Why certain people will defend a clearly bad game

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT
 

So, I'm sure its no surprise that The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is receiving terrible reviews but what I'm surprised about is how many people are defending the game saying things like:

"The reviewer played the game like it was COD, you can't play the game like that,"
"Graphics are all the reviewer cared about"
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Agree/Disagree?
And can you think of other games that were clearly bad but you'll still see people defending them?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about a game that can be good or bad, depending on your tastes, or a game that you personally think is overrated. I'm talking about games that are almost universally considered shitty but some people are still inexplicably defending.

...Maybe they just like it?

Some people like games widely considered bad. Hell, the entire Roguelike genre is hated by reviewers in the west, but there are some people who swear by Roguelikes as the best video games ever. We can disagree with them on whether those games are bad, but it seems mean-spirited to assume that they are just trying to self-justify their purchase.

fezgod:
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

The other two comments may have been subjective opinions... But, this last one seems pretty objective.

If the reviewer complains about how buggy they observed the game to be, it's just as valid as when someone says that they have yet to encounter such bugs in their copy.

Personally, I've played New Vegas dozens of times, and during every one of the character creation sections, the doctor's neck remained intact.
I know that other people have encountered bugs where it dislocates and just rolls around his shoulders, I've seen the videos, but that doesn't change the fact that it never happened to me.

Some people just like enjoying a train wreck.

I would equate it to a bad movie, but there are obviously major differences between the two. However, the premise is still there that people will play something just to see how bad it is and they might even enjoy it. Hell, I've meet people that enjoy Sonic 06 because of how shitty it is, and will defend it to a point, but will say it's still bad.

So yeah, train wrecks man.

madwarper:

fezgod:
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

The other two comments may have been subjective opinions... But, this last one seems pretty objective.

If the reviewer complains about how buggy they observed the game to be, it's just as valid as when someone says that they have yet to encounter such bugs in their copy.

Personally, I've played New Vegas dozens of times, and during every one of the character creation sections, the doctor's neck remained intact.
I know that other people have encountered bugs where it dislocates and just rolls around his shoulders, I've seen the videos, but that doesn't change the fact that it never happened to me.

Funny that you should mention New Vegas because I've only had one major crash in New Vegas but beyond that, I've never encountered any serious visual/gameplay bugs. But when I put the game in my friend's xbox, it wouldn't even load.

I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

Well Game Grumps wouldn't have kept going on their Sonic 06 playthrough longer than any other game (up to 78 parts by my last check) if it didn't get subscribers.

'Youtube comments'. Can't really take those seriously when 50% of the time the comments devolve into flame wars. Consider for a moment that every single movie on Metacritic and the Internet Movie Database has at least one 0-star user review and at least one 10-star review regardless of actual quality even if the review's text is as short as 'it's a stinkeroo' (seriously, I saw that one for the first Lord of the Rings). You can find someone online who will defend/attack anything, whether or not they're being serious or trolling. Conversely if someone had never gone online and hadn't played many games they might think Sonic 06 is okay.

'Clearly bad' also in the eye of the beholder most of the time. Many of the games I play have big flaws but for the positive qualities I'm willing to overlook them.

'Trying to justify the 60$ purchase', yeah we're all guilty of this. We don't like feeling like we've wasted our cash on something we'll never play again after the first time.

I like Too Human and Alpha Protocol and both of those games are bad but yet I still had fun with those games.

Why the hell should public near-consensus influence your own opinion? If all we were concerned about was trends among the public, then all those games highly regarded among us connoisseurs would be called shit, and we'd all be playing Angry Birds or something instead. Mark of the Ninja? Not as good as Fruit Ninja; we had a vote, it's the law. Journey? Didn't they cover that Glee song? We're all anti-populists at heart, so why must we resort to such crass populism as soon as we're connected together on the internet? Fuck that. Free your mind. Play the games you want to play, and fuck what anybody else thinks.

In other words, all I hear is "stop liking what I don't like".

I have no opinions on this Walking Dead game by the way; never played it.

fezgod:

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

The problem there though is why a lot of the people who paid full-price don't seem to have any problem slamming it. I certainly don't think the Mass Effect 3 ending outrage was contained to those who'd waited a while before buying it. I mean, you could just as easily assume that someone who paid more would have more reason to savage a game they didn't like, given that they will have 'wasted' more money on it than someone who bought it second hand.

