"Bad" games vs "Good" games

This isn't really PS3 specific, and, as far as I can tell, it has been happening on all systems basically since the conception of video games.

I don't think anyone would disagree that there are more "bad" games than "good" games out there. I don't mean so terribly bad that you couldn't possibly bear to play them (although there are plenty that fit that category too) but just lots of games that either appeal to a very small portion of the market, or just have really sub par game play and/or graphics.

I think some games like this can be explained by lack of planned development time, low budget, rushed development overall, etc, but it also seems that some games are just destined to fail right from the get go.

Do you guys think that these "bad" games are just destined to fail right from the very idea of them (by some developer somewhere) ? I'm not talking games that were/are hyped and don't live up to expectations, I'm talking more about the dozens of games that get released and half of us probably haven't even ever heard of them. I just can't help but think, "why did the developer bother?"

Did something really just go wrong with everything single one of these games somewhere along the development? Or were they just bad ideas that never should have gotten as far as they did? Even if it is a result of low-budgeting, then why even bother? Do they even turn any profit on some of these "no-name" games? If they get into it with a low-budget and expect (and typically receive) a low-budget "bad" game, then why did they even bother in the first place? Do they start off good, realize it's gone bad, get so far that they can't turn back and just release it instead of cutting their losses? Or do they really think it's good and are very surprised that people don't buy it up?

I'd like to say that the "bad" games make the "good" games seem that much better, but it would also be nice to have so many "good" games to choose from that you don't even know where to start.

Or is it more that the "good" games are SO "good" that the "bad" games seem worse than they really are? That is to say, is it the case that maybe the "bad" games would be "good" if the "good" games weren't SO "good."

I guess you could apply this same logic to just about anything in life, but with video games (sort of like movies), you are offering a product that pretty much has a set initial retail price ($60), and in a lot of cases, you are comparing yourself to a number of other products that are just much much better and cost the same.

Sorry for the long post, it is a bit philosophical and maybe a little business oriented, but I was just wondering about it and this all sort of spewed out of my mouth.

So what's the deal? Why are there so many more "bad" games than "good" games?

I was trying to stay away from personal opinions, and stick more to the widely accepted opinions. Such as game reviews. There are definitely people who whole-heartedly disagree with the poor reviews (and vice versa), but I think, generally speaking, you will find more people who agree with the review. I tried to use "good" and "bad" in quotes the whole time, because I understand that those terms are really subjective to whoever is saying them, so I meant to have it as more of an average opinion of the game.

I don't expect low budget stuff to be as good as big budget stuff, I guess I'm wondering, is it really beneficial to do low budget stuff at all? It seems like you are setting yourself up for failure from the get go. But I don't have enough business sense, I guess, to understand that even these games that I consider to be in the "bad" category probably make back enough money in the long run to cover the low budget. And that you probably get a "gem" every so often from a low budget title.

I mean, look back at the lists of the thousands of games for nintendo. How many of them have you even heard of, let alone played. And how many that you haven't heard of those do you think were REALLY good games? Probably not alot. It just seems like there are way more "failed" games than "successful" games, when defining "failed" as: 'in general, people never talk about how great it is' and successful as: 'in general, you hear people talking about how great it is.'

Some games that I think fall into each category. Just off the top of my head (and remember, these are what I consider to be in each category, and I do know that there are people out there who disagree, but I think, in general, most would agree). "Good" games would be games like: Warhawk, Rockband, COD4. "Bad" games would be games like: Most any game made from a movie, Dynasty Wars Gundam, Armored Core 4, Blacksite Area 51.

After reading all of what I just wrote again (including this post), I guess I never considered how much personal taste can factor into this, even when trying to speak generally. Let me try to rephrase my question into: When looking at sales numbers, in order from best selling to worst, for every ps3 game made to date, are the reasons for the games that are at the bottom well known? Did the developer know from the get-go, on some level, that the game would end up on the bottom of the sales lists? Could they have prevented it somehow? And, would they have wanted to? Or do they think every game will sell great and they are surprised when they don't? Or do they specifically spend "just enough" to get the game on the bottom of the list, but the bottom of the list still covers their investment, and that is considered "ok" or "good" or "a win" because eventually one of the suspected "bottom-listers" will be a mid to top lister and really pay off?

