Poll: Would you rather play terrible, but functional game, or good but but buggy/glitchy game?

[FakeSympathy]

A terrible game with bad story, repetitive gameplay, and multiplayer that is so basic and brings nothing new to the industry, but has little to no problems when it comes to functionality.

OR

A game that has superb writing and voice acting, fun gameplay, great multiplater and gives great rewards, but it's filled bugs and glitches and crashes all the time, AND the devs will never patch the issues.

Which of the two games would you rather play? Both games are worth standard $65 USD with tax.

Bonus question: If both games had dlcs/season pass, which game would be worth the extra money in your opimion? Remember, the second game will NEVER be patched by the devs

 

[Recusant]

Are we assuming this is in some alternate reality where mods and fan patches don't exist? Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason on Earth to take the first option.

 

[distortedreality]

I loved Alpha Protocol.

'Nuff said.

If the mods don't think I've said enough - I'd much rather take something original and innovative with flaws than generic and bugless.

 

[Droopie]

A good game that isn't playable is not a good game. I would play neither.

 

[SlumlordThanatos]

I honestly don't know. I've had a lot of fun with both ends of the spectrum.

On one hand, you have anything made by Bethesda. I've sunk hundreds of hours into the likes of TES and the Fallout series.

On the other hand, you have Destiny, which is still one of the smoothest and most satisfying-to-play shooters I've ever played. Too bad I can't find anyone to play with without trolling the forums or using a third-party website. Not to mention the fact that it was shackled to the previous generation of consoles.

If Bungie made a Destiny 2, and applied the lessons they learned from the first game, it has a huge amount of potential. For now, however, it goes on the pile with the likes of RAGE and Advent Rising for games that should've been great, but weren't.

 

[ScrabbitRabbit]

Eh, of the choices I'd go with the second. I really like Obsidian and Troika's games and I played Dark Souls on PC without DSFix up until Quelaag (although my experience with that was totally fine, the frame rate and resolution caps didn't bother me and I didn't experience any bugs) so I guess I can tolerate a certain amount of bugginess if the game itself is good. There is definitely a limit, though. A game as broken as, say, Sonic 06 or Ride to Hell is just not going to be good game, regardless of how well designed it is.

But basically, I'd rather play a good game that breaks sometimes than one that's just bad at its core. The buggy game will at least be fun when it works, the bad game will always be bad.

 

[G00N3R7883]

I've got over 60 games on my Steam wishlist, and several more on an Excel list that aren't on Steam yet.

There's no need to compromise on quality from either point of view. If a game is crap, I'll play something else.

 

[FalloutJack]

Well, since I am obviously a Fallout fan, that would put me on the latter category.

 

[tippy2k2]

So basically my choice is a game that's super boring but works versus a game that has good ideas but the game is broken.

In this weird bizarro world where those are my only two options, I think I'm going to take Option 3 and just not play video games.

 

[Recusant]

Are we assuming this is in some alternate reality where mods and fan patches don't exist? Otherwise, I don't think there's any reason on Earth to take the first option.

Welcome to the amazing world of console gaming!

Well, they're finally starting to catch up- well, okay, not "catch up", but "start moving". But given those circumstances... my point stands.

 

[Neurotic Void Melody]

Why would anyone pick the first option? Just because it functions, doesn't make it worth your time. Adam sandler films technically function...but those endless turdlets can go fuck themselve's for a cancerous eternity if they think that makes them better than anything to else.
There is a limit to glitchiness though, usually humourous and not consistently game breaking is ok. To be honest... I need a full rundown of all the possible glitches before any decisions, but I still wouldn't play a shite, yet functioning game. Nothing is black and white, but the first option is still stupid.

 

[Shoggoth2588]

So basically, would I rather play Crackdown or Batman: Arkham Origin? Oh, or Just Cause 3 vs. Batman: Arkham Knight!

Giving myself those above parameters, I'd go with Crack Cause...Just-Down...I have a high tolerance for repetition, hence my appreciation for the Warriors games, and I'd rather have something that works but which I've played a billion times before something new that seems great that I just can't stand to play. Another game this reminds me of is Undertale: I love everything about the game except for the game itself. The writing, the characters, the music, even the setting is kinda interesting but I just hated the gameplay...the obvious problem though is that it's not broken or glitchy, it's just boring as all Hell.

 

[CaitSeith]

What about one that is good and functional? Yeah, weird concept, isn't it? I must be on drugs to even suggest such thing!

 

[MysticSlayer]

I consider non-functioning to be a qualifier of a terrible game. At least with Bethesda game, a lot of the glitches are entertaining in their own right, and I know they'll be fixed, both officially and unofficially, providing for more immersive runs later. The console can also fix some stuff.

However, any great game that remains so buggy as to hinder the experience is, to me, a terrible game. I'd probably have a bit more fun with the safe, bland game, because at least it didn't look like it had wasted potential.

 

[gmaverick019_v1legacy]

I loved Alpha Protocol.

'Nuff said.

If the mods don't think I've said enough - I'd much rather take something original and innovative with flaws than generic and bugless.

yup, this and kotor 2 were the first things to spring to mind.

I've played these games over and over, yet a boring/functional game I'll put down after 15 minutes.

 

[DoPo]

I loved Alpha Protocol.

'Nuff said.

If the mods don't think I've said enough - I'd much rather take something original and innovative with flaws than generic and bugless.

yup, this and kotor 2 were the first things to spring to mind.

I've played these games over and over, yet a boring/functional game I'll put down after 15 minutes.

Alpha Protocol
KOTOR 2

And then (mostly in no particular order):
Vampire the Masquerade - Bloodlines
Arcanum: of Steamworks and Magick Obscura
Arx Fatalis
The Elder Scrolls III: Morrowind
Saints Row 2 (on PC)
Lucius[footnote]I wouldn't call it "magnificent" or anything but it's a different premise, at lease. Considering how cheap it is, I'd much rather just get an amount of Lucius-like games that is equivalent in value to, say, Mass Effect or something.[/footnote]
Might & Magic VII: For Blood and Honor[footnote]This one also sort of qualifies. It's not really that buggy, really, but the interface is atrocious. It was atrocious for 1999 and it looked and felt even worse when I first encountered it few years later. Yet, I really fell in love with it, despite that. Even playing it today is awkward, yet I still do.[/footnote]
XCOM: Enemy Unknown

These aren't just games I have played, these are some of my favourite games ever. I'd much much rather play an interesting game than a boring one. Bugs I can live with - whatever, there is no bug-free software, so whatever.

 

[Strelok]

I would take another S.T.A.L.K.E.R. over yet another Halo, CoD, Gears of Snore, on and on to the next video game crash any day.

 

[KissingSunlight]

I recently retired the game Wet, because the controls were too buggy. I was heartbroken. I love the style of the game. I love the voice acting. So, give me functional but repetitive. In other words, casual games. Candy Crush, Angry Birds, Tetris, etc.