what do you look for most in a video game?

[importgamer13]

I was wondering what people look for most in a video game.

Is it the hidden extras,like unlockable characters/levels/interviews,etc.,the voice acting,the story,the graphics,the game's difficulty,or something else?

I have some thoughts on that,but i thought i'd see what other people look for in a game first.

[R-9]

Depends on the kind of game, actually.

RPG:

-Character abilities. Not the specific capabilities a character has, but that the characters are capapble of doing things right from the get-go. This is why I've sworn off most US-made computer RPGs.

-A hero that's good at hero-ing. No excessive whiners, no meat robots.

-A good musical score. This doesn't matter as much in most action games, where the sound of the action tends to drown out the music, but in an RPG you'll be spending all of the game listening to the tracks.

-A variety of viable characters. While variety is nice, what's more important to me is that all of the characters you get are viable members for your party throughout the duration of the game.

-Here's one that most RPGs tend not to pass nowadays. When I play an RPG, I want my actions to matter. I don't want to be scripted to somehow fail all the time until I reach the final dungeon. Starting in a bad spot is all right, but remaining in that bad spot for the entire game? the programmers might as well just have the game be one huge cutscene until the final dungeon, 'cause I obviously have no input anyway.

Strategy Games (Not Warcraft-style RTS):

-Multiple viable options. I don't want there to be only one strategy to win, or simply one strategy that trumps all others. I want to have multiple venues with which I can defeat my enemies.

-Minimal micromanagement. I don't like having to tell my generals to train my troops, nor do I like to have to manage crops. That's not a strategy game, that's farming.

-Difficulty settings. 'Nuff said.

Real-time tactical

-Customisability. I want to be able to play around with my units, looking at what combination of troops and equipment fits my playstyle best.

-No railroading. Again, I like there to be multiple methods that I can use achieve an objective.

-Non-cheating AI. Believe it or not, this can actually be a problem, whether it's opponents that never un out of resources, or looking at your fleet and making the fleet best-suited to counter it be your opponents in the next mission.

-Difficulty settings. 'Nuff said.

Turn-based tactical:

-Movement that makes sense. While I do like the alternating movement scheme implemented in some tabletop games, it doesn't work for the computer. I like to be able to move large clumps of units at once, depending on scale.

-Play balance: Turn-based tactical games generally rely on a point-balancing system, derived from wargames.   I'd like this to actually mean something.

Action games

-Difficulty settings. 'Nuff said.

-Responsive controls. I cannot emphasize this enough. I want what my character does to correspond to the buttons I push or keys I press.

-Non-stupid level design. A warehouse should look like a warehouse, and most warehouses tend not to have giant crushing pillars.


More to come.

[bfg00]

I will agree with what R-9 said.  When I buy a game I look at the artwork, the story (if there is one) and gameplay and see if I like it, if it doesn't pass my aesthetic requirements I don't buy it (of course there are exceptions).

[tetsaru arigashi]

probably one of the biggest things that i value in a game is customization - being able to customize your own characters down to the last pixel, stat point, move, etc., and creating other stuff.  i enjoyed the Tony Hawk games because of the various Create-A-Something features in it, and now i heard that Project 8 isn't going to have the Create-A-Park mode anymore...  >=(  Pokemon was another good example in being able to pick from a large selection of monsters, and then raise them knowing that no two of the same species will be exactly the same.  if only they'd just make ONE damn version of the game where you COULD actually "catch 'em all" without any trading or gimmicky bullshit.  it made me SO FUCKING MAD that i couldn't get Lugia in Fire Red/Leaf Green without having that damn ticket thing they always do, or a cheating device, which i don't like using...  but i digress.  another example would be the Gummi ships from Kingdom Hearts - that was always fun.

replay value is another thing.  i still play PSO every once in a while due to how much you can level up your characters, and because of the fact that all the rare items are INSANELY difficult to find, which, although frustrating at times, makes you want to play the game more.

add in awesome storyline, characters (if you can't make your own), graphics, music/soundtrack, a challenging but not frustrating difficulty, and shitloads of cool bonus stuff to find/collect to keep you busy, and then you have a badass game, imo.

one more thing - good controls, including the camera angles, are a must-have for me.  being able to change the button configurations (another form of customization) is always a nice thing.

[Snorlax.RAYZR]

I want the creators to pay attention to the little details that'll make people say, "Shit, they were really into it when making this game..."

When creators predict how players will react, or what players will do.

Take MGS for example.

I was playing for 6 hours straight, and what do I get? "Raiden, turn the game console off."
Or MGS3's intro sequence, after he opens his chute. R1 for interactivity. I look around, then look straight up. Then when the interactive scene's over and goes back to the cut, Snake's looking up.
Or in any MGS really: Whatever mayhem you try to start, you'll get a codec call about it.

Things like that. Half-Life 2 really broguht something to modern gaming but it was so linear, y'know? All they did was make some new graphics stuff and show that people really "spoke" but you only really saw it like... three or four times in the game. Doom 3 had physics but you never really used it. Everything was dark and bumpmapped.

It can look fucking cool but suck hard ass. Or it can be short but have a lot of things that'll make you go, "Shit, that's hella creative."

I don't get myself right now, but I think I get it.

I need sleep. Hopefully someone gets what I mean. J'suis un putain de francais, d'acc! (I know someone here's gonna try to translate that. Because I read your mind, I get rep. ROFLSHORYU)

[importgamer13]

I agree with alot of those points actually.Some others i wish to add are...

Replay value:
It's great whenever you can unlock other playable characters,levels,modes of play,etc.Look at Megaman Powered Up for PSP.If you beat a Wily Robot using nothing but Megaman's buster gun,that robot opens up as a playable character with their own storyline!

Fun factor:
This should be obvious,you should be having fun as you play a game.People wonder how i can stand to play Megaman Xtreme 1 and 2 (Gameboy Color),even though i also have Megaman Maverick Hunter X (PSP)...it's because i have alot of fun with Xtreme 1 and 2,even though Maverick Hunter X beats it on graphics.Honestly,i have just as fun playing 8 Bit Kunio games and 16 bit Sailor Moon games as i do when playing Star Wars Battlefront 2,Resident Evil Outbreak or Dead or Alive 3.If i'm not having fun with a game,i don't play it.

extras:
Stuff like blooper reels,interviews with the game makers/voice cast,etc.,are always nice to see.TMNT Mutant Melee,Star Wars Bounty Hunter and Star Wars Republic Commando are examples of this.

[DualSoul]

For RPGs, story and character development.
For action games, ease of control, variety in enemies, the ability to unlock abilities.
In fighting games, depth.