Supporting an " INDIE Game Developer " known for its " bad games " is okay ?
(Stratgy)(Point and click ) games are bad as hell and boring dunno how people play that shit xD
Comment has been collapsed.
There are very good strategy games and very good point and click games.
Just because you don't like to think, doesn't mean other people don't
Comment has been collapsed.
for an example like what?? give me some good games you like and i'm gonna try 'em
and who said anything about thinking it's just the style of games makes me sick so boring to play
Comment has been collapsed.
Point & Click: TellTale's The Walking Dead. Day of the Tentacle.
Strategy: X-Com Enemy Unknown. Civilization I, II or IV. Sid Meier's Pirates! (any version), Company of Heroes (or Warcraft/Starcraft if you'd prefer an older one) Total War is totally awesome, but the series is very inconsistent as to taste
Comment has been collapsed.
Not every one of these games are bad, maybe boring is better term because many of them are just the same...
Comment has been collapsed.
My brother says the same. He can't understand playing HOGs, as they're "boring as hell and stupid", meanwhile I have around 20+ HOGs on Steam and even don't have time to play them. :D
I don't know, sometimes they bore me too, but it's always fun. I have every ArtifexMundi game except the newest Eventide which I'm trying to win here. :D
Comment has been collapsed.
And here I wish BigFish games would release their catalogue on Steam, or at least only the Mystery Case Files series. I know that some of them are on Steam, but it's not even half of them. Also by some inunderstandable logic, it misses Dire Grove and the games onward, but it has Escape from Ravenhearst.
Comment has been collapsed.
everyone has different tastes - some people even like "bad" games, the same way that people like "bad" movies.
Feel free to support whoever you want but expect to be derided for it
Comment has been collapsed.
Radical Roaches.. T_T. I know you didn't want a name, but anything that looks like that
Comment has been collapsed.
For me there is a definite difference between bad and what I do not like, did not enjoy playing. While certainly connected the bad game is bad because of badly coded, thought out, executed, terrible controls, no point / reward etc. while the defintiion most people seem to use is games that are just not what one would want or likes to see in a game of (maybe even the genre). Even bad games can be fun to play. Games you dislike for personal (taste) reasons will never be, no matter how well it was exectuted.
Apart from that I feel supporting any developer is always ok. One never knows what he / she / the company might grow in to or produce next right? :)
Comment has been collapsed.
If the words "digital homicide" are anywhere on the store page
Comment has been collapsed.
Bad game = could not entertain me
Good game = could entertain me
Great game = still entertaining me after thousand of replays OR left a huge impact on my gaming life
Comment has been collapsed.
Actually, this is about the exact definition I was going to give. +1
Comment has been collapsed.
Guys and girls, there's a difference between saying that a game is bad and saying that you don't like a game. So, a bad game, for me, is a game that has bugs, poor quality of storyline, forgettable characters, and poor dialogues. Games that I don't like are the games that have no storyline at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
The fact that you're obviously kidding, doesn't matter at all? How could someone like bugs, poor quality of storyline, forgettable characters, and poor dialogues?
Comment has been collapsed.
Yes, I can already see the reviews:
1) Game crashing at launch. 10/10
2) My character got stuck in a door. Awesome game, would get stuck again.
3) The boss is invincible because of a bug, so here's a positive review.
xD
As I said, there's a difference between saying that a game is bad and saying that you don't like a game. We may dislike a game that is widely considered as a very good game. But I can't say that it's a bad game just because I don't like it, because that wouldn't be fair. Quality is determined by the masses, while likability is determined by each person invidually.
For example, you may not like a top quality Scotch for whatever reason, but you can't say that it's bad, because it's not bad - it's top quality. xD
Comment has been collapsed.
Maybe I shouldn't say "determined by the masses", but mostly determined by their characteristics, which characteristics are determined by the experts. There are some characteristics that define if each object is good or bad. A red wine will need to have some specific characteristics to be considered a good one. A racing game will need to have some specific characteristics to be considered a good one. And so on. We're not the ones that determine quality, but their own characteristics. So, as I said, I probably used the wrong term before. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
I'm pretty sure that experts exist about every matter. If I say that a wine is good, it won't mean that it's actually good, because I'm not a wine expert, so that's merely my humble opinion. If multiple experts agree though that this wine is good, then it actually is, but this doesn't mean that everyone will actually like it. So, I'm pretty sure that experts exist and that they do not randomly define the quality of an object, but instead they define it correctly because of their experience and education on that matter. Anyway, peace! ;P
Comment has been collapsed.
