziel, he comes nowhere near the level of emotion that the LoK writers were able to evoke from their characters and voice talent. The end result is that Raziel speaks, acts, and otherwise emotes in a much more natural fashion than Albedo. His gestures, vocal inflection, and pacing are more fluid, less mechanical and forced, than Albedo's; as such he comes off looking and sounding far more human, or perhaps real, than Albedo does.

It's an imperfect comparison, I know, but that's part of the point--a point necessitating, in whole or in part, a Japanese-to-American comparison to really be conveyed. There's something distinctly awkward about the voice-overs in a lot of modern J-RPGs and while I don't mind listening to said voice-overs when I'm playing alone, it's gotten to the point where I can almost hear my family's commentary in my head, and it detracts from the experience. Maybe not a lot, but some. Enough.

Of course, I can try to put my mind to ignoring their would-be heckling, and I know even if they don't that bad VO sometimes comes with the territory, but I have to grudgingly admit that they're right on some level, and their criticisms justified. We here at GFF are possibly, or quite probably, conditioned to accept and expect these shortcomings as we've grown up with them and are thankful to even have VO in games, remembering the bygone days of reading miles of text in (sometimes) poorly anti-aliased artsy fonts that were murder on the eyes. However, sometimes it seems like that's even used as an excuse by development houses to do cheap, unimpressive VO work or not bother to translate dialogue correctly.

Part of this is my own love for the English language shining through, of that I am certain. Were I in command of translating games, "the Japanese creators' original artistic vision" would, more often than not, wind up looking like a genetic hybrid of Frankenstein's monster and Dr. Jekyll/Mr. Hyde in favour of a smooth English-language presentation. I'm sure I'd piss off a lot of Japanophiles and teenage anime fans in the process, but it's all about gearing your product to your target audience.

I think what it all comes down to is suspension of disbelief. It's required for any reading, viewing, or playing experience to be truly immersive. When the mechanics of the presentation draw attention to themselves and interfere with the reception of that presentation, it can be very damaging to the audience's ability to suspend their disbelief and thus enjoy the experience. If game developers and/or translators were willing to stop underestimating the intelligence of their audiences and write or translate dialogue to higher than a third-grade reading level, we could see some really amazing stuff come out of game-dom in the near future.

I'm not sure what I'm really going for here; it's late and I'm trying hard not to ramble. It's just that I play something like Zone of the Enders 2, a great game by virtually all measures but one with positively atrocious dialogue, and then I'll go and watch a show like Babylon 5, and the difference is immediately apparent. Granted, not every game can have the benefit of Harlan Ellison (crazy motherfucker that he is) consulting for it but hey, Soul Reaver didn't have him and it did a fine job nonetheless.

I know Legacy of Kain is among the top 2% of well-presented stories in games. I know that there's something of an unfair advantage for NA-developed games over Japanese ones. At the same time, Legacy of Kain showed that it is possible to not only have great writing in a game and voice talent to bring it to life, but to do so repeatedly and make it better and better each time.

And so my final question would be...please, sir, can we have some more?

I was speaking idiomatically.

Excellent points, CelticWhisper, especially...

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

I think what it all comes down to is suspension of disbelief. It's required for any reading, viewing, or playing experience to be truly immersive.

Exactly, and there is no way of achieving this immersion for every possible player. The way I see it, it just has to click. Could be the story, the dialogue, the style of the artwork, the music, the gameplay, any combination thereof, could be anything. You mentioned Legacy of Kain, undoubtedly way up there among the best-written games ever. But I remember my initial disappointment with Soul Reaver. After having played Blood Omen over and over for three years, the departure from many aspects which had made the original click for me was too much. The presentation, the moody graphics, the (then) gorgeous lighting effects, the haunting music, the sophisticated concepts, the deep story, the unprecedented excellent voice acting let me forgive and forget the sometimes tedious gameplay and the ridiculous loading times which made you think twice about changing your spells or items. Is Blood Omen a perfect game? Certainly not, but for me it comes close. (Of course, once I got over my expectations, Soul Reaver clicked on its own pretty soon. Unfortunately I had to discover that the German disc featured only the horrible localization, but after hunting down a UK disc, all was well again in the land of Nosgoth. To think that I had to buy both games twice just because of the dialogue...)

Anyway, there obviously isn't a sure-fire formula how to make a game fun. A good story can be key (see Silent Hill, another example of a series where everything comes together), but a bad one can seriously detract from the overall fun (see MGS2 - as much as I love intricate plots, I'd have been perfectly happy with a run of the mill story in exchange for this nonsense). On the other hand, if I find enough aspects to my liking, I'm willing to forgive even those shortcomings a game shouldn't get away with. An example: I don't like turn-based combat á la Square, least of all those with random encounters. I've never been able to find the least bit of enjoyment in any Final Fantasy title. Along came Koudelka, and for some reason I liked the location - the mood, the graphics, the sound - so much that I suffered through every single boring encounter. They all featured one of two tunes. Both were horrible - I hated every single note, and even today I can whistle them. The encounters occurred unbelievably frequently (to lengthen the otherwise short game), and they involved the same boring monsters over and over. Yet I have fond memories of the game. Talk about a forgiving player...

Apart from the atrocious (although sparse) voice acting and the story, Symphony of the Night has no shortcomings I can think of off the top of my head - if it's not perfect, it's pretty damn close -, but if I listen to Michiru Yamane's score outside of the game for too long, I just have to pop in the disc and play. But I don't just start over. I load my last save before the final battle and just hack away for a while, running around almost invincible, mindlessly killing everything that crosses my path with one blow - not because I enjoy the power-trip, just to get to the various locations within the game. See? If I like a game that much, the actual gameplay or the challenge takes a backseat. The only Tomb Raider outings I consider worth mentioning - the original and Legend -, the Prince of Persia trilogy, the original Devil May Cry, the REmake, MGS, Headhunter on the DC... Every now and then I have to play several save files just to revisit the places (never because of an interesting boss battle or some such thing, though). However, these are bad examples, because in most of these cases the gameplay is a huge part of the fun; I'd still play them if it wasn't, though. Oh well, I hope I've made myself remotely clear.

Originally Posted by CelticWhisper

I'm not sure what I'm really going for here; it's late and I'm trying hard not to ramble.

I've just joined the club, it seems

Zorro

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

MOTHERFUCKING CHALLENGE.

If a game isn't challenging in any way (like Final Fantasy XII, for example) it just isn't fun. There has to be a significant difficulty there, otherwise I'm just not interested in the game at all.

A lot of shooters, fighters, beat 'em ups, hell even some RPGs are challenging, even if they're few and far between.

Too bad a lot of games these days are piss useless unless you're playing on their hard difficulty, and often times "hard difficulty" means there's the same enemies with more health or lower health for yourself which isn't a true difficulty change.

FELIPE NO