Sure, maybe a few people might do that, but I think in most cases it's likely just more of a case of personal taste/standards (as it is with most forms of media and art).

fezgod:
So, I'm sure its no surprise that The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is receiving terrible reviews but what I'm surprised about is how many people are defending the game saying things like:

"The reviewer played the game like it was COD, you can't play the game like that,"
"Graphics are all the reviewer cared about"
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Agree/Disagree?
And can you think of other games that were clearly bad but you'll still see people defending them?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about a game that can be good or bad, depending on your tastes, or a game that you personally think is overrated. I'm talking about games that are almost universally considered shitty but some people are still inexplicably defending.

Actually I played the game for my own review of it and its not all bad. I think what happened with the title is the developer wanted to make a really cool survival focused game but its clear the game didnt get the time it needed to be a great game. So IMO Activision killed any chance of the game being anymore then shovelware by giving the developer just six months to work on it.

That said, let me talk about what features I did find interesting in it. The first being the actual survival elements. In the game you can enter places, search for resources kind of like dead island but you can also send your survivors out to find supplies. They have a chance of not coming back (which hasnt happened to me yet) and you can increase the chance they will by giving them weapons (although apparently a hammer and a high powered hunting rifle give the same bonus). You can also choose your route and how you get there. What I mean is when you select a destination you have the choice of using the highways, regular streets, or back roads and each has a chance of the vehicle breaking down and of you finding a place to scavenge for resources. These are some really good ideas but were executed poorly and the game was hurt worse by it being a terrible PC port and the lack of time the developers had to work on it.

So no, its not all bad. There were great idea but it was overall badly executed. Its certainly not worth a full price AAA release. I wouldnt even price it as $20 worth it but it shouldnt be written off either. Its actually quite sad that a game with potential got destroyed because the publisher rushed it out but we've seen it happen before with Dragon age 2 and we will see it happen again down the road.

Well yes but then we all do that, once we invest ourselves enough into a game we will defend it beyond all reason.

I think a lot of it comes down to there being a pretty distinct separation between the objective qualities of a game and what one's experience with the game is. When you enjoy something, you're much more likely to gloss over it's shortcomings and loudly praise it's successes. Sometimes it's because you just don't see the bad parts and sometimes it's because you do but find the overall enjoyment provided more than makes up for it.

Basically, from my perspective, objectively bad games do exist.. but that doesn't mean that you are unable to get a certain amount of enjoyment out of them.

People are passionate. When you critique something they are passionate about they can often see it as a personal insult. You are making negative comment about something they hold dear.

Critics have got to accept this though. It would be hypocritical as a critic to not accept some criticism.

Different strokes for different folks. Besides, based on the reviews I've seen Survival Instincts is...polarizing I think would be a good term. What you really need is a truly bad game as a sort of template...something like Predator on the Nintendo. Just look up some gameplay for it. Hell, if you're a fan of Screw Attack's website you may recall how last summer the guys over there were obsessed with the game! I'm going to defend it though because despite how bad it is, beating that game is one of the most satisfying victories I've achieved as a game player.

Not as satisfying as beating Zelda 2 on the NES but this is a thread about bad games... unarguably, irredeemably bad games.

I'll tell you why I will defend "clearly bad games"

There is one critiria that determines if the game is good or bad for me:

Did I enjoy playing it?

That's it. If I am having fun, I could not care much less over anything else.

fezgod:

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

There's been some research on that effect. They also found that you're less likely to admit that a product you bought is bad if you've already told other people to buy it. The paper I found is from the 80s though so marketing research may have moved on since then.

People liked certain elements of the game (especially if it's the only one of its kind), so they defend the bad parts, either because they're trying to rationalize them into something good (hello, Mass Effect) or because they're simply trying to make themselves feel better.

Look at the Wikipedia reception section, I'm surprised someone managed to get that in there...

