What's worse? A mediocre game or a bad game? - MKSR001

[mrkonasoni]

》》》START》》》

The other day I found a thread talking about what is worse a mediocre game or a bad game.
Sincerely it made me put some thought about the subject for a few minutes and the answers were quite interesting.

I believe a mediocre game is worse, while a bad game is not the favorable option I feel that a game with no expectation of quality is easier to enjoy and get through if you always keep the low or null expectations in check.
Like you would have read at least once:

I have no expectations for it, so it can't disappoint me

While with a flawed or mediocre game you may potentially just keep seeing the rough edges, the wasted potential, and how some ideas could have worked better with another mindset or just more time for developing them, leading to just a more clumsy experience.
But still capable of being truly enjoyable experiences, like always everyone has their own personal expectations.

But that's just my personal opinion.
What do you think it's worse? A mediocre game or a bad game?

I hope we can have a good thread about the subject, and you are welcome to disagree with me.

[bikingjahuty]

I think a lot of people think bad games like Cheetah Men 2 or Bubsy 3D are somehow endearing because of how terrible they are. I really don't understand this somewhat contrarian attitude where bad = good. I agree that bad games can have redeemable qualities (ie. humorous bugs, terrible voice acting, a fun aesthetic) but these things can only do so much towards making a bad game a little less terrible.


Mediocre games are closer to being good games and for that reason they're automatically better. While they are typically far from being amazing, they typically have a lot more going for them in terms of enjoyable gameplay, art, and other aspects where bad games you sometimes really have to reach in order to find the silver lining.


I guess to sum it up, I'd rather play a 5/10 game any day of the week instead of a 2/10 game.

[oldgamerz]

Bad is Bad in my opinion mediocre is only a per person viewing,

A bad game in my opinion is a game where the controls are unresponsive, and the AI takes advantage of the unresponsive controls and the players lack of skill to react to those unresponsive controls, and combine all of that with all of the above being set on the lowest difficulty setting possible in the game. If I were to sum up Most bad games in one small paragraph that would be it.

A mediocre game can be a game that you had a lot of hype and excitement for. And even paid full price for on the 1st day of it's release. But it turns out just to be an average experience, or much like the previous release, if this particular game was the 2nd 3rd or so on release in a series. You love to play or collect for.

A mediocre game could be someone else bad game in their own opinion or even some else best game ever. when you say mediocre that word contributes more toward ones own personal opinion.

But like "Huey Lewis & The News" wrote in a song once

"Sometimes, What's Bad is Bad,  d d d d d DoWop DoWop"

[sworddude]

Mediocre games are worse. with bad games your either going in it for the cheese or you can ignore it.

Mediocre games meanwhile can fool you in wasting time on them. you don't have that issue with bad games.

also mediocre games don't have the enjoyable qualities that really bad games have. it's just there. and they don't have the qualities of a good game either your within a zone that doesn't have much.

Mediocre games usually have nothing memorable about them. while really bad games can have those epic moments. with terrible games there is potential for a laugh to be had while with a mediocre game it will just be a slog to play through it's going to be a boring ride.

While mediocre games have better controls grapics and are more consistent on paper they are usually pretty generic. your probably not even going to remember the experience compared to a bad game.

Obviously where just talking about someone's opinion about said game. what's mediocre to some can be a great game for others. treshholds will differ per person. But at the end of the day bad games can turn into someone's guilty pleasure, mediocre games do not it's pretty much always a waste of time.

[Cartagia]

Bad games are not the same as bad movies or shows.  A bad game can be flat out unplayable where a bad movie can still be fun.  I'd take a mediocre game everyday of the week over a bad one.

[undertakerprime]

Hmmm, a very intriguing question. And I definitely get the distinction; it’s a choice between a game you KNOW is crap, and one that SHOULD be better but isn’t.

Honestly, I’d say mediocre games are worse.
With crap games, like the OP stated, there’s no expectation of quality. You can choose whether or not to subject yourself to the crap, and when it is, you can chalk it up to being a bad game and move on. I mean, I don’t think anyone boots up Pepsiman or Burger King Sneak King and expects a deep experience.

But when there’s obviously love and hard work put into a game, and it’s so close to being good but something’s holding it back, to me that’s really frustrating.
One example (for me, at least) is Spider Man & X-Men in Arcade’s Revenge for SNES. The graphics and animation are very good, the music is EXCELLENT, and for the most part it gets the characters’ powers right and makes them fun to use (except for sticking Storm underwater). I used to keep giving it chance after chance, certain that it would be better, but it’s just let down by a number of issues: abhorrent level design, humongous levels with no checkpoints, and no password or save feature for a game that takes a LONG time to finish. It would always end in frustration, much more than any straight-up kusoge.

