Why certain people will defend a clearly bad game

[ikoian]

Some people just like enjoying a train wreck.

I would equate it to a bad movie, but there are obviously major differences between the two. However, the premise is still there that people will play something just to see how bad it is and they might even enjoy it. Hell, I've meet people that enjoy Sonic 06 because of how shitty it is, and will defend it to a point, but will say it's still bad.

So yeah, train wrecks man.

I agree with this... if it weren't for the fact that games are $50-$60.
I mean, I for one plan on picking the Walking Dead SI up at $5 just to see if I can beat the game using only Gatorade nut punches, and I won't tell people that buying games at full price just because of how hilariously awful it is is wrong. I just think that it's a little careless considering many people don't have the luxury to throw around money like that. I wouldn't pay someone to reenact a train wreck, I'm not that sociopathic.

 

[Fiz_The_Toaster]

Some people just like enjoying a train wreck.

I would equate it to a bad movie, but there are obviously major differences between the two. However, the premise is still there that people will play something just to see how bad it is and they might even enjoy it. Hell, I've meet people that enjoy Sonic 06 because of how shitty it is, and will defend it to a point, but will say it's still bad.

So yeah, train wrecks man.

I agree with this... if it weren't for the fact that games are $50-$60.
I mean, I for one plan on picking the Walking Dead SI up at $5 just to see if I can beat the game using only Gatorade nut punches, and I won't tell people that buying games at full price just because of how hilariously awful it is is wrong. I just think that it's a little careless considering many people don't have the luxury to throw around money like that. I wouldn't pay someone to reenact a train wreck, I'm not that sociopathic.

There are people that do throw money around with reckless abandonment though. I'm not saying what they're doing is wrong or anything, just that some people just don't care. I mean, I will borrow or rent a game if I hear how shit-tastic it is and see for myself, but not at $60.

Train wrecks are a powerful and wondrous thing to behold, so powerful, in fact, that some people don't mind spending money on it. Logic be damned!

 

[tsb247]

Can you clarify me what comes under poor game design and bad ideas? I'm not sure if you mean issues like glitches and bugs, which I do agree make an objectively bad game, or thematic ideas which I think do have a lot of subjectivity to them.

I'm not speaking in terms of thematic ideas or storytelling in and of themselves (although they can play a part), but instead I am referring to bugs, glitches, not delivering on promised features, rushed development, poor visual design, and poor level design, and sloppy optimization. That, along with the subjective elements like what could be called a poor story, poor voice acting, etc all go into making a game demonstrably bad.

 

[Adeptus Aspartem]

Can you clarify me what comes under poor game design and bad ideas? I'm not sure if you mean issues like glitches and bugs, which I do agree make an objectively bad game, or thematic ideas which I think do have a lot of subjectivity to them.

I'm not speaking in terms of thematic ideas or storytelling in and of themselves (although they can play a part), but instead I am referring to bugs, glitches, not delivering on promised features, rushed development, poor visual design, and poor level design, and sloppy optimization. That, along with the subjective elements like what could be called a poor story, poor voice acting, etc all go into making a game demonstrably bad.

But even in some of those cases i had great fun with games. The Gothic series was always full of bugs/glitches but still the best western RPG i've ever played. Though one should know, that besides Gothic 1+2 no Gothic game exists in my universe.

On another note would be Two Worlds and Two World Two. I probably have more played time in each of them than in Skyrim. It's buggy, it was completly broken and you counldn't find any balance no matter how hard you looked.. but i loved it.
And if only to exploit the living shit out of that game.

There's really just one measurement i have for games: enjoyment
Graphics, bugs, bad writing. All that and everything else you can think off does not bother me, as long as the game is fun.

So jeah, an objectivley bad game would be a game which nobody in the world likes. Since that's not the case, there's no "bad game". Just a bunch of games the vast majority doesnt approve of - but who cares.

