Why We Should Play Bad Games

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
I read Strategy Informer’s editorial “Why we should play bad games” and I have to say that I would be more inclined to agree with the article if crappy games weren't $49.99 - $59.99 a pop. Your thoughts?

It may sound insane to suggest that we can't appreciate the best titles gaming has to offer without experiencing the bad but it puts those epic, triple-A titles into perspective. More appealingly, some games that are so bad they're good offer the kind of entertainment a well-polished title simply can't compete with.
Click to expand...
 
Well, if we only play "good" games, developers and publishers will be forced to innovate and polish more than they do these days.
 
That is stupid. Like saying we should put up with our car refusing to start some mornings because it really makes us appreciate the days when it does start properly.
 
Because otherwise ubisoft would go out of business and would put a load of people out of work and they'd join crime syndicates and international crime would go up 300%?
 
if you give us pc built games from the groundup most of us wouldnt complain. However this new sales model of everything being a console port is what has most of us gamers pissed off. $60 for shovelware in some cases and its apalling. They keep doing it even though they always run into trouble and we constantly need patches to fix what would have been there already if it were designed for pc. I just dont see how this is more cost effective to give us garbage and then hire crews to patch it. Guess the bean counters know more than I. But this is why i hardly buy a pc game without a demo first. And sadly more and more big titles are coming along without even giving us a demo to test it first. Im just tired of paying $60 for betaware.
 
The console monkeys/casual gamers fucked the market up, frankly.... Now whenever the next Medal of Duty: Modern Whorefare gets released its like a triple platinum album, and so no one has to innovate.

I mean, whats the last really good groundbreaking game to come out? I would probably say Mass Effect, for being the only really good sci-fi RPG ever (and KOTOR doesn't count, existing universe), or Elder Scrolls Morrowwind for having the most obnoxiously huge map ever.
 
do not think ive experienced a bad game yet. pc or console. heck i love freecell. lol
 
i like the bioware route
most their games were made on the pc and then ported to console :p (except for the first mass effect but the pc port was pretty good)
 
By playing these games you can really get a sense of what's good design
Click to expand...

So, by trying something bad, you get a sense of what is good? In what world does that work? Should I have to eat dog food in order to know what it takes to be a great chef?

Playing great games gives you an appreciation for what good design is; not the other way around. There's a reason that games like Call of Duty sell a bazillion copies with every iteration, it's because they took a simple concept and improved upon it every time. If you try to incrementally improve a crappy game, you're probably just going to end up with a less crappy game, not a winner.

I do see how an overall bad game can still bring something new and fresh. But, businesses aren't interested in being new and fresh, they are interested in making money. And, you make far more money when you make a game that replicates a previous success than you do if you try to make something new.

It takes a long time before a new genre really becomes a money maker. Think about how long Beatmania has been around before games like Guitar Hero. Being the first one to create a new niche doesn't mean it will be a success right away.
 
AdamNesvick said:
The console monkeys/casual gamers fucked the market up, frankly.... Now whenever the next Medal of Duty: Modern Whorefare gets released its like a triple platinum album, and so no one has to innovate.

I mean, whats the last really good groundbreaking game to come out? I would probably say Mass Effect, for being the only really good sci-fi RPG ever (and KOTOR doesn't count, existing universe), or Elder Scrolls Morrowwind for having the most obnoxiously huge map ever.
Click to expand...

Yes because there was never an era where PC games went through the same shit. I mean its not like the Adventure genre, WRPG, run and gun FPS, went through the same fucking thing.
 
I'll give bad games or potentially bad games a try at $5 or sometimes $10, but not at $49.99 or more. Screw that.
 
Hell I wish games were like they use to be, hell I just recently have been playing alot of old ass SNES games just to play something I actually liked and had some replay value.
 
-BokkeN- said:
So, by trying something bad, you get a sense of what is good? In what world does that work? Should I have to eat dog food in order to know what it takes to be a great chef?

Playing great games gives you an appreciation for what good design is; not the other way around. There's a reason that games like Call of Duty sell a bazillion copies with every iteration, it's because they took a simple concept and improved upon it every time. If you try to incrementally improve a crappy game, you're probably just going to end up with a less crappy game, not a winner.

