There are certainly games we can all subjectively agree on as having been poorly made. And some of us, like victims with Stockholm syndrome, argue these games are not bad at all when deep down we know they are. I’m not here to convince you bad games are good. Some games are just undeniably miserable experiences. I just want to discuss why you might want to own said games – the interest they offer despite (or rather because of) their obvious short-comings. And I’ll mention some examples of “bad” games that have interested me along the way.
First, terrible games can be interesting. When the designers of a game a) don’t get the series they’re making a game about and, b) lack the guidance to draw them back to what their audience expects, some really creative (and mostly horrible) things happen. And it’s that progression of terrible development decisions that can make a game something interesting. Old, forsaken games are the remnants of a disaster that we secretly love to look upon (like something from the Titanic). Like moths to a flame or passers by watching a train wreck, we’re drawn to bad games – maybe to better-appreciate the games we own. Gamers spend a lot of time talking about how bad some titles are, but then pop them in for a gaming session on occasion (I suppose when we fell a tad bit masochistic or need a reminder of how bad they are).
For example: I love the Transformers franchise. And while the Famicom game The Transformers: Mystery of Convoy impresses with its ambitious sprite renditions, it’s almost unplayable due to difficulty, controls, and speed. It’s so unbearable that I barely make it past the first stage before rage-quitting. Yet from time to time I return to play it and, each time when I’m finished, I ponder why I would subject myself to such torture. I mean you don’t even get to play as Optimus Prime or Bumble Bee (two main characters of the show). Sure this game sucks, but would I trade it? No. I love this game. Between the quirky music, ridiculous gameplay, and bizarre bosses (a floating Decepticon symbol?. really?), this game is totally worth owning (just not worth playing).
Another game, Back to the Future on NES, is panned as being a horrible game rendition of the movie (despite some positive attention in the past few years). Most stages play like a vertical shooter and the main character isn’t recognizable as the protagonist of the movie. The music is also sped up (maybe due to licensing issues) so as to be unrecognizable as from the original soundtrack of the movie. But the game has interesting ideas – such as catching music notes with your guitar during the Enchantment Under the Sea Dance. To be honest, this really isn’t a terrible game, but we all had such high hopes due to the associated franchise that we view it as such. And that’s what keeps this game in conversations through the years.
A game may have horrible graphics, but still display some creativity. Remember that someone took the trouble to draw the character (at least on the old games) dot-by-dot. And while they might not have done an adequate job representing what you expected, they give a certain style to the game. I think the worst thing you can make is a mediocre game (something that can often happen even with well-designed sprites). There’s no reason to play, witness, or discuss mediocre games. Bad games are at least something we can ridicule together or buy as gag gifts to torment each other.
Look at the two screenshots above. Could you tell that the game on the left was Terminator (based on the movie) game if I didn’t tell you? What about the game on the right being Conan? Children had to take a long, hard look at the labels or title screen – as that’s about the only view of their favorite franchise they were going to receive from these games for the most part.
Journey to Silius (an NES game which most view as fantastic) was originally slated to be a Terminator game. Perhaps that’s why Terminator still holds a place in game discussions. Journey to Silius was the alternate reality version of the same game -where developers got things right. The Terminator game above is what we were stuck with. And the fact the franchise became a blockbuster is keeps us talking about this lackluster game.
Sometimes a game existed before being dressed up with a franchise. Take Mario 2 for example. As I’m sure you know, for the US version of the game, sprites were created to replace those in the already-developed game: Yume Kōjō: Doki Doki Panic. And the resulting game was given a lot of flack for the changes to the traditional Mario sprite and movement of the various characters. But, in the long run, those same attributes kind of make the game awesome (and I don’t think I’m alone in thinking that). Over time the quirks of the game have made it a fan favorite (similar to Zelda 2).
(Mario 2 USA: The Princess levitating while jumping is one deviation of the traditional Mario game.)
Ask the average retro-gamer to name two bad games and they’ll likely mention Shaq-Fu and E.T. – two games hyped as being two of the worst ever made. But most gamers that actually try them will tell you they’ve played worse.
E.T. is a game cranked out by single-developer Howard Scott Warshaw in five and a half weeks for a console with low-fidelity graphics (roughly 40×192 pixels). It’s hard to say the game has horrible graphics as, amazingly enough (given the resolution), you can tell that your character is ET and you can distinguish between houses, pits, and FBI agents out to get you and steal the items you need to phone home. Most of us really just complain about the obscure and difficult gameplay that requires a manual to play.
It’s also kind of amazing what the programmer went for (a quest to collect the pieces – found in various pits – to communicate with ET’s home planet while avoiding agents out to get him) with such limited resources (including a count-down timer). While it’s no surprise it was a commercial failure, it stands out as an interesting one. So why own this? Well, I’ve always seen E.T. as some sort of abstract form of art more than a game (sort of a souvenir of the movie). It’s very cheap to own (I got a copy for $0.50 a few years ago) and its infamy also adds to the collector appeal (after the AVGN review and the land-fill digs for buried carts).
And what about Shaq Fu? It’s got an odd quirkiness that’s hard to place. It was an ambitious concept – take a famous basketball player and make a fighter game instead of a sports game with him.
(say what you will about this game, but at least the backgrounds are interesting)
That certainly worked a lot better in Michael Jordan: Chaos in the Windy City (a platformer that works much better as a game). The problem with Shaq Fu isn’t that the main character’s likeness wasn’t adequately captured or that the graphics were poor (I think the backgrounds are actually decent – not upper tier to be sure). It’s that this is a fighter game (which seems to lose half the audience) and the controls are lacking (which alienates the remaining crowd). The silver lining to this cloud is that the game is bright and colorful. The characters are cheesy, but inspired. The locations are cartoony, but fitting to the style (and the storyline). So I own this game as sort of a B-Game (like a B-Movie) – a guilty pleasure to be experienced occasionally. After all, why should we need to take a game seriously to enjoy it?
And that’s basically it. So let me know what horrible titles to you secretly covet and why?