What is important to you in a game?

[Serious J]

I''m curious to see where everyone stands with what, in their opinion, is the most important feature of a game. Please choose a poll option and post your choice to encourage some dialogue.

For me, it would have to be the interface/accessibility. Without this, I feel you cannot properly access the other core concepts.

[Wheelchair]

If you don't have the balance of all the above, then you don't have a game.. Simply put.

[Paul d]

Though graphics aren't too important, especially when you go pick up your Snes to play some early 90's games.

[ccllnply]

Well, I don't really mind graphics. As long as its not some sort of Japanese style game with wierd colours and cartoon style graphics. The main reason I didn't buy Metal Gear Solid 2 was because of the over usage of orange and the "!" thing you got over character's heads. Gameplay is the most important for me. I'd still play MTW if I could.

Looking over the choices for the poll, I see Pro Evoltution 2008 has none of the above

[Moosferatu]

Gameplay - Essential, it is a game after all. It is hard to determine what is 'good' gameplay.
Innovation - Innovation is nice, and can make or break a game, it doesn't have to be ground breaking, just nice additions here and there that aren't found in games of the same genre.
Graphics - Graphics are by no means the sole purpose to judge a game, as long as the graphics aren't an eyesore, or scandelously outdated (new games only), then it's unimportant.
Interface/Accessibility - A steep learning curve always puts me off a game, and I'll either put it down or start cheating. Short learning curves that allow you to just get straight into the game are a must.
Multiplayer - Multiplayer is common in games nowadays, it depends on the genre. Games like Oblivion should NEVER have multiplayer, whereas some games liek Call of Duty and Dead Rising leave me craving a co-op mode.
Art/writing direction - Good stories are excellent in games, but some games should just have a basic outline and let you get on with the game, e.g Doom.

Balance.

[ccllnply]

Interface/Accessibility - A steep learning curve always puts me off a game, and I'll either put it down or start cheating. Short learning curves that allow you to just get straight into the game are a must.

I don't really agree with that. In my opinion, too many games are made for the "casual gamer" these days.

[gambit]

Balance is obviously essential but individually, gameplay takes it for me.

Graphics are unimportant as I still play games from the Super nintendo and before times. Yet the better they look, the happier I am to shoot someones head off.

Innovation changes over time. Something that was fresh and innovating five years ago is stale and over-used now.

Interface/Accesibility. Probably in third place for importance. Interfaces never truly bothered me as I have patience unless it makes the game impossible. As for accesbility and learning curves, well if you can't handle the game the game doesn't need to be changed. You just can't handle it. Granted the game has to still be balanced in the sense you CAN win, you just need to be better than what you are instead of a game just being plain impossible.

Multiplayer. Fun once you've beaten the game but irrelevant IMO. I play truly great games for their single player. Multiplayer is just a way too pass the time and kill more crap. Not that I don't enjoy it.

Art/Writing Direction. Definitely in second place for importance. Almost nothing is greater in a game than those environments that overwhelm you. A storyline that grabs you by the nuts and takes you for an epic ride. Amazing, creative worlds that, no matter how great the graphics, truly put you in the writers/artists mind. Games like Thief and Shadowrun (I'm a sucker for cyberpunk) come to mind.

To me, it all boils down to Gameplay. Nothing is more important, and I shouldn't really need to explain why. Hell, just look at the words. Game and play. It's why we play games, for gameplay. A game could have great graphics, a convenient interface, an ingenious plot and world environment, fantastic multiplayer or an extremely innovative idea. No one would like it, if the gameplay isn't good. Without good gameplay, you might as well be watching a movie because you shouldn't have to use the effort to do something boring or overly-tedious.

Of course, the perfect game is a balance of all of these.

[Turkeys!]

A good balance of the above

[Serious J]

Hmmm, so far the results have been rather interesting.

The #1 reason most people say Bioshock was an amazing game was due to it's art direction... yet not a single vote for art/writing direction.

Games have concentrated heavily on improving graphics while gameplay and innovation have stagnated for a decade now... yet not a single vote for graphics. (this one really surprises me)

Are developers becoming increasingly out of touch with their customers?

Looking forward to seeing what a bigger collection of votes will show.

[Admiral Nelson]

A balance of the above. Gameplay ain't enough for me if the other categories are badly lacking.

[Kanaric]

Well whats important with a game depends on the genre really.

However gameplay is so general i will have to go with that. Gameplay is everything, why play a game otherwise?

