This got me to thinking about what it takes for a game to be "great" in our modern era. I think it comes down to a few attributes, and a game can be missing one of these and probably still be great.
- Individualization.
- Replay value.
- Multiple goals.
- Well disguised complexity.
- Freshness.
- Longevity.
Individualization: Traditional games, the games most of us over the age of 30 grew up with, were very structured and there were very limited ways to play them. Board games, such as Monopoly and Clue, or card games like Pinochle and Bridge, had random elements that allowed the game experience to be different each time, but in general there was not much variability in the winning strategies. You might be a better player than I, and win more often, because you understood the strategies better than I, but the opportunity to let personality into the strategies was limited, compared to what great games today allow.
Diablo II lets a player choose from among seven different character classes, each with its own options for customization within the class. Seemingly unlimited random items which can be used by the characters provide further opportunities for individuals to express their own style of play.
But Diablo II is not alone. The most successful MMOs (Massively Multiplayer Online games) such as World of Warcraft (WoW) have the same kind of customizing features. So do games like Magic: the Gathering (M:tG) and Dungeons & Dragons (D&D) in their own ways.
Replay value: Admittedly, the great traditional games have this same attribute, so replay value represents a differentiator between good (or bad!) games and great games. I really like "Scene It?" - a DVD-based trivia game. However, playing it more than a couple times a night, a couple times a year gets tiring. It's a good game. But you tire of playing it over and over.
The same would not be said by lovers of Bridge, Pinochle, M:tG or Civilization III, (CivIII) nor by the tens of thousands of fans who still play Diablo II regularly and the thousands more who play irregularly (like my friends and me.)
Multiple goals: I'm not sure I have picked the words quite right here. Perhaps my explanation will help me find the right phrase. You see, in many games these days there are multiple ways for a player to have fun. I've already pointed people to it in my entry titled "Call me Timmy - Or Melvin", but the M:tG design team understands that there are several ways to have fun with their game, and if the design team is careful, they can satisfy many people with one game. Thus, it's not always about winning the game -- sometimes it's about how you win, or making something specific happen.
But, in addition to having multiple possible ways to have fun, games can provide multiple subordinate goals on the way to completing the game. Diablo II has five acts (in its expanded form; four in the original) and each act has multiple quests, each map has multiple waypoints to reach, and each character grows in level. Thus, despite the game taking hours to complete, a goal can be reached in one play session relatively easily.
Civ III, and to some extent, its predecessor versions are perfect examples. While the ultimate goal is to win the game, on the way, players can choose to win by conquering, or by diplomacy, or by cooperating with other players, or by scientific and technology advancement. The "JOMT" (Just One More Turn) phenomenon keeps people playing this game, and Heroes of Might & Magic III (HoMM3), for hours because it seems each turn allows a player to complete a subgoal.
Well-disguised complexity: Inherent in all the "great" modern games I can think of, and necessary if the level of individualization is high, is a level of complexity that allows wide variation in the game experience. However, if that complexity shows through to every player, only a few people will stick with the game. There are many miniature-based games (usually war games or battle games) which have very complicated rules. A few people, who love the strategy and/or the particular milieu in which the game is set, find these games appealing. Most, however, don't appreciate having to spend hours learning a game before ever being able to play it, only to be rewarded by hour-long turns filled with calculations and rule interpretation discussions.
Computer games can get past much of this, hiding it from the casual gamer, by incorporating the complex mechanics internally, while presenting a smooth, visually intuitive experience. Not all computer games do this well, but the great games do. And, in fact, the great games allow a player to delve deeply into the mechanics and gain some slight advantage by doing so, but still make it possible for a less intensive player to succeed and have fun.
What's even more amazing is when a highly complex game can appear fairly simple, and be quickly taught, with non-computerized games. To me, this is what makes M:tG nearly unique. Sure, a novice can't watch a game between masters and know what's going on in their heads, but he understands the basics. And someone who doesn't know the game at all can be given a beginner's deck and be playing within a few minutes.
Freshness: This is almost self-explanatory, but not quite. There are at least a few ways to get "freshness" in a game. The first, and most obvious, is to have an amount of randomness built into the game to ensure that each time it is played, the experience is different than the last, and often very different. With this freshness comes the feeling of surprise and discovery that thrills most game players. M:tG does this with a large card base and the randomness associated with shuffling. Civ III does this by generating a random map each time and having some randomness in the AI of the opponents. I gather that WoW does it by making a virtual world that is huge.
But WoW also accomplishes freshness by another technique - frequent expansions. Blizzard, the company that makes the game (and the money) produces expansions to keep it fresh. Wizards of the Coast does the same thing for M:tG. Every so often, there are new things to be discovered, evaluated and enjoyed - all of which have been designed to augment the experience.
As I mentioned in my opening, this is the one area where Diablo II is lacking. There is a slight amount of variability in the maps in the opening acts, but for the most part, each game covers the same ground, facing the same obstacles. We haven't had new character classes added since the "Lord of Destruction" expansion, and we've not had a new map since then, either.
Great games can make up for a lack of freshness somewhat if they take a long time to play. This allows for a feeling of "it's been a while since I've been here" when you start over. Similarly, if they have sufficient side quests or hidden levels which are not required for the completion of the game, but which are fun to play, there is "freshness" to be had. The later "Super Mario" and "Legend of Zelda" games from Nintendo use these tactics to allow some freshness and encourage re-play. But in my opinion, the Great Games have freshness baked (designed) in.
Longevity: In a sense, longevity doesn't belong on the list. A new game can be great, even though it has not existed for long. But if you want to spot a great game, you could use a worse rule of thumb than "Are there still large groups of people playing it two years after it was released? Or four? Or Six?"
Longevity can be supported by the gaming companies which produce the games, as in the case of games which have regular expansions, but it's not necessary. HoMM3 is not produced anymore (HoMM4 was a dismal follow-on. HoMM5 might be better; I haven't tried) but there are loyal players who keep a decent community going. Diablo II is only supported in a small way by Blizzard (they still provide servers for on-line play, despite making no money doing so.)
So, there you have it. I may think of some additional attributes, but I think I have the basics covered. All of the modern games I consider "great" have five of these six characteristics, and most of them have all six. As I look for new games that will have a chance of making it into my personal "Great Games" list, I will look for them to measure up in these areas.
And when I find one, I'm pretty sure I'll say something in this blog.
Happy gaming!
[1] Full disclosure: We played it with the "Lord of Destruction" expansion which came out in 2001.
No comments:
Post a Comment