Thanks for the input, darklord. You've basically stated what I had been thinking - that developers/publishers KNOW the game is of poor quality (vs what it could be), yet they release it / go foward with it anyway. It sucks for us, the consumers, that their mindset is that as long as they break even most of the time, with an expected/unexpected hit every so often, that is OK. We end up with more mediocre to "bad" games than would be nice. I guess that's just business though.

Agreed that this concept is the same for just about anything we buy as consumers, but a small difference is that the retail price of the games is all the same. You are paying $60 for the best games and $60 for the worst. At least initially. Sure, the garbage games come down in price faster than the better games, but still, take a look at how many $60 games are still $60 at places like best buy, and are definitely not worth that price, in the eyes of alot of people.

At least in a lot of the cases of laptops, shoes, and tvs, the prices can vary a little more. Not to say that often times the crap costs even more than the good, but at least the prices aren't "set" for such a long time. It's also tough to compare things you "need" to video games. A pair of shoes that are uncomfortable and poorly made but look great might serve the purpose of looking good for you for a while, and food at mcdonalds might not taste as good as taco del mar (I've never hard of this place, but going off of your example..) but the food isn't unbearably bad (to most) and you are hungry and maybe want variety, so you eat there anyway. Basically, you can find legitimate reasons to purchase the lower quality products (usually cost or convenience based), but with video games, there is no reason to suffer through a bad game. There is no "need" for them like there is for inferior products from many other categories. At least not that I can see Albums and movies, however, seem to fall into a similar boat to video games. Movies a little moreseo IMO, because music is extremely subjective and even more difficult to "rate" than games or movies.

I think you misread my post, heh. I am not the one buying bad $60 games, nor am I the one suffering through them. I was indicating that there is no need or reason to do this, and implying that for those reasons, not many people do so, particularly the ones who find the game to be a suffering waste of money

Regarding your second portion, you're right, I guess I don't expect them to admit that the game is crap, but it might not be a bad thing if the games were priced based on factors other than "games cost $60." Things like budget, hype, and reviews might be a good start. I might not like paying more money for better games than for worse games, but it would seem more just. And before we go down this route too far, I do realize that it is pretty impractical that it could/would ever happen. It just sucks when games like Area 51 come out and the developer even says it's a piece of crap. Why should it even cost $60 then? Why should I even want to try it at the same price as other games, when the developers themselves tell me it's not up to par? It doesn't seem fair. (I know, life isn't fair ).

My head is spinning with all of this by now anyway. By this point, we are past what I was trying to get at with my initial questions. I really just wanted to know why when you look at a library of games for any system, you see a bunch that were not very good at all. And not just in my personal tastes, but confirmed by reviews and sales numbers. My initial thought when realizing this fact, is that the developers should not have even bothered with the games. There should have / must have been some sort of clue that the games were going to end up on the bottom (before it was too late), so I wondered: "what happened?" I think that post mortem site is going to answer alot of that, along with the comments made here and just the realizations I came to myself already.

Sorry to muck up the forum here with some philosophical business crap that most of you don't care to read

BTW, Dixie, thanks for that link! I'm starting to read through it now, it's great stuff. Definitely answering some of the questions I have/had.

Right. It was a philosophical question though. I'm not asking which games are good or bad, I was trying to find out why they make bad games.

I can't remember the last "good" game based on a movie, for example. Goldeneye for n64 is the only one that comes to mind and that was ages ago. So why do they bother? I guess it's because they can still turn a good enough profit by selling whatever small amount of copies they do.

Thanks for the response Dixie.

So, do you think that alot of the games that end up in the top tier are there in large part because they didn't run into alot of hiccups and stayed on schedule/budget? Or are more there because the release date was pushed back numerous times, and the game wasn't rushed out before everyone, including the developers, were happy with it?

I mean, are there some cases (like Haze) where maybe they see a lot of potential in the game, and don't mind pushing the date back a few times to get it "just right" instead of forcing the release.

I wonder how they make that determination. That a game is "worth it" to push the release back and/or invest even more money into it, to make it better. That is a little bit of what I was getting at too. Do they release fairly early that the game just isn't going to be "worth it" and will likely be a bottom tier game for XYZ reasons?

So, the short answer to all of my questions is basically that we would probably see alot more "good" games if developers were fully funded and not rushed. But since that just can't feasibly be the case, we wind up seeing some less than stellar games that probably only bearly cover the development cost.