You can in fact see the reviews, this is a word by word troll review, steam is filled with them. Well this is depressing.
Comment has been collapsed.
True that. You can see this kind of reviews, but they're not truthful. :P
Comment has been collapsed.
Some bugs can actually make the game more entertaining (for unintended reasons), and heck, there are games that I've enjoyed because of them.
And some bugs make the game nigh unplayable.
Comment has been collapsed.
I agree with sunlikely. Some bugs can actually be very entertaining (STALKER: SoC ).
Comment has been collapsed.
True, but it's still one I especially enjoyed under the circumstances since I was expecting a baddy to rush around a corner and shoot me in the face at any minute.
Have you seen the Mount and Blade: Warband flying corpse (or possessed corpse, as I call it) glitch? That's a good one.
Comment has been collapsed.
I told you before that it's an awesome game, but you can't believe me. :'( I'm a Daedalic fanboy. :B
Comment has been collapsed.
A game with bad design in regards to player vs. opponent. For example, RNG is TERRIBLE game design for making a game fair and adjustable, unless you WANT to be screwed over constantly by random chance. I just beat Red Faction : Guerilla for the first time a few days ago and that game is ridiculous. It shoves enemies down your throat like you're eating at a zombie horde buffet(Bad analogies! Yay!). The game was only slightly annoying up until the very last mission which is literally a vehicle vs. vehicle gauntlet, and enemies constantly spawn when you have an alert level (you get red automatically for the mission) and the vehicle you use is a missile-launcher-tank-thing. Now, imagine a bunch of vehicles trying to ram you and push you around while also have to deal with blockades of tank-trucks with explosive weapons, and you can also damage your self with your own explosive weapons. It turns into a cluster fuck of explosions, and you don't even get another vehicle if you lose it, so you have to run the rest of the way, being hit by 99% accuracy turrets, explosions, and being constantly run over by vehicles that the enemies never leave. I'm pretty sure it was intended to be impossible to complete without the vehicle, too. The gist is that the game's combat ends up being a clusterfuck when you have to end up fighting a lot of enemies and vehicles with very limited ammo. Other than that, the destruction system is pretty fun.
Point is, design. Design is the key component. In hindsight, A LOT of older games just have horrible design choices tagged onto them and yet a lot of the same older games are praised constantly. I guess it takes somebody without nostalgia to pick out the bullshit. Spamming units is never a good idea.
Comment has been collapsed.
A lot of older games are severely overrated.
In the early days of gaming, a lot of games came up with one thing novel, which wowed everyone. Sometimes that novel thing was so amazing it totally overshadowed how crappy the rest of the game was. But, now that the thing that made that game special has been refined to perfection, and has been done very often (and better) in other games, it just doesn't hold up.
Quite often, an old game plays almost like a beta release, because, compared to modern gaming, it practically was one
Comment has been collapsed.
I totally understand why the games were good at the time. They were new, they were unique, and they were probably the best at the time. Red Faction : Guerilla was good - for its time. I remember playing the demo/trial for it when I bought Ratchet and Clank : Up Your Arsenal, since this was back when games actually came with special promos and demo codes. The game was amazing. Is it still amazing? Sort of. The balancing is still terrible.
Lots of games are like this too. When I finally got to play Ratchet and Clank 1 & 2, I thought I was missing something because getting money in those games was either tied to skill(chaining up combos or whatever IIRC got you more money) or I just didn't explore the full game, so I missed out on a few upgrades and never even beat the first game. Let me tell you, Ratchet & Clank 1 & 2 are hard games. WAY harder than Up Your Arsenal, Crack in Time and... Whatever the other one was. Hell, even Jak 2 & 3 are pretty hard and I recall doing the jumps after you get the angel wings in Jak 3 pissed me off a lot because of how little room for error there was, and you would restart at the start of the room if you died (aka if you fell once).
Comment has been collapsed.
Try Ghosts & Goblins, then talk to me about what constitute a hard game
;)
Comment has been collapsed.
Fair enough. That's one of the very very very few old games I can think of that's probably more skill-based rather than "knowing the game".
Comment has been collapsed.
True
Most old games were hard because of bad design (or intentional, if coin-op)
Comment has been collapsed.
If only AVGN was here to tell us how bullshit some games are!
Comment has been collapsed.
