What Makes A Video Game Good?

Art is hard to define. What makes sense to one person can be at a total opposite from another. Which is probably why the argument "Everything is art" is thrown around so often. Not everything is art. The barista pouring a cup of coffee is not art with a deeper meaning. You're just a freshman philosophy major that tried weed once and believes moral relativity undercuts any ethical meaning. Frequently, this argument is misconstrued as "Anything can be art," which is true, so long as it's transformed using an art form to communicate an idea or ideal, but that doesn't make the actual thing itself art.

Burning cigarettes and calling it art doesn't magically make it art, but if a photograph is taken of burning cigarettes then the photograph itself could be considered art. If someone puts dirty sneakers on a wall as an installation piece to represent the struggle of athleticism and practicing sports, the installation as a whole, would be considered art. Now, I think there is an artistry to things like welding, kicking a field goal, or putting together Ikea furniture, but that's not art. The welded sculpture, the painting of a last second field goal going through the posts, or the design of the Ikea furniture would be art.

Art comes in a lot of different ways and each art form has its own thresholds and distinctions, but what we consider art and how we judge it I believe there are three universal considerations:

1. Technical Skill

2. Meaning

3. Artistic Intent

Technical skill is the crafting of an artwork, meaning is the purpose of an artwork, and artistic intent is contextualization of an artwork.

Michelangelo's David doesn't have a deep message, it is the creation of the unattainable standard. The technical skill of capturing the ideal and crafting a beautiful representation of it. It also gives us insights into what traits they admired back then. Like ripped abs and tiny wieners. If only the latter one was still true. It takes an incredible amount of practice to bring the ideal to life, and when exemplified it can communicate the subconscious. How long it takes to create a single piece of art doesn't matter because it doesn't consider the years of previous creations, practicing techniques, and failings that occur to better your craft and draw some furry commissions to afford rent this month.

The same thing happens with meaning. There are plenty of skillfully inept "good" pieces of art. How many Beatles songs are nothing but four chords and the most basic melody structure. Keep in mind there's still the element of skill at play, but it's more subdued. The idea is what comes through, not the ideal. To communicate that idea, you need a basic skill set which still takes practice. No one is magically just good at any art form, but incredible technical skill is not required to make something "good" if the message is conveyed effectively or the audience is able to connect the work to a deeper meaning.

The last consideration, "Artistic Intent," is the main separator for art classification. For example, an analytical sales report incorporates technical skill and conveys meaning through the established art form of writing, but it is not art. It is not intended to be construed personally or to achieve anything else beyond the bottom dollar. Even if an artist has a clear intention for what the body of work is, the audience's experience is meant to be their own. In other words, it is meant to be subjective. This is also where something can be transformed into art through the contextualization of the environment.

Found object art might be the best example for all this. It's a style of art that uses modified objects that serve a non-art function to create a piece of work. Normally, the artist takes an object out from its intended purpose and contextualizes it to frame a new point of view. Duchamp's Fountain was a huge area of debate for what could be considered art, when he took a urinal, flipped it around, and wrote a scribbling on it before submittal. He made a clear choice in material, decided exactly how it should be presented, and tried to convey meaning, contextualizing the experience for the audience, making it art. Now, I'd say a lot of stuff in this area reeks of pretentious bullshit, but it should be considered art nonetheless. It hits all points, and with that in mind we can start to determine what makes it "good" or "bad" using the outlined criteria as a basis.

If I had to pick an example of what I consider truly "bad" art it'd probably be when a guy nailed his dick to a plank of wood and sang a song about the progressive movement. In my controversial view, what that guy did was dumb. There is virtually no skill in nailing together soft and hard wood, although woodwork is an art form, so it's bad technically. Additionally, whatever message that guy was trying to communicate is completely obscured by the nail in the cockfin. I don't care about the message you're conveying when you're self-mutilating genitalia. The true idea, meaning, or experience behind his action is not shown effectively, and I leave the experience not thinking about anything other than how it must really hurt to volleyball spike a metal shaft into your shaft. Now, why do I take you on this elongated journey to describe what constitutes art? Well, the first is that what constitutes art is the same criteria we use to judge it.