 

[tsb247]

This is pretty much the point I was trying to make, albeit a bit clearer.
Also, I like your point on how developers are given a false sense of security. Game companies can release any type of garbage and as long as they can snag a few sales (which is easily achieved by manipulating a fanbase) then they still profit - especially since they probably didn't even spend a lot of money on the first place on the game. Then they can release another piece of shit game to get more money because they know that some people who bought the first game will defend it because they spent money on it and will want to feel as though they were justified in purchasing it so they won't feel as though they wasted money. When people defend a defective product, they can inadvertently generate a few more sales because they make it more confusing for consumers to determine whether or not a product is defective - which eventually leads to more sales of the video game company.

When a game is mediocre, that can either mean that the company a) ran out of time/money b) they didn't give two shits about the actual product because they know they'll make their money back.
If a game falls into the first category (again Fallout: New Vegas comes to mind) its still a good game that just has limitations due to the aforementioned problems, so it may still be worth a purchase.
If a game falls into the second category, it's an insult to the entire industry and to gamers in general.

Yep, you and I are on the same page. It really gets to me how groups can defend a game to the death even though it can be shown to be complete garbage. I used the case of The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct. Many die-hard fans of the series seem to love it. However, that does not make it a good game, and that certainly doesn't make it worth the price tag. The fact that there is a group of people defending a game that is complete garbage by design only reinforces the developers and their methods, in this case, releasing a crappy game.

The same can be said for The War Z as well. Many die-hard fans will defend it to the death despite the disaster that its launch was. Sure, it's being fixed up as time goes on, but it's still far from what was promised, and it looks like a three to five year old game already.

In the end, it is always best to approach games from a critical point of view. If we find faults, the least we can do it admit to them and share them with the community in hopes the those who created the game will pay attention. However, to gloss over the flaws of a game and put a game that can be demonstrated to be horrible upon a pedastal and worshipping it as though it were a blockbuster hit doesn't do anyone any favors. That just tells the developers that they can get away with releasing utter crap, and stupid people will fool themselves into believe that it is great.

I'll pick on The Walking Dead yet again since the OP mentioned it:

This is worth a watch. It's an example of the kind of work that we shouldn't tolerate and shouldn't defend.

Spoiler: The Cynical Brit: WTF is... The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct

Gamers don't deserve crap like this!

 

[Right Hook]

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Didn't purchase TWD Survival Instinct but I did rent it. Obviously the game is bad but there is something alluring about it, I genuinely enjoyed playing it at times and can see how someone could trick themselves into the extra step of thinking it is good. There is a big difference between "good" and "quality" though. If you have fun with a game then the game is good, at least for you. If that same game is poorly written, mechanically inept, bad looking, and structured improperly then it isn't quality. You can avoid a lot of the games bugs if you play the game as intended, so players didn't see them and wrongly assumed they weren't there just because they weren't effected. Lastly opinions can and always will differ, people can choose to defend whatever they want, I hope the people who purchased TWD truly do enjoy it and I can only pray that they felt the same way when I was foolish enough to jump into the Colonial Marine hype.

In closing, After pre-ordering Aliens, after witnessing the fall of SimCity and now seeing yet another quick cash-in from an otherwise respectable property, I vow to never pre-order another game and not purchase one until I've seen a reputable review.

 

[Raine_sage]

I think its generally because people tend to conflate "I enjoyed this" with "its a good game" where good means good design/execution. When in fact the two can be mutually exclusive.
There are plenty of well designed games out there I don't enjoy because I'm not a fan of the genre, that doesn't mean they're poorly designed just that I don't care for them. Likewise there are plenty of horrible glitchy messes that I can't get enough of. I would never call any of them well designed games but I still find them fun (sometimes because they are so bad).

But a lot of people tend to get stuck in the "Well if I found it fun, it did something right, therefore it must be a good game and other people are being unfairly critical without really giving it a chance." Rather than assume that they enjoyed the game in spite of whatever glaring flaws it might have had (or because of those flaws, so bad its good is a thing).

I have a friend who does this, not with games but with just about everything else you can be a fan of. Enjoyed a cheesy action movie? Tout it as high cinema with deep characters and well written drama (even if 90% of it was explosions). Enjoyed a vapid pop idol? Declare they are true artists who really "get" music. Enjoyed an author who writes in nothing but fantasy cliches? Act like they're a literary second coming of christ. Not because she actually thinks they're good (When pressed she will actually admit they're guilty pleasures) but because she feels like admitting to liking something flawed means /she's/ flawed so in order to save face she acts like she only likes perfect flawless things.

