Full Games List
Featured Games
New Games
Reviews
Media
Images
Blogs
Game Updates
Images Feedback Summary
Game Design Highlights
Tutorials
Articles
Scripts
Utilities / Plugins
Resources
Engines
Engine Bulletins
What is Makerscore?
Past Events
Achievements
Misaos
Forums
Post History
Chat
New to RMN?
Full Store List
RMN Music Pack (free)
INTENTIONALLY BAD GAMES.
Posts
LouisCyphre
View playlists
Close
catmitts
4862
the concept of quality in relation to videogames is a direct result of the latecapitalist tendanciestowards a blurring of the real and the imaginary which jean baudrillard referred to as "hyperreality"; it can also be seen in the success of james camerons avatar, of the fake towns and theme-park rides in disneyworld, in wax museums, in hdr imaging, and other products which attempt to be "more real than the real thing". it is a focus on immersion and experience above all else. videogames began to follow this pattern when advances in graphical and musical technology, combined with a more thorough knowledge of game design, led to more and more focus on this same immersive aspect. games were no longer external objects to be decoded and eventually 'won'; they were experiences first and foremost attempting to immerse the player in an entire world.
hyperreality, the cross-product of technological advances with debord's "society of the spectacle", is not only dangerous in that it creates a sense of alienation and distance from the real (see: those people who got depressed after watching avatar because they couldnt frolic with catpeople irl, those people who starved to death playing WoW) but also in that it is facist, or at least conductive to fascism, in the sense that this distancing from the real in favor of immersion in a spectacle is exactly the basis for fascist fake politics.
in order to break down this hyperrealist tendancy it is necessary to destroy all notion of game "quality" in favor of a deliberate badness and clumsiness which not only breaks the vampiric immersion with the gameworld but also in showing games as a direct product of human intelligence or lack thereof gives rise to a new area of vidcon dialectics: rather than becoming sluggishly absorbed in an electronic toy, the player finds his or herself frustrated and denied at every turn, leading to a deeper questioning of the societal conditioning inherent in the act of playing games and inspiring them to enter the field of discourse itself and creating more games because if those clowns can do it, etc. this is the ultimate challenge for videogames in the 21st century....
actually i just really like the weirdness and imagination of horrible old unplayable commodore games!
hyperreality, the cross-product of technological advances with debord's "society of the spectacle", is not only dangerous in that it creates a sense of alienation and distance from the real (see: those people who got depressed after watching avatar because they couldnt frolic with catpeople irl, those people who starved to death playing WoW) but also in that it is facist, or at least conductive to fascism, in the sense that this distancing from the real in favor of immersion in a spectacle is exactly the basis for fascist fake politics.
in order to break down this hyperrealist tendancy it is necessary to destroy all notion of game "quality" in favor of a deliberate badness and clumsiness which not only breaks the vampiric immersion with the gameworld but also in showing games as a direct product of human intelligence or lack thereof gives rise to a new area of vidcon dialectics: rather than becoming sluggishly absorbed in an electronic toy, the player finds his or herself frustrated and denied at every turn, leading to a deeper questioning of the societal conditioning inherent in the act of playing games and inspiring them to enter the field of discourse itself and creating more games because if those clowns can do it, etc. this is the ultimate challenge for videogames in the 21st century....
actually i just really like the weirdness and imagination of horrible old unplayable commodore games!
catmitts
4862
also i think you probably do have to break from game design principles somewhere if you dont want to end up with some horrible committee-designed-lookin thing. lets make the heros young so young people can identify!! lets make them all ride skateboards (kids like skateboards right??). but even generally i think horrible stuff can be fun as long as its interesting! like look at this game:
by all accounts this is bad to the point of being almost unplayable but who cares look at that fucking thing. i would much rather play something like this than some stupid GEARD OF WAR bullshit. or those suda 51 games which pretty much hate the player (one could say they were......player-haters *flips u the bird, peels out on vespa*). i have a lot of time for bad or deliberately bad games if they're bad or deliberately bad in an interesting way!
EDIT: actually quite soulless is just accidentally bad so here:
or those old targ games on gw. they're all kind of deliberately bad (or "bad" because they actually rule) but this is part of the charm! its a weird viewpoint and personality that makes it more appealing than more streamlined stuff. you could say this only holds for accidentally bad stuff but i dont think it's that simple.
by all accounts this is bad to the point of being almost unplayable but who cares look at that fucking thing. i would much rather play something like this than some stupid GEARD OF WAR bullshit. or those suda 51 games which pretty much hate the player (one could say they were......player-haters *flips u the bird, peels out on vespa*). i have a lot of time for bad or deliberately bad games if they're bad or deliberately bad in an interesting way!
