Can Bad Become Good?

[Miss Doronjo]

I mean, personally, for all my years playing video games, of course I've come across pretty bad games, like Sonic the Hedgehog 2006, but, when I thought about it, could it had the potential to be good? For instance, what if the controls were better, and the mechanics were better? Maybe it can be a better game then!

Well, regardless, have you ever thought that a bad game could of the potential to be better? Let's say you had the power to completely change one of the worst games that you've ever played. What would you change about that bad game to make it... a better game?

Are there any factors at all? Feel free to share your ideas!

[Olli97]

Personally, I have played very few games that I'd really consider bad. Sure, there are a lot of games I've never finished, but those have all mainly been due to the fact that I'm horrible at a lot of games, and just couldn't make it that far, not because the games in themselves have been bad. So I can't really say I've ever thought about while playing through a game myself.

However, with the footage, playthroughs, etc., I've seen, I reckon a lot of games could've made it a little further by fixing whatever seems to be getting the most complaints, since even something like co ntrols, which to me usually sounds like a minor problem untill I get to experience it myself, can ultimately ruin the experience for someone. Fixing stuff like that may make some of all the horrible games out there. But it all really depends on what's wrong with them, because some games are just broken to an extent where it can't or wouldn't make sense to fix it.

I reckon a game like Sonic '06 could actually be a halfway decent game, if they fixed up all the glitches, smoothened out the horrible controls, and I guess put a few more checkpoints (granted there's still need for that, since most of the deaths are probably caused by glitches). I mean, it's got the graphics and the story down, and while it wouldn't be anything exceptional, it'd certainly be a lot better than what we received the first time around.

So yeah, I think certain bad games could become decent, granted they just got the main source of the problems fixed up.

[BinaryPeaches]

The first game I thought of when I saw this was Tales of Legendia. I'm pretty sure the game is great storywise, but compared to the two Tales of Games that were developed between it (Symphonia and Abyss) it just ... lacks a lot. The game controls for one, having switched from the fighting style they had in Symphonia and made it more 2D-like. The voice could also have been better, though I'm sure that they could have been used to. Also, at least the me, the lack of being able to play Legendia with others was a big downer, seeing as you can play the other console Tales of Game (though I think Xillia you can't? not sure) with others.

So while I'm not saying it's a bad game (especially since I never beat it), it's a game that had potential but didn't receive it. Thus compared to Symphonia and Abyss it never got as much recognition.

That's all I have for now. Maybe if I played more games but alas!

[Spinosaurus]

Originally Posted by Olli97

I reckon a game like Sonic '06 could actually be a halfway decent game, if they fixed up all the glitches, smoothened out the horrible controls, and I guess put a few more checkpoints (granted there's still need for that, since most of the deaths are probably caused by glitches). I mean, it's got the graphics and the story down, and while it wouldn't be anything exceptional, it'd certainly be a lot better than what we received the first time around.

Disagreed. The glitches are the game's saving grace. It has so many faults, and it's not just the controls. The level design is atrocious, filled with uninspired and frustrating gimmicks in nearly every level, while not maintaining any good platforming. The bosses are the same, but instead of gimmicks, they're just utterly generic. Each characters and their gimmicks are very very unpolished as well. On top of that, the game has no variety whatsoever. Leave out the glitches, and you'll still get a very awful game. In fact, look at Shadow the Hedgehog to see what I mean. The difference between Shadow and Sonic 06 is that the latter actually has a lot of following DUE to the glitches, whereas Shadow is completely ignored and forgotten. (Rightfully so, it's arguably worse anyway.)


Sonic 06 is a game that needs a major overhaul to be any good. It's not just a lack of polish that's holding it back.


That said, it's a good game to play to get a very good lesson on game design. It really teaches you on what decision you should NOT make while not designing a game. (Assuming you could actually beat the game, in which case, god bless you.) It's also a game that's good to play with friends for a laugh.

[DavidtheDeadPhilosopher]

I think Sonic 06 could of easily been the best of the series (at the time) provided it was actually finished.

