It really happened to me with Sphinx and the Cursed Mummy. I really wanted to like the game, because I've always found even the slightest bit of Egyptian mythology interesting. However, there was none to be had, which was a shame, but the game could've been good without it. It just wasn't. I really did enjoy the sections playing as the Mummy. It was inventive mechanic, but it very quickly seemed to run out of ideas, and the section playing as Sphinx is yawn-inducing platforming that controlled fairly badly at times. The further along I got, the more I realized that I was playing an entirely mediocre game.
Strangely, I think that mediocre games are the worst kind. The reason I find is that most of the bad games I play are bad because they tried something new and it didn't work, and games that are great tried something new that did work. A good game can also be a game that succeeds in improving upon the past incarnations of the game's mechanics.
Also, truly bad games are memorable in that they are frustratingly awful. At the same time, a good game is a memorable experience too. But a mediocre game just fades away, and as a developer, you should be most ashamed of that. A game that leaves no impression on its audience and slips quietly away to die the most pitiful death T.S. Elliot said we all will.
Strangely, I think that mediocre games are the worst kind. The reason I find is that most of the bad games I play are bad because they tried something new and it didn't work, and games that are great tried something new that did work. A good game can also be a game that succeeds in improving upon the past incarnations of the game's mechanics.
Also, truly bad games are memorable in that they are frustratingly awful. At the same time, a good game is a memorable experience too. But a mediocre game just fades away, and as a developer, you should be most ashamed of that. A game that leaves no impression on its audience and slips quietly away to die the most pitiful death T.S. Elliot said we all will.