What part of a game makes you want to buy it?

[MBrown]

I was just wonder this. SP, MP, Graphics?

 

[PingSpike]

Usually multiplayer, but there's a few singleplayer games that promise much more replay value than the norm, due to their design that I'm interesting in.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Good reviews and good multiplayer, mostly, but I also look heavily at the features and what the gameplay looks like.

I think every developer should abandon single player.....it's just not fun. Even the decent AI in Far Cry was easy enough to exploit. I didn't finish either HL2 or Doom 3 cause I got so bored. Splinter Cell, for example, has that multiplayer where a few guys are the spies and everybody else is the henchman trying to stop them........I think that's a good start. Now give every individual character their own dynamic storyline and side missions interwoven with multiplayer that changes the over-arching storyline and you've got a serious game there.

 

[Malladine]

Depends. I can deal with the lack of MP in games like Morrowing and Civ, but no longer in less heavy (Diablo style) rpgs or fps of any kind. I enjoy single player games in their own right; if they are complex, interesting and fun i'm down

I think every developer should abandon single player

To say that every dev should abandon sp is going too far. For the games I mentioned above, sure, but sp is still fun in other game types - Civ 4, Oblivion, HOMM5 are all sp games i'm waiting for. That said, i've probably had more fun in mp. SP makes a nice change after frenetic mp action

Graphics are further down the list, but still a valid issue. If the game runs smoothly however, and the graphics engine does the gameworld justice, I can put up with lesser graphics. Obviously gameplay is number 1.

 

[akubi]

multi

 

[Whitecloak]

gameplay.

 

[HeroOfPellinor]

Originally posted by: Malladine
To say that every dev should abandon sp is going too far. For the games I mentioned above, sure, but sp is still fun in other game types - Civ 4, Oblivion, HOMM5 are all sp games i'm waiting for.

Maybe, but I'm suggesting rethinking how all games, even RTS and turn-based games are played. Imagine Rome Total War, only once you've amassed your huge army and have a booming economy that you're so proud of, you can then cross into contested lands.

Say you've got an RTS game with valve-style online-only disttribution and every 16 or 32 players are dropped into a shared world that they will belong in permanently. Each gets their own share of the world and can invade other lands. For balance sake, we'll say that you have some "multiplayer only" resources that accrue even when you're offline and these are all you can use to invade other lands. Or how about we say the players each control their own chunk of the world except South America which becomes contested lands super rich in resources that can help you immensely in your home land's campaigns. Take it off earth onto alien planets or alternative universes where you have more flexibility in landscape orientaiton and the possibilities grow.

Hell, I don't know, I'm at work and I thought this stuff up in the minute and half it took me to write this, imagine a group of people focussed on this full time for a few weeks. I can't see any game that wouldn't benefit from being formed into at least a hybrid single-player/multi-player. AoEIII will have a "home city" that you will actually level up persistently as you play to unlock new techs and units, thereby blending a little snipplet of an RPG into their game....we already have RPG/FPS games like Planetside and Guild Wars....it's just the next logical progression.

 

[ockky]

COOP! ...... obviously i don't get to buy games that often

thank god for the following thou:
Baldur's Gate series
System Shock 2
Unreal
Neverwinter Nights series
Freespace series
Starlancer
X-Wing Alliance
AvP
Serious Sam
Quake
Doom
Duke Nukem 3d
Rainbox Six series
....and even WoW to some extent

i love the coop.....if only doom 3 had it on the PC or if Sven2 would hurry up and finish....or if the coop Far Cry mod would be worked on again

 

[Malladine]

Originally posted by: HeroOfPellinor

Originally posted by: Malladine
To say that every dev should abandon sp is going too far. For the games I mentioned above, sure, but sp is still fun in other game types - Civ 4, Oblivion, HOMM5 are all sp games i'm waiting for.

Maybe, but I'm suggesting rethinking how all games, even RTS and turn-based games are played. Imagine Rome Total War, only once you've amassed your huge army and have a booming economy that you're so proud of, you can then cross into contested lands.

Say you've got an RTS game with valve-style online-only disttribution and every 16 or 32 players are dropped into a shared world that they will belong in permanently. Each gets their own share of the world and can invade other lands. For balance sake, we'll say that you have some "multiplayer only" resources that accrue even when you're offline and these are all you can use to invade other lands. Or how about we say the players each control their own chunk of the world except South America which becomes contested lands super rich in resources that can help you immensely in your home land's campaigns. Take it off earth onto alien planets or alternative universes where you have more flexibility in landscape orientaiton and the possibilities grow.

Hell, I don't know, I'm at work and I thought this stuff up in the minute and half it took me to write this, imagine a group of people focussed on this full time for a few weeks. I can't see any game that wouldn't benefit from being formed into at least a hybrid single-player/multi-player. AoEIII will have a "home city" that you will actually level up persistently as you play to unlock new techs and units, thereby blending a little snipplet of an RPG into their game....we already have RPG/FPS games like Planetside and Guild Wars....it's just the next logical progression.

So you're talking about a fundamental shift into massively multiplayer gaming? I'm not sure mplayer will work with the larger more complex games such as Civ 4, though they are releasing it with mp so we'll see if they can implement short games effectively (re: make em short but keep em fun). It's a tough proposition.

I definately agree that genre blending is the wave of the future.

 

[PingSpike]

Yeah, co-op is definately a very ignored multiplayer component. It used to be big at the dawn of FPS on the PC, but apparently everyone wanted to kill their friends more than work with them.

I can see it making a come back though, the deathmatch grind is kind of getting played. If they can put together some decent AI I can see FPS appealing to a lot of people that normally didn't like them. If you suck, FPS multiplayer isn't going to be a lot of fun. Co-op could allow contributions from crappy players, and they would be more inclined to continue playing.