Reception

Polygon were disappointed in the game and gave it a 3 out of 10 rating, stating that: "The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is the exact sort of lazy, cheap cash-grab that gave licensed games a bad name in the first place" and compared playing the game to "listening to a roomful of barely competent musicians, each of whom is playing a completely different song. And every once in a while one kicks you in the groin. Also, you have a sunburn."[9]

Sounds like something Yahtzee would come up with!

fezgod:
So, I'm sure its no surprise that The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is receiving terrible reviews but what I'm surprised about is how many people are defending the game saying things like:

"The reviewer played the game like it was COD, you can't play the game like that,"
"Graphics are all the reviewer cared about"
"MY COPY of the game doesn't have all those bugs,"
(Granted, most of these opinions come from youtube comments so they're validity is in question)

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Agree/Disagree?
And can you think of other games that were clearly bad but you'll still see people defending them?

Disclaimer: I'm not talking about a game that can be good or bad, depending on your tastes, or a game that you personally think is overrated. I'm talking about games that are almost universally considered shitty but some people are still inexplicably defending.

......Maybe because your opinion isn't the only valid one?

Its a completely subjective medium. I personally HATE CoD (with a vengeance) but I have friends that cant get enough of it, and from time to time I'll play it with them just to chill.

Every opinion is Valid

It's so weird, I was just thinking this. I was trying to explain Heavy Rain's many plot holes to someone, and they kept writing it off as nitpicking. Some people are simply deluded. They can't accept that they would do anything wrong.

Meh, if people like it, they like it.

I for one think some people feel the dying need to defend a game they spent money on, especially when it comes to pre-orders. MUST JUSTIFY PURCHASE

It's opinions, you can't say a game is bad most of the time and make it true. I think the new DMC is the biggest waste of time ever but people enjoy it. Are they wrong? No enjoy what you want.

Me personally (I get a lot of flack for this, I'm sure I'll hear about it here too) the New Super Mario Bros games are just dumb. They're so same-y and have not progressed anything unlike their previous incarnations it's insane but people continue to buy them in every version.
I mean not including the DS one the first Wii one the creators said they were so lazy with it they didn't put peach in because they didn't want to animate her dress. Okay, fine, well it's been 2 more games and you're still playing with the same character set since the first one and their lack of passion/interest in their own game is pretty insane. Mario 3 to World you see a jump, things look clearly different, you don't see that with this series. I think it's just lazy crap kicked out to make a quick buck, something a Level editor could accomplish but they charge 50 bucks for it.

However, others enjoy it, and I'm sure I'm the odd man out here and I don't think either side is wrong it's just ..opinions.

Its this thing called opinions and not everybody has the same ones.

Th3Ch33s3Cak3:
I enjoyed Two Worlds
Also, I hope this dosn't devolve into another thread of people hating and questioning other peoples opinions.

It will be hard for it not to when the op started it. Also Two Worlds rocked.

Milkman:
It's so weird, I was just thinking this. I was trying to explain Heavy Rain's many plot holes to someone, and they kept writing it off as nitpicking. Some people are simply deluded. They can't accept that they would do anything wrong.

To some people, those plot holes (Whats his names black outs, etc) are nitpicks. Some people are willing to let go of what some others consider negative points towards a game, and that's perfectly fine, we should not devolve into calling others deluded because they can brush of aspects that others can't.

I always come back to the idea that nothing is inherently good or bad, but when people intergrate themselves into that something it can be swung either way. For example, Mass Effect (the whole series) has people who hate it, people who love it, and people who are indifferent, this isn't because it is a bad or good game, it's because some people enjoyed the story told throughout the series and the game mechanics, and others did not. Some people could suspend their disbelief, others demanded a legitamte answer based in fact/reasoning as to why certain things occured. That doesn't make the people who loved the game deluded anymore than it makes the people who hated it intelligent.

The only time where I will say something IS bad is when it fails in the basic mechanics of it's formation. If someone is singing, and can't hold a note, they are a bad singer. If a film has sound coming in and out at various levels and the cuts are visible due to a short space of blackness, then that is a bad film. If someone writes a novel, but continually changes the main character's name, has poor puncuation and grammar (like I do), then that novel is a bad novel. As for a bad video game, I'd say the only thing that qualifies as being bad is something that is literally unplayable. You can play Mass Effect, you can play Sonic 06, you can play COD, you can play Medal of Honour: Warfighter, and you can play Aliens: Colonial Marines. That doesn't make them instantly good, but it does mean that they are well formed enough for a subjective opinion to be formed on them. The ONLY game I have seen so far which I believe is inherently bad is Steel Battalion: Heavy Armor. If you have watched any footage of the game, or have played it yourself, YOU KNOW that this game is basically unplayable.

