Slashdot Mirror
There Are No Games So Bad They're Funny
Clive Thompson examines an artifact unique to the medium of videogames: the hatred of 'B' games. Unlike in television, movies, or even books, there doesn't seem to be room in gaming for appreciation of offerings so bad they're good. "Gamers never sit around and fondly recall games that were so ludicrous they circled back and arrived at greatness. There is no game analog to, say, Sid and Marty Kroft children's show, or Plan Nine From Outer Space. When a game is bad, it's just ... bad. I think this tells us a lot about the nature of play. B games don't exist because a game isn't something you watch; it's something you do. It's impossible to distance yourself from the badness. It's not like chuckling while watching an actor screw things up; it's like being forced to screw up yourself. Or think of it this way: A bad game is like being stuck in traffic. You've got goals, you've got places you're trying to get to, but the system won't let you. So you just sit there grinding your teeth. Lousy art can sometimes cause joy; lousy games can only cause stress."
But those games were all MEANT to be funny. Take a look at some of the games in the game gallery. How many times do you see Strong Bad? The games are fun because they were meant to be that way. Bad games are generally no fun at all because they're too hard to play, or the game mechanics are just plain broken. Just because something has no instructions doesn't mean it's a bad game.
i think the premise of this story is wrong.
there aren't many "b" games, because "b" games are often buggy and unplayable. bugs are not fun or funny or tolerable. I don't crash out of a game and go "haha that was so bad it was fun". no.
even with the worst movies, they still "work" because all you are doing is watching them. there's no technological requirement. it's not like the movie film breaks while watching or anything.
it would require an unusual development house to create a game with no programming bugs and reasonable graphics engine to support a totally shoddy gameplay that allowed for humour and enjoyment.
Mocking games is not the same as a game gaining a cult following.
Mocking games = Mystery Science Theater 3000.
Cult following = The Rocky Horror Picture Show....it was so bad but has a huge following BECAUSE it was bad.
There aren't really any games that people play because they enjoy how bad they are. There are games that people mock because they were bad. There are memes started because of poorly written games (All your base....). But how many times do you go back any play them?
That was the point of the article. Not that there are games that are constantly mocked.
Layne
How about the Street Fighter II series? Certainly, at some point, if not from the beginning, it was so bad -- it became a joke. I have recently started up a game of this, not because it was fun, but it was a great laugh -- its infamous.
You're kidding, right? The game that largely launched the 2D fighter genre in America? There were similar games before SF II, but it was the first of its kind to reach the kind of popularity it has when it was out.
You could make the argument that someone along the way its sequels became derivative and boring compared to games like the Tekken series, but the original SF II was a classic.
If it's for-profit but free, you're not the customer -- you're the product (e.g., the Slashdot Beta's "audience").