EDIT: actually quite soulless is just accidentally bad so here:
or those old targ games on gw. they're all kind of deliberately bad (or "bad" because they actually rule) but this is part of the charm! its a weird viewpoint and personality that makes it more appealing than more streamlined stuff. you could say this only holds for accidentally bad stuff but i dont think it's that simple.
I guess it's an acquired taste. I can definitely appreciate the mindset where these kinds of games come from, but ultimately, they're not for me.
With that said, catmitts definitely seems to know a lot about it. I suggest listening to what he has to say!
With that said, catmitts definitely seems to know a lot about it. I suggest listening to what he has to say!
catmitts
4862
actually those last two posts were kind of missing the point in that they didn't really distinguish between bad and deliberately bad games like the OP did. basically i think there's always a distinction between bad-bad and good-bad. good-bad is just so awful and perverse and inexplicable that it has its own weird charm to it, like the fried shrimp boss of monster world or those choose-you-adventure games where every decision leads to an arbitrarily horrible death or even the fact that Bubsy Bobcat shrieks out horrible grating one-liners every couple of seconds. bad-bad is just dull and unimaginative stuff. even in unintentionally bad stuff there's always a split between this stuff! for every troll 2 or the room there's mountains of grinding unwatchable stuff which is just absolutely meritless. most of it wins oscars.
the point of bad game design is recognising what makes that stuff so appealing and then trying to capture that. that makes it sound more calculated than it actually is but i thik everyone has some idea of what makes some bad stuff worthwhile so. it is still bad by the humourless and awful standards of VIDCON CONSUMER MINDSET but who even cares?
the point of bad game design is recognising what makes that stuff so appealing and then trying to capture that. that makes it sound more calculated than it actually is but i thik everyone has some idea of what makes some bad stuff worthwhile so. it is still bad by the humourless and awful standards of VIDCON CONSUMER MINDSET but who even cares?
uh
197
hah I remember that Quite Soulless game, but only because the guy who made it has such a nauseatingly high opinion of his own game, not because the game itself was memorable to me (to be fair I see too much painfully stupid shit trying to pass itself off as something deep and esoteric to remember all of it anyway)
edit: also catmitts you put sentences together like you're on mushrooms
^compliment
edit: also catmitts you put sentences together like you're on mushrooms
^compliment
post=121696
good-bad is just so awful and perverse and inexplicable that it has its own weird charm to it, like the fried shrimp boss of monster world or those choose-you-adventure games where every decision leads to an arbitrarily horrible death or even the fact that Bubsy Bobcat shrieks out horrible grating one-liners every couple of seconds. bad-bad is just dull and unimaginative stuff. even in unintentionally bad stuff there's always a split between this stuff!
See the thing is, let me redefine what I said earlier. I can actually enjoy something that's 'so bad it's good', but that's generally only with stuff that wasn't meant to be that way, i.e. products that were MEANT to be good, but turned out horrible but it's also fascinating BECAUSE of that, sort of like watching a car crash in slow motion or something. Like you said, stuff like that can have some pretty funny charm (Bubsy is an excellent example) But I don't really have an interest in games that were MEANT to be 'good-bad', in my eyes, like I said, they're not really for me. They just seem kind of corny and usually have that 'trying too hard' dynamic.
My tastes are pretty varied. I admit I don't have a 'sophisticated taste' in most things like Orig or catmitts, but I can definitely enjoy it! I can sit down and enjoy a relatively obscure, philosophical movie with a girlfriend that 'makes you think', and on the other hand, I can enjoy something that one may consider 'BANAL AND TRIPE' like Gears of War with a group of friends and some pizza on a Saturday night. Why discriminate? Life's too short. I like to keep my mind open to have fun and to get something out of everything, so the 'good-bad' sort of thing hits me from a different angle than a lot of people.
catmitts
4862
Yeah some of it is just dumb ADVENTURE OF LOLCAT or whatever but stuff like that Life Of D.Duck game are really cool. The authors made up a whole website and style etc to give the impression of a weird swedish kid who really liked donald duck and the game reflects that. the writing is deliberately misspelled and awkward and the graphics are kind of crude and offputting in order to further this sense of this really strange charming stuff. the Demon Planet webcomic is a pretty good example of this too http://www.webcomicsnation.com/jchastain/demonplanet/series.php?view=single&ID=122712 . it's not "good" in any conventional sense but its not trying to be and its pretty gross to see people miss the point entirely and flood the comments with UGH.......LEARDN TO DRAW @___@ or enjoy it "ironically". you dont have to be ironic about it to appreciate this stuff!
