What makes a game Bad?

[cola?]

You may not like them, but that doesn't make the games objectively bad.

exactly. i fucking love monster hunter 1 and i couldn't recommend it to a soul, especially the high rank HRP grind and the 64 inventory spots when you have many many more materials than that to collect, and the fact that event quests can be spaced months apart. but i keep coming back to it, the private server has absorbed 150 hours of my time and i think it's going to absorb even more, limited as it is i love it

 

[RageBurner]

exactly. i fucking love monster hunter 1 and i couldn't recommend it to a soul, especially the high rank HRP grind and the 64 inventory spots when you have many many more materials than that to collect, and the fact that event quests can be spaced months apart. but i keep coming back to it, the private server has absorbed 150 hours of my time and i think it's going to absorb even more, limited as it is i love it

1 and, Dos and Tri are pretty rough, I admit I wouldn't play them (I tried), but from P3rd onward I do enjoy classic.

 

[Ikagura]

Mainly Sony, Bethesda also

View attachment 48094

And I still find it funny that people blame Morrowind's Engine getting reused but if GTA VI still has the game design from GTA III and engine physics from IV/V that wouldn't be that much better.



But I would say that R* may make a bigger and more interesting map than TeS VI if it ever comes out.


PS: I hope the thread won't get locked.

 

[cola?]

1 and, Dos and Tri are pretty rough, I admit I wouldn't play them (I tried), but from P3rd onward I do enjoy classic.

for 1 definitely you gotta love stank, maybe even stuff that's kinda ass to really wanna play it. the grind for fatalis is starting to seem very much not worth it but i'm determined at this point. this is shit that i would call straight up bad and yet it calls to me
not to mention i escaped an early game resource hell just to end up in an even worse one (firestones my beloathed, and i'll need to play a minimum of 10 multiplayer egg quests for an armour set i want, multi speccing weapons is extremely costly- and bowgun is basically unplayable since you don't have space for ammo) but i'm starting to wanna get over that hurdle just to say i beat it
i've heard dos gets better but i'm teasing myself with it. just out of reach.... yet so close.....

i think i've said a lot of words in this thread that can be boiled down to "bad games are still fun, good games can still be boring"

 

[RageBurner]

TES will probably become the next Star Citizen, and when it comes out 5% of the world's population will be able to run it, and even for those it will run badly.

 

[Ravl]

1 and, Dos and Tri are pretty rough, I admit I wouldn't play them (I tried), but from P3rd onward I do enjoy classic.

Dos is amazing

And I still find it funny that people blame Morrowind's Engine getting reused but if GTA VI still has the game design from GTA III and engine physics from IV/V that wouldn't be that much better.

The main difference it's that the GTA games are actually good: it's not that I love them, but they are a lot of fun online with a friend

PS: I hope the thread won't get locked.

Mocking Todd is banworthy? I'm pretty sure this isn't ResetEra

 

[Yousef]

If I don’t like them.

 

[RageBurner]

Dos is amazing

Nothing amazing about being manhandled by bullfangos that have way more HP than they should have. I'll grant it has great music and atmosphere, but the balance is atrocious.

 

[LaserMoose]

I personally find a game to be "bad" if it feels incomplete in multiple areas.

Perhaps the sound of the game is unpleasant or unfinished (or sometimes, not present at all, as in the case of some early console DOOM ports). In a rhythm game, unpleasant music would be detrimental to the enjoyment of the game.

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is a bad racing title because it lacks even the basic features of a racer, such as collision.

Maybe the level design of a platformer feels unfairly balanced in regards to the placement of bottomless pits, spikes, or enemies.

A bad fighting game would be a fighter that feels unresponsive when pressing normal buttons and special inputs.

The point is, I find the answer to be highly genre-dependent. I don't believe that there is a one-size-fits-all answer.

 

[cola?]

Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is a bad racing title because it lacks even the basic features of a racer, such as collision.

it's kinda cathartic in its own way i feel like. it's such a surreal game, broken in so many basic ways that it gives me joy even if it's at the game's expense. brushing it off because oh it's bad is just kinda boring

 

[LaserMoose]

it's kinda cathartic in its own way i feel like. it's such a surreal game, broken in so many basic ways that it gives me joy even if it's at the game's expense. brushing it off because oh it's bad is just kinda boring

Certainly! A bad game shouldn't be equated to a boring one.

