What makes a popular game?

[gamemaker91]

In my opinion people are generally attracted to the following:

• Great graphics
• Good physics
• Heavy repetition with very gradual changes to the environment.

[mickeyjm]

I'd say Great gameplay is MUCH more important than Great Graphics. I.e. Minecraft has 256 pixels per cube face and yet has 10,000,000 sales

[micha]

These are things, that are important for me:

• Immersion. Some games make you forget the outside world and you are completely absorbed by the game. This usually gives you a stronger gaming experience. You can facilitate immersion by removing things that are not in the game world. E.g. an external motivation like a high score is not as good as an internal motivation like "I want to escape". Half life is very good at this. The whole story is told in the game world and not by a narrator or a text display. Also everything in this game (except for the menu) is also visible to the game main character (even the HUD).
• Flow. If a game is too easy, you get bored. If it is too difficult, you get frustrated. Good games keep you in the "flow zone" in the middle between these.
• Meaningful decisions. Every game mechanic the player can use should make a difference in the game.
• Guidance. The player should always know that he is supposed to do and why(!)
• Motivation. Give the player a reason to play the game. As stated above, internal motivations are imo better than external ones. Even a simple motivation like "I want to rescue the princess" is imo better than "I want to get a high score" or "I want to get a certain achievement" (Mario can not see his score, but he can see the princess).

[CyaNox]

I just giggled there ...

You just summed up just about every possible game in existence

Problem is the generalization in your 3 points.

1. Great Graphics.

This is highly subject to opinion. For example I very much dislike the graphics style in lets say ... a Fallout New Vegas especially outside the city (A total color blind person would have the same experience (its all freaking gray)). Yet its still nice to play.
Then there is Minecraft with its extremely basic graphics, no shaders, filters or anything. You get the raw textures with all its artifact glory in your face. Some are excessively horrified by such eye rape yet it sold over 10 million copies now (and is still going).

In other words the graphics are completely irrelevant if you ask me. As long as it adheres to a certain visual acceptance.

2. Good physics.

Hah ... I've yet to see a game with actual good physics. Problem with physics in games is that it takes many shortcuts to become a real-time calculation instead of an accurate one. There are so many games out there that don't even have physics yet so many people play those games. I don't see

Code: Select all

y = y - 9.8 * dt

as physics so that eliminates a great number of games. Leaving you with games that claim to have good physics ...

Not to mention that we Humanity haven't even completely discovered why and how physics works in the first place. All we can do is guess and approximate. And as you could see by the link flood it leads to some comical results.

Good physics is a myth in games and will stay as such for a long time to come.

But the biggest "rofl" moment I had reading your list was realizing that some of the all time greatest games ... didn't even have any form of physics. Take a Pac-Man, Nibbles (Snake), Tetris for example ... Aside from the blocks in tetris moving down there is absolutely no physics in there yet everyone knows all of these games.

3. Heavy repetition with very gradual changes to the environment.

Lolwhat?

First of all I do not clearly understand what you mean with this. But anything on the computer is repetitive by design. And I really mean it. Your CPU works because it can repeatedly do exactly the same damn thing over and over again but with "gradual changes to the environment". I could even go as far as say the entire world or even the entire universe is based around this "mechanic" which you use to "limit" your choice in finding a specific subset that would define the "attractiveness" of games. Nice going "gamemaker" ... a very clear way to say which fruit you like by saying "everything edible and everything not edible".

Now I could ramble on about how progression and environment change has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes a good or "popular" game but I think the above rant clearly defines what points I would make anyway.

If you ask me what I think is a good game:

1. Do I enjoy it?

And that is totally it. No multilevel complex diagrams and numerous fields of points to look at. No point in defining any meaningful base points to define what would constitute a good game. Anything that is fun and entertains you has a pretty good chance of entertaining others just as much as you (with minor variations based on opinion and statistical improbability).

I feel the need to add a little disclaimer since my wording is somewhat rough in places. I in no way mean any disrespect or insult of any kind to anyone or anything in the above rant. Anything said is purely an opinion from some guy listening to loud music while browsing a odd corner of the internet.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion and/or acknowledge my every word (Yes there is an "and" in there (Schrödinger would agree)).

-- CyaNox

[Plu]

What makes a popular game has very little to do with what makes a memorable game, an interesting game, a good game, or a lot of other things. Are you sure you're asking the right question? Generally what makes games popular is either a huge marketing and development budget or a lot of luck. It usually comes down to either launching the next game with a big, existing name and not really changing anything, or launching something that's refreshing, generally casual and very cheap, that people can do when bored and that are easy to learn and share with friends.

[gamemaker91]

I'd say Great gameplay is MUCH more important than Great Graphics. I.e. Minecraft has 256 pixels per cube face and yet has 10,000,000 sales

Btw people don't play Minecraft because it's great. They play it because they have psychological issues lmao. Apparently people who take meth have an unatural compulsion to dig holes (I learned this from Breaking Bad ), so maybe there's some meth in the water-supplies of these players?

