Is any RPG truly Bad?

[MrPopo]

But look at the reviews on RPGFAN, for instance. I rarely see an RPG rated at under 50% (which really should be a luke-warm/room temperature standard), and even under 70% is uncommon. I think RPG players look at games a little different that the average gamer.

This is true of every major reviewer. There's a reason most point scales are ridiculed these days.

[spiritplx]

There honestly aren't many RPGs out there I can consider downright awful, but, Phantasy Star III comes to mind. There's just absolutely no reason to play it. I can't think of a single redeeming quality. Broken system, boring story, bad characters, ear splitting music, just awful in every way..

If Phantasy Star 3 was one of the worst RPGs you've played, you've played mostly good RPGs. I'm surprised I'm defending it, as there were many things that I didn't enjoy about it. I guess you gotta hear the music in a different way. In my opinion, PS2 and PS3 were about equal in terms of how good they were. PS3 did have the lineage system, which I thought was a cool idea (if not executed as well is it could have been). I think PS2 is typically held in higher regard than it should be, but I won't say it was a bad game either. If we want to talk about games that are overrated, sure, but neither PS2 or PS3 were bad. PS1 was the last of the four that I played, and it was my favorite. I typically consider the time/date a game was released as well as hardware limitations in order to weight the games properly.

Super Hydlide was also mentioned. While this game was laughable, it did have a couple of things that weren't seen often (if at all) in that time. A weight system, a hunger system and a time system. Again, poor execution, but a neat idea nonetheless. I guess I try to enjoy anything I can when I play "bad" games, especially anything that seems innovative or unique. I'd rather play a game that introduced mechanics but had poor game-play than a cookie cutter clone that had average game-play. If nothing else, each game offers a historical perspective on the evolution of the genre (or lack-thereof in the case of most clones).

Wizardry (the series) is hard as nails, and while it is extremely passable today, a game(s) like that back in the day would have been ideal. If you were on a limited budget, you could expect to put in hundreds of hours just to beat the game once. And once you did, the replay value seems endless. For money spent, this would have been one of the best deals out there. So I think time and context also determines whether or not a game is "bad".

I'd have to go through my list of RPGs that I've played to compile a list of "bad" ones. Although I don't want to get into the tired debate of "what's an RPG?" (we already have several threads for that). Here are a few that I can think of off the top of my head...

---SMS---
Ys
Miracle Warriors
Honorable Mention: Golvellius

On a system that produced PS1, Ultima 4 and Golden Axe Warrior, these games have no excuse.

--Game Gear--
Dragon Crystal
Crystal Warriors
Honorable Mention: Ax Battler (just because it's harder to consider an RPG)

Not a great RPG system to begin with, but these games really added nothing to the genre. Crystal Warriors was about as plain as you can get and Dragon Crystal is a roguelike (a genre which I do not care for) that adds nothing to previous roguelikes. Ax Battler is easily argued to not be an RPG, but it's so awful that I had to add it to the list so people would be aware of it.

I'll update my list when I get a chance to take a look at my RPGs beaten list and grab more from there. Typically I find something I enjoy enough to not consider a game bad, but most of the ones above didn't even make that cut.

Note: I saw DSH's post before I was able to submit mine, and I do agree that the terms are completely subjective. I guess I'm just afraid to call a game bad if it did anything to help further the evolution of the genre. Doesn't make it good either. Bad in my terms is a game that isn't much fun and does not add anything to the genre.

[brunoafh]

Ive never seen a soundtrack match so well with a game as ffix. When I think of Treno, so much comes to mind that its like I have been there!

I do remember some pretty awesome tracks for sure. Loved the battle theme. That game had a lot of sweet moments too, like the Beatrix stuff and all the dragon stuff. The only thing that didn't set well with me was the fact that the antagonist wore a metal thong... I'll give it another day one of these days though haha.

@spiritplx
Well maybe I was going a bit overboard, but I think it's by far the worst Phantasy Star game and not even comparable to 1, 2 or 4. To each his own of course. I totally respect that, but for me it was like unplayable.

[dsheinem]

I think I might even be attracted to games that are considered "bad". I think to myself, "Really, how interesting; how awful can it possibly be?" And I usually end up liking it for what it is.

Conclusion:
I'm Nightrnr, and I like games. Be skeptical of my reviews.

So your game reviews are all basically on a scale of

good>>>radical>>>awesome>>>super mega awesome>>>holy shit GAME OF THE MILLENIUM!!!1!

I hear IGN is hiring...

[o.pwuaioc]

Ive never seen a soundtrack match so well with a game as ffix. When I think of Treno, so much comes to mind that its like I have been there!

I do remember some pretty awesome tracks for sure. Loved the battle theme. That game had a lot of sweet moments too, like the Beatrix stuff and all the dragon stuff. The only thing that didn't set well with me was the fact that the antagonist wore a metal thong... I'll give it another day one of these days though haha.

I like the music, I really do! but I thought it didn't always match what was going on. Gargant Roo and Gizamaluke's Grotto were terrible offenders, in my opinion.

[noiseredux]

I hear IGN is hiring...

I think what he's saying is bad games can often be interesting. And if they keep you interested, then you're entertained. So to you, they're good... in some weird way. Which I agree with.

[dsheinem]

I hear IGN is hiring...

I think what he's saying is bad games can often be interesting. And if they keep you interested, then you're entertained. So to you, they're good... in some weird way. Which I agree with.

and I hold that just because something entertains you in some way or another, that doesn't make it good

[o.pwuaioc]

I hear IGN is hiring...

I think what he's saying is bad games can often be interesting. And if they keep you interested, then you're entertained. So to you, they're good... in some weird way. Which I agree with.

and I hold that just because something entertains you in some way or another, that doesn't make it good

Exhibit A: Heroin.

[nightrnr]

So your game reviews are all basically on a scale of

good>>>radical>>>awesome>>>super mega awesome>>>holy shit GAME OF THE MILLENIUM!!!1!

I hear IGN is hiring...

Oh Heaven's NO!. First of all I don't really review ANYTHING. It's just a fair warning if I ever do.
2nd, I think I might abstain from a rating altogether. I would just give my experience with the game as a whole.
I visit a world, these are my journies, compliments, frustrations, etc...
But yeah, I'll never aspire to be a great videogame journalist anyways (yes I know you were just making a point).

See, it's extremely difficult to know what to recommend to someone.
spiritplx mentioned games that I was glad I got the chance to play. I've even finished Miracle Warriors, where I have NOT finished Phantasy Star. PS is obviously the superior game, but I guess really can't give too much credit to a review when I decide to play something.

He's right about "time and context". But I also think if a game was fun at one time, it should be fun today too (thing of beauty is a joy forever right).

Maybe it's enjoyment changes though. You have to look at it from a more historical standpoint. I think that's why I'm trying to dive into Ultima IV right now. I've always had more accessible (interface design) RPGs to play when it was released; but now I'm greatly interested in what I missed.

[Ack]

I'm of the view that a bad game can still have something to offer. Shaq Fu isn't a good fighting game, but it still has ideas that I like. Ballz 3D isn't a good fighting game, but it still has one redeeming feature, and that is that we can make fun of it for hours on end and still not be bored.

Ultimately one's view of what's "good" or "bad" is subjective, but the truth is that all games have something to offer a view of a genre, be it a different means of considering an ancient mechanic, a new musical or graphical style to consider, different controls that may work better or worse than previous genre examples, different methods of presenting a story or different story ideas, etc.