what makes a game good?

[gbpxl]

i think for a game to be good it has to do a few things. One it has to be visually appealing. Two the challenge has to be moderate and progressive. Too easy and it doesnt feel rewarding. Too hard and its not fun. Not only that but the game needs to provide the player with a new challenge as the game progresses. Zeldas later dungeons are harder than the earlier ones. Tetris speeds up. Pacmans ghost dont stay vulnerable as long. These things keep me glued to the screen. Three the action has to feel satisfying. Does eating a pac pellet feel rewarding? It does to me. Four the background music has to be good. I dont want to have to turn the sound off to enjoy the game.

[Aussie2B]

For me, it totally depends on the individual game and the sum of its parts. Something that I may considering a game-ruining flaw in one game may be something I can overlook in another. Things like an appealing visual style and enjoyable music are important to me, but I can think of games I've enjoyed despite finding them visually ugly or unpleasant to listen to. I generally like a healthy challenge in games, but I can think of games I've loved despite finding them quite easy. And then there are genres where I expect entirely different things. I'm obviously not going to care much about the difficulty of a visual novel, or about the gameplay or lack thereof in general, but I am expecting an interesting story, which is not something I especially care about getting in any game genres besides visual novels.

[Bazoo]

The interesting thing about games is that there are so many different ways for a game to be enjoyable. Movies and books sort of have prescribed plot devices they need to follow. There are definitely experimental movies and books that achieve greatness, but experimental plot structures sometimes fall flat on their face with audiences. Case in point, with movies and books, audiences almost always need to connect with characters, and there aren't many avenues outside of that golden rule. With games, however, if I devised a rule, then I could probably come up with a hundred counter-examples of fantastic games that break the rule. You could devise a great plot with great characters, but you could also have a blank slate character (i.e. Mario) and it might be more advantageous to the game. Your characters might not feel like characters at all (i.e. a spaceship that shoots swarming aliens or a paddle that bounces a ball).

I am tempted to make some claims about difficulty curve, but some games kill you over and over but just draw you back. I suppose for audiences to enjoy your game at all, it shouldn't feel unfairly difficult. But then there are games (walking simulators) where difficulty isn't even a factor at all. For those reasons, I believe games are a medium that we haven't experienced before. I don't think we've even seen every genre of possible game yet.

[sancoa]

I would say that the main component for most action games is good level design.

[jb143]

Balance. Basically what Aussie2B said. A game can be not so great in some areas but more than make up for it on others and come out as a good game. What gbpxl said is what I would consider what makes a great game...being in really good in all areas. The same goes for all games, not just video games. Board games, especially, that aren't well balanced just aren't very fun to play.