This is a very strict bar with a limiting price requirement. As for the title of the post, I fully mean giving the enjoyable feeling 100% of the time. Put forth the niche games which do this, because I do not know of any popular AAA or popular/fairly big developer indie which does this. The game must be playable for 100 hours at least, or must be replayable with the same enjoyability if it is shorter. This includes older games which have dropped their regular price.
I do not want games which "nearly do this" in your opinion (because I have plenty of those already), but which do this in your opinion. I'm looking for these for a specific reason. Do not want replies like "there's no such thing" because there are. I know of one game which nearly does this completely, while many others which do this in a major degree. And then there are the relatively unknown games which few have ever heard about but are well made, even if drowned in negative reviews (Driftland: The Magic Revival, for example, is a very decent single player real-time-with-pause strategy with bad reviews because it doesn't follow popular norms, and the makers chose to also market the multiplayer which removes the important pause. It is more enjoyable than many popular time-tested AAAs from the 2010s I have played). I've played some games which most people haven't heard about that are really well made.
I'm going to start writing a book series (it will be completely free to download and read, and share) which will follow this method. It is not easy to make such a book such that I've not read more than a very small number of long-ish books which nearly manage it, and that has frustrated me so I'm attempting to do it myself. To go the 100% enjoyable route, I need to know more things which naturally put people in this state. I do such things by experiencing them myself, and once they get there I know this is something which would fit in such a work. Some of the things I've decided on already are—
- Not-good guys shown to be going exclusively after bad guys
- Persons making use of technical knowledge and the knowledge of reality in general, making use of them towards a specific end like resolution of problems by their own hand. In a practical manner.
- Making individuals, who do some or another deed(s) which is intended to harm others, feel loss and pain (not by engaging in cruelty to do so) and generally denying them what they want so they feel pain due to it.
I'm looking to expand on this by knowing more things which give me the feeling.
Any genre and type of game will do, as long as you've played it substantially and the enjoyment comes from only playing the game itself—and not things like talking about it or sharing what happened in it with others. The feeling comes even if you play it alone and have no one to talk to about it.
A game which has 100% enjoyability has no parts which get more frustrating the more you play the game, or replay the game. It doesn't matter if the game has very old graphics (early 1980's as well) or no animation. It doesn't matter if it does not fulfill modern sensibilities like full voice acting. Putting aside all concerns of what a game should be, looking at what a game is—is that 100% enjoyable. I would both like to enjoy such a game as well as possibly learn from it.
Games from any source will do. Thank you if you've read this long post till the end.
Regarding this point, I think one of the most safe and efficient tricks to do this is to keep introducing novelty. If you have a game that has a fairly limited number of distinctive unique things that are introduced quickly and afterwards are simply repeated in different combinations it will less likely have such effect. For example a sandbox that introduces everything in 10h and then 90h you just play around with it will probably not have this effect, it can even become a chore. But a story-driven game which constantly introduces novelty on plot level but also sometimes introduces some new mechanics and content, have big chances to have this effect. In reality it's more complicated, and there are many dimensions to this like challenge/frustration for example. There are games that use frustration as a tool to some extent to make winning certain fights feel exceptionally rewarding (soulslikes is the most popular example). But if you make it too challenging/frustrating there is a risk that player gives up and leaves in state of frustration which makes it a big failure. This particular thing is high-risk/reward type stuff.
I like this detailed answer. Firstly frustration and risk/reward is the opposite of what I'm looking for, the nature is a bit different from what I'm looking to experience. The things I need are not achievement but completeness of concept. To that end even relatively tough action games with the quality of life features to reduce frustration might fit the requirement, as long as the gameplay concepts are "fully thought out"—not only is enough thought given to what you've put in, but the nature of each addition and how it relates to the persons playing them, what it makes them feel… along with the relation with other mechanics to make sure how they go together. Games which use frustration also use this to some extent—but frustration is the opposite of what I'm looking into. The stuff I work it makes the user feel as comfortable as possible—with thought put in to remove all frustration, while simultaneously delivering depth of concept. These two are not incompatible, but requires a lot of thought and effort to deliver. Eventually it goes into the psychological of what people like, why people like them, and what specific feeling causes you to like such a thing. Eventually you go into questions like is such a thing natural—is it something people will like without having a particular mindset, political stance, education… or will it only be enjoyable with any or some of these things and are looking for aligned art.
Then, after understanding these, it comes to making something that anyone can enjoy, as long as they're not coming into it expecting affirmation for the things they believe in. That latter part is up to the user and it is not up to the maker to determine whether a person should like it or not—the emphasis of the maker is on not messing up the process itself, and then to let people react naturally to your work. Of course, the world has an element of malice for the sake of it, but dealing with it in an adequate manner and not be aggressive in general, especially against people who merely want to use your work and know more about it, is important. That is a place many modern makers are failing in. But that is not related to the process of making something itself.
The most important element in this process is making something which isn't malicious—cause harm to anyone for any sort of gain, even to affirm your own thoughts—while, at the same time, pushing the levels of depth in your work till it reaches a natural state of full enjoyment. This is part of the learning process which must be completed before work is started on anything. This last part is what I'm finishing up on. At the moment, usually the deeper you go into art, the more you see things which are inclined with enjoying instances of cruelty—or so it seems many times, but it is not always the case. Understanding to the end the reasons of many things, the things I'm trying to experience, is key to delivering an even deeper work which is not embarrassed of anything, but does not take pleasure in cruelty. The reason for this is not to attract mainstream crowds—which is always going to be hit or miss—but to ensure anyone… mainstream, those who aren't what is called 'normal' (I personally fit into the latter) enjoy the work completely while not feeling the slightest bit unpleasant. The showing of villainy can still be delivered while doing so, by placing importance on structure—whether you show the cruelty for most of the time, and show its resolution for a short amount… or whether you describe what the situation is and then allocate a lot of time to the detailed described resolution of a problem and how it affects the people around.
All these things are, again, to be learnt before starting anything. Understanding the things that people enjoy is most important when structuring your work well—even when you already have made a fully developed idea for a story. These are the things I'm focusing on. I cannot really explain it in detail other than saying pride and achievement are on the opposite side of these things and, as elements, do not really go into the work I want to do. I'm intimately aware of the natures of pride and achievement—mostly the negative aspect, which I'm not going to get into here because I do not consider it my problem to worry how people think, and these explanations are likely to cause debate, no matter how well intentioned either or both sides are. On the other hand, my understanding in the basic nature of enjoyment of a bit limited, and that is what I'm trying to implement when I start my work so I'm trying to change my limited understanding at the moment. Such a thing is possible by experiencing oneself—from any place, such as books, movies, games, people taking action… from anywhere.