Poll: Which is worst? A bad game that does well or a good game that doesn't?

[darrinwright]

Good game that's unsuccessful. The developers will believe that the good game "didn't work" or was too much of a risk, and therefore would instead emulate a crappy game that sold well.

 

[TPiddy]

Bad successful is worse for the reasons mentioned. Clones, very similar releases, jacking up prices for no reason, etc....

A good game that isn't all that successful is still regarded as a good game and as such can develop a following over time. I loved Brutal Legend even though it sold poorly, and I also loved that I could buy it new for $20.

 

[Wolf Devastator]

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.

Of course, Bad Company 2 did surprisingly well because of it's beta and well, good gameplay.

So not all hope is lost for the shooter genre

 

[Red Right Hand]

Bad games that are successful, because then nobody shuts up about how "good" they are.

 

[MrLumber]

A bad game doing well is worse because then all that anyone gets is a bad game, additionally dozens of even worse bad game clones will come out and clog the arteries of the industry. At least when a good game comes out, but doesn't do well, prospectors still have a good game to play.

 

[MetallicaRulez0]

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.

Of course, Bad Company 2 did surprisingly well because of it's beta and well, good gameplay.

So not all hope is lost for the shooter genre

I found the beta of BC2 to be clunky, sluggish, and all around not very fun. The controls just felt like molasses compared to Call of Duty. I suppose every shooter does though. Vehicles ruin shooters for me as well, even if they are balanced (which they never are, and BC2 was no exception).

 

[inFAMOUSCowZ]

i say good games that do bad.

Like Alan Wake
Brutal Legend
Too Human (somewhat)
Kameo
Valkryia Chronicles
Mad World.

This games will probable never have a true sequel

 

[josemlopes]

The problem with the question is that both options are relative to one another, so really neither.

But if we define 'bad' as phoning it in, and 'good' as wacky and innovative, I'd say the former is worse. Like it or lump it, stuff like Psychonauts and Scott Pilgrim will never be popular because they are TOO innovative.

But that doesn't give the right for men in grey to dump the same old shit on our doorstops. There's a reason Halo 3 and MW2 are constantly ripped on now, and it's not because they are popular (although that helps) it's because -despite being solid games - they barely changed anything and got away with it. When that happens, you can't blame them for doing it over...and over...

Scot Pilgrim isnt inovative, maybe the art style, either way, did anyone noticed that the idle animation is him facing the enemy backwards? And doing this weird movement with his face?
Either then that its an ok game

 

[imnot]

Bad game that's succesful, *ahem Modern warfare 2*

 

[Onyx Oblivion]

Good game that doesn't.

Okami had TWO chances. Gamers failed it twice. Most games don't get two chances. This did, and it still failed!