Also makes me think of Mirror’s Edge. When it’s good it’s REALLY good and hella fun. But again there’s a few issues holding it back, mainly the gameplay often devolving into maddening trial-and-error and questionable level design decisions which force you to take things slow, eliminating the main thing that makes it fun in the first place.

Just my take. I’ve had many games I wanted to like but just couldn’t.

[kamikazekeeg]

A mediocre game is usually gonna be better I feel.  A bad game could be technically more memorable for how much it fails, like folks remember the failure of Superman 64 compared to say some mediocre Gears of War knockoff game that came out in the 360 era.  The problem is that if we are talking about playing one, given a choice, I will always pick mediocre, because at the very least, it's probably functional to play and might have some decent ideas, even if they aren't well realized.

It's much different when comparing a bad movie to another kind of movie, because you experience them pretty much the same way, it's a very passive experience for a short amount of time, but with a game, you have to actually interact and deal with what is bad within the game.  I'm sure there a few exceptions to this, but that's how I usually see it lol

[wartoy]

Definitely mediocre games are better imo. Because you can at least finish a mediocre game even if it's just because you devoted you time and now you just want to beat it. I feel a bad game could be played for hours just to find out it's broken and can't be finished.

[emporerdragon]

A bad game is only better than a mediocre one when you can razz it MST3K style with friends.

[oldgamerz]

A bad game is only better than a mediocre one when you can razz it MST3K style with friends.

I can only agree with that statement in the case of a bad game NOT a terrible game

In my opinion a Bad game is exactly what I stated before on this thread. but a TERRIBLE game is a game that cannot be finished due to a glitch or a bug or random crashes during or before gameplay.

A TERRIBLE game is not a game at all, therefore it's not just hard for a single person like what I think a bad game mostly is.

It's an IMPOSSIBLE game that cannot even be enjoyed with friends or single player

[bizzgeburt]

I consider this a difficult yet very intelligent question. My first intent was to reply that bad games are worse than mediocre ones, but looking back into my history of being a gamer since the early 90's, I can say that I crossed paths with a lot of bad games. Few of those are beyond my fav games today. Like some others replied here before me, some games become gems of their own, BECAUSE they're bad like some movies do too. So, in that case, some bad games can really be considered better than some mediocre ones, wich are simply not good or bad either ... just ... mediocre

Let me give you an example: as I learned to know "Buck Rogers - Countdown to Doomsday" for Sega Genesis/Megadrive, this game was already about 10 to 12 years old, I don't know exactly ... and I considered it one of the most crappy games I ever saw. After watching a brother of mine digging deeper and deeper into this game, we recognized it as the pearl that it is .. even the reeeeaaaally lame music score made its way to our hearts by simply being so minimal.

I guess it's a matter of taste but I definetely am a kind of person that get's to like bad games/movies/songs ... for being bad in their own measurement

[Warmsignal]

I consider myself much more lenient and easily amused by games, than most. You won't often catch me complaining about a game's quality. Many times when a game is touted as being a mediocre disappointment, I fail to see any of the major issues and typically find it pretty underrated. With bad games, I can at least see why they're considered bad, but usually it doesn't stop me from attempting to enjoy them.

I'd have to say bad games are worse, because of occasional game-breaking flaws and just less potential to have a good time with.

Example - Hi-Octane for the Saturn, is a bad game. It has lots of potential as a Wipeout clone, but it's poor optimization for the Saturn leaves it rough to play, and sometimes it totally freezes up. Robotica for the Saturn, is often called a mediocre game that I think it's quite good. It runs well, plays well, does just enough to differentiate itself from being a typical Doom clone. Yes there are things to complain about, but none of those bother me. To me it's a good game, that most people think is mediocre.

I'll take the mediocre games, as most people's 4s and 5s out 10, are more like a 7 out of 10 for me.

[dhaabi]

I'll take the mediocre games, as most people's 4s and 5s out 10, are more like a 7 out of 10 for me.

I don't peruse game reviews with any regularity, but I don't think game scores of under 5 are that common, with the majority of games being reviewed earning at least 7 from my casual glances. It is perhaps the biggest reason why I find gaming reviews with numbered score systems to be unhelpful. If 5 is the average, most games would be earning that score, but that is simply not the case.

On that note, and to better respond to what you're saying specifically, so many reviewers are subjective with their scores. Yes, it is easier to convey to casual readers the author's impressions of the game, but the number itself is really ambiguous to the game's quality.

[spyrofanx]

Mediocre is worse, because with most bad games, you expect torture.