We like things for a lot of reasons. I like the movie 27 Dresses, that is not a joke. I honestly love that movie, and it's one of my favorite rom-coms, but it's still not a "good" movie. Objectively, it has huge flaws, but I used to watch it with my sister and mom so I have an affinity for it. That doesn't exclude it from being classified as "good" or "bad" though. Just because you like something doesn't mean that it's not a giant pile of shit. There can be plenty of outside factors that make a message resonate with us more, or a different set of standards for each category. Reviews themselves are entirely subjective, but objectivity is still at play in structuring an argument for why something is "good" or "bad." The organization of your arguments has to follow logical viewpoints, that even if someone disagrees with you, they can understand your rationale. In the larger context of things, a general consensus can still be reached as each person makes the case for quality and majority wins.

The other reason is in the information age, any idiot with an internet connection can now stave off any point of valid criticism. "You can't criticize this thing I like, because I like it and you just don't get it you" becomes the defining argument of anonymity. It's why there's a disconnect between the virtual and real world. People on the internet will yell one dumbass thing after the next with no real case to back up their claims. In a real argument, what makes something "good" or "bad" has to be an honest critique. That's why saying "you just suck at this game" is a mute point. I can't say that the game sucks because I suck at the game, and you can't just disregard my claims by saying I suck.

When we start talking about reviews a common concern is "why are you reviewing something you don't like, isn't that pretty bias of you?" Yeah, of fucking course it's biased, just like everyone else. Why do you think certain genres are more popular than others? Everyone has faults, or has a lower tolerance for a certain genre, because even though there are several unique ways to express an art form they still compete with each other. It's not like objectivity is taken out back like Old Yeller. Even if I'm consuming something I traditionally don't enjoy there are still pieces that transcend boundaries and stand at the top. Understanding the traits of the critic and putting faith in their opinion is key, even when you disagree with them.

The critic has to use a standard to help distinguish "bad" from "good," otherwise you end up with no opinion, and that opinion is what puts people's trust in your voice. If you just try to satiate everyone and never piss anyone off I think it's even worse. I don't mean be a contrarian to be a contrarian, but not giving your truth is dishonest as the reviewer. This is when you become a bad critic. There is no real consistency. If you try to please everyone and give everything a positive or negative score or only review things you have a hard preconception of, your voice will mean nothing to the audience. It's about trust. Meanwhile, the audience is not held to the same accountability.

Rotten Tomatoes scores are a pool of reviewers that found the movie to be worth or not worth it. When you see a 90% approval that means 9 out of 10 people will think the movie is worth the price of admission. But, there's still a ranking number to determine how worthy the experience was. That movie may have a 90% approval rate, but a 6.9/10 rating. There's also an audience score that can vary greatly from the critic consensus, just look at any Adam Sandler movie.

Scores are not always nessary either and in a lot of cases can result in more disregard for an argument. Instead of a merit based accusation the number becomes the primary arguing point.

The thing about standards is they vary across critics, but there's still an expectation for what a genre or art form produces. When a critic sees something that fulfills expectations and delivers something new it becomes "good," not just approved. When criticizing something we consider the time period it was produced in, while still adjusting the sliding scale of standards. Take some of the earliest examples of art: bowls. Every culture had bowls. Later, you could see the emergence of patterns and displays people would use to make their sick ass bowls look better.

A lot of those bowls though, look like a toddler making a gift for Mother's Day. With the passage of time, and huge strides in bowl technology, the Greeks just started cooking up the bowl game. You see stories of the Gods, portraits, and depictions of battles waged. Those bowls still hold up today as solid bowl art, even as our standards have grown.

Every major art form's final product gets judged by its audience, and to assess reviews for videogames, I wanted to try and distill what exactly that consensus looks like. What makes a game universally acclaimed? What are the common threads between games that are adored and which ones are left just okay or complete garbage? What is the criteria that helps us determine "good" from "bad?" How does the combination of skill and meaning come into play and what does it look like for video games?

There are a huge variety of genres and types of games. There's puzzle, first-person shooter, strategy, dating simulators, etc. but, I believe all these different types can be separated into three categories. Narrative, Non-Narrative, and Loose Narrative.