Games like Shaq-Fu are generally considered "bad" for their pretty rough controls and movement, but they are more enjoyable for me than a game like Sonic Forces, which was a functional game that bored me like no other game has. Big Rigs, like Shaq-Fu, is a bad game within its genre, but is very far from being a boring title.

 

[inkyrolled]

Personally? Extreme levels of linearity. Minimal optional content, side stuff, or just general freedom to kinda go from place to place regardless of whether I've passed through it before. With games that are entirely, unwaveringly about a very specific story, I may as well not play. Those HD playthrough no audio channels you find on youtube serve the exact same purpose at that point.

I say that, though, as someone who loves open, varied if not randomized or grindy types of games. I'm not a fan of linearity, but can tolerate it if there's still some variety optionally scattered about.

 

[BigTony]

Assassin's Creed Shadows isn't bad because it features a black samurai that may or may not be historically accurate (the franchise never aimed to be as such) but because it's an absolutely mediocre Ubislop game before anything else.

just to be clear my post was ironic. I agree if the game was actually good people wouldn't care they might make fun of it but they wouldn't be mad about it.

 

[Ikagura]

Personally? Extreme levels of linearity. Minimal optional content, side stuff, or just general freedom to kinda go from place to place regardless of whether I've passed through it before. With games that are entirely, unwaveringly about a very specific story, I may as well not play. Those HD playthrough no audio channels you find on youtube serve the exact same purpose at that point.

So... most arcade games and games from the 8-bits era that aren't adventure nor RPG?

 

[inkyrolled]

So... most arcade games and games from the 8-bits era that aren't adventure nor RPG?

No. I consider those to be distinct in that there is an absence (usually) of narrative, and instead an importance on endurance. They are linear in the sense of limited scope, but not in the sense of how long you can actually engage with the content in question. Arcade games, anyways, have the whole "Just survive" mentality where you grind and grind til you lose and then enter your name for the hi-score tracker.

Honestly it's mostly the narrative that ends up making a game just, bad to me. Because again, if all a game is, is 100% of its linear narrative with effectively no replay value or side-content to speak of, then why bother playing it? I'd just watch a playthrough of it, and have gotten exactly the same experience.

 

[Ikagura]

No. I consider those to be distinct in that there is an absence (usually) of narrative, and instead an importance on endurance. They are linear in the sense of limited scope, but not in the sense of how long you can actually engage with the content in question. Arcade games, anyways, have the whole "Just survive" mentality where you grind and grind til you lose and then enter your name for the hi-score tracker.

Honestly it's mostly the narrative that ends up making a game just, bad to me. Because again, if all a game is, is 100% of its linear narrative with effectively no replay value or side-content to speak of, then why bother playing it? I'd just watch a playthrough of it, and have gotten exactly the same experience.

I'd argue that it would be hard for platformers and JRPGs since these genres are pretty linear in most of their classic entries.

Watching and playing a game is absolutely not the same (unless it's a purely narrative based game over gameplay).

You can watch a longplay of Super Mario Bros but it will not replace actually playing it.

 

[Pearly]

I'm legitimately surprised that some would drop a game solely because of the story while the rest could be great.

Maybe it's entirely depending of one's taste and tolerance for the story being bad.

But even if the graphics aren't that good I don't drop the game if I can still have fun with the gameplay.

As for the music, as long as it's not ear grating I can go on.

But the gameplay is what makes or break it for me above anything else.

It's rare that I drop a great game for a poor story alone, but games that are 100 hours long, the gameplay isn't compelling enough by itself anymore and I am constantly bombarded with cut scenes and story segments that can't hold my interest, especially if it's great in every other way.

Most of the time, a game would win me over in this instance after long enough that I become invested if it's a slow burner and everything else was great, art design, music etc.

I suppose it's a game having great gameplay, but the world, characters, art style etc. all being thrash tier basically is what would cause me to drop a game with amazing gameplay.

