I Play Bad Games (On Purpose)

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

Nice article. In fact, I might go ahead and buy some bad games now.

I think you can say a game is objectively bad. The judgement of a game can contain both objective and subjective aspects. The things that most people focus on tend to be subjective, but the technical stuff does count as objective. It doesn't matter who you are or what your preferences in games are, if a game can't run properly that game is bad. It doesn't matter how well it executed what it was trying to if the game simply doesn't run in the first place. You can't even make any subjective judgement about a game if it's completely broken on a technical level.

Dungeon Lords was chalk full of bugs and game breaking glitches but I love it so.

Despite, of course, its incredibly lengthy loading screens, broken character customization and refusal to spawn key NPCs.

Lots of pointless debate about objectivity/subjectivity here. I think everyone gets there is no objective reality, and it's all opinion. However this doesn't mean we have to disappear up our arses with debate about what good and bad actually mean like a bunch of hipsters talking about some pretentious work of art. Instead we should just assume that good and bad mean what a reasonable person would think they mean. And that's if a game is universally panned and has a low metacritic score then it's a bad game, i.e the type of game the author is talking about.

Hydrophobia was 7 hours?
I finished it in two sittings, like, 4 hours total, on my first and only playthrough.
That includes being stuck at one point for about half an hour!

Anyway, though short, I don' really think it was bad.
Sure, it had some things I don't think were thought through, but while it lasted, it was fun.

I've picked up games on the cheap that have poor reputations just to experience them for myself. Duke Nukem Forever is one that comes to mind - and objectively or subjectively I can't accept Randy Pitchford's view that he thought it was comparable to Half-Life 2 - and I've also recently got Dead Rising 2: Off the Record, jut to see what it's like.

Hydrophobia is on my "play one day" list as well.

As the article indicates, I think you should experience the interesting failures to see what might have / could have been.

Or you may find it so bad it is enjoyable. I will say I enjoyed Red Steel for that reason alone. The game isn't unplayable and is so funny to play cause you can tell the effort they put in.

Scorpid:
I've been wanting to play 'Call of Juarez: The Cartel' for this very reason. Ever since I saw Extra Credits rip it apart as racist and lazy piece of shitty game design I've wanted to play it.

Play Rogue Warrior first. After playing it Call of Juarez:the cartel is the second comming of Christ. Like someone already said it really isnīt this bad.

"When you're dealing with real life stuff especially something that hasn't been covered in video games (and is hurting people) you owe it to the source material to present the facts accurately."
Sorry but with this opinion you have to be very, very carefull wich game you`re going to play and my guess is you haven`t played any of the recent cods since world at war (the one with the english talking russians) or other ones of these very acurate modern war schooters.

Guess it's time to play Halo: Combat Evolved

DVS BSTrD:

MattAn24:
Eh, slightly off-topic, because Rus does mention "games that are commonly bad, not just games you don't like".. But the whole "subjective" point is entirely valid, especially for the silly people here at The Escapist who can't differentiate "IT'S BAD." and "I DON'T LIKE IT." Big difference.

I happen to be one of those "silly people" that DOES know the difference thankyouverymuch. I also happen to capable of noticing flaws in games I DO like. The truth is that there ARE things about games that can be objectively qualified as bad: Poor graphics, unresponsive controls, glitches/bugs, bad set design, ineffective weapons real money auction houses. How much these things bother you IS subjective but that doesn't make them stop being bad (if they are). If people bother to point out ACTUAL flaws as reasons they don't like a game, then I'm sure not going to be all condescending and pretend they're impossible to please.

I don't like Call of Duty or Battlefield on principle: The principle that it may be fun but I don't want to keep buying the same game over and over.

Wrong. The enjoyment of graphical aesthetics is entirely subjective (you can make the arguement that one game is more graphically complex than another but complexity does not make graphics better, hell look at Minecraft), unresponive controls can be part of the play experience (half the fun of the old Resident Evil games, for example, are how much more challanging the unresponsive controls make the game), I've had SO MUCH fun with un-intended glitches/bugs in games like Grand Theft Auto and Skyrim, etc etc.

Absolutely brilliant argument--and this translates to drinking bad booze as well. I never appreciated good beer until I drank some Anaconda Malt Liquor. Then I saw "Oh, that's what ____ beer does right..."

Bad games cleanse the gaming palate, and they are honestly one of the reasons I'm more lax about my game rentals and occasionally, my purchases. Lollipop Chainsaw wasn't terrible, but it really made me pine again for the buttery-smooth DmC4 and Bayonetta. If every shooter, for example, played like the massively lauded Half-Life 2, I'd shoot myself, because if every game is "special," none of them are.