Narrative:

The game is story focused. In lieu of strong gameplay, it's more concerned with the characters and plot lines. Inside or the Uncharted games would both belong in this category despite one being an interactive picture book and the other a third-person shooter. The focus of these games is on the plot and the characters. The core intent of these games is to tell an engaging story, while still incorporating player interactivity. These games are also typically very linear. Like one scene displayed after the other, the player follows a straight path to advance the game.

Non-Narrative:

These games are not concerned with any story. *Tetris* and online shooters are clear cut. *Tetris* doesn't regale you with a narrative, unless it's *Tetris Worlds*, it just wants you to play a game. It's about skill. *Counter-Strike* and *Overwatch* have identifiable characters or teams, but it's about just participating in multiplayer matches. The intent is pure gameplay, with no real emphasis on story.

Loose Narrative:

The game has a plot, but it's used to create a progression instead of telling a story or delivering a message. *Super Mario 64* is a great example. While the main reason you're collecting stars is to defeat Bowser it takes a back seat to your collectathon. You'll revisit worlds several times over to get extra stars regardless of the story. There's also no real characterization. While they may have identifiable traits or a quick designation of whose side they're on, there's no real depth. The core intent is gameplay, the story is just a vehicle to present it. These games have a sense of advancement, but will usually let the player have some decision on how to proceed. In *Super Mario 64*, once you have the star you don't need to do the star again, which gives the game development, but from the moment you enter the castle you have the option to capture stars in whatever order you want.

All of these flow into one another. They may borrow from each other or may contain games within the games that fall into another category, but games can exist between multiple states. Call of Duty is between Narrative and Non-Narrative because, while people pretty much buy it for online matchmaking now, they still have a campaign that tries to tell a story. Most RPG's are in-between Narrative and Loose Narrative as they utilize open world concepts to lay out a plot driven by their own battle system quirks. There are multiple paths to take outside the main quest, but when the story becomes too convoluted, the player can still enjoy the combat because gameplay is a primary focus. Puyo Puyo Tetris is between Non-Narrative and Loose Narrative because you can still play a classic game of Tetris, but a linear "story" mode is included to complete levels with specific challenges incorporating several characters.

I'll start with Narrative games. Just like a movie, it's not necessarily the plot that makes it great, but rather the characters and their relationships. I'll use Uncharted as an example. The plot points where Nate is hanging in the sky dangling from an airplane are brought to life as Nolan North brings a sense of wit and charm to the scene. The other characters like Sully, Elena, Chloe, and Sam are well defined in their role, but each of them has a distinct personality. Their relationships with Nate are key components throughout the games. Without that ability to take the player on an adventure they wouldn't have much to stand on. The platforming parts are boring, and while the shootouts are fun, it's not exactly the greatest combat. Players come back to these games for the characters and how well they hold up.

Story also doesn't have to be conveyed through dialogue. Narrative games can use environments and gameplay to heighten the experience and show you a story rather than tell you one. The Psycho Mantis fight in Metal Gear Solid makes the player switch controller ports to prevent the boss from reading their moves. It weaves the gameplay and character together to amplify player interaction. Limbo uses color schemes, fluid level design, and the environment to convey its story and message around grief without a single word of dialogue. The Last of Us uses the scarcity of resources and forces players to use their wit to put them on edge and enhance the mood.

Narrative games, generally, should be concise. This day and age people want the most bang for their buck, and spending $60 on something means we want to maximize enjoyment. With Narrative games, I see a tradeoff between content and story. If a game is able to tell a unique and engaging story even just once, but it comes in under 10 hours, I'm okay with paying the price. When a Narrative game's story gets stretched too far, becomes overly complex, or has lengthy spaces in between progression points; the gameplay becomes more of a factor in the player's enjoyment. Mediocre gameplay or cracks in the combat system become more apparent as the player grows disinterested in the story. Longer narrative games typically include minor plot lines or side missions that can be explored to give the player a rest from the main story, but I'd argue longer narratives need a simpler overarching plot line at that point. Otherwise, as the stories complexity increases, you risk alienating players returning to the main quest because the purpose of the story is muddled.