Two recent games that come to mind are Star Trek and Aliens: Colonial Marines

Star Trek was fun, but it's partner and enemy AI are broken. Just straight up broken. To me personally, that's a sign of a game that wasn't finished entirely. It was a blast to play through in co-op on hard (which did a better job controlling the enemy AI). It was a tad glitchy and the graphics were...subpar at best, and the controls needed alot of polish, but the sound design and cinematic feel were top notch. If this game was released finished and polished it would of been a far more fun game. As it stands, it's only good as a rental co-op title.

Aliens Colonial Marines had potential, it even had a demo which far outshone anything the final product has shown us, but again, it's an unfinshed title released far before it was finished. Yes the game is basically functional, but so is Sonic 06.

Any other game I could think off all the common problem of the developers simply releasing it before it was a finished product. I think that comes off a bit harsh, but to me at least, it's the honest truth.

[Olli97]

Originally Posted by Spinosaurus

Disagreed. The glitches are the game's saving grace. It has so many faults, and it's not just the controls. The level design is atrocious, filled with uninspired and frustrating gimmicks in nearly every level, while not maintaining any good platforming. The bosses are the same, but instead of gimmicks, they're just utterly generic. Each characters and their gimmicks are very very unpolished as well. On top of that, the game has no variety whatsoever. Leave out the glitches, and you'll still get a very awful game. In fact, look at Shadow the Hedgehog to see what I mean. The difference between Shadow and Sonic 06 is that the latter actually has a lot of following DUE to the glitches, whereas Shadow is completely ignored and forgotten. (Rightfully so, it's arguably worse anyway.)


Sonic 06 is a game that needs a major overhaul to be any good. It's not just a lack of polish that's holding it back.


That said, it's a good game to play to get a very good lesson on game design. It really teaches you on what decision you should NOT make while not designing a game. (Assuming you could actually beat the game, in which case, god bless you.) It's also a game that's good to play with friends for a laugh.

Well, I never said it'd make the game any more fun, since yeah, the glitches are arguably the most entertaining thing about the game. But the glitches, the controls and such are just what seems to be getting the most complaints, which is why fixing all of that would give a "better" game in terms of actually playing through it as intended, even though a lot of the fun would as a result be left out, and it'd probably just be one of the games that most people would forget all about, rather than getting a reputation for being just awful. Or maybe people would still hate it? :p

I guess it could kiiinda be compared to Skate 3 (I believe), which got really popular due to a lot of hilarious glitches, which would definitely remove a bunch of the fun that the game provided if they'd been fixed. However as far as I know, it was a decent game in itself.

[tabor62]

It really depends on your definition of a "bad game". So there are a lot of factors involved: playability, glitches, difficulty, visual appeal, how you viewed it in the past etc. There are games that I've under-appreciated in the past that I've found to be quite good games after picking them back up again several years later. My example would have to be Wario Land II for the Gameboy/Gameboy Color. When I first played it as a kid I found it too difficult past a certain point and immediately disliked it, denounced it as a horrible game, and quickly moved on to Pokemon Crystal. However in recent years I've picked it back up and found that the game is actually quite enjoyable resulting in me defeating the game 100% including all the secrets.

[R.F.]

One of my nemesis games is Dungeon Lords. Actually it has a good skilling system, its graphics are pretty neat and gameplay's well too. But for a RPG its "open world" is pretty empty. Even the biggest town has, I think 2-3 NPCs and thats it. Also there's some mayor issues with some glitches, like you are able to kill every enemy, if you take your time, even those who are supposed to be immortal and thus should only be able to defeat by doing some puzzle stuff. Also it has some issues storywise, like one time in the game they tell you to get a specific artifact at first but in the end, it's the last artifact you get, so why bother telling it otherwise?

Ninja Gaiden for the NES is pretty bad, too (it's so bad, that it's kinda good?). Besides the unforgiving gameplay there's this really bad story going on in the games. Most stuff doesn't even make any sense.

Also Superman 64 (do I have to say anything about this game?)