So yeah, I guess to answer OP's question, while I have seen someone try and convince themselves that they liked a game, only to come out and say they thought it was terrible a few months later, I believe that the majority is no more right than the minority. Games are subjective, and to say someone doesn't like it and that they're lying to themselves is ignorant.

You only notice them "defending" games when the general consensus, or overall view is a negative game, or critics come out and call it bad. And they're defending it, because they enjoyed it, plain and simple.

The great thing about media is that for everyone who partakes in it, there is one person who will absolutely love it, and one person who will absolutely hate it, extremes on both ends. Good or bad, there's always someone on the opposite side of everyone else, and sometimes, when you like or dislike something everyone else hates, you tend to feel insecure about your choice. Sometimes, those defending the games are trying to convince themselves of why they enjoy it, rather than the person they're talking to.

I had the exact same argument about the exact same game today with my best friend (which is why the arguement didn't end bad), but no matter what I said he swore up and down that the game was "fantastic". I wasn't trying to convince him that the game was unplayable, just that the game wasn't worth a $50 price. Honestly, I think his opinion has to do with the fact that he waited until midnight for the game to release to pay full price for it, and he had convinced himself that the wait was completely worth it. Eventually I gave up trying to convince him, and his opinion wouldn't bother me as much if he actually had real reasons for his statements, but his "reasons" all ended being "Well, other people just aren't playing it right. They all go in guns blazing and it makes the game too easy." And my counter-agruement was that if a game is based off of "stealth and survival" like he claims it is, then going in guns blazing shouldn't work, but IT DOES, meaning the game design in that aspect is terrible if what he says is true.

Because maybe they....like it?

Scandalous, I know.

Okay. Okay. I get that maybe people liked the game. Or that possibly you could get some fun out of the game. However please keep in mind that people defend "WarZ" A game that was quite literally sold broken. Not Simcity broken, completely broken. Features missing, some features lied about. Something copied straight from LoL and yet there is a fanbase that says it is the best game ever.

That I do not get.

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

if a game is shittily made, its a bad game, aliens colonial marines and the new sim city are clearly bad games, as is amy

bethesda games do have bugs, but they are minor glitches and the game is engaging to play and interesting that minor bugs are tolerated more than they would on a shit game

you can also have a game that is just boring, its well made and all that, but it just seems dull, these are games people will say they like and admit some flack over but will be forgotten in a month

irani_che:

Johnny Novgorod:
I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

if a game is shittily made, its a bad game, aliens colonial marines and the new sim city are clearly bad games, as is amy

bethesda games do have bugs, but they are minor glitches and the game is engaging to play and interesting that minor bugs are tolerated more than they would on a shit game

you can also have a game that is just boring, its well made and all that, but it just seems dull, these are games people will say they like and admit some flack over but will be forgotten in a month

Having NOT played either of the games you mentioned I can only reiterate there're no "clearly bad games" to me, just games you like or not.

anthony87:
Because maybe they....like it?

Scandalous, I know.

You ar'n't meant to enjoy games on your own terms, you form your own opinions based on other peoples beliefs. Did'n't you know that?

Idiot.

I'm being sarcastic of course.

Some times its blind fanboyism but some like me enjoy getting a laugh out of bad games. I tend to pick them up used for very cheap and use them to remind myself what a truly bad game is so I'm not overly critical of all games.

Cause like..idk maybe they enjoy it? and there's this thing called opinion, turns out not everyone has the same one...

Thread topic "Why certain people will defend a clearly bad game"

Toxic Sniper:
...Maybe they just like it?

I have to admit Toxic, the timing of this thread made me laugh... right? (to everyone else, we've been having a disagreement about Metroid: Other M.) And no, answering the op's question I didn't pre-order Other M. I don't pre order anymore after waiting over a year after preordering Twilight Princess.

But yes, I'll defend a game I liked in the face of overwhelming dislike. Did it for a long time with Majora's Mask and Wind Waker. And now the tide has changed on their profiles. (And no Toxic, that isn't happening for OM, even I realize that.) Oh, and Toxic, If I've been too insulting or offensive I apologize. I get defensive when outnumbered and tend to lash out. One of the reasons I like the escapist is we are usually better than that here, and I should remember that.

 Pages 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked