I enjoy games more when they let me build, tinker with and grow something, not necessarily a representation of a physical object, but also characters, nations and locations.
I enjoy games more when they let me build, tinker with and grow something, not necessarily a representation of a physical object, but also characters, nations and locations.
We're not discussing metrics though. We're discussing what people value most in games. Sure, 'immersion' can be personal and can't be measured, and varies from game-to-game and person-to-person. But if the main reason you enjoy games is to feel like you're in an entirely different world, either because you like it, or because you want to forget about your miserable day-to-day existence, immersion is easily the most important thing in gaming.Originally Posted by Rauten
Could both of you please go back to that post of mine you've quoted and check the one I quoted? Thank you.
I'll take the poll then.
this.
//thread over
I also like games that are good at generating a story-in-my-head. This is a bit like immersion, but instead of the game drawing me into its made-up world, I draw the game into my made-up world. The advantage of this is clear: I'm not vulnerable to "immersion-breaking", because I am in ultimate command of the story-in-my-head. Also, it works for pretty much every game imaginable. Of course, it's easier to construct the story-in-my-head for some games, but it's possible for all games.
Irrelevant on further examination of the rest of the thread.
I think my honest answer would be "escapism".
You might as well say "fnurglewitz".
I don't think there's a word that encapsulates the concept, but my value of a game is the ratio of characters controlled to the direction of the game. E.g. in Supreme Commander, I completely disregarded the single player campaign and went straight to skirmish, because I'm controlling up to a thousand units at once and my enjoyment comes from the managing of them. Conversely, I enjoyed Jade Cocoon because in true Square fashion, it's entirely linear. I'm the last hope for the village facing impending doom, I don't have time to play hide and seek with the kids or go fetch a basket of vegetables a forgetful farmer left behind in their fields, or go check out that awesome looking mountain in the distance.
That said, there are exceptions. For example, I'm loving Guild Wars 2 because while I only control 1 character, that character is all but irrelevant in the grand scheme of things (ignoring the personal story, which incidentally I've by and large ignored).
I can't really place my finger on what it is exactly that decides whether I enjoy a game, what I wrote is just a guideline. I do know, however, that it means I hate most games.
Last edited by mickygor; 03-10-2012 at 07:25 PM. Reason: paragraphs
mickygor, Battlefield 3
Otmer, League of Legends EUW
Bastiat, Planetside 2, Miller NC
Word "fun" means nothing to me.
SP games: Some sense of progression. Fitting music. Good visuals. Whatever.
MP games: I'm happy if the game lets me ruin the "fun" for players who are using "cheap" tactics, "unfair" advantages, overpowered items or obvious exploits. If I have to use the dirty tactics myself against them, so be it. I don't care if I die or lose in the process. Never surrender to exploiters. Never tolerate people with 50 to 1 K/d ratio in BF games who roll around in APC's or Tanks. I don't care who wins, I'm going to hunt down that bastard and slit his throat when he is repairing or die in the process.
They don't have to be individually micro'd, though I find the transition between map and battle screens in Total War a bit jarring. That you can still individually see the units, even if you can't control them individually, helps. I do still enjoy the Total War games, but there are games I would choose to play over it, again Supreme Commander being the ultimate choice. Even so, I don't individually micro in Supreme Commander; doing so too much would just get you flanked and crushed.
mickygor, Battlefield 3
Otmer, League of Legends EUW
Bastiat, Planetside 2, Miller NC
I think I'm fundamentally looking for my input to actually matter - that is, you're able to play a game in a sufficiently creative way that your button presses couldn't be replicated by some simple computer program. If I get to a point where I know exactly how to respond to every situation, the game is done (hello Recettear)
I like this answer, its why I've tended towards strategy and stealth games where its not the "clickity clickity" but the actual thinking behind it that takes priority.
Also Binding of issac and spelunky because you don't really know what to expect in the next area.
I'm failing to writing a blog, specifically about playing games the wrong way
http://playingitwrong.wordpress.com/
Entertainment that is consistent enough to either get through the whole game or make me feel I sunk my money / time into something worthwhile.
That and punishing mechanics.
Oops sorry. Pretend I was addressing the person you quoted instead then or something.
Good gameplay combined with an elaborate learning curve.
Very very few games focus on either anymore these days:(
Reply With Quote
