I've always struggled with the desire to make something that is considered "good"—and to do it consistently.
The problem is, "good" is subjective.
This led me to discover one of my toxic traits: I want the subjective to become objective. I'm always searching for a reproducible and systematic approach to the creative process. I like things to be clear and straightforward.
It's flawed thinking, but I believed that if I could define what a good game was, then I could deconstruct the process and make one consistently.
A definition eluded me for a long time, but I eventually stumbled upon one that I feel good about:
A game is only as good as the promises it keeps.
I came across this idea in one of the best blog posts I’ve read on game creation:
After reading it, I realized that a game gets to define its own terms of success. It does this by making promises to the player—and then keeping them.
A game should be judged by how well it keeps its promises. Does it deliver what it says it will?
Making a game that costs half a billion dollars and takes ten years to develop is a type of promise with high expectations. It’s a hard promise to keep. Alternatively, a 5-minute game with amateur art can still be good as long as it delivers on its promises—a much easier promise to keep.
So, I think I’ve found a good balance between a subjective and objective definition of what makes a good game:
A good game keeps its promises to the player.