An example of my opinion..... I wish Bioware had a department that would STILL make infinity engine games. Have great gameplay, good story, etc, plus we would get a decent amount of games because 90% of development wouldn't need to be spent on graphics.

[VOP2288]

Balance -

I'd have to say tho that story is probably the MOST important of a balanced game. If the game doesn't grab you with it's story and makes you care about what happens next or make you care about the characters, it's not gonna stick you and it'll just be another fun game to play. For instance with myself a game that sticks with me is The Darkness, it's story was the heart and soul of that game and it really meant something to me.

Think of it like a film. Films which have excellent stories and characters usually stay with you for the rest of your life b/c it means something to you (for me this would be films like Eternal Sunshine on the Spotless Mind (my love for a girl), Donnie Darko (the darker side of my personality and my life), and...don't laugh b/c I'm serious...Click (b/c I have so many regrets pertaining to how I've lived my life thus far and how I've treated family). While a film like...Crank is great fun to watch but doesnt connect with you.

Also, as far as graphics go I personally find it harder and harder to go back and play games pre-2002. I don't know why but the older graphics just...disillusion me to the game and thus I can't really enjoy them (although I may want to).

But no game can ever be truly great without each of the categories you've stated being refined and solid.

[Odovacar]

Story: I like games with a story...I dont mean those "aliens invade" stories...
Gameplay: A botched gameplay is hard to overlook.
Graphics: A good game should be appealing visually

[snuggans]

mostly gameplay and story for me.
i still go back and play crappy looking games like Starcraft (although one could say that compared to NES games it looks like Bioshock) because of the amazing story.

[the_mango55]

A balance.

I hate when people assume graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive. If you look back at the history of games, most of the great games had at least good graphics for the time they are released.

Spending time making a game look as good as it plays is a sign of caring about the game you are releasing.

Sure, I can go back and play older games, especially ones I have played before, because I know the graphics were good when it was released, and I feel some of the nostalgia which reminds me of how impressed I was with the original graphics.

But if someone were to release today a game with graphics from a decade ago I would be extremely turned off, and think that if they didn't care any more than this about the presentation of their game then why should I care to play it?

[ccllnply]

A balance.

I hate when people assume graphics and gameplay are mutually exclusive. If you look back at the history of games, most of the great games had at least good graphics for the time they are released.

Spending time making a game look as good as it plays is a sign of caring about the game you are releasing.

Sure, I can go back and play older games, especially ones I have played before, because I know the graphics were good when it was released, and I feel some of the nostalgia which reminds me of how impressed I was with the original graphics.

But if someone were to release today a game with graphics from a decade ago I would be extremely turned off, and think that if they didn't care any more than this about the presentation of their game then why should I care to play it?

Perhaps thats true in shooters and stuff but I've seen plently of strategy games with poor graphics for their time and have still been great

[Hookah Smoking Caterpiller]

gameplay followed by innovation

take Hearts of Iron 2, yes it could have been played on a PS1, but the gameplay is more engaging that M2TWs flashy but empty gameplay

[Tankfriend]

I voted for the good balance of all factors.
However, that excludes graphics for me because up-to-date graphics are not always necessary or even feasible imo.

Hearts of Iron and Dwarf Fortress are prime examples here: Excellent and complex gameplay, innovation (DF literally beats its players to near-death with the huge amount of possible experimentation) etc. but the graphics are old to bad but still fitting and functional.
Crysis would be my example for a game that heavily relied on its graphics - it never managed to keep me excited though (which HoI and DF did for quite a period and still manage to from time to time).

Multiplayer - well, I usually don't pay much attention to this factor because I'm playing offline most of the time. If it's a very nice game that has a well done multiplayer mode, I do take it into consideration (rather uncommon though).

[Stalins Ghost]

A balance.

But one thing games have to have in my opinion is a bloody minded attempt at defining itself in means other than just being the prettiest shooter or the most balanced RTS. They've got to have style and substance. Interesting mechanics. Well thought out setting. It's got to believe in itself as much art as entertainment. It's got to be proud of being a game, not just a way of shifting copies.

[Zio Zihk]

Gameplay is about the one and only deciding factor in a game for me, everything else can be ignored.
Most game writing is sub par compared to other mediums like books or movies. It seems game writers still haven't figured out that an interactive medium should shy away cutscenes to explain plot and use more subtle methods to convey it.
It also seems like the funnest games have the worst graphics, while games with extreme graphics are dull and shallow. I do like it when games carry a certain in the art rather than real-world graphics.
Innovation is another thing I find refreshing in games, though innovation alone won't make a game fun to play.