As an addendum, I'll say right now that I loved Duke Forever and 50 Cent: Blood on the Sand. They helped point out how painfully -safe- a lot of current protagonists are in their characterizations. Duke and Fiddy are douchebags, but at least they're...something.

MattAn24:
Snippy McSnip has been here

"subjective" is exactly the right term.

I have overlooked shoddy game mechanics and graphics, for a good story, and yet shinny games with (nearly) everything going for them can be cast aside if the characters are poorly writen.

I like Mercenaries 2, and go back to it every few months when I just want to blow some stuff up.
We all like what we like, after all, someone, somewhere likes Kane & Lynch 2....

(and we all pray for their soul!)

just want to say that the game that is in the header,Rogue Warrior isnt a bad game,i think its very good actually.

jaketaz:
Okay I might be misunderstanding, but you're urging me to play bad games to find out if they're actually as bad as they are made out to be by the sources that I trust? By the same people that tell me certain games are good, games which I agree to be good?

If I perused every piece of media that sources review overwhelmingly negatively, it seems like I'd just waste a lot of time and get angry.

You are misunderstanding it. He's not asking to "Give 'bad' games a chance". The goal is to play a bad game for the perspective on what makes a game bad, and what it screws up.

Lord_Jaroh:
Just a question directed at people who review games for a living that popped into my head after reading this article:

Why, when a reviewer plays a bad game, can they not inform the public at large before it launches that the game is bad? Why do previews never state how bad a game may be until after it has launched? Before it launches: "This could very well be the next greatest gaming experience next to god. If you are into genre X, be sure to get this game" After it launches: "Yeah, it had large problems, and we knew they would never be fixed. Don't buy it."

This is why games aren't treated seriously as a medium. The developers aren't held accountable until after the hype train has left and people have been fooled into purchasing mediocre title X.

What makes games different from any other medium? Film, books, and television shows ALL have the same damn amount of hype surrounding them before launch, each one going to be "The event of the arbitrary time period!" It's only after they come out that people start saying how bad things are.

Previewers only get access to the most promising aspects of a new game - in a 4-8 hour (Or even more!) experience, it's not hard to get 15-30 minutes of actually awesome gameplay in there. A lot of other things surrounding the hype tend to be technical details that end up not being quite as impressive to watch over several hours as it is to watch in a brief teaser.

Lord_Jaroh:
Just a question directed at people who review games for a living that popped into my head after reading this article:

Why, when a reviewer plays a bad game, can they not inform the public at large before it launches that the game is bad? Why do previews never state how bad a game may be until after it has launched? Before it launches: "This could very well be the next greatest gaming experience next to god. If you are into genre X, be sure to get this game" After it launches: "Yeah, it had large problems, and we knew they would never be fixed. Don't buy it."

This is why games aren't treated seriously as a medium. The developers aren't held accountable until after the hype train has left and people have been fooled into purchasing mediocre title X.

(Is this necro-ing?)

It's because developers don't give previews to just anyone who asks. The reviewers who get early previews of major game releases are a very small, extremely exclusive club.

Saying negative things about the game before launch? Will get you kicked right out of that club. I mean, let's be honest here: If YOU were given that sort of special treatment, would YOU give it up just to be honest to consumers about a single game, one time?

Edhellen:

Lord_Jaroh:
Just a question directed at people who review games for a living that popped into my head after reading this article:

Why, when a reviewer plays a bad game, can they not inform the public at large before it launches that the game is bad? Why do previews never state how bad a game may be until after it has launched? Before it launches: "This could very well be the next greatest gaming experience next to god. If you are into genre X, be sure to get this game" After it launches: "Yeah, it had large problems, and we knew they would never be fixed. Don't buy it."

This is why games aren't treated seriously as a medium. The developers aren't held accountable until after the hype train has left and people have been fooled into purchasing mediocre title X.

(Is this necro-ing?)

It's because developers don't give previews to just anyone who asks. The reviewers who get early previews of major game releases are a very small, extremely exclusive club.

Saying negative things about the game before launch? Will get you kicked right out of that club. I mean, let's be honest here: If YOU were given that sort of special treatment, would YOU give it up just to be honest to consumers about a single game, one time?

Damn straight I would. Why? Because that would be my job! Not to mention the fact that I have morals. If a product is shitty, I will let people know not to purchase said product. I will not lie just to make them "look better" and make a few bucks on sales, especially when it tarnishes reputation in the long run. Sorry if this comes off as holier-than-though, but it's because reviewers do this exact thing that the publishers are "running" this exclusive "boys club" in the first place.

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Registered for a free account here