WARNING: ESSAY
Since I have been hating on video games in general as of late, I'm going to explain why I dislike 99% of the games I see/play. To me, a video game cannot be dissected into separate components with a numbered score. Game maps, music, controls, and graphics are all intertwined in the game experience. Because of this view, I can't pick any one component as more or less important than another, but rather have to try to describe a good game holistically.
A good game:
1) Engages the player with the current experience
2) Surprises the player with the next experience
3) Always builds toward a complete experience
The player can be engaged by any element of the game's content, from a tricky puzzle to a fast paced battle, a vivid atmosphere to a towering obstacle, a human opponent to an expansive playground. These are the things that make the player enjoy the game as they are playing it.
The player must be surprised by new content based on their appetite. If you have ever played a game for 10 or 20 hours and then put it down without finishing, this is likely what the game failed to do. Surprises can be accomplished by introducing new characters, unlocking powerups, or exploring new environments, but if the player gets stuck in the same pattern of game play, they will likely put the game down.
Building towards a complete experience is the most subtle and at times difficult goal to accomplish. This has more to do with a game's sense of purpose than its story or achievements. The player should have a reason for everything they do in the game. Every quest should further story/character development or grant the player additional power. Every NPC should deliver some important information, or provide a useful service. Everything should be another stroke of paint on the player's canvas of experience, continually adding detail, even after the game is 'complete'.
The problem with accomplishing these three goals is that they are all dependent on the player. This may seem obvious, but if one player likes a game and another does not, then the players must have experienced the game differently. Since the game itself does not change, I argue that while the player that likes the game experiences these three goals, the player that dislikes the game does not. Additionally, even players that like the same games will experience them differently, and thus rate them differently. This brings forth two primary criteria that can measure a game's reception:
1) Quantity. This outcome is based on the total number of players that have a positive game experience
2) Quality. This outcome is based on how the game experience compares with another game experience
A developer may at first strive to create a game that everyone will play and everyone will love, striving for both quantity and quality. However, due to the diversity of the gaming audience, this proves impossible. Every part of a game, including the music, the controls, the graphics, and the difficulty, is bound to attract some portion of the audience, and repel the rest. Thus, the strongest quality game must target the smallest portion of the population, and the strongest quantity game must have a neutral low quality. This is my explanation for the casual vs hardcore markets.
But we can't stop there. At this point, the game experience model is oversimplified. To adjust to reality, we must consider each player to have an individual way in which they experience a game, in which each game element will have either a positive, negative, or neutral effect unique to that individual. In essence, if the gaming audience is a pond, then each game element causes a unique ripple on the surface of the pond. With this correction, it is possible to find elements that have a large positive response from a large number of individuals. It is also possible to find a set of elements that, when added together, create a large positive response for almost the entire gaming audience. This is where the future of gaming lies: from an infinite number of possible combinations, developers must select a large mass of elements that, when added together, create a positive experience for the entire gaming audience. To return to the metaphor, the right combination of ripples will create a giant swell across the entire pond.
So what do I look for in a video game? It's hard to say. I've loved games for story, and hated games for story. Loved games for multiplayer, and hated games for multiplayer. Loved games for music, and hated games for music. But with all the high quality games I have played, I have definitely raised my standards for quality, and that is why there are less games that I find exciting today compared to 10 years ago.