Anyone can spin the reels and feel a rush of emotion and glee when the machine shows five symbols in a row! Dice and card games offer more interactivity and have the same potential to keep the player interested by rolling dice or working with cards. And remember the keyword in all of this. Social gaming is truly an incomparable experience. Everyone passionate about this activity is eager to score maximum points, win all rounds, and publicize their achievements. So, the ability to share your wins with friends or compete with them in a free competition is a big part of what makes these exciting services so successful.
You should know that real-time slot machines work without any betting or financial injection for everyone, and you can immerse yourself in the world of interactive pastime without any losses.
First, I would like to divide games into two categories: games as art, with the experience of catharsis and the subsequent metamorphosis of the player, and games as amusement, such as GambinoSlot, where everyone can have fun. I want to make it clear at once: this is not to belittle the merits of one game over another but only to divide them according to the goals they are supposed to achieve. In some - to make the player ask specific questions. In others - I get a storm of emotions and forget for a while. The categories are not strictly divided; many of us can list a couple of games that successfully combine these two directions.
Let's analyze games as art. The main criteria for such games are artistic style (sound effects, graphics, work of voice actors), script, and direction. An art game doesn't need to include all these parameters. Here, the player is not bothered by the lack of classic writing. On the contrary, he is impressed by the lack of text; he gets a new experience, which gives him food for thought. The sound, style, and gameplay delight the player, perfectly matching the game's setting. What are its flaws, and can parallels be drawn with the natural world? Art should hook you, and games can do a great job at that.
In a game of attraction, a primary criterion proudly rises above the rest - gameplay. It can be different, but the main attributes are usability and mechanics. Also critical are such criteria as replayability and addictiveness because if the game does not tighten, what kind of entertainment can we discuss? A good example is the products created for gaming halls. Most of them did not give food for thought but showed a lot of emotions, so teenagers spent money not on lunches but on one more game. Nowadays, the primary indicator of amusement games can be considered Nintendo products (Mario, Toad, Animal Crossing). Most online games should also be categorized as such; many are considered sports in their purest form. A lot can be missing from these games (graphics, sound, story), but the gameplay is the most important thing. Mario can be in many cute worlds, with many cute animals, but if the game mechanics are consistent with the game experience, the game can be considered a success. Also, much of our time can be attributed to mobile games, where the player performs the same function every day, thinking about something else. An essential difference between an attraction game and an art game is that the player does not change during the game (apart from the game's skill, of course). An attraction game focuses on emotion and addictiveness, while an art game can sacrifice convenience and mechanics for the sake of revealing characters, the world, and the story.
Here, we come to the most essential thing - conformity. The main sign of a quality game is its conformity to the art game/attraction game genre and further construction of game mechanics, setting, and characters according to this direction. You can complain all you want about Red Dead Redemption 2, but it's impossible to argue with the fact that the characters' eternal dialogs fit the context of the cowboy saga. While jumping into the new Doom is an unfortunate way for many to add variety, introducing a complex story into an attraction-type game is a mistake, as the players won't get into it as they go along. Nothing is wrong with Id Software adding a story to the game, but it may have been more appropriate to emphasize the vertical gameplay mechanics.
Genre conformity will build the calculation. It will be the cornerstone of analyzing the game.
It is the defining criterion of any game. Without it, a game cannot be itself because, without interaction, the very becoming of a player ceases. If there is no interaction, any play turns into a drawn-out movie, and the concept of "player" is abolished to "observer ."The application of game mechanics in gameplay must consider the game's world and the choice of its main direction. Thus, in an art game, gameplay may occupy only 10% of the values of all criteria, while in an entertainment game, it should be at least 50%.
This criterion can be proudly given a silver medal. How many games were sunk because developers decided to save money on testing? Let's remember the same Fallout 76, which came out so raw that many fans cursed Bethesda and were irrevocably disappointed in the developers.
For a game to succeed, the player must be able to play through it. For obvious reasons, if a game has at least one Blocker that came out in production, it will already be considered a failure, and they will be correct. If you come to a museum or an amusement park and it turns out to be closed, you can't realize the beauty and charm of the engineers/artists' ideas, so there's nothing to evaluate. On the other hand, technical difficulties speak more about the company than its brainchild, as the player is prevented from enjoying the process by an engineering miscalculation rather than a creative one. That's why technical problems related to bugs can't be referred to as the objective evaluation of the game but rather as temporary difficulties, which are patched with the first-day patch in the Internet era.
Another thing is whether the technical difficulties are related to the developers' decisions or gameplay. In this case, it is already an objective side related to gameplay.
The perfect game that combines the best of the two categories. A slasher with the depth of Lost of Us.
Quality symbiosis games are as rare as they are in other art forms, but they do exist. Rising and blazing, they beckon ambitious developers like moths, fiercely burning. To create a product of this level is many times more difficult. It requires colossal expenses, both material and conceptual.
The subjective factor in evaluating games will always be present, but breaking down the importance of criteria helps to get closer to reality. The proposed formula is not a hypothesis. Depending on the game, it should be modified to include new standards and change the share of influence of each of them.
Often, a game becomes terrible because of marketing mistakes and players' expectations. Developers should be more careful in choosing the main category of the game to avoid spreading themselves thin and wasting resources on an endeavor that is unlikely to succeed due to conceptual difficulties. Players need to separate their personal preferences and inflated expectations from the objective achievements of this or that product of the game industry (Warcraft3 Reforged evaluations are proof of that). The right game evaluation system helps to separate and put personal preferences aside, which allows looking at the game's brainchild more objectively. And every self-respecting gamer should strive for it.