What is the mark of great game design?

[SpaghettiWeegee]

Hello,

I come here with a question that I don't entirely expect to be answered in full because by nature it is a very broad question with numerous subjective answers depending on each scenerio it's asked in. However, in general terms, I mean to ask what makes a game's design "great"?

In order to answer that question, the term "great" must be defined relative to video games. I believe that great games are games that are immensely memorable. But what makes games memorable? Certainly plenty of design elements can cause players to remember events in a game for years after playing: to name a few, personality, difficulty, surprising twists, or a sense of awe continually evoked throughout the experience-- but I don't think any of these things on their own make a game "great."

Personally, I think the mark of great game design is simply enhanced "good" game design. Or, more explicitly put, additional detail and polish put on a stable foundation of gameplay. For example, the reason I found the SNES RPG Chrono Trigger so memorable was because of all of the additional details put into the overall design-- at times as subtle as the ability to close curtains to change the lighting in a room-- in addition to an incredibly solid layer of mechanics layed out underneath (the active time battle system, for example, remains my single favorite battle system from any classic RPG). Certainly, from a developer's perspective, these additional elements may seem excessive and like a lot of additional work for little reward in the finished product, but from a player's perspective (one which I find myself trying to approach games I dream up with) little additional details in design really make the in-game world come alive.

It's sort of a theatrical element, in that sense. With plenty of additional details, the illusion of a seamlessly created universe is never broken and players aren't forced to readjust themselves to realize while playing "Oh wait, this is a game": a relevation that is considerably detrimental to the immersion factor. However, all of the games that I personally rank as favorites add additional details to the experience-- details that hardly need to exist for the game to play out in the way it does but still do in the interest of creating an immersive world. The Zelda series provides plenty of great examples of this kind of easter-egg design-- one that comes to mind is the ability to stab pumpkins with your sword in Skyward Sword and then run around with them stuck on the tip in a thoroughly silly looking but still magical-feeling manner (probably not the best example, but it's one that's fresh on my mind).

So, in my view, great game design is all in the details. However, I'd love to hear other opinions on what makes games "great," so feel free to drown me under a wave of responses!

[bob]

Boy I'm having trouble wading through all these responses! What a wave!

Haha.

A game is not great BECAUSE it is memorable. It is memorable BECAUSE it is great. Not all memorable games are great. Superman 64 is memorable. The fact a game is memorable says nothing about how good it is. It could be memorable just for its graphics. But one reason we remember games is because we enjoyed them so much, so yeah great games are memorable. Anyways, I think you understand this, but I just wanted to point it out to be sure.

I agree that creating a believable world is part of any great game design. I'm not entirely sure why that is though. After all, kickball doesn't attempt to simulate any kind of world - it's just kicking a ball and running, but as a kid I would play kickball any chance I got. In fact I'd still probly play kickball if my friends wanted to.

I know that we always want more realistic worlds. It's always better when a sequel lets us interact with the world in MORE ways. No one ever gets excited about a sequel that gives us a less interactive world. Does that mean we want to be convinced that the world is real? I don't really know. You should check out this site: culture.vg

Best discussion of game design on the internet. Click on features and read some of the essays.

[bob]

The real question you are asking here is, "what makes a good game?" If you can figure out what makes a good game, then following those principles more strictly and with a larger budget will make a better game, or a "great" game in your words.

I guess the confusing thing about your question is, "great" simply means "better than good". Contrary to what you said, a designer doesn't add a specific thing to a good game to make it great. He makes a game, and if its good enough maybe a lot of people will consider it great. I mean, my favorite game is Halo, specifically the multiplayer. Specifically, Halo 1. Would you say Halo was great specifically because it was more immersive? I wouldn't. There were a lot of things that made Halo so good. One of them definitely was what you're talking about, the immersive graphics, but that alone isn't what made it so good.

Basically, its a mistake to try and think of some feature that differentiates good games from great games. There are certain principles (I'm not sure what they are) that make games more enjoyable, and the more closely these principles are followed the better the game is.