That's quite rare though in general for a game to be just great gameplay and everything else about it is thrash.

I stopped playing God of war 2018 and the yakuza games because the story, characters and world just couldn't hold my interest. They are objectively great games with great gameplay, especially how the lost paradise spinoff did the yakuza formula. I couldn't put lost paradise down.

I can be obnoxiously particular though

 

[Jediuser]

Kids who grew up playing this game are now defending it and it frankly, scares me.

I noticed people who played the excellent fan remake, p06, are now defending it.

I played 06 when I was a kid and even then I knew it was bad.

 

[Ikagura]

I noticed people who played the excellent fan remake, p06, are now defending it.

P-06 is good at least.

 

[Jediuser]

P-06 is good at least.

It is. But it doesn't retroactively make the original, official release good.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 4:07 PM

it's kinda cathartic in its own way i feel like. it's such a surreal game, broken in so many basic ways that it gives me joy even if it's at the game's expense. brushing it off because oh it's bad is just kinda boring

I mean, it is hilarious that it even got released. Calling it 'unfinished'is an understatement, it's barely a test engine.

Post automatically merged: Yesterday at 4:07 PM

it's kinda cathartic in its own way i feel like. it's such a surreal game, broken in so many basic ways that it gives me joy even if it's at the game's expense. brushing it off because oh it's bad is just kinda boring

I mean, it is hilarious that it even got released. Calling it 'unfinished'is an understatement, it's barely a test engine.

 

[Crim_Yeager]

there are many factors that can make a game bad but also allot of time it´s about taste. People love FF113 while I think it´s bad but it´s not necessarily a bad game I just think it´s bad and the charter very annoying.

So honestly it´s also allot about taste.

 

[Ikagura]

It is. But it doesn't retroactively make the original, official release good.

Of course not for sure. Maybe showing that with a bit more years they could've done something good instead of rushing their games.

 

[Pandaprewmaster325]

As others said it depends on the genre

An RPG needs a story while RTS doesn't need much of a story but when it does it trample everything else like WarCraft 3.

Personally the biggest problem with a video game is that its tedious , this is my gripe with sudden strike games they are excellent beautifully drawn 2d games that allow you to command hundreds of soldiers and vehicles , with SS2 sound design being peak immersive but the game flops the moment you realize line of sight system is trash where you have to spend 2 hours ordering an officer to look through his binoculars and a tank to shoot the enemy , the game could be this strategic and slow paced WW2 RTT (real time tactics since its hyper focus is on combat) what you end up with is a slow slug of poor line of sight.

Now what makes continue to play sudden strike is the fact that the devs were kind enough to add a cheat code to remove line sight suddenly the game is actually enjoyable? Its still difficult and challenging especially japan levels but the removal of LOS speed up the game , I don't find the scouting part fun its tedious there is no action and I'm playing a WW2 game to cause havoc not to test my officer ability to see from far away.

On the other hand doing the same thing over and over can never get boring in games like Final Fantasy I'm always in for a good fight against an enemy , FF games just are excellent when it comes to that they never feel tedious or too slow the fighting is engaging enough that it makes you seek more of it to test your new equipment and abilities.

Remember a video game is a collection of small lines of code mashed together to create larger systems that make up the game a game like sudden strike 1 has garbage sound effects but gameplay wise its fun look sudden strike has no story you just play as germany/japan/US/UK/USSR in fictional or historical battles and destroy things thats it no story needed.

The main thing a game must do is be fun what does fun mean? Be engaging make me go WOW WOOOOW and WHOA AMAZING you get the point

ALSO horror games should scare you if you play horror to not get scared then are you really getting the horror experience? A shitty game that fails at this is resident evil 1

 

[Jediuser]

Of course not for sure. Maybe showing that with a bit more years they could've done something good instead of rushing their games.

Well, it DOES prove that '06 could have been a great game had Sega not rushed it out the door. (Even if, admittedly, p06 doesn't fix ALL of the problems of the original. I still don't like Shadow's vehicles much).

 

[King Koopa's iconKing Koopa]

Poor controls and being so buggy it's not functional is usually a sign it's not a good game.