I do see how an overall bad game can still bring something new and fresh. But, businesses aren't interested in being new and fresh, they are interested in making money. And, you make far more money when you make a game that replicates a previous success than you do if you try to make something new.

It takes a long time before a new genre really becomes a money maker. Think about how long Beatmania has been around before games like Guitar Hero. Being the first one to create a new niche doesn't mean it will be a success right away.
Click to expand...

The author's logic is a bit twisted, but he has a point. Over our gaming life times we play games that are good and games that are bad. Both the good and bad games help us form our genre and gameplay style preferences. They also let us look at how major and minor decisions can effect the quality of a game and give us insight on what to look out for in future games.

Dan_D said:
I'll give bad games or potentially bad games a try at $5 or sometimes $10, but not at $49.99 or more. Screw that.
Click to expand...

Mhm. I'm willing to give a lot of games a chance at that price. I figure if I don't like the game, oh well its not much money lost.

Bone_Enterprise said:
Hell I wish games were like they use to be, hell I just recently have been playing alot of old ass SNES games just to play something I actually liked and had some replay value.
Click to expand...

I played a lot of SNES games back in that era that I will never play again and would never want to play again. Just like I've run into modern games that I'm sure at some point I'm likely to pick up and play again, even if only for a short time. I can't count the number of times I've played the first few chapters of Disgaea over the years.
 
Disgaea is an awesome game that not many ppl heard of since atlus don't advertise and only do limited productions of games
 
Kenjuta said:
Disgaea is an awesome game that not many ppl heard of since atlus don't advertise and only do limited productions of games
Click to expand...

Yeah, though NIS seems to have gotten the idea that Disgaea is the only thing they should push out these days.
 
There's probably something to this.

I've only played about a half-dozen games this year, and although many people say the games I like suck, to me they're GOTY material.

If I potentially only play bad games, I can't rank 'em compared to great games. So, my ranking skews positively for the bad?

Your appreciation of your great games should be influenced by trying out the bad?

(Besides, good/bad is so subjective anyway... I'd like to know what I need to play that'll get me to change my opinion of Far Cry 2 from GOTY to turd...)
 
Playing bad games for the sake of the industry will do little more than encourage developers to lower the bar. If crap games sell and get played then why strive for better?
 
i'll play mediocre games for 10 bucks, sure. It's the pure crapshoot between the mediocre and above-average games that keeps me from ever paying $60 for a new title, ever. That includes the AAAA titles for me.
 
I know, play game son a CONSOLE so you know how good you have it on a PC...
Did that and am giving the xBox away for X-Mass this year!

And while you're at it, play just about anything from EA, that'll make you appreciate the good stuff out there!
 
These guys make the worst point. I think the biggest problem with nearly every consumer segment is the fact people put up with crap and keep coming back for more. No company learns when they do this. And the opposite is true to there are so many PC gamers that are so cheap they killed the market for the games they loved. Eventually companies figure out some market segments are not worth pleasing.

Pay only for what is good.

And please pay for it if it is good.
 
Also people you have to vote hard with your money if a company screws me on one game I make sure not to buy any title from that company again for 1 cycle or the next 3 years. Basically if you screw up you should be done and unable to make another game.
 
rudy said:
Also people you have to vote hard with your money if a company screws me on one game I make sure not to buy any title from that company again for 1 cycle or the next 3 years. Basically if you screw up you should be done and unable to make another game.
Click to expand...

I agree with you completely. The fine line here is that the game companies are just itching for us to stop buying on pc. Its just the excuse they need to stop building games for us...........alongside the piracy crap they spew.
 
rudy said:
Also people you have to vote hard with your money if a company screws me on one game I make sure not to buy any title from that company again for 1 cycle or the next 3 years. Basically if you screw up you should be done and unable to make another game.
Click to expand...

Dunno about that.. I'd have liked to see Troika put out a post-apocalyptic game.
 
rudy said:
Also people you have to vote hard with your money if a company screws me on one game I make sure not to buy any title from that company again for 1 cycle or the next 3 years. Basically if you screw up you should be done and unable to make another game.
Click to expand...

