What makes a good game? (Part 4)

I've hit a few points of what I consider key components of a good video game in recent posts. The is the last post on the topic. While I consider these required for a game to be good, that doesn't mean the game won't be successful or profitable. These are mainly just characteristics of games that I've noticed have stuck around longer than others, games that people tend to play more often than others. The last component I feel needs to be included for a game to be good is realism.

---

Part 4

---

Realism isn't that the game reflects real life physics, but that would be nice. When I talk of game realism I mean that the game reacts the way you would expect it to. If a FPS game is going to put in a sniper rifle alongside a battle rifle, the sniper better have a much longer range than the battle rifle. If a rocket launcher is present, it better cause a lot of damage. With newer games, developers are even able to implement destructible environment. This means if I shoot a bridge with a rocket, the bridge better collapse.

Game developers need to first and foremost establish a law of physics for their games. Once that law has been established, they need to abide by it. One of the first things players will do when they get a game (besides playing through the storyline) is to test the limits of the game's physics. If a game reacts the way players expect it to, within whatever rules of the game exist, players will be able to enjoy the game more. If unexpected results happen, the game becomes to unpredictable and therefore un-enjoyable.