Why are there so many bad games?

Urban Ranger · November 11, 2001, 03:15

I looked at my collection of games to realise how many bad games I have bought over the years. They range from the truly awful (Majesty) to the bungled classic (Railroad Tycoon 2) to the merely dull (Reach for the Stars) to the low replay value (Shogun: Total War).

So why do bad games outnumber good games by such a huge magnitude? Is is because most designing teams are merely lackluster, or are the publishing companies out to make a quick buck at our expenses?

What do you think?

Zopperoni · November 11, 2001, 08:33

Combination of greed for money and lack of inspiration, I guess...

mactbone · November 11, 2001, 11:23

It's because your memory is short. There's a;ways a multitude of bad games (or anything else for that matter) with few gems in there. BUT this Christmas season and the quarter after are looking very good.

Stronghold - A game I wouldn't want to pay $50 for, because of lack of replayability but I would jump on it at ~$30. It's the medieval RTS that makes you love castles.

Empire Earth - Again, not worth $50, mainly because of the stupid adherence to paper, rock, scissors. This one I would buy at $15 because it has some interesting things (an RTS that spans 7000 years is pretty new). Hopefully someone can fix the problems and make a better version.

Lords of the Realm 3 - All I know right now is that they're working on it and including some aspects of religion and various other things that were absent in earlier versions.

Master of Orion 3 - This will either be the game of the year or a flop. Well, maybe it will have a cult following. This game is going to throw so many new concepts at you that you'll have to relearn how TBS in space games are supposed to be played.

Warcraft 3 - This is definitely the 2-3 quarters for the third game in a series and this one looks good. The graphics are great and it's being made by Blizzard (and by extension using battle.net) so it obviously has potential, but only time will tell.

Civ 3 - It was worth $50. I'm going to be playing this one for awhile, especially when mods are being produced in huge numbers.

Then there are other games I have a lot of reservations on. Final Fantasy 10, it looks like it has too many Japanese influences which will make it very predictable (as if RPGs weren't predictabl enough).

St Leo · November 11, 2001, 14:03

There are so many bad games because there are so many good games.

Warcraft 3 - This is definitely the 2-3 quarters for the third game in a series and this one looks good. The graphics are great and it's being made by Blizzard (and by extension using battle.net) so it obviously has potential, but only time will tell.

Bah, it's a cheap rip-off of Warlords: Battlecy.

mactbone · November 11, 2001, 15:21

Yeah, I know, I know, BUT it's being done by Blizzard. Diablo was a ripoff, Warcraft (and Starcraft) were ripoffs, so I say they're pretty good at ripping off games and making them succesful.

Urban Ranger · November 11, 2001, 21:41

Mac,

I know there always has been more bad games than good games, a lot more. I played Lords of the Realm 2 and it sucked, so my advice is don't hold your breath for it.

St. Leo,

No way. For each good game there are easily 10 bad ones, even more.

rwprice · November 11, 2001, 22:02

I'm not saying you won't still think that the games you've listed are bad, but I challenge you to think about why you've decided that. Personally, I've had to force myself to rethink my approach to certain games. Sometimes I find that I'm disappointed because I expected a game to be something that it's not and never claimed to be. Sometimes I just didn't spend enough time to really dig deep enough to find the heart of the game. This may not apply to any of you, but it's a good exercise to really examine a decision like this. You may just find that when you accept a game only for what it is that you really don't think it's so bad after all. Or, you may still decide that it sucks!

Moral Hazard · November 11, 2001, 22:53

UR:
I think your to critical. Two of the games you listed I found to be good (Shogun and RRT2). I'm not playing either game any more but I enjoyed both of them. Games are meant to be fun, and I enjoyed AOE despite the fact that it didn't add much to the Dune2 formula. Personally I think what your asking is why are there so few great games. The answer of course is obvious.

Rex Little · November 12, 2001, 13:03

Why are there so many bad games?

Because of Sturgeon's Law: 90% of anything is crap.

Zkribbler · November 12, 2001, 21:21

Check out the Scratchware Manifesto, part of which says that, because the big software game companies fear a failure, they play things overly safe, e.g. making clones of the same game over and over and over again.

How many incarnations have Civ-clone strategy games have you seen? How many first-person shooters? How many RTS third-person teams fighting bad guys? How many polygon-starship space battles? The games are lousy because they've all been seen before.

Plus, the emphasis nowadays is on graphics, not gameplay

Victor Galis · November 13, 2001, 00:24

Because it's infinitely easier to make a bad game than a good one.

Urban Ranger · November 13, 2001, 02:30

LOL@Victor.

Zkribbler,

Yeah, I read that before. The only bad part about making clones is the clones overwhelmingly doesn't live up to the orignals.

rwprice,

I say almost all the games I listed as bad lack depth. Take for example Tropico. It was fun for the first game or two, but there's nothing else beneath the surface. It also has some strange details at the wrong places, with a liberal dash of odd design decisions. The idea is interesting but the implementation fell far short.

