# What do you look for?



## kamperkiller (Sep 21, 2009)

What do you look for in a video game?
Everything from Concept to Villains.

What keeps you in to the finish?


----------



## Seas (Sep 21, 2009)

This may have a better place in the "three frags left" section =P

On topic: The gameplay , atmosphere and story is what keeps me playing a game,
and customization is what keeps my interest up for ultiple play-throughs or simply longer play.


----------



## Lasair (Sep 21, 2009)

should be in 3frags imo

anyway. for a game to hold my interest it has to have a good storyline, one that keeps me guessing or keeps me glued to the premise of the game. Also, voiceover is important to me, i dont care how good the gameplay/story are, if the characters all act/sound like crap, im not interested.
Hence why i liked RE5, Ken Lally gave an epic performance as Wesker even though the game was pretty average.

Multiplayer is important, it has to be solidly designed and well executed, because thats the life-extending part of most games now.
And Customisation, i like to be able to personalise my characters/vehicles etc.


----------



## Randy-Darkshade (Sep 21, 2009)

Good storylline, blood, gore, cars, guns violence.


----------



## FoxyMcCloud (Sep 21, 2009)

Storyline, characters looks and personalities, unique gameplay, and a unique hook to the game (like an unusual weapon or some such).


----------



## Ilayas (Sep 21, 2009)

storyline is as much lesser importance to overall gameplay.  That said if the story is REALLY stupid (and or the characters really annoying) I just won't finish it.  But if the game has a great plot but crap game play I won't care to finish.  If I want a good story I'll read a book I play video games to play video games.  I grew up in an age were ooohh no the scary lizard-man has captured the princesses is a good enough plot for me.  

I look for games that have a reasonable learning curve.  If the game is so hard I get frustrated I don't want to play it.  Likewise if it's too easy there's no challenge. 

I like the game play to be evolving so I don't loose interest.  Either that it's challenging me in new ways or that I'm gaining new abilities.  

I really like games were I can customize my game play.  Not only so I can tailor make it to suit my game play but also so if and when I replay the game I can do something different.

Replay value is also a big must. As is cost.  Not just money but the amount of time I have to invest in said game.  If it's too high then I loose interest.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Sep 21, 2009)

Has to be entertaining, good music, good atmosphere, easy controls, no 15 minutes per fmv, able to kill things.


----------



## Dass (Sep 21, 2009)

It should be fun. Enough said. Anything else is secondary.


----------



## GraemeLion (Sep 21, 2009)

Replay factor.  Fun.  Difficulty.  

I don't like insanely impossible games that require twitch fingering.. but at the same time, I want to feel like I did something.  When I ascend in Nethack or beat Angband, it means something.

Beating GTA IV is just something everyone does with the right amount of time.


----------



## Kaamos (Sep 21, 2009)

Gameplay and fun comes first, then replay value, and storyline and character development.


----------



## Gavrill (Sep 21, 2009)

How addictive it is. Like Harvest Moon. Graphics suck, but damn is it fun.


----------



## Gonebatty (Sep 22, 2009)

A good plot.


----------



## Aprice (Sep 22, 2009)

I don't care about plot. 
Just simple, and fun. Something I don't have to burst my brain over. Like Harvest Moon, Sims, Rhapsody, My World My Way, and Princess Debut. <3


----------



## Panzermanathod (Sep 22, 2009)

Sum of all parts. It's how I can say I like Resident Evil  Survivor more than Halo.


----------



## Gaybriel (Sep 22, 2009)

I like games with abstract concepts or ideas [Psychonauts, Indigo Prophecy, Heavy Rain], and a game that evokes any kind of emoiion out of me [that isn't frustration. x3] Silent Hill is an example of of both of these criteria.


----------



## Steel_Wolf (Sep 22, 2009)

I am looking for a proper use of characters in my video games... and more digimon fighting games, because those were fun.