Non-Narrative games are consumed in two ways, sometimes both: How can I kill some time? And How can I have a challenge? It's about repeatability. It's about skill. It's about banging your head against the wall after some piece of shit degenerate boss won't just fucking die. It's about playing in competition and having every single Halo player trying to t-bag each other after a kill. It's about solving a puzzle in seppuku, I mean, Sudoku.

These games should be easy to pick up and hard to put down. Executing simple concepts in a way that asks you to master it. Tetris is an incredibly accessible game that anyone can start playing in seconds. Pac-man and other arcade classics had a joystick with a button or two, and are still enjoyed to this day. Online multiplayer games like Counter-Strike introduce teams to bring out the competitive side in people. Rogue Legacy uses procedural generation to craft a new experience each time. The refined, elementary gameplay in each of these offers a well of technical skills that takes time and understanding to accomplish.

Loose Narrative games borrow from the above categories, but with some key differentiations. Loose Narrative games will have a clear, often very basic, story or premise to explain why you are playing the game. Super Mario Bros it's to save the princess in the castle. Cuphead it's to collect souls for the devil. Sonic it's to stop Eggy-boy. Shovel Knight it's to shovel the bad boys. There is a mission given and a clear list of objectives to accomplish it. What makes a loose narrative game good is the clear list of objectives. These games are episodic in nature, but that sense of progression urges the player to continue. Leveling up or clearing an objective feels like an accomplishment. Even though there is a clear cap or set amount of levels, these games are easier to replay because the core gameplay could be entertaining on its own.

A strong Loose Narrative game will continue to play off the sense of accomplishment with timed runs, collectathons, or additional challenges. You reward players for exploring parts of the level or navigating a trial efficiently so they can cross another item off the list. It enhances the repeatability of a game because people will try to clear items faster or exploit mechanics especially with speed running.

This seems like a dumb one, but easily identifiable set pieces. Since the story is just a bare skeleton using plot points to connect one level to the next, Loose Narrative games need to rely on character identities and aesthetics to leave a lasting impression. You can name several Mario characters like Peach, Luigi, Toad, Bowser, etc. easily by a description. Exact same with Sonic. Crash Bandicoot has boxes and Tiki masks. Cuphead has incredible art design reminiscent of depression era cartoons. Each of these stand out, intriguing the player as they explore each world and leaving a noticeable imprint.

What traits we consider in a cross-over title depends on the game and where the primary focus lies. Games existing between categories may have an uneven distribution weight. A game like Dark Souls exists in all three categories. It has the tight focus on technical, simple gameplay of dodge and hit from a Non-Narrative; the forward progression, with a non-straightforward path from a Loose Narrative; and a rich plot hidden if you're willing to uncover it from a Narrative. The gravity of each category in the review is left up to the individual.

The two principal designations for most games is split between gameplay and story; otherwise known as technical skill and meaning. There are plenty of other factors taken into consideration for our own personal definition of "good," but I think a lot of people in the gaming community are always hoping for the next best thing. That's why people will pay for a game that hasn't even finished development, which results in countless buggy and underwhelming releases. It's why games will garner massive hype as people declare it's "changed the landscape of videogames" before it comes out. It's why people will still defend the biggest pieces of shit like Mass Effect: Andromeda, an actual disaster of a videogame. The unrealistic expectations of the user base, anonymity in search of opinion validations, and coincidentally the overwhelming majority of critics wanting to appease fans and advertisers of a series creates an environment where discernable criticisms are considered artificial conjecture. I like it so you must like it.

Additionally, just because there's a clear majority of negative reviews that doesn't mean people shouldn't try something if they're interested. Very rarely is something ever universally praised, or universally hated. There are always a few critics that go against everyone else's opinions for whatever reason, and while a large consensus gives us direction it doesn't guarantee individual enjoyment even if the work is "good" or "bad." People still argue over videogames with an embittered passion, and now with the internet everyone has their own voice contributing to the conversation. As time passes, the universally accepted games will continue on through ports, but with each new generation, some games will inevitably be left behind. Then as standards set, there will be new goals, new genre thresholds, and new bowl game simulators we can use to craft the perfect mosaic pattering.