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

Recommended Videos

Souplex

Souplex Killsplosion Awesomegasm
Jul 29, 2008
10,312
0
0
Between Fallout New Vegas and Half Life: 2, I'd definitely go New Vegas, and if there was a season pass I would have bought once considering I bought all the DLC.
 

GrumbleGrump

New member
Oct 14, 2014
387
0
0
Strelok said:
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.
Yup yup.

At least a good but buggy game can at least elicit some sort of emotion, even if it's rage. I'd rather have 15 minutes of fun than 2 hours of zoning out.
 

JohnnyDelRay

New member
Jul 29, 2010
1,322
0
0
Like most I played Fallout New Vegas close to release date and loved it. But to be frank, I would only tolerate bugs to a certain point. Being on PC, there tend to be workarounds, official/unofficial patches, fixes, console commands. Things to do before the game becomes truly broke, unplayable, or you lose your save progress. New Vegas had a lot of things to fix that.

However, of course there have been times where bugs made me put the game down for a good while, and some forever. All in all I'd prefer a good but buggy game tho, in a heartbeat.
 

balladbird

Master of Lancer
Legacy
Jan 25, 2012
972
2
13
Country
United States
Gender
male
Fallout: new vegas.

That is my answer in a nutshell.
 

DementedSheep

New member
Jan 8, 2010
2,654
0
0
Actually working is part of being a "good" game. Though to answer the question I would rather play a game with bugs that is interesting (especially since I can usually fix or work around buggy games with simple INI tweaks, console commands or fan patches) when its working than one that is always boring although there is a limit to what I will put up with, I didn't finish theif:DS since it crashed too often. If it is notoriously buggy I will not pay full price for it.

If a game is bland and repetitive why would I buy it at all? It doesn't matter if it works when I don't like what it offers.
 

Kyrian007

Nemo saltat sobrius
Legacy
Mar 9, 2010
2,658
755
118
Kansas
Country
U.S.A.
Gender
Male
I play primarily on PC. So of course bugs and glitches. I just google the game's name and add the word "fix" to the search string, follow the directions, and the bugs and glitches go away. A bad game on the other hand... you can't really fix it. I still wish developers would stop considering launch as what used to be called a beta phase. But on pc... someone's already fixed the issue, even if the dev won't.
 

SweetShark

Shark Girls are my Waifus
Jan 9, 2012
5,147
0
0
Isn't the answer obvious?
Better to enjoy a game as much as I can than not even have fun at all.
I could easily select the 3rd neutral option, but having fun is top priority.
 
Jan 19, 2016
692
0
0
I'd much rather a game that strives to be great and falls short, than a game that is content to settle for competent mediocrity. I'll take Bioware or Obsidian with all the bugs over Ubisoft any day.
 

Bobular

New member
Oct 7, 2009
845
0
0
A playable bad game is still a bad game and a waste of money.

Also if the good but buggy game gets DLC but doesn't fix bugs, devs will get no additional money from me.
 

Xprimentyl

Made you look...
Legacy
Aug 13, 2011
6,974
5,379
118
Country
United States
Gender
Male
I wouldn?t play either one. Assuming this question was posed with extreme examples in mind, fun and functionality shouldn?t be mutually exclusive. A great game that is basically unplayable wouldn?t be worth the effort and an awful game that plays smoothly would be equally worthless because who plays games for functionality alone?

Now, if we?re talking more realistically, every game has it?s opportunities, so of course I?d accept a good game with a few glitches if the fun factor forgives the glitches. Conversely, if ?not fun or interesting? is the defining phrase of a nearly technically flawless game, I?m not going to bother.
 
Jan 19, 2016
692
0
0
Bobular said:
A playable bad game is still a bad game and a waste of money.

Also if the good but buggy game gets DLC but doesn't fix bugs, devs will get no additional money from me.
When all else fails, put your faith in Durante.
 

MeatMachine

Dr. Stan Gray
May 31, 2011
597
0
0
Would you rather play Fallout: New Vegas, or Flappy Bird?

The answer is obvious... one option is negotiable, the other option is not even worth considering.
 

Tanis

The Last Albino
Aug 30, 2010
5,264
0
0
IS IT FUN/ENGAGING?

After that, it doesn't matter.

Barley functional, I can deal with.
Being bored to tears, I cannot.
 

Johnny Novgorod

Bebop Man
Legacy
Feb 9, 2012
19,347
4,013
118
How glitchy? Arkham Origins I can handle; Shadow of Mordor on the PS3 (haha I know fuck me) not so much.
 

happyninja42

Elite Member
Legacy
May 13, 2010
8,577
2,990
118
I've played plenty of terrible games that are designed well, and it was never fun.

I rarely have major issues when it comes to game bugs, not on the level that most people have. They are usually, for me, very minor annoyances, that are usually easily fixed with a reload of a save file or something. So yeah, Good game but buggy is the way to go for me. A bad game is still a bad game.
 

Zaltys

New member
Apr 26, 2012
216
0
0
I think the industry has already answered this.
Just look at games such as Fallout: New Vegas or Daggerfall. The latter crashed every fifteen minutes on average, until numerous patches later. But it was still good enough make Elder Scrolls one of the most popular RPG series.

If it's a great game, it doesn't matter much if it crashes constantly. It'll still be popular.