I mean, look at the learning curve of some of the new games out there. BF2 for instance. If you're not good at FPS to begin with you've got all these assholes calling you a n00b the whole time. And its not like I'm any better, who's going to take it easy on the newbie players when there's good ones out there?

 

[MBrown]

Yeah co-op is awesome.

 

[hans030390]

Hm, for Far Cry, it was graphics. HL2 was for physics. Morrowind was for hugeness. Stuff like that

I do look at all the aspects of the game before buying it.

 

[Bateluer]

Depends on the type of game. SP works better for most RPGs, you get more more a story, plot, and an emotion wretching experience.

An RTS game can have both an excellent SP and MP, but I usually play through the SP before I even touch the MP aspect. Particularly, if the story of the game is good.

FPS games are one genre of games where SP has always been pretty lackluster when compared to other genre's. The best SP experiences in FPS can only be played through once because they do not change. By comparison, you should be able to play through an RPG's SP several times using different characters and get a completely different experience each time.

 

[skace]

What makes me buy a game is whether it does what it boasts well. If it boasts amazing graphics and it appears to bring amazing graphics, then hell I will get it just to check those out. If it boasts an amazing single player campaign and reviews and other people are truely captivated by it, then thats reason enough for me to get it. I rate a game based on what they went out to accomplish, no more or less because in the end, that is what is going to make an enjoyable experience for me.

 

[gorcorps]

I look for both. I want a singleplayer w/ replayability that I'll like everytime I play it. I also want a good multiplayer that isn't just singleplayer with more people. I like to see the multiplayer parts of games to have more thought than that. HL2 was almost there but the singleplayer didn't have much if any replayability. At least the multiplayer game is teh sh!t.

 

[VIAN]

Most of the time I just go to gamerankings.com and look up the game and see which average rating it got. I go for 8.0 or above. Although below could also kick ass, I may not take the chance. I'd have to read a review. Take this game for instance: http://www.gamerankings.com/htmlpages2/557910.asp?q=xiii

This game kicks so much ass IMO. You know why it kicked ass. Story. decent gameplay. great interesting graphics. Even if gameplay wasn't the greatest, the story was enough to keep playing, waiting to see what was next and the gameplay was interesting and not bothersome enough to make you want to stop playing. This game though is with an average of 73. I think it's unfair. Especially in a time where some reviewers were specifically looking for innovative stuff and you game didn't have it, it was just mediocre. XIII was a game I had a lot of fun playing.

Single player is the most important aspect to me. I don't care at all about multiplayer, but if it has it and it's good, it's a nice bonus.

I definitely look at graphics because it plays a big part in immersion. I hope that it has a good, epic story.

Well, let me just use my favorite game Unreal. I love this game and use it as a standard benchmark to judge all games. Unreal had a beautiful epic story. A nice length. great, beautiful varied environments. The gameplay wasn't repetitive. And a great soundtrack that new it's place.

LOVED IT!!

Or some of my other favorites, let's look at RTCW. What was great about this game was it's great graphics. it was immersive and the world looked believable. Agains varied environments. Had and interesting story that you picked up throughout the game, just like Unreal.

And ATTENTION to DETAIL is a biggy. One of the reasons Max Payne was cool was because it had all those little extra things. Everyone had an interesting conversation. There were soap operas with commercials. That made the world so much cooler and interesting and believable. Extra little subtleties make games so much cooler. It gives them personality.

Oh, and I don't care about replayability in single player. I don't like playing a game more than twice.

 

[Fern]

SP missions (sci-fi or fantasy, no WWII stuff) + graphics. Don't do much MP.

 

[HamburgerBoy]

1. Non-linearity.
2. First person perspective.
3. RPG elements.
4. Storyline.

Everything else is unimportant.

 

[shortylickens]

Single-player and overall quality of gameplay. Graphics mean very little to my actual enjoyment.

Doom 3 looked cool as hell, but quality of play was below Doom 1, Duke Nukem 3D, anything in the Half-Life series, and even Serious Sam. ID has made some good games over the years (RTCW, Quake 1 and 2) but I think they sacrificed substance for flash in Doom 3.

People were so pissed off about Jedi Outcast and Jedi Academy running on the venereable Quake 3 engine, I think they may have missed out on some truly fun experiences.
Same with Baldurs Gate compared to Neverwinter Nights. The only thing NWN had going for it was the 3D, and it wasnt all that great anyway. The gameplay in BG I and II was so superior I wondered what Black Isle was thinking.

By the way, I still love Total Anihilation and Kingdoms. Am very much looking forward to Supreme Commander to pull me out of my blue funk in PC gaming.

P.S. Act of War was a pleasant little suprise.

 

[JBT]

multiplayer. After I beat a single player game I MIGHT pick it up to play through once more a few months later but multiplayer keeps me playing daily.

 

[Kaspian]

Gameplay....:thumbsup:

 

[mOeeOm]

A great singleplayer with a free multiplayer that has a lot of mods and custom maps to keep me busy like Half-life 2//Wc3//Half-Life 1/Starcraft did this so well Kept me busy for so long.

 

[BespinReactorShaft]

In descending order:

Weaponry (extra points: sfx with oomph!, special i.e. incendiary/high-damage single-shot/dismemberment damage)
Violence (extra points: good death animations from special damages above, gibbable bodies, giblets are persistent i.e. not evaporate after some time)
Graphics (extra points: scenic outdoors, presence of nubiles)
Storyline (extra points: smart dialogue/voice acting)

 

[Xyclone]

Multiplayer.