I'd actually never heard of AVGN before that.
Thing is, I've been around long enough to remember which games are good, which are bad, and which were good, but aren't anymore.
I enjoy classic gaming, but I'm not enamored with the past, so I have no problem admitting what a pile of dogshit a "revered" game might be these days, or how a fantastic game for its time just doesn't hold up anymore - like many games listed in this thread
Comment has been collapsed.
I'll be honest, I was trying to make a joke about how every game AVGN/James has reviewed is basically a decent game laced with bullshit :P. I mean, he brings up a lot of good points about Battle Toads, for example. Multiplayer and yet you can sabotage yourself by killing your teammate....? I 'unno, I'm just not one for nostalgia and bias.
I'd like classic gaming if a lot of the games didn't involve doing each separate part over and over again, as that's not fun to me. I have never played a game, had to do a certain part over and over, and ended up being happy about it. That's asinine. For example, the "All you had to do was follow the damn train, CJ!" joke from San Andreas, where god damn Smoke's AI is absolutely atrocious at shooting. I'd bring up older examples but my personal thorough experiences only go back to N64 and barely any SNES/NES games.
Comment has been collapsed.
there's good reasons why games were like that, but, I agree, that's not fun (with some exceptions). IMO the standard of what a good game is has become much higher, and even mediocre games are much better than most of the good games of yesteryear. There are some exceptions, such as Super Mario Bros., which should be taught as an example of game design (seriously, there are so many things to point out), but, by and large, that's the case.
On the other hand, something can be said for simplicity, and I find that especially to be true for strategy and simulation games. Those games have gotten so big and bloated, that, in a way, they're worse than what came before. Ask a fan of Total War, Civilization, or Crusader Kings how many games they've started, and how many of those they've finished. Hell, a game of CK II takes hours just to really get going. But the first Civ, you'd finish most games: wrap-up might be a bit of a chore, but generally there wasn't that much of it, so you'd just slog through the last 10 turns or so to get it over with.
I've noticed something similar with other games, like Borderlands and Batman Arkham, that, especially with all the DLC it just becomes too big, and there comes a point where I just don't feel like playing anymore. So, in a way, an older game like Max Payne has a clear advantage, because I can finish it fairly quickly and move on.
Comment has been collapsed.
Yeah, I feel like a lot of games tend to drag on quite a bit. Batman Arkham definitely dragged on for me, I finished it for the first time about a month ago. My final thoughts was that you were essentially just running around the place, chasing villain after villain, and revisiting certain areas was just boring.
With Borderlands, my experience was that I liked the characters a lot and the variety of guns was fun but WOW the game just dragged on and on. I saw through it and realized that it really was the same thing over and over. There really wasn't any variety to the enemies overall and looking up into the sky to shoot some annoyingly hard to hit bird as a boss battle was, well, annoying. When I finally got the chance to play Borderlands 2, I got past the first area(when you get first get a vehicle is when I stopped) and quit. I couldn't handle it enough to play it all over again.
I've been feeling like this with strategy games. I either don't feel energetic enough to put in the time, or I don't have the time to sit down and look at a screen for 30 minutes just to progress a single turn. I still can't play Medieval II : Total War. Everyone makes it out to be a lengthy game that you have to think strategically about. I'm not willing to put forth the time to get used to it and learn how it's meant to be played. Same goes for HoMM III. No way I'll ever get good at that game. A friend of mine that I love to talk strategy games with (He bought me HoMM III over at GoG so we could play together, but I was laughably horrible at it, so I just gave up) even said that Crusader Kings is a slog to go through.
I like long games, but only if it can hold my attention. Ignoring the recent updates to Baldur's Gate 1 & 2, I have been having trouble even starting up BG 2 to finish it. I barely even got through BG1. Fans of both games are also very passionate about it and save no breath in explaining why the game's combat is so slow-paced and annoyingly confusing. I think Pillars of Eternity had this same issue, where the combat for some people was either very simple and plain or very confusing and weird to get into. Then there's planescape which is just... I'm not sure how to explain that one.
Woo! Points for going off on a tangent!
Comment has been collapsed.
HoMM was a fantastic game at the time, but, when I play it now, it just takes too long. Like, seriously, hour upon hour just to do anything too long. (plus, if you screw up early on, which you tend to do quite easily, you don't realize you can't beat a map until about 3-4 hours later, and fuck starting all over again at that point)
Total War: Rome and Total War: Medieval II are the pinnacles of the series. There's a great option to play a short campaign, where you win if you accomplish a reasonable goal, such as conquering all of france. Would be great, except, by the time you get there, you kind of want to keep going. The short campaign is too short, the long campaign is too long. the later games just get that much longer Do yourself a favor and try them. Crusader Kings II, on the other hand....
