hello all i was wondering in your own opinion what % makes a video game i mean what thrives players to play it i mean 10-15% is the music of the game then 50% of it makes the visuals of the game than the rest is the story line of the game or in rare cases lack of story line if its just a shoot em up game any way feel free to to make a judgment on this if you want to (:
I think it differs from game to game nowadays. I guess though I would say Pretty much what he just said.
100% graphics, nothing else matters. Not really. I'd say it depends on the game. Some games you can bear with awful graphics, awful soundtrack, even awful gameplay if that's not the overall experience. Look at Mass Effect. It honestly plays like shit and graphically, it looks pretty bland nowadays (not to mention texture pop ins and slowdowns). But the story is amazing, the musical score is great, and the voice acting is fantastic. It's the experience that makes the game, not the game.
converting something that aren't really based on numbers is hard. i don't get how it can or is divided into such percentages.
As said before, it does depend on the game. Percentages are a hard thing to get right, as well, since all games are different. Even within a single genre, the percentages are never the same for each game. It's kind of like comparing the beauty between a velociraptor and a parrot. For example: Games by thatgamecompany are very different from normal games and its their presentation that is most praised and not the gameplay, because the gameplay is just another aspect that adds to the graphics and sound. Good games on Nintendo consoles are praised for their gameplay and fun aspect, due to the fact that no Nintendo console has gone above and beyond in graphical/audio capabilities for current generation gaming. Call of Duty games are praised for how few 12-year-old kids are on the online services cussing and complaining about cheating when they're killed by legitimately skilled players. Which is usually never unless you're still playing the first Call of Duty game. Games based on movies, TV shows, or books are usually praised for how fun the game is and how much they stick to the source material the movie/show creators have set out for the developers to work with. Before you say anything, there HAVE been a few games to do it right enough to get some praise. Don't deny it. You know it's true. Sequels are praised for how they expand the story and define the ending that the prior game didn't get (usually because the game was setting up for a sequel or because the developers got lazy or something). Examples of unneeded sequels, so you can understand what I'm talking about: Tales of Symphonia: Dawn of the New World. ToS got a perfectly good ending that didn't need expanding upon. Or that's what I hear, anyway. I'm still not done with Tales of Symphonia yet. Games about zombie apocalypses (or apocalypses that cause similar effects as a zombie one) are praised for how much fun it is to kill zombies (or not-zombies) for hours on end. Yes, even Resident Evil gets this. And yes, Silent Hill is also merged into this category, despite not having any zombies or not-zombies. I hope my examples helped explain things a bit more.
^ Despite having almost anything else to play (the GBAtemp game library is extensive to say the least) said game is what has taken up most of my game playing time of late. I would not mind so much but on paper it has the perfect storm of negative things for me (set in a school, complex stats of dubious merit/use, set in a school, no overarching story so far, set in a school, character development as an incidental (although you are given choices as to how you might act even if it suffers the hard to predict what will happen thing), set in a school, somewhat restricted "open" play, set in a school, mainly text/stats/day planner driven gameplay with nothing much in the way of backreferencing*, set in a school, art that while nice would not be out of place in most fantasy settings (you thought you had generic fantasy burnout- I can't even watch lord of the rings without thinking how this sort of thing was far improved and expanded upon later in life), set in a school and it goes on) . Equally when the next one hits I am fairly sure I will be there for it although that might be the little seen and rarely well done mechanic of maintaining a character across games. *I liked having to take notes in various games, admittedly I can see how it would end up being a logistical nightmare for the devs.
The main thing for me would be the gameplay, you know, the enjoyment in playing the game, that buzz that makes you wanna return to it. The graphical aspect would not bother me in the slightest, if the game had great graphics then all the better, but it would not be paramount for me. The story, well that obviously depends on what genre of game you are playing, for an RPG then a good story would help to keep my interest in the game.
I don't know if I can put into percentages, but it all requires a healthy balance. I think all games should look good. That doesn't mean graphics, mind you; we're talking purely aesthetics (A good example: Parappa the Rapper's art style helps the game look nice and fresh today, even though it was made for the PS1. Gears of War, despite benefiting from the graphical power of the 360, has an ugly, dull, and forgettable design). They draw a player into the world of the game, immersing them in the whole experience. Story is key for me. I've found that when I get drawn into the tale a game weaves, I can easily forgive (or just not notice) many minor flaws when it comes to gameplay. A good example, for me anyway, is Grand Theft Auto IV. Many people have told me that the gameplay was stiff and boring; they may be right, but I was so interested in Niko Bellic's story that I never had those issues. Finally, there's the gameplay. It's kind of like the skeleton; if you don't have a strong backbone of gameplay, the whole structure is going to collapse into a mushy blob. It isn't everything, but it can't be neglected either. If it isn't engaging and enjoyable, at least on some level, than no amount of storytelling prowess or aesthetic brilliance can salvage the game. Now, there are exceptions, but this is just a general list of the necessary components to construct a good videogame.
Depends what I feel like playing. In general, i'd say 75% story, 24% OST/sounds in general, 1% gameplay, 0% graphics. Graphics mean very, very little to me if the game has an amazing story. Good graphics DO help though, but they're not essential. I loved Corpse Party, and it uses a bit more of an oldschool approach to graphics (CG scenes aside). Gameplay doesn't matter much either, i'll suffer through bad gameplay to progress a good story if I have to, but obviously decent gameplay and a great story is preferable. I'd almost rank the importance of OSTs higher because music has a HUGE emotional impact on a game. That's part of the reason Nier is such an amazing game, the music adds a TON to it. Doesn't mean I don't just play games for the fun of them, in which case i'm about 85% gameplay, 10% OST/sounds, 5% graphics. But really, it's way too hard to put a percentage on it.
- 85% Gameplay - 10% Graphics - 5% Audio I only give graphics 10%, because in a way they do matter. For example, a NES doesn't have enough power to run a game that's full 3D. I could carless about anything that looks better than a standard Gamecube game. If the gameplay is good enough, I won't even notice the graphics.
40% gameplay 40% story (when applicable), as in "is it interesting, captivating, fun, you want to see what happen next" 10% Audio 10% Graphics Of course, relative to each console's capability. The story can be very good, if it's so frustrating to control the character, I give up. a lot of DS games had bad controls, very very slow movements. they need to be balanced to keep the player captivated, if you spend more time trying to play than playing, it's useless.
I agree with this. Games draw you in with their game play, pull you in with their story, and mesmerize you with their graphics and sound. At least that's how I see it.