----------



## Kit H. Ruppell (Sep 22, 2009)

- Deeply immersing environments
- Good graphics (not just # of pixels, but also things like lighting and subtle nitpicky stuff)
- Not very repetitive
- Deep story
- Plenty of action, but not at the expense of plot


----------



## Runefox (Sep 22, 2009)

Graphics mean nothing to me - If possible, it's nicer if they _can_ be better, since it can increase immersion and lend more professionalism and detail to the overall world, but when it becomes the main focus, gameplay and everything else tends to suffer, and there are far more important things than the graphics in almost every type of game.

Paramount in most games is gameplay, followed by the story (swap for RPG's), followed by the characters, if any (they must be believable). If it's a shooter, realism in firing is important to me (if I'm looking down iron sights, pull the trigger, and can't hit an object reliably several meters away when aimed correctly, there's a problem), as is the damage system. Most newer games today use the "duck and cover" bullet sponge technique, which pisses me off. It was realistic for Halo 3 (it's a shield), but it certainly wasn't in Call of Duty and every other game where, let's face it, if you took a 7.62mm round to the chest and just laid low for a few seconds, you'd be in no better condition than when you were hit to begin with. I like games that do realistic damage - Damage to the leg(s) hinders mobility, damage to the arm(s) hinders accuracy and other actions, damage to the torso can be fatal and reduces stamina, damage to the head is almost always fatal and if not brings to near-death.

For driving games, graphics and sound actually are pretty much the biggest concern - There's not much else you can really focus on but the driving model, and it's difficult to truly fuck that up - Extra points for realism, though, since there isn't much out there that really does it (which is why it can't be a big point because there are literally like two game series with a realistic model).

For fighting games, it's all about the gameplay, period. High-resolution graphics (like Guilty Gear X/XX and BlazBlue) are awesome, but if the game plays like crap, they're worthless.


----------



## Envy (Sep 22, 2009)

My answer is "It Depends"

MMOs attract me if with a lack of huge grind, original ideas, and character customization, for instance. But I don't care about character customisation on a console RPG anywhere near as much and instead look for stronger characters and a good plot.

Obviously, good gameplay as well. Everything else has to be absolutely amazing if a game is anywhere below average in that respect.

But mainly, I think the driving factor is originality.

A good example of this is Steambot Chronocles. It's a semi-obscure PS2 game set in an industreal revolution where mechs are just as common as cars. It's short, many of the sidequests are ultimately useless and a lot a features are underimplemented, and it has a lot of flaws... But it still manages to be one of my favorite games because it's got so many ideas and interesting things about it. I've had similar experiances with Geist, Digimon World, Megaman Legends, and several others... I find I can forgive a lot of things about a game, if it strikes me as smart and creative.


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Sep 22, 2009)

Storytelling.


----------



## Lasair (Sep 22, 2009)

Runefox said:


> I like games that do realistic damage - Damage to the leg(s) hinders mobility, damage to the arm(s) hinders accuracy and other actions, damage to the torso can be fatal and reduces stamina, damage to the head is almost always fatal and if not brings to near-death.



You'll enjoy Operation Flashpoint 2: Dragon Rising then.
Its exactly like you describe there.

I will agree, the ''omg ive just been shot 3 times with a 50cal but if i hide behind this table ill heal'' mechanic gets annoying, hence why i only ever play Hardcore modes in COD4, 1 round your dead.




Runefox said:


> There's not much else you can really focus on but the driving model, and it's difficult to truly fuck that up



Really?
Trust me, go play NFS Shift and you wont be thinking its hard anymore.
They managed to make every car drive like a shopping-cart.
Danm Audi A3 FWD hatchback drifting at 15mph? thats just retarded handling physics imo.


----------



## Sparticle (Sep 22, 2009)

I look for 

1.Fun addictive gameplay.
2.Graphics
3.Balanced multiplayer.
4.Storyline.
5.Sci-Fi theme or concept.
6.The ability to customize characters or vehicles.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 22, 2009)

Good story.

Rewarding exploration.

Being able to take a number of different approaches to solve a single problem.

Combat with just the right amount of challenge and flashiness.

Innovative (but not shitty) game mechanics.