Great game, but it takes, what, 10 hours just to learn to play? great if you're some stoner in college, but not so good if you have a real job.
I agree with you on Baldur's Gate. I never made it to the end of the first game, and the second is even bigger. Torment, on the other hand, kept me enthralled from beginning to end.
Comment has been collapsed.
There are many little reasons, which can result in a bad game, but separately may not matter.
The most positively reviewed game which, in my opinion, was bad, is Life Is Strange. I only played the first episode, and most of its negative reviews are about last episode, so I should have loved it theoretically, but the specific reasons to dislike that one were the repetitive rewinding, and more importantly the boring drama between characters, which was supposed to be emotional and touching but really was just boring high school drama. It just tried so hard to pull some tears but failed miserably.
Most other games I dislike have enough negative reviews that I can agree with.
One of the main things I dislike is when the controls are not responsive, and/or the game punishes you for something that isn't your mistake.
Then there are things like lack of content and/or repetitiveness.
Bugs/glitches.
Probably some other stuff I can't remember now.
Comment has been collapsed.
A mix between personal taste and the overall competence of the developers.
I have a special place for overly ambitious games, so yes i would say its ok to support these games, at its lowest form games are atleast entertainment and if you find some enjoyment out of them, independently if it was intended or not.
For me the key word is self-awareness, i wouldnt support developers like DH, because these games where never intended to be good.
Comment has been collapsed.
Remember Me definitely belongs in this category. Very ambitious, and brimming with ideas, but the gameplay is just dull and monotonous
Comment has been collapsed.
Agreed, i could add ubersoldier, deadly premonition and afterfall insanity, Just off the top of my head.
Comment has been collapsed.
A bad game is a game that you don't have fun playing. Simple as that.
That's why also some games are terrible for some people but awesome to others.
Comment has been collapsed.
A game that irritates you more than it should entertain you is a bad game. It may fail to do so because of it lacks content, it can't deliver the content it has (maybe because of bugs/glitches) or because it has no content at all.
Comment has been collapsed.
Being boring, being unimaginative, insulting the player by dumbing itself down to levels where your contribution to the gameplay is holding a controller/mouse and letting the mechanics take care of everything else. (Except if the game is designed to be an interactive film, like many do nowadays. In that case badness is determined similarly to movies, so mostly depends on writing, directing, acting.)
Comment has been collapsed.
Games that don't make me want to play them more, for hours or game that I can't enjoy or have fun with because of several reasons, like gameplay/atmosphere or story.
Comment has been collapsed.
I can't stand brussel sprouts, so any game with brussel sprouts in it is bad.
Comment has been collapsed.
What if the game is you destroying brussel sprouts?
Comment has been collapsed.
If I enjoy playing a game, then I consider it a good game. If I don't then it's not a good game. It has nothing to do with graphics (for me), because to this day Deadly Premonition is one of the best games I've ever played. Yeah, it has a lot of bugs, it's unoptimized and looks like a PS 2 game, but its story is so good, that I consider it a good game. Also it was able to keep me interested in it until the end of the about 20 hours long story. That's something isn't it? So everything I enjoy playing is a good game. I hate startegies and MMOs, except XCOM (the newer ones) and The Secret World.
Comment has been collapsed.
Totally agree on the graphics part. As long as the gameplay and the game itself is fun, I don't really care too much for graphics. Having amazing graphics is just a plus.
Comment has been collapsed.
Truly bad game for me is something like Ride to Hell: Retribution. It's essentially broken game with awfully low quality of pretty much everything, that may be hilarious to watch people play and even "so bad it's fun" for a short amount of time, but it's a nightmare in the long run. With games that works and present some quality content, I prefer to use term "disappointing" than "bad".
Comment has been collapsed.
A bad game is a game that doesn't try. Lacks any passion.
Comment has been collapsed.
If the actual control/movement system is poorly done to the point that even simple gameplay is frustrating, I'd generally consider a game as bad. Beyond that. there's always merit to be found in something by at least one person; games aren't particularly different from books or films or music in that regard, so each to their own
Comment has been collapsed.
Comment has been collapsed.