Thats harsh dude. Bad games happen for a number of reasons and just because a studio fucks up once doesn't mean they'll never be able to make a good game. Hell look at Obsidian. Alpha Protocol was pure shit, Fallout: New Vegas is great.
 
Derangel said:
Thats harsh dude. Bad games happen for a number of reasons and just because a studio fucks up once doesn't mean they'll never be able to make a good game. Hell look at Obsidian. Alpha Protocol was pure shit, Fallout: New Vegas is great.
Click to expand...

Haven't most studios experienced the occasional dud anyway?

Opposite of the broken watch analogy.
 
Dan_D said:
I'll give bad games or potentially bad games a try at $5 or sometimes $10, but not at $49.99 or more. Screw that.
Click to expand...
I will pay $5 for a 5-10-year old game that used to be great to fill in any gaps in my time. I'm pretty sure I got the whole X-COM suite for $5.
 
I don't agree that we need to play terrible games to know how good the better games are. I think we need to play the lesser known titles more, because sometimes they have more original game play mechanics you just don't find anywhere else, and those are the games that need support. Deadly Premonition (which was $19.99 to $29.99 new at release, btw) actually had a very good story, in my opinion. Sure, the graphics were terrible and the controls were awkward to say the least, but it had an experience you just couldn't find anywhere else. Also, after I beat it, I found out that there were like a million side quests I had no idea existed. Considering these side quests had weapons that you couldn't get anywhere else, like rocket launchers and such, it does give you a big incentive to go back and slog through it. The closest game to it I can imagine is Silent Hill, but even then... there's a huge difference.
 
-BokkeN- said:
So, by trying something bad, you get a sense of what is good? In what world does that work? Should I have to eat dog food in order to know what it takes to be a great chef?

Playing great games gives you an appreciation for what good design is; not the other way around. There's a reason that games like Call of Duty sell a bazillion copies with every iteration, it's because they took a simple concept and improved upon it every time. If you try to incrementally improve a crappy game, you're probably just going to end up with a less crappy game, not a winner.

I do see how an overall bad game can still bring something new and fresh. But, businesses aren't interested in being new and fresh, they are interested in making money. And, you make far more money when you make a game that replicates a previous success than you do if you try to make something new.

It takes a long time before a new genre really becomes a money maker. Think about how long Beatmania has been around before games like Guitar Hero. Being the first one to create a new niche doesn't mean it will be a success right away.
Click to expand...

call of duty was always a pretty big success but the reason why the last two games sold so well is the same reason why these shitty songs on MTV and BET sell so well. they come up with a "catchy" formula and the retarded masses fall in love with it. i havent played black ops or MW2 so i dont have any personal experience with them, but i have read plenty about them from reviews and know that they dont have much ingenuity. same with so called "artists" like kesha and lil wayne. they throw out the same talentless crap but people buy it because it has a catchy tune.

hopefully people will catch on and demand better of their 59.99, otherwise we will have to put up with this shit forever.
 
homerandabe69 said:
call of duty was always a pretty big success but the reason why the last two games sold so well is the same reason why these shitty songs on MTV and BET sell so well. they come up with a "catchy" formula and the retarded masses fall in love with it. i havent played black ops or MW2 so i dont have any personal experience with them, but i have read plenty about them from reviews and know that they dont have much ingenuity. same with so called "artists" like kesha and lil wayne. they throw out the same talentless crap but people buy it because it has a catchy tune.

hopefully people will catch on and demand better of their 59.99, otherwise we will have to put up with this shit forever.
Click to expand...

COD won't be popular that long. CODBLOPS is only the third one since MW1, so it hasn't been too long yet. However there is a peak and eventually it will fall off. Look at Guitar Hero. It sold horribly. The music genre itself is slipping. FPS are likely to stay big through the generation, but I wonder if something else will take their place during the next console cycle.
 
Within the hour, JC has caught up w/Alex in Hong Kong for the umpteenth time. His misadventures in Seattle, a regretful one time affair, do serve to make the distinction.
 
Well,I guess they have a point,after all,playing Wolfenstein made me appreciate how great a game RTCW was even more. But I still detest Raven for ruining a classic franchise and ripping me off!:mad:
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top