What is a good life?

A good life is a life spent:

1: gaining pleasure and avoiding pain (hedonism)
2: abstaining from sensual pleasures and trying to maintain self-control (asceticism)
3: helping others and making the world a better place to live in for at least some people (altruism)
4: examining life and trying to gain knowledge and wisdom (philosophy)
5: being rich, having high social status and/or power (social competitiveness)
6: being liked by others (social appreciation)
7: achieving a certan goal (what goal exactly can vary) (goal-centrism(?))
8: a long, 'bad' life is preferred compared to a short, 'good' one
9: a short 'good' life is preferred compared to a long, 'bad' one
10: completely obeying a certain god, or a certain group of gods
11: Harming others (sadism)
12: Benefitting self (selfishness)
13: Harming self (self-harm/self-defeat)
14: Gaining pain (masochism)

More detailed options:

1: Binary view. A life is either good or not-good, never an in-between.
2: Spectrum view. A life can have many values of "goodness" and "not-goodness".
2.1: Many values of "goodness" and "not-goodness", but one-dimensional e.g. life can be rated from 0 (totally not-good) to 1 (totally good), with in-between values like 0.5 (mid), 0.25 (relatively bad), 0.75 (relatively good) and so on. But only one rating.
2.2: Same as above but two-dimensional e.g. life can be rated from 0 to 1 (or any other arbitrary number) but it can have two values. Let's suppose one values hedonism as much as altruism. Let's call hedonism as "Dimension 1" (D1) and altruism as "Dimension 2" (D2) (no, they are not rated in order of importance. At least, not necessarily). One can then rate a life as "D1 = 0.75; D2 = 0.25", which means "relatively good in terms of hedonism, relatively bad in terms of altruism". "Overall ratings" may or may not be given.
2.n: Same as above but n-dimensional, with n being any number of one's choice, depending on how many characteristics one values in life.
2.n.1: All dimensions have equal weight
2.n.2: Dimensions may have different weights (e.g. one may consider hedonism and altruism both important, but hedonism more important than altruism).
2.n.3: It is unspecified/irrelevant how much weight dimensions have.

Time-variables:

1: Focusing on the present moment (i.e. at any given moment, the present is what one focuses on the most, and has the most weight in life's rating)
2: Focusing on "life as a whole" (i.e. at any given moment, it is not the present what one focuses on the most, but life in general, past, present and future).
3: Focusing on the past (e.g. nostalgia, ruminating thoughts about past events (both good and bad) etc.)
4: Focusing on the future, sacrificing the present to have a better future, though this may need some more considerations, for example: what future? If this attitude is maintained throughout one's life, the "better future" one is sacrificing the present for, will never come.
4.1:

Considerations on asceticism (abstaining from sensual pleasures). Why asceticism?

1: Asceticism for its own sake.
2: Asceticism to maintain self-control (hedonism in this context can be pursued in moderation, and/or as long as one does not get addicted to pleasure). It could be said that this type of asceticism is in some sense hedonistic, pursued with the goal of avoiding the pain/discomfort of pleasure withdrawal (in the case someone is addicted to pleasures external to oneself, which can be taken away), so that one can feel happy/satisfied from within, with the least amount of external sources of pleasure/happiness as possible.
3: Asceticism because pleasure is bad. Why is pleasure bad?
3.1: Because it gets you addicted to things that are beyond your control. But what if the pleasure is in your control, is that pleasure still bad?
3.1.1: No.
3.1.2: Yes.

Is it worth trying to live a 'good life', in this cruel world full of suffering?

1: Your question contains a false (or not completely true) assumption.
1.1: There is not ONLY suffering in life, and there are plenty of people whose lives do not contain a HUGE amount of suffering. So what is the answer in that case?
2: Yes.
2.1: Yes, because you can make the world a little less cruel with your help. Even if just a little bit. It makes a difference.
3: No.
3.1: Not worth living a good life, just don't go out of your way to be cruel either.
3.2: Not worth living a good life and you can be cruel if you want to because this world is meaningless and amoral.
4: The answer is more complicated than just 'yes' or 'no'.
4.1: It depends on the context you're in, more specifically:
4.1.1: Whether you are capable of living up to certain ethical standards.