ON TODAY'S AGENDA

Today we will learn how to judge a good game. I feel I owe this advice to people given the number of overhyped games that have come out and were given good scores. You very un-famous people need my expert advice in deciding for yourselves if what you're playing is quality or not.

So we'll touch on the basic qualities of games:

Graphics: pretty self explanatory, how the game looks. Now it's important to remember that there can be a difference in how the game's visual aesthetic looks and how good the graphics are. For example, compare Metal Gear Solid 4 and Crysis. Whereas Crysis' graphics are some of the best ever seen in a game, personally I enjoy the way MSG4 looks more than I enjoy a game which merely looks realistic.

Soundtrack: what you here while you play the game. This is a HEAVILY underrated part of gaming. What some games, such as Fable, go through to create the best soundtrack possible is just insane. It's also good to note that Music games such as RockBand and Guitar Hero do not have true soundtracks. Those songs have already been good. Soundtracks are mood enhancers.

Dialogue and Voice Acting: I lump these two together because they go hand in hand. Dialogue is the actual writing itself and voice acting is done by the people who talk for the characters, which if you're Nintendo, is very few people. Dialogue should be natural but not boring, if the words seem like they've come from a Barney episode, something is wrong. Voice acting should convince you that the digital dude is actually saying those words. It should also not sound broken, given, not all gaming companies can afford to hire top rated voice actors, but there is a level of standard.

Character Development: How your character develops over the course of the game. He shouldn't stay the same. You should slowly learn things about the character, things should happen that alter how he behaves, the character should now be boring. Also, some characters don't speak, but that doesn't mean they can't develop well. This is something Bioshock does well, but where Dead Space fails, to cite some examples.

Story: What happens in the game. Games should be like books, only better. Clearly, some games don't need a story, such as Racers or Sports titles. And the more I think about it, the more I think FPS's should skip the campaign part and just focus on multiplayer since the stories are always so poor. But the story should enthrall you, and be good enough that if it went on paper, you would read it.

Gameplay: Is it fun to play what the game provides. This varies from genre to genre. In sports games, do you enjoy playing as each team? In shooters, does the combat seem fluid? In a platformer, is the platforming fun to play? It varies, but boils down to, is it fun?

Immersion: Do you feel like you are IN the game? This is very important. In a horror game, you should be scared, which Silent Hill does exceedingly well. You should feel what your character is feeling, not that you're controlling some digital puppet show.

Replayability: When you finish the game, do you want to start a new one right away, and will you be popping in the game in the future. The details of replayability are up for debate. Clearly, you want the game to be good enough that you want to play again. With some titles it's unnecessary to be good, whereas other titles focus completely on replayability, Diablo II (and all Blizzard titles really) is a good example.

Of course there are other finer points, like customization, multiplayer, price, etc. But pay attention to these aspects of the game while you play, and you'll be able to argue far more effectively on the forums. Go fanboys, go!