But that also depends on what one considers "good" or "bad," because people may judge a supposedly objective element through different perspectives. And even poorly constructed games can make contributions to video games as a whole, even if it is only to serve as a primer on what not to do.Sarge wrote:Oh, I dunno, a broken, buggy, horribly-designed mess of a game is an objectively bad game. I absolutely believe there are objective elements to gaming that can be judged, and they factor in, for sure. That being said, you can technically derive a lot of enjoyment from a really bad game, mostly from derisive laughter... but it doesn't change that it's a bad game. So one can subjectively enjoy objectively bad things.
The SNES port of Pit-Fighter does a lot of things wrong in my opinion, one of which is to represent your health as a numeric figure instead of what I consider to be an easily understandable health bar. Having seen that raw info now firsthand, I find I prefer the bar...but I wouldn't have known that had I not played Pit-Fighter. I learned something new about my preferences that I hadn't learned from hundreds of other fighters I had tried out which had all used the same old method I was already used to. And while I dislike it, someone else might appreciate that raw data and find they prefer how Pit-Fighter handles life representation versus those same hundreds of other fighting games.