A MINIMUM OF BUGS AND GLITCHES, AND GOOD TECH SUPPORT FOR THE GAME - IF THE GAME I BOUGHT FROM YOU HAS A BUG I WANT IT PATCHED DAMMIT.

Edit: Mod-ability is gravy.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 22, 2009)

I look for a good amount of replayability. Thats about it actually, its the main reason I play RTS games like Age of Empires over and over again, or Rock Band. Theres a lot of re playability in it.


----------



## Runefox (Sep 22, 2009)

An Lasair Rua said:


> Really?
> Trust me, go play NFS Shift and you wont be thinking its hard anymore.
> They managed to make every car drive like a shopping-cart.
> Danm Audi A3 FWD hatchback drifting at 15mph? thats just retarded handling physics imo.



The Need for Speed series has never really been so much a racing simulator as an arcade game (see also: Need for Speed in the arcade). Even the first one, and especially the "underground" rice-burner bullshit. If I wanted a game to simulate the "thrills" of taking a Nissan or a Honda and tweaking it up so that its expected life span is approximately a tenth of what it normally would be just so it can go a few MPH faster and have nice flashy lights and giant subwoofers, I'd shoot myself, because that's not fun at all.

In the racing game world, there's arcade and there's realistic. NFS tries to merge these two while erring on the side of arcade. NFS fails. It's still an arcade game; You choose one or the other; You can relax realism a little for gameplay (like Burnout or GRiD), or you can go all-out (like Forza and GT), but once you go arcade, you're arcade. Out Run 2006 is one good example of a _good_ arcade racing game.


----------



## Kajet (Sep 22, 2009)

That F word all the developers think is forbidden...



FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUN


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 22, 2009)

Kajet said:


> That F word all the developers think is forbidden...
> 
> 
> 
> FFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFUN



Thats a hard thing to distinguish since people have very diverse ranges of "fun". Thats why we have different genres of games. I mean some people might consider "fun" being putting strategy forth, and being accustomed to RTS games. Or some might consider fun blowing a guy's brains out and is more affiliated toward FPS games. "Fun" is very hard to distinguish in video games


----------



## LotsOfNothing (Sep 22, 2009)

You have to consider that what people look for in games are what they think is fun.   :V


----------



## CinnamonApples (Sep 22, 2009)

Out say outside of the obvious answer of gameplay, I'd say atmosphere plays a big role, from character development (no matter how good the story concept is, it's only as good as the characters in it) to music to level design (not necessarily graphics, for me anyway).


----------



## Kivaari (Sep 22, 2009)

Obviously, gameplay.

Customisation is always nice.

Online Play. (And a good system for getting to online play. If it wasn't for that Damn matchmaking system, Red Faction: Guerilla would probably be my favorite game)

Graphics that don't hinder gameplay (Either by sucking or being so flashy you have no idea what's going on)


----------



## Lasair (Sep 22, 2009)

Yeah for me the simulation aspect is more my thing.
GT, Forza or even GRID are spot on as far as simulation goes, although GRID did have a slightly arcadey feel, it was still spot on as a racing game.


----------



## Darkwing (Sep 22, 2009)

I look for games with:

- Good Graphics

- An Open world environment

- Character, vehicle, and weapon customization

- Good optimization and compatibility ( I am a PC Gamer.)

- Map / World Creation

- Fair & Balanced Multiplayer with a good hacking detection system.

- A great and realistic atmosphere.

- Realism in general (Fun and accurate physics engine, Plant and Tree physics, Fire physics, wind physics, etc.)


----------



## Kajet (Sep 22, 2009)

Actually now that I think of it  I do keep an eye out for things like in-game customization, like Time Splitters' map maker, cause shit like that is awesome. Also things like Chrono Trigger's new game +

Of course stuff you can add like Morrowind/Oblivon/UT04 mods.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 22, 2009)

Kajet said:


> Actually now that I think of it  I do keep an eye out for things like in-game customization, like Time Splitters' map maker, cause shit like that is awesome. Also things like Chrono Trigger's new game +



Map maker is usually in a game's SDK. That is usually released with most games on the PC. New Game plus isn't that revolutionary, really. As games ranging from Megaman to Mass Effect have New Game Plus.


