I think there's an inherent problem with games as a whole that prevents the "so-bad-it's-good" assessment: one thing that's fun about bad movies is watching them with a group of friends. You all get to talk over it, make comments about the bad parts, continue to make jokes about it even after the movie's over, etc. It is essentially an activity that is at it's best as a group activity. There is a problem however when this translates to games. Unless it's a multiplayer game, there will be one person who has to slog through the bad gameplay while those around them don't have to experience it. It puts the player in a position where they're doing more work for possibly less enjoyment, because depending on the game they may have to put more attention into actually playing it that there leaves little room to joke with the rest of the group. It would be like if you and a group of friends decided to watch a bad film, but while they got to watch the bad film you had to work a projector where you had to switch and operate reels at the right time so it seems seamless. At a certain point, you just stop paying attention to what you're friends are doing as you now essentially spend the next 1 1/2-2 hours working.
And this to me is the problem with Lollipop Chainsaw. The advantage that games such as Bayonetta and Blood Dragon have is that while the presentation is indeed silly, stupid, and bad, there's a fun game to be had, so that while you're friends get to enjoy all the bad presentation, you get to supplement the parts you're missing with engaging and exciting gameplay. Further, the gameplay on it's own is enough for a person to play the game by themselves, as there's enough there for them that they don't always need the group to enjoy it with, but the option is always there regardless. Lollipop Chainsaw, because it has combat that is sluggish and bland, makes it a chore for the player, making it seem more like you're working to put on a performance for your friends rather than enjoying something with them. To me, this is why it's a lot harder to do "so-bad-it's-good" games, because the consideration still has to be towards good gameplay, which I feel some developers feel they can relax on if they have the silliness/badness there. That's why I don't like Suda 51's games, it feels like he thought he didn't need to make something actually fun and engaging on it's own because the silly/bad aspects were peppered in to sort of distract the player.