Popular games aren't "great" imo. They just have something that a large audience needs.

However, you are right, Minecraft is both popular and lacks the graphics that I said would make a game popular. However, I did not say not-having good graphics means a game can never be popular also I was speaking in generality

[gamemaker91]

What makes a popular game has very little to do with what makes a memorable game, an interesting game, a good game, or a lot of other things. Are you sure you're asking the right question? Generally what makes games popular is either a huge marketing and development budget or a lot of luck. It usually comes down to either launching the next game with a big, existing name and not really changing anything, or launching something that's refreshing, generally casual and very cheap, that people can do when bored and that are easy to learn and share with friends.

I was asking a question that I know lots of people would love to know the answer to, so that they can acquire wealth. I am personally not very interested in making a popular game but more in making a game that I enjoy, for now at least.

I just giggled there ...

You just summed up just about every possible game in existence

Problem is the generalization in your 3 points.

1. Great Graphics.

This is highly subject to opinion. For example I very much dislike the graphics style in lets say ... a Fallout New Vegas especially outside the city (A total color blind person would have the same experience (its all freaking gray)). Yet its still nice to play.
Then there is Minecraft with its extremely basic graphics, no shaders, filters or anything. You get the raw textures with all its artifact glory in your face. Some are excessively horrified by such eye rape yet it sold over 10 million copies now (and is still going).

In other words the graphics are completely irrelevant if you ask me. As long as it adheres to a certain visual acceptance.

2. Good physics.

Hah ... I've yet to see a game with actual good physics. Problem with physics in games is that it takes many shortcuts to become a real-time calculation instead of an accurate one. There are so many games out there that don't even have physics yet so many people play those games. I don't see

Code: Select all

y = y - 9.8 * dt

as physics so that eliminates a great number of games. Leaving you with games that claim to have good physics ...

Not to mention that we Humanity haven't even completely discovered why and how physics works in the first place. All we can do is guess and approximate. And as you could see by the link flood it leads to some comical results.

Good physics is a myth in games and will stay as such for a long time to come.

But the biggest "rofl" moment I had reading your list was realizing that some of the all time greatest games ... didn't even have any form of physics. Take a Pac-Man, Nibbles (Snake), Tetris for example ... Aside from the blocks in tetris moving down there is absolutely no physics in there yet everyone knows all of these games.

3. Heavy repetition with very gradual changes to the environment.

Lolwhat?

First of all I do not clearly understand what you mean with this. But anything on the computer is repetitive by design. And I really mean it. Your CPU works because it can repeatedly do exactly the same damn thing over and over again but with "gradual changes to the environment". I could even go as far as say the entire world or even the entire universe is based around this "mechanic" which you use to "limit" your choice in finding a specific subset that would define the "attractiveness" of games. Nice going "gamemaker" ... a very clear way to say which fruit you like by saying "everything edible and everything not edible".

Now I could ramble on about how progression and environment change has absolutely nothing to do with what constitutes a good or "popular" game but I think the above rand clearly defines what points I would make anyway.

If you ask me what I think is a good game:

1. Do I enjoy it?

And that is totally it. No multilevel complex diagrams and numerous fields of points to look at. No point in defining any meaningful base points to define what would constitute a good game. Anything that is fun and entertains you has a pretty good chance of entertaining others just as much as you (with minor variations based on opinion and statistical improbability).

I feel the need to add a little disclaimer since my wording is somewhat rough in places. I in no way mean any disrespect or insult of any kind to anyone or anything in the above rant. Anything said is purely an opinion from some guy listening to loud music while browsing a odd corner of the internet.

Feel free to disagree with my opinion and/or acknowledge my every word (Yes there is an "and" in there (Schrödinger would agree)).

-- CyaNox

Oh please do ramble on, I will almost certainly not read it.

I'd say Great gameplay is MUCH more important than Great Graphics. I.e. Minecraft has 256 pixels per cube face and yet has 10,000,000 sales

People play minecraft because there's meth in their water, not because it's a good game

Also I never said not having good graphics means a game cannot acquire popularity, I was saying that generally people are attracted to these three things so long as they are all together.

Obviously though it's all about personal preference and unless you have an understanding of the psyche behind current society you're probably not going to know what causes popularity. If I was to make a statement that would always be true to answer this question, I would say "a game that will become popular possesses something that the majority of potential gamers requires yet does not yet have or cannot get by alternative means".

[Jasoco]

I happen to love Minecraft and there is sure as hell no Meth in my water. Plus you insult someone who typed up a perfectly smart reply and summarize it as rambling.

[Xgoff]

space marines

[Compost]

Relevant : http://blog.brainhex.com/

I'd like to see the number of people who tested for each type...