----------



## xombiehamster (Sep 23, 2009)

I go first for how easy it is to learn to play the game.  It doesn't matter if the gameplay is innovative or if the story is the next Tale of Two Cities if I can't figure out how to play.

Those first two Fallout games?  Yeah.  I thought they stunk.  Portal, on the other hand, told me what buttons did what without making me sit through a boring description and then throwing me into the game with no real guidance.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 23, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> Those first two Fallout games?  Yeah.  I thought they stunk.  Portal, on the other hand, told me what buttons did what without making me sit through a boring description and then throwing me into the game with no real guidance.



So instead of learning the game as you go along, you'd rather the game hold your hand like a toddler and spoon feed you until you actually learn for yourself?


----------



## Tycho (Sep 23, 2009)

TUTORIALS SUCK.

RTFM.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 23, 2009)

For something to motivate me to keep on playing, even when the game stops being fun and becomes tedious because you're at a boring part or everyone's least favourite level. 

I was motivated to not give up Guild Wars with the promise of Nightfall adding new campaign missions and the fact that they added the Balthazar Faction so you would be able to create a PvP character who'd actually hold a candle to the PvE characters. And I do feel motivated to continue playing TF2 for a couple rounds, but most goes right down the drain every time I hear people rage, brag about their team scores/Epeen, hear verbal abuse for having that cheater's lament/NOT Having that cheater's Lament, accusing me of hacking because I sawed a spy, and see someone noclipping through the walls on a VAC secured server.


----------



## xombiehamster (Sep 23, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> So instead of learning the game as you go along, you'd rather the game hold your hand like a toddler and spoon feed you until you actually learn for yourself?




There's a difference between hand-holding and helpful tips.  Something that does not interfere with gameplay but still lets a new player feel less stranded is much prefered to something that would hold an experienced player back.  There exists a happy medium between toddler-like hand holding and tossing a person into a scenario with zero knowledge of the system at all.

And no, I don't like being told "oh you'll learn it as you go along."  That doesn't help when the control system is complicated and not particularly intuitive.  I don't like wildly pressing buttons in a frenzy and getting nowhere only to learn later that I should right click instead of left click.  It's frustrating.  And there's no reason the game couldn't mention it in a blurb somewhere.


----------



## Carenath (Sep 23, 2009)

I look for a game, that's fun to play and isnt yet-another FPS or Sports game.


----------



## Chris_Guinness (Sep 23, 2009)

kamperkiller said:


> What do you look for in a video game?
> Everything from Concept to Villains.
> 
> What keeps you in to the finish?




No gay-tripping for one.
Something at least a little different than the last fifteen FPS games released.
"Extremely violent blood explosion extraordinaire!"


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 23, 2009)

xombiehamster said:


> There's a difference between hand-holding and helpful tips.  Something that does not interfere with gameplay but still lets a new player feel less stranded is much prefered to something that would hold an experienced player back.  There exists a happy medium between toddler-like hand holding and tossing a person into a scenario with zero knowledge of the system at all.
> 
> And no, I don't like being told "oh you'll learn it as you go along."  That doesn't help when the control system is complicated and not particularly intuitive.  I don't like wildly pressing buttons in a frenzy and getting nowhere only to learn later that I should right click instead of left click.  It's frustrating.  And there's no reason the game couldn't mention it in a blurb somewhere.




I find it odd you are comparing the control schemes of an RPG and a First Person Shooter based puzzle game.

Portal's control scheme was very similar to Half Life and for that it worked. Just pressing two buttons to activate a and b portals, jumping and pressing switches. As well as the minor actions such as picking things up. But with a game such as Fallout there are many actions you can perform, such as dialogue or your skills/attacking. Fallout is a more complex game and for that you need to get to learn controls. Why would they tell you exactly how you should play the game, when your ROLE PLAYING.

They instead thrust you into a world where you don't know where you are. Expect you to learn the controls how people would naturally learn skills or kill things in the same position. You learn on your own, Fallout doesn't have to provide you how to play the game like everyone else plays it. It provides you with a keyboard and expects you to use as much judgment as you have finding out how to play the game.

