Everyone has their favorite games. They can give you a million reasons why they love their games, but rarely do I hear about what people actually expect from games in general. With so many genres and play styles out there, it’s difficult to figure out what makes an individual game “great” in the midst of so many constants and variables. So I’m going to attempt to explain what I personally look for in a game that will make me stop and say “yeah, that game was pretty freaking sweet.” This will be a list of three things that make a game great for me, but it will not be in an order of importance. I’m just going to consider what goes into a game and say what I look for with each individual piece, as well as how it should fit into the whole package. I won’t be talking about graphics, art style, sound design, etc., as those are just basic yet important accessories to any game, and each game is too different for me to talk about these features at length. With that said, let’s get started.

1- The gameplay must work to fit the tone and feel of the game

I don’t know how often I hear about how some games don’t have “excellent” gameplay. There are those who think the best games are those that handle smooth like butter, have a deep system of mechanics, and must be “fun”. Now, I love a game that can deliver on all of those, but it’s gotten to the point where I started asking myself: does gameplay really need to be fluid, complex, and specifically for fun?

I then recalled my first experience with two games: Silent Hill and Shadow of the Colossus. Neither of these games handle in a particularly good way. Silent Hill has you playing a writer who gets tired easily and can’t shoot straight, and must fight through a town filled with nightmarish creatures in order to find and save his daughter. Shadow of the Colossus has you playing a kid who is clumsy and a poor swordsman, and is tasked with taking down gigantic beasts by climbing on their bodies and killing them with an ancient sword. And yet, somehow, these games still managed to engage me through their mechanics, because they did serve their purpose for the game they were in. Both characters aren’t the most powerful, and yet their triumphs felt even more like such because of their limitations, both in character and in the gameplay.

Many other great games do the same thing, but these two were the most obvious examples I could think of. Sure, the games that control like heaven are incredible to play every now and again, but for me, a truly great game is one which takes its mechanics and uses them to enhance the environments, characters, and world in which you’re playing in. Speaking of which…

2- The world must be engaging to play in

In the aforementioned games, their worlds play a big role in how I view them today. Silent Hill’s bleak, abandoned, and depressing town; and Shadow of the Colossus’s peaceful, quiet ruins made me feel as though I wasn’t just playing a game, but I was the narrator of each scenario. However, there are some games that go one step further in atmosphere.

For example, BioShock has Rapture, a dystopian paradise squandered greed, vanity, and ego. What was once a paradise for the unrestrained became a shambled war zone for crazed mutants and stubborn fools. The broken and eerie lighting from the ocean, the psychotic ramblings of splicers in the distance, and the creepy little sisters roaming with their hulking guardians sucked me in from the get-go, and did not let go until I decided to stop the game for that one session, and even then, I couldn’t get the place out of my head.

The Last of Us is another example of a game with a thick and engaging atmosphere. Staring at the crumbling buildings succumbing to nature while you travel through a familiar world ruined by a raging infection that’s slowly wiping humanity out, coupled with encounters with humanity at its most desperate and depraved makes for an flat out terrifying look at what the apocalypse holds for us, and you have to endure it for the entire journey the game takes you on. Never have I felt so excited to be a part of the apocalypse, only to be physically and emotionally exhausted by the true nature of humanity’s most primal instincts.

Its games like BioShock and The Last of Us that engage not only through their narratives, but also the environments by which you travel through. To have a world is simply not enough anymore for me. There has to be a reason for it to be the way it is, and there must be narrative reasons for them to be there. With that said…

3- The story must be well-written and must work in tandem with the gameplay

That statement may seem odd, given my mention of The Last of Us, a game that tells a story in part with cutscenes. Now, I’m not opposed to cutscenes and scripted sequences as long as they do not show things that go against the game’s rules. The Last of Us follows that philosophy well, but this is more than just about cutscenes. When I mention a video game story, I look for one thing, and one thing only: do my actions mean something in any part of the game’s narrative? With The Last of Us, my actions dictate how much development Joel and Ellie go through with optional dialogue moments that you can choose to partake in, as well as how I flesh them out in their combat styles. Is Joel a risk-taker, taking aim and aggressively taking enemies out regardless of the odds, or is he the cautious type, taking foes down one by one with a chokehold or a lethal hostage negotiation? These are things that only the gameplay can tell you. Storytelling is just as much about the actions characters take as it is world-building, lore, and dialogue.