 

[TheDrunkNinja]

I feel as though the reason why people will defend a really bad game because they preordered it and are now defending their purchase to justify to themselves that they didn't just waste 60$.

Agree/Disagree?

Disagree. There are far too many people on the internet willing to complain over the tiniest grievances. If they feel like they wasted $60, the outrage is always going to be more potent.

Truth be told, based on what I've seen so far (which isn't much, mind you), the main problem of the game comes from the fact that it recycles the same three or four levels over and over and over again with not much in terms of difference. The objective is always the same. Everything is just repetitive.

However, despite all of this, the one thing I hear all the time about this game, even from reviewers who did not like it, is the fact that it had some really good ideas going for it that just couldn't be fully realized. This sort of game of survival, managing other survivors as they perform other tasks while you scavenge through an abandoned small town or city block finding other survivors and equipment along the way. I mean, there's some serious potential here! You don't see many zombie games out there where survival, stealth, and leading a group of survivors are all major components in the game. And I think that's what it comes down to. The people who latch onto this game are yearning for this kind of idea in a game. The problem is that the execution and lastability of the game were thrown right out the window.

And, I'm not going to lie to you, but the thirty minutes of gameplay I've seen so far... looked pretty damn fun to me. Don't get me wrong, I know what the whole of the game is so at most I will be chalking this up to a rental, but yeah, you can count me in with those who enjoy the intriguing concept that Survival Instinct was trying to convey to its audience.

 

[Mangod]

TotalBiscuit/TotalHalibut/Cynical Brit/John Bain has actually coined a phrase for this phenomenon; desperation genre.

People so desperately want a game like, say, Day Z, and then when they go and buy a shitty game in that genre, like The War Z, they become defensive to the point of hysterics, because they do not want to admit that they've made a bad purchase.

Thus, they will defend the game from any criticism, no matter how valid, even if the game releases flesheating bugs into their house, because to do otherwise they would have to admit that they made a bad decision. And people in general don't want to admit their shortcomings. Most will do so, but even then it's grudgingly.

 

[TheHmm]

I would contest that there're no "clearly bad games" to begin with, just games you like or you don't like.

Yea, opinions like that has crashed the game industry once, lets not...

 

[Fluffythepoo]

I'm talking about games that are almost universally considered shitty but some people are still inexplicably defending.

Define almost. Define some. Explanation now explicable.

 

[Kushan101]

You only notice them "defending" games when the general consensus, or overall view is a negative game, or critics come out and call it bad. And they're defending it, because they enjoyed it, plain and simple.

The great thing about media is that for everyone who partakes in it, there is one person who will absolutely love it, and one person who will absolutely hate it, extremes on both ends. Good or bad, there's always someone on the opposite side of everyone else, and sometimes, when you like or dislike something everyone else hates, you tend to feel insecure about your choice. Sometimes, those defending the games are trying to convince themselves of why they enjoy it, rather than the person they're talking to.

Very good and very well made. I think that's often the case with most things in life - ultimately, the only person worth convincing of anything is ourselves, because who is definitely sure of anything?

Captcha: Grilled Cheese. Because its relevant to everything.

 

[Tanis]

Maybe some of the 'reviewers' or 'comments' are from employees?

 

[Happiness Assassin]

There are two options here:

1. They genuinely like the game, despite its flaws. Yeah, opinions can vary from person to person and each person has their own preferences.

2. They are in denial about its flaws and proclaim it is perfect out of a belief that he didn't waste his money. My friend was like this for Aliens: CM, but when I showed him some stuff online, he just couldn't ignore the facts. Now he no longer preorders games.

 

[Tanis]

To be fair...

Some reviews just feel so 'wrong' or 'don't get it'.

God Hand suffered from this.
GH is an AMAZING game, but reviews didn't 'get it' at the time, and it was panned by a huge percentage of them.