Plus if you are really having a hard time finding the controls. You know Fallout has a manual that comes with the disk that should provide adequate. Or better yet doesn't the main menu show you your controls or is able to allow the player to remap them? (I honestly can't remember. I haven't played Fallout 1 or 2 since 2002-3 on my ancient XP computer)


----------



## Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs (Sep 24, 2009)

Game play has to do a lot with it. I still think Vice City was the best out of all GTA games, and GTA SA is still amazing! You got to also have graphics and realism but as GTA 4 showed that really takes a lot out of game play.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 24, 2009)

Ieatcrackersandjumpcliffs said:


> Game play has to do a lot with it. I still think Vice City was the best out of all GTA games, and GTA SA is still amazing! You got to also have graphics and realism but as GTA 4 showed that really takes a lot out of game play.



If you want a next gen jacking cars sandbox game that makes you remember the good old days of Vice City and San Andreas, play Saints Row 1 or better yet, 2.


----------



## Kuraggo (Sep 24, 2009)

The game must be intense, it should keep me immersed the whole time. Just like in Mirror's Edge, the levels were the anti runners chased you were freaking epic.

This is the reason why i absolutely love FPS's and racing games, and why i generally can't stand RPG's, they're DULL and SLOW and i hate leveling up crap, i want to level up my own abilities like my aim and reaction time. I hate being told by the game that i'm not good enough to go to a certain area. Psh, talk about immersion killer.

On a side note i loved Mass Effect just because it was very well done, it really was like playing a top quality sci fi movie.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 24, 2009)

Kuraggo said:


> I hate being told by the game that i'm not good enough to go to a certain area. Psh, talk about immersion killer.



A good RPG like Morrowind gives you a locked door that your allowed to go through at any time. Or an island that is available in the expansion packs. But the NPCs/books that you read strongly recommend you not to go. It's basically the game's way of saying: "If you go this way, your going to get assfucked in hundreds of different ways by the weakest monster in there. Don't say I didn't warn you". This happened to me many times while playing the expansion pack Tribunal as even the peasants were beating the crap out of me.


----------



## Tycho (Sep 24, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> A good RPG like Morrowind gives you a locked door that your allowed to go through at any time. Or an island that is available in the expansion packs. But the NPCs/books that you read strongly recommend you not to go. It's basically the game's way of saying: "If you go this way, your going to get assfucked in hundreds of different ways by the weakest monster in there. Don't say I didn't warn you". This happened to me many times while playing the expansion pack Tribunal as even the peasants were beating the crap out of me.



*humdidumdidum*

Oh hey, a cave!

*enters cave*

*sees Ash Slave*

*cops a God's Fire to the face*

A good immersive game doesn't tell you what you cannot do, beyond what your own good sense dictates you should or should not do (jumping off the top of a Balmora guard tower with low acrobatics and no slowfall is a "bad idea", just as you would expect it to be).  It encourages you, eggs you on even, to discover just how much you CAN do and find and kill and loot.  Forced linearity blows.


----------



## pheonix (Sep 24, 2009)

A game must have a good storyline, enjoyable gameplay, and a challenge. I hate playing/buying games that take me a few days to a week to beat. I want to spend at least 3 weeks to a month playing a game though that never happens anymore.


----------



## Kuraggo (Sep 24, 2009)

pheonix said:


> A game must have a good storyline, enjoyable gameplay, and a challenge. I hate playing/buying games that take me a few days to a week to beat. I want to spend at least 3 weeks to a month playing a game though that never happens anymore.



Solution: 
Buy multiplayer games! 

But seriously, i think you ask a little bit too much, most single player games are 7 - 12 hours, only racing games and rpg's can be lengthy.


----------



## Jashwa (Sep 24, 2009)

Tits.