Yoshio
774
a game like ratty's chrono trigger will always be better then "kirby and sonic's rtp adventure to FF7"
maybe not on principle but with a game that was made bad on purpose by a good game designer you at least know its a joke and there is humor within to appreciate (usually) games that were meant to be good but are bad actually take themselves seriously so there isn't even the remote possibility of having a good time. And you got to tip your hat to chrono trigger because the creator obviously has to know the rules of a good game pretty well to break every single god damn one, and do it with a way that you never lose the sense that he is just toying with you (as opposed to making an honest effort with this part of the game and fucking up.)
Maybe I am just too used to reading troll fanfics and watching troll flash movies and thinking they are hilarious which allows me to naturally love a troll game as well. But the dialogue in chrono trigger and the brilliant mockery of bad maker games was too brialliant to not like.
maybe not on principle but with a game that was made bad on purpose by a good game designer you at least know its a joke and there is humor within to appreciate (usually) games that were meant to be good but are bad actually take themselves seriously so there isn't even the remote possibility of having a good time. And you got to tip your hat to chrono trigger because the creator obviously has to know the rules of a good game pretty well to break every single god damn one, and do it with a way that you never lose the sense that he is just toying with you (as opposed to making an honest effort with this part of the game and fucking up.)
Maybe I am just too used to reading troll fanfics and watching troll flash movies and thinking they are hilarious which allows me to naturally love a troll game as well. But the dialogue in chrono trigger and the brilliant mockery of bad maker games was too brialliant to not like.
Darken
3952
The problem with troll games is that they get old, fast.
There was an RM game called Final Fantasy 7 which featured an FF8 title screen but featured atari-ish graphics with REALLY bad game mechanics. I never played the game as the video as all I needed to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INK_4iF7BV8
It was amusing as some of the jokes implemented were clever. However when ratty's chrono trigger came out, I basically saw the same thing. Shit got old fast. I didn't play either games btw! Because I know what exactly to expect, bad game design with typical jokes, and more band wagoning of people pretending it's the greatest thing ever, because that furthers the joke the game is.
You have no idea how much fun I get out of ripping un-intentionally bad games At least that has an actual point. See, knowing the person made the terrible looking intro and animated battlers with the idea that they would entertain me gives me a good reason to laugh at it and inform the creator what he did wrong. And if the creator can't be reached for comment (like say the game is 5 years old) then all better to make fun of it more!
edit: Oh I forgot to mention. I would like to see comically good game mechanics rather than comically bad game mechanics. If that makes any sense..
There was an RM game called Final Fantasy 7 which featured an FF8 title screen but featured atari-ish graphics with REALLY bad game mechanics. I never played the game as the video as all I needed to see:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=INK_4iF7BV8
It was amusing as some of the jokes implemented were clever. However when ratty's chrono trigger came out, I basically saw the same thing. Shit got old fast. I didn't play either games btw! Because I know what exactly to expect, bad game design with typical jokes, and more band wagoning of people pretending it's the greatest thing ever, because that furthers the joke the game is.
(usually) games that were meant to be good but are bad actually take themselves seriously so there isn't even the remote possibility of having a good time
You have no idea how much fun I get out of ripping un-intentionally bad games At least that has an actual point. See, knowing the person made the terrible looking intro and animated battlers with the idea that they would entertain me gives me a good reason to laugh at it and inform the creator what he did wrong. And if the creator can't be reached for comment (like say the game is 5 years old) then all better to make fun of it more!
edit: Oh I forgot to mention. I would like to see comically good game mechanics rather than comically bad game mechanics. If that makes any sense..
Billwilliams
1159
Troll game is a much better term for what I originally had in mind. The idea being to repeatedly insult the player's intelligence while still having enough of a game to convince most of them to keep playing.
Wild Kings is a good example of this.
http://rpgmaker.net/games/1048/
Ratty's game was just the first one that came to mind since it was masterful at doing what it intended to do.