Moral Hazard,

Shogun was somewhat interesting. After playing each clan once (including the rebels) there's nothing left of it, however. The computer players cheat quite badly too. As for RRT2 it's not up to the standards set by the original. There are also some incredible bugs. For example how could the price of stocks of a privatised company drop - or for that matter, rise?

War4ever · November 13, 2001, 19:16

Although bad games easily outweigh the good ones........alot of times its a matter of personal preference.

i know of several people who think civ3 is an outdated game with bad graphics....poor gameplay etc..... then again they don't like TBS games much.

Obviously liking a style of game gives you a better chance to enjoy titles under that genre..... different strokes for different folks is the gaming industry motto

This doesn't guarrantee that you will like all , 1/2 or even a tenth of the games that come out under a genre, merely it exposes you to them at a more frequent pace giving you a chance to give it a thumbs up or down.

For hard core gamers... your list of games will be even higher....therefore the amount of crap you come across will be high.....on a smaller scale the amount of good games will also increase.

Reviewers of games are the biggest way for a gaming co. to meet their audience. However a reviewer is still just a person..just because he likes civ3 doesn't mean its a good game or that your going to like it .

The reason for "crap" is that the market has soo many choices to choose from and so many markets to achieve. Some co. try to capitalize on the success of a title....these don't always work out ....but many times they do.

You can make a game about anything and someone will buy it.... fancy graphics, or good gameplay or editing tools etc....these things attract people to titles.... and can either make or break a game...

When you think about it ....... its probably going to get worse...... or better if you like alot of different titles.

personally i like TBS games and am not a fan of RTS..doesn't mean i don't think there are good RTS games out there....

Father Beast · November 13, 2001, 20:02

Quote:

Originally posted by Urban Ranger

The only bad part about making clones is the clones overwhelmingly doesn't live up to the orignals.

I have to disagree. Most of Blizzard's games were horribly derivative, but they were done well (which I admit, despite my dislike for some of them). it's a matter of substance with style.

Almost all of shakespeare's plots were hackneyed, but he did them right, and his work lives for a long time.

The long list of dang clones miss the point, that''s why 90% of them are crap.

Why would anyone make eXtreme Paintbrawl anyway?? but they did.

Moral Hazard · November 14, 2001, 03:27

UR:

What about MP shogun, that's were I wasted most of my time. Concerning RRT2, yes the financial element was weak, but the game had great atmosphere and qualifies my criteria of a good game since I got over 30hrs of enjoyment out of it.

Of course I thought CTP was a good purchase (didn't buy it until after the second patch) thanks to MedMod and PBEM.

ColdWizard · November 15, 2001, 00:07

there are far more crappy programmers than good ones, plus greedy publishers *cough*infogrames*cough*

TCO · November 15, 2001, 04:34

I've been very impressed with EVERY game I've gotten.

But I ojnly get the classics. I'm never in a hurry either.

mactbone · November 15, 2001, 10:09

Aside from Blizzard every company releases products a little bit earlier than they should, but look at the alternative, waiting four years for a game to be fully developed.

The Rusty Gamer · November 16, 2001, 02:28

Most of the ones producing the games don't really relate to real gamers, they simply see them as a money making device, they "create" games based on an aloof scientific analysis of what they think gamers want without any real emotional involvement and thus they make a product without any heart or soul.

The same principle applies to many other consumer goods and why so many of them are crap as well. eg. TV programs.

Moral Hazard · November 16, 2001, 03:13

Russel please visit www.gamasutra.com a site for game developers. Cause that's a pile load of crap. Yes they use screening, but a hell of a lot of emotion goes into game creation.

Actually I recomend the site for every one interested in the aspects of game creation.

Urban Ranger · November 17, 2001, 02:12

Quote:

Originally posted by Father Beast
I have to disagree. Most of Blizzard's games were horribly derivative, but they were done well (which I admit, despite my dislike for some of them). it's a matter of substance with style.

That really has to depend on what you meant by "well." Blizzard games are highly polished with relatively few bugs, but their AI is horrible (and cheats badly) and the single player campaigns are dreadfully repetitive.

Urban Ranger · November 17, 2001, 02:21

Quote:

Originally posted by Moral Hazard
UR:

What about MP shogun, that's were I wasted most of my time. Concerning RRT2, yes the financial element was weak, but the game had great atmosphere and qualifies my criteria of a good game since I got over 30hrs of enjoyment out of it.

30 hours? That's not a whole lot isn't it?

I easily spent several thousand on the original RRT. Maybe because of that I have a low opinion of RRT 2, even though it has much better graphics and an admittedly improved interface.

I always felt that I don't have much control over the game. For example in RRT I can build industries, in RRT 2 I am at the mercy of random numbers. I can't initial rate wars or run priority freights. I can't set priority for each route instead of each train.

As for MP Shogun, I haven't played that so I can't comment.