----------



## blackfuredfox (Sep 24, 2009)

Kuraggo said:


> Solution:
> Buy multiplayer games!
> 
> But seriously, i think you ask a little bit too much, most single player games are 7 - 12 hours, only racing games and rpg's can be lengthy.



those get repetitive after awhile, and there are long single player games, not anymore though. like the Half-Life series, and others were long and fun. not anymore.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 24, 2009)

pheonix said:


> I want to spend at least 3 weeks to a month playing a game though that never happens anymore.



Most games nowadays have tighter budgets to the publisher giving them a very strict set date. Many have to cut out a lot of their content they wanted included.



blackfuredfox said:


> like the Half-Life series, and others were long and fun. not anymore.



Half Life 2 Episodes aren't really games. They are more standalone expansion packs then actual games in the series. Similar to Opposing Force and Blue Shift for the original. Though Opposing Force rocked. They are simply to showcase an advance in the Source engine's technology and to continue the HL2 canon. Half Life 2 was a long game that rivaled the first in length, and if you combined the first second and possibly even the third Episodes (when the third comes out), as well as Lost Coast you could potentially have a sequel to Half Life 2 that gives you enough length to satisfy your craving.


----------



## russetwolf13 (Sep 24, 2009)

If Solid Snake is in it.


----------



## russetwolf13 (Sep 24, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> A good RPG like Morrowind gives you a locked door that your allowed to go through at any time. Or an island that is available in the expansion packs. But the NPCs/books that you read strongly recommend you not to go. It's basically the game's way of saying: "If you go this way, your going to get assfucked in hundreds of different ways by the weakest monster in there. Don't say I didn't warn you". This happened to me many times while playing the expansion pack Tribunal as even the peasants were beating the crap out of me.




Hah, I remember that Morrowind expansion. Said I should wait until I was somewhere around level 50 before going to Solstheim. 

I went when I was level 5 and used a crossbow. Enough arrows to the face and everything dies. Plus the pathfinding on the enemies sucked ass. Of course I still wound up sleeping a few decades because I ran out of health potions immediately.

Of course, once I contracted Saines Lupinus (frabjous day!) I just wolfed out on everyone I met. Easy squeezy lemon peezy.


----------



## CryoScales (Sep 24, 2009)

russetwolf13 said:


> Hah, I remember that Morrowind expansion. Said I should wait until I was somewhere around level 50 before going to Solstheim.
> 
> Of course, once I contracted Saines Lupinus (frabjous day!) I just wolfed out on everyone I met. Easy squeezy lemon peezy.



I was more talking about Tribunal. Bloodmoon was easy as hell. In Tribunal I tried to do the subquest where you have to play as an actor and an assassin tries to kill you. I was level 10, he kicked my ass in less then 3 punches. I later checked UESP and I found out he was lvl fucking 25, and the quest specifically told me to kill him.


----------



## Vaelarsa (Sep 24, 2009)

pheonix said:


> I want to spend at least 3 weeks to a month playing a game though that never happens anymore.


Try playing one of the Metroids / Metroid Primes that you've never gotten anywhere on, without checking maps and turn off the hints?

Randomly exploring around and looking for shit might take a while.
I know Super Metroid did for me, when I first went through it (that goddamned gravity suit took forEVER to find).


Alternatively, try looking up La Mulana.
It's a good freeware game, with a good story, and it has a LOT of shit to explore and find, and pretty decent difficulty.


----------



## Digitalpotato (Sep 25, 2009)

CryoScales said:


> Half Life 2 Episodes aren't really games. They are more standalone expansion packs then actual games in the series. Similar to Opposing Force and Blue Shift for the original. Though Opposing Force rocked. They are simply to showcase an advance in the Source engine's technology and to continue the HL2 canon. Half Life 2 was a long game that rivaled the first in length, and if you combined the first second and possibly even the third Episodes (when the third comes out), as well as Lost Coast you could potentially have a sequel to Half Life 2 that gives you enough length to satisfy your craving.



The idea behind the Half Life 2 episodes was episodic gameplay...Failure there considering part of the whole "Episodic Gameplay" concept is that you aren't kept hanging from a cliff for two years waiting for the next one. I'd rather have waited a couple years for them all in one game or if I wouldn't have to wait several years for all of them.


----------