Quite frankly every RM project i've ever started has either become infected with Trollitis or is so stupidly epic that I have no realistic chance of ever finishing it. So the temptation to cut off a small piece of random stupidity and grow it in a petri dish tends to get overwhelming at times.
What I'm probably going to do is take one of my 'epic' ideas, break it into small chapters and strip ALL immature humor out of it. Make it stupid and cutesy rather than stupid and ugly.
Wild Kings is a good example of this.
http://rpgmaker.net/games/1048/
Ratty's game was just the first one that came to mind since it was masterful at doing what it intended to do.
Quite frankly every RM project i've ever started has either become infected with Trollitis or is so stupidly epic that I have no realistic chance of ever finishing it. So the temptation to cut off a small piece of random stupidity and grow it in a petri dish tends to get overwhelming at times.
What I'm probably going to do is take one of my 'epic' ideas, break it into small chapters and strip ALL immature humor out of it. Make it stupid and cutesy rather than stupid and ugly.
I can't even imagine trying to make a game bad on purpose. Games take way too long to make for me NOT to try and make a masterpiece, you know? Why waste even an hour making something you know is stupid?
It'd probably be more enlightening if we switch this discussion from "should I make an intentionally bad game?" to "why would anyone bother making an intentionally bad game?". Let's dig into their psyche. What do they have in mind?
taking a huge shit and not flushing the toilet knowing that somebody will eventually walk into that stall and be disgusted
I don't see why you guys have so much haet and nurd raeg for bad/joke games. I found Ratty's Chrono Trigger immensely enjoyable and got more than a few genuine laughs out of it.
Corfaisus
"It's frustrating because - as much as Corf is otherwise an irredeemable person - his 2k/3 mapping is on point." ~ psy_wombats
7874
post=121991
I don't see why you guys have so much haet and nurd raeg for bad/joke games. I found Ratty's Chrono Trigger immensely enjoyable and got more than a few genuine laughs out of it.
All I got was a genuine head-ache out of it. I literally had to play a different game to bring my mind back to a point where I could use it.
catmitts
4862
sometimes they're funny, or break from conventional mechanics or style in an interesting way.
although i have a horrible suspicion we're not remotely on the same page on what consitutes a bad game as i've seen RMers argue that stock fantasy cliches are better than original stories while they turn up their noses at anything without elaborate chipset rips, so maybe talking about weird stuff that sacrifices playability for imagination and personality is the wrong approach to take here.
EDIT: actually if anything this would make it more appropriate since i think a lot of people group games like D.Duck into the category of "bad games" which is very stupid so yeah
although i have a horrible suspicion we're not remotely on the same page on what consitutes a bad game as i've seen RMers argue that stock fantasy cliches are better than original stories while they turn up their noses at anything without elaborate chipset rips, so maybe talking about weird stuff that sacrifices playability for imagination and personality is the wrong approach to take here.
EDIT: actually if anything this would make it more appropriate since i think a lot of people group games like D.Duck into the category of "bad games" which is very stupid so yeah
post=122011
RMers argue that stock fantasy cliches are better than original stories
Well, it's not like that can't be true. A proper usage of an age old, narrative trope can, and is usually better than garbage that's 'original' just because nobody happened to think of it before. A mistake some people make (not just in video games) is the assumption that their concept is automatically better than a cliche because it's 'original'. Cliche's are bad because of bad presentation, the same way something original can suck because of bad presentation. Neither is fundamentally 'better' than the other, in practice.
post=122054
A mistake some people make (not just in video games) is the assumption that their concept is automatically better than a cliche because it's 'original'. Cliche's are bad because of bad presentation, the same way something original can suck because of bad presentation. Neither is fundamentally 'better' than the other, in practice.
What you said sounds reasonable, but I'm not sure if I'd agree with that.
Cliches are usually GOOD ideas that turn BAD because they're overused. For example, the fight between an evil empire and a rebellion group is a terrible cliche, I'd hate to play any game with such plot, but it worked great last century in plots like Star Wars or Final Fantasy VI. I'd much rather play a game like in which a guy need to find a way to cure his insomnia then this empire x rebellion thing again. Of course I'm not saying an original idea automatically makes a good game, and likewise a cliche doesn't automatically make a bad game... but if you are to make a cliche idea into a good game, you need to mix it with ORIGINAL stuff.
Cliche story + cliche characters + cliche systems + cliche graphics = automatic failure.
A lot of games made in rpgmaker today that are considered bad could be considered good in the past (Another RTP Story), because of different standards.
