Is any RPG truly Bad?

[noiseredux]

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

No, it doesn't. I mean -- this is semantics I think. Look I can say "that movie is so fucking bad. I love it." Or I can say "yeah that movie was technically really bad (poorly written, poorly directed, whatever) but I enjoyed it. So it was good to me."

[RyaNtheSlayA]

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.

You know I actually talked to the son of one of the developers who worked on Ballz on TF2. It was pretty interesting.

As he said... it didn't quite live up to what it was supposed to be. Or did it?

[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!

Now that I think about it, I think I even find negative reviews more interesting.
I might like seeing a scale like this:
Condemned to HELL!!!!>>>PURE Torture!>>>Extremely Unpleasant>>>Kinda Sucky>>>Playable

But seriously, with Neg. reviews, the flaws are unmercifully exposed and if you're still interested after reading, it should be a worthy buy for you.

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.

This is probably more true than I'd like to admit.
Since scales are abused and meaningless though,
I think I like what RPGamer does. Their reviews have a rating too, but they have a "+/-" list to go with it. I wouldn't mind if that completely replaced the point system. That's really what we need to know right, the good and the bad?

[dsheinem]

I guess the question I still have is: "Is any RPG truly BAD?" ---- Compared to what?

[nightrnr]

I guess the question I still have is: "Is any RPG truly BAD?" ---- Compared to what?

Compared to not having played it.

Like torture. I consider being stretched on the rack "Bad" in compared to not being stretched on the rack.

Rolling down a bumpy hill. That was fun, even if I got a bruise from it and can't necessarily recommend it.

[dsheinem]

I guess the question I still have is: "Is any RPG truly BAD?" ---- Compared to what?

Compared to not having played it.

so your question is basically: "is playing an RPG ever a bad experience"...compared to doing something else or playing a game in another genre?

[Inazuma]

Yes, most of the modern MMORPGs are truly bad. They are completely destroyed as a game, because of the pay to win business model.

[nightrnr]

so your question is basically: "is playing an RPG ever a bad experience"...compared to doing something else or playing a game in another genre?

Odd as it may seem, I'm still trying to figure out my question, same as you (why did I even post, I know )

I think it's more like:
"Assuming RPG's are your preferred genre, is an RPG a bad experience as a whole, compared to moving on to something else, another RPG perhaps".
This also assumes that you are selecting a game that interests you in the 1st place (why would you play a game that didn't). This is also not necessarily directly comparing RPGs in quality, even if it seems that way.
Also, that all wouldn't fit in a topic title, so I went for a more simple line.

I guess there could be bad RPGs that didn't interest you (they were so bad that they didn't even have any initial appeal).

As already mentioned, there's also bad media that people enjoy anyways (or maybe because it's bad). How do you sift through that?
My point is that there's no way the judge a game's "fun factor" based on subjective recommendations. I find this especially true of RPGs.

Yes, most of the modern MMORPGs are truly bad. They are completely destroyed as a game, because of the pay to win business model.

I've pretty much stayed away from that end of the genre. I've always looked at it as a more social thing (the anti-RPG in my opinion, despite D&D roots).

[nightrnr]

I'm Double posting to highlight an RPG I just remembered.

D&D: Heroes of the Lance. Now there's a bad RPG (and there's probably a few people that actually like it, though I can't see why).
And there's probably a slew of older PC/Dos games that I have not bothered to notice (especially if CGA graphics are the only option).

I just don't get it when merely bland, mildly frustrating, or average RPGs are said to be horrible. I guess it just comes down to how others compare them to games in the genre that they did enjoy (as dsheinem has been hinting at).

Thanks for everyone posting ,and for putting up with my meandering posts. I didn't expect such a response and it's nice to hear everyone's take on it.

I still am interested in everyone's worst examples though. Keep 'em coming if you are so inclined.

[Opa Opa]

D&D: Heroes of the Lance. Now there's a bad RPG (and there's probably a few people that actually like it, though I can't see why).

Yes, Heroes of the Lance... Terrible game but I love it. The sequel is much better if you want to try out what a semi-good version of HotL would be like.