And I go to yet another set of games that showcase the awesome power of gaming’s narrative capabilities: Metroid Prime and Mass Effect. Yes, Metroid Prime has a story, and it’s told through everything the game gives you. You play as a skilled and dangerous bounty hunter searching for a dark power that’s killing a planet. You discover narrative bits while you scan environments and read logs, all while you maintain full control of your character as the environment and enemies tell you of what’s been tainting this once peaceful and secluded planet. And you even control how strong Samus gets while obtaining upgrades as the story goes on.

With Mass Effect, the narrative can go many different ways depending on actions you take within an important element in the game: dialogue sequences. While the gameplay serves to show how you and your squad are especially skilled for defending the galaxy, it’s through the many interactions with the galaxy’s many aliens that truly show how much the story can change with a single sentence. Show compassion and mercy to an enemy, and they may reconsider hunting you down in next game. However, be the ruthless badass, and you will suffer the consequences if you think it’s worth the trouble. These come in many shapes and forms, and seeing the story change so dramatically with different choices shows just why video game storytelling is powerful: it gives the player choice in how they form the story.

I know I’ve gone on long enough, but those are the three main things I look for in a great game. I love seeing a game that wants to tell a story, but allows the player to build the story themselves and dictate how it turns out. This can be either by changing the written plot altogether or by showing a different side of the action, or maybe bypassing the action altogether to make your character a bit more complex than a madman hunting and killing everyone in sight. And with gameplay, this can be achieved well, but only if the developers see that the game doesn’t have to adhere to the rule of fun, but adhere to what the story and world are like. I know this is all my opinion, but this is how I see things. There will be games for those who disagree with me, and you have every right to disagree. However, I will always seek out the games which do the things I’ve mentioned and I will enjoy them if they’re done well. Thanks for reading, and I hope I gave you some insight into my gaming choices.

P.S. - all games mentioned are what I consider to be great. Obviously, the opinions I express about each game are simply that: an opinion. If you disagree, that's fine, but please try to keep any and all debate about their quality as civil as possible.

With the next generation of console gaming already on the way, there seem to be two top contenders vying for the top spot: Sony’s PlayStation 4 and Microsoft’s Xbox One. Over the course of the announcements of these two consoles, many things have changed, backlash was given, reversals were made, and conferences were won and lost. This is especially the case with the Xbox One. While the main features of the Xbox One are currently more accessible and user-friendly, I feel as though Microsoft has become afraid of innovating and instead are trying desperately to tame their angry, unfed customers instead of offering the benefits their policies were to have, if any were to be had at all.

There are two things I want to get out right now, so as not to draw any confusion. One: this is not going to be bashing on the Xbox One itself and its features, old and new. This is merely me taking about Microsoft’s policies regarding the console. And two: this will not be a console comparison with the PlayStation 4. Sony’s console will have to sit this one out. Now that that’s out of the way, let me get started.

Let’s rewind a bit first. It’s May 21, 2013. The gaming world eagerly anticipates the announcement of Microsoft’s brand new gaming console. During the event, the device is revealed. Named the Xbox One for features that would make this device the main entertainment center of your living room, it quickly drew confused and angry looks from the crowd, both at the event and those watching the live stream online. Restrictive policies regarding used games, needing the Kinect 2.0 in order to simply function, region-locking, and an always-online connection no matter what would become synonymous with the Xbox One. It seemed almost too difficult to believe, considering how consumer-friendly the Xbox 360 was and has been throughout its lifespan.

