Poll: Which is worst? A bad game that does well or a good game that doesn't?
- Thread starter SomeBritishDude
- Start date
Recommended Videos
Surely if a bad game is doing well then the good games are likely not to be doing well, if that is the case then they are as bad as each other. I voted good games going unsuccessful though.
Although "Good" and "Bad" are often relative the failure of good games is the greater harm. If a bad game succeeds, and there are some that are universally bad, at least there is money flowing into the studios, keeping the doors open and showing the execs that there will continue to be profit in making games. But when good games fail it causes the execs to back off and spend development dollars elsewhere.
I wouldn't say that either would piss me off very much. And Double Fine has released two very under appreciated but great game titles:
The people who play them love them. The people who don't, don't really mind.
The people who play them love them. The people who don't, don't really mind.
I only hate it when people don't like a good game. If people buy a bad game because its popular, then that's their problem. If they don't buy a good game because they never heard of it, then that's their problem too. I'm just picking the greater of the two evils.
I will go with good, unsuccessful game.
Bad games that are successful are annoying, but at worst they will boost the development of genres I didn't enjoy to begin with. All I have to do then is stay away from modern war FPS or rythm games. That a good game is unsuccessful means the franchise is most likely dead, that it is unlikely that I will get another one of those anytime soon and the developers whose work I enjoyed are on risk of being laid off.
Bad games that are successful are annoying, but at worst they will boost the development of genres I didn't enjoy to begin with. All I have to do then is stay away from modern war FPS or rythm games. That a good game is unsuccessful means the franchise is most likely dead, that it is unlikely that I will get another one of those anytime soon and the developers whose work I enjoyed are on risk of being laid off.
A good game that doesn't do well is worse.
At least a "bad" game becomes successful by a lot of people enjoying it.
At least a "bad" game becomes successful by a lot of people enjoying it.
Good games that do bad can become cult classics (looking at you Psychonauts) so I don't really mind that, tho it is disappointing that the masses can't see its greatness. But bad games that do well are infuriating because they feed the trend and demand for such low-level, shallow games. They tend to be emulated because studios want to make cash, and then we are left with a bunch of filth muddying up our game stores. Absolutely hate them.
Bad games that are successful (cough MW2 cough) lead the industry to believe that the game did things correctly, so it starts a trend. That's WAY worse than a good game falling by the wayside.
Neither.
Just because YOU in particular think a game is bad doesn't mean the millions who think otherwise are wrong.
The game that YOU think is awesome but dies doesn't mean its an awesome game that failed, but rather you liked a game not many other people liked.
I wish people stopped thinking that just because they don't like a game it means it's bad. Only that you and the others that think like you think its bad. While the other people who bought it and love it think its great.
Just because YOU in particular think a game is bad doesn't mean the millions who think otherwise are wrong.
The game that YOU think is awesome but dies doesn't mean its an awesome game that failed, but rather you liked a game not many other people liked.
I wish people stopped thinking that just because they don't like a game it means it's bad. Only that you and the others that think like you think its bad. While the other people who bought it and love it think its great.
i would define "Bad" in my opinion as a piece of corporate stagnation.
i don't like it when you get halo or Call of Duty sequals with numbers above 3, which then proceeds to sell WWWAAAYYY too many copies and it turns into the "biggest game evar" only to realize it sucks.
I would perfer that smaller companies make more innovative, unique games that plesantly surprise everyone and turn out really good (to those who play it)
on a side note... halo reach is supposedly the "most anticipated game of 2010".
um.. starcraft 2? took blizz 12 years and i was stoked about that the second i heard of it ALMOST being done.
i don't like it when you get halo or Call of Duty sequals with numbers above 3, which then proceeds to sell WWWAAAYYY too many copies and it turns into the "biggest game evar" only to realize it sucks.
I would perfer that smaller companies make more innovative, unique games that plesantly surprise everyone and turn out really good (to those who play it)
on a side note... halo reach is supposedly the "most anticipated game of 2010".
um.. starcraft 2? took blizz 12 years and i was stoked about that the second i heard of it ALMOST being done.
bad games do well all the time ive come to except that but if a good game doesnt sell well where taking money frome people who actualy deserve it