Yet hope remained for these policies to maybe change with the passing of E3 2013, when games would be shown off and the new features, such as the Cloud and brand new Kinect 2.0 functions, would be given the spotlight. Well, not only were those policies still being implemented (all after showing off interesting game after interesting game), but the price point seemed a bit too much as well. At five-hundred US dollars, it seemed like a steep investment for something so restricting and consumer-unfriendly. Gaming journalists and economists stepped in to say that the Xbox One was going to fail in the face of its competition if these policies stayed, resulting in Microsoft losing its strength in the gaming industry.

Fortunately, people didn’t have to wait long for Microsoft to finally “get it,” as it were. June 19 came around, and what did Microsoft do? Drop everything. No always-online requirement, no used game restrictions, and no region-locking. Months later, the need to always have the Kinect 2.0 on would also be dropped. The internet leaped for joy. The Xbox One was a pure gaming console once again, much like the Xbox 360 was and is.

So why did I remain so…untrusting ever since? Why did these policy reversals do nothing to change my mind about the Xbox One for the longest time? Granted, I’m still going to get an Xbox One down the road, but I will always question Microsoft’s decision making in this whole ordeal. It will always seem to me that they care more about owing something to their customers rather than introducing a product that people should at least give a chance.

I’ve figured out at least two reasons why these policy changes made me skeptical of Microsoft and its new console. One: when Microsoft announced the Xbox One, it was intended to be some sort of gaming evolution. Digital trades through a family sharing plan, Cloud-based computer AI resulting in more intelligent and challenging games, and an upgrade to a subpar motion sensor that proves it can be responsive and add to the gameplay experience rather than hinder it. These things would not function as well without the original policies being implemented in the first place. While I feel the disadvantages far outweigh the benefits, it would’ve been great on Microsoft’s part to keep these features and still maintain that accessibility that gamers were going to lose. Instead, they opted for the safe-route, which was keeping the traditional format of having only those with online capabilities experience these wonderful new features.

This alienates a key demographic for any console and game developer: the non-online, single-player only gamer. Contrary to popular belief, gamers like this still exist. I would know, since I’m one of them. And they, too, yearn for the chance to experience the evolution of gaming that includes more intelligent AI and game sharing. They just do it in a different manner than the rest of the community. In some cases, they opt to share the experience through video of them going through a game while explaining how each section is done. Having to hold these features back from them through the paywall of the Xbox Live system seems like a lost opportunity in my eyes, especially for those who cannot consistently pay for Xbox Live Gold, yearly or otherwise.

The second thing that bothers me about this whole ordeal is Microsoft basically bending to the will of people who could or could not be their customers. As a business, Microsoft has to decide what the future holds for them and their customers while at the same time making sure their product sounds appealing. In other words, sell your product instead of telling people that this product is great and you should try it no matter what.

Now, their initial representation of the Xbox One was by no means great. They did nothing to make their product sound the least bit appealing. The problem here is that instead of finding a better way to market the new, “innovative” features of their console, they decide to reverse their policies and thus become exactly like their competition. Whereas Sony and Nintendo played it safe from the beginning, Microsoft decided to take that huge risk in the hope of gaining some sort of reward in the long run. But what did they do? They reversed their position and decided to play it safe for the sake of not angering anybody.

While a noble act, there were several features that not only sounded appealing, but could’ve helped Microsoft gain a slight edge against the competition, such as digital game sharing and their Cloud AI support. By taking the online features and hiding all of them behind the Xbox Live Gold paywall instead of making it mandatory that the console always remain online, they have limited those with low incomes from experiencing all these new innovations. It’s taking away from that demographic I mentioned earlier, and ignoring some of your customers doesn’t always turn out to be a good thing in the long run.

All the decisions Microsoft has made continue to make me skeptical. Instead of finding a new way of marketing these features and fixing the major issues with them, Microsoft decided to completely remove them and essentially sell a prettier, more stable Xbox 360. Since people already have one of those, what incentive are we given to try out their new console in the first place, if all we’re essentially getting is better graphics and a newer controller? That’s the only thing I ask. Again, I do not hate the new console, as I do plan to get it eventually. I just want people to keep this in mind before making it a purchase priority this holiday season.