Why are bad games made? What are the devs thinking while they're making them?

I'm talking about the truly terrible games, the ones that flat out suck, and Big Rigs level awfulness. Why are these games made? Why are these developers even in the industry? What do they think about the games while they're making them?

If I was a game developer and came to the realisation that the game I was making sucked ass, I would probably either scrap production and start anew or try to fix what's wrong. If my developer team wasn't up to the challenge of making a big budget game then I wouldn't do one. Attempt omething that is achieveable and results in a fun, polished product. What's the point of going through with it and making a terrible game that no one will play? Will that get you get you somewhere in the industry? Why are you wasting your life on this crap?

Same goes for movies and any other medium really. It's probably got something to do with ego.

Thoughts?

I've yet to meet someone who thought Big Rigs was an amazing game. And I mean amazing as in 'man that really is a good game' and not 'it's amazing how retarded this game is'.

Well, its all opinion isn't it? One game one person calls bad another person could call amazing.Just-Breathe

By the time they realize it sucks, they have already sunk millions into it, and the need to recoup some losses precludes just scrapping it.

We ask developers to take some risks, then when they do we scream "WHY IS THIS NOT LIKE COD, COD IS BETTER"

The result being they don't make "bad games" and just make CoD sequels until we get sick of them.

i read an insightful developers story a while ago that i would have shared but can't seem to find it again. it was by one of the developers of a totally forgettable game and all the frustrations he encountered while making it. in a nut shell, most of the times it's over-ambitious projects, funds running dry before completion and/or publishers/investors pushing for the game to be released.

The publisher finances the game. The developer takes the money and sometimes fails to produce something good - or even something that should be sold. Probably a combination of incompetence, unrealistic goals and timetables, and egos and personalities. But the publisher isn't going to just write off their investment; they know a fair number of people will buy anything they see sitting on a shelf with a pretty picture on the front, so they put it out there.

When a game is still just a project on someone's head, it has all the potential in the world. This goes for movies too, btw. The problem is that (as someone pointed out already), once they realize they can't quite do what was planned (lack of time, lack of money, lack of programming skill, etc), they're already too deep into the project... people worked for months on that project, and were either paid in advance (which means losses for the company), or are waiting to get paid when the game ships (which means unemployment and/or losses for everyone).

Bottom-line, they need to cut corners, and get the game out, somehow, just to try and get back, at least, some of the investment.

I think maybe games are affected by budget, time, etc. The skills of the individual programmers, etc., I'm sure are pretty good. In particular, I've heard that movie-based games tend to be bad because the producers of the movie want to cash in on the movie's popularity and the developer doesn't have time to make a good, quality game.

"Let's make this game as horrible as possible so we can make money off of bad publicity."CRS98

After a number of hours working on something it is hard to say it is worthless.

[QUOTE="CRS98"]"Let's make this game as horrible as possible so we can make money off of bad publicity."Just-Breathe

A variety of factors. Publishers and deadlines, outright lazy developers that know they can just hastily slap something together and know that casual soccer mom Sally will come in and buy it off the shelf for little Johnny based solely on its box art. Also, some developers just aren't up to the task no matter how great a concept or design may be from the get go. A great game takes an enormous amount and degree of very talented individuals working together to be successful, just like movies, music, etc. You have people that can't make the grade and in addition are working in a terribly managed environment with publishers breathing down their necks who only care about profits and not quality, and it's no wonder there's so much trash.

Its all opinion really. The dev is obviously thinking (if he/she like their job) Wow! This game that I've made is so incredible! I hope people like it!

They're either doing the best they can with limited resources, or just releasing something for the sake of making money... That's my guess.

"Hey, someone is bound to buy it!"

More often than not, crappy games are the results of rushed development cycles, low budgets, and bad management.

If I was a game developer and came to the realisation that the game I was making sucked ass, I would probably either scrap production and start anew or try to fix what's wrong.

Okay there's generally 3 scenarios if you're a developer:

1. You're an indie developer making an iPhone game without a publisher. You're self-funded, and every day you're open drains more of your life savings. You eat a lot of ramen noodles.

2. You're a bigger developer making bigger-budget console or PC games, and you're funded by a publisher. You have strict milestones set by the publisher which dicate what has to be working on which dates, and they can pull the plug whenever they want. Without the publisher funding you probably couldn't keep your office open more than a few weeks.

3. You're a super-awesome AAA developer that's either a first-party console developer, or you're owned by some huge company, or you've made so much money the rules no longer apply to you and you can do whatever you want (such as Valve, or Blizzard). This could also be certain hugely-successful developers outside of your typical console/PC space, like Rovio or Zynga.

These "crappy games" aren't coming from the guys in the #3 group, so let's forget them. Which means you're either #1 or #2. If you're #1 and you say "okay let's scrap this game and start over", or "let's delay another year and make this better", you go bankrupt and don't have any money to feed your kids. If you're #2 and you tell your publisher "okay this sucks, we're going to start over" they say "okay, nice working with you" and they're gone. So unless you find another publisher to make a deal with you're going to be bankrupt soon, and finding another publisher is really hard when you just scrapped a project and cost some other developer a crapload of money. Publishers will sometimes be okay with delaying a game to make it better, but it's their call and not the developers. The publisher might see the whole thing as a money hole, and say "too bad you have to release this fall no matter what" so that they can attempt to make some sort of return on their investment before they dump all of their money into a game that's in limbo.


If my developer team wasn't up to the challenge of making a big budget game then I wouldn't do one.

Oh so, you just have to be able to see the future to be a good dev? :P

In all seriousness, you don't always have a choice on what you work on. If a developer doesn't have a big reputation then they may have to take whatever they can get from a publisher. And this might be making some video game tie-in to a smurfs movie, which absolutely-come-hell-or-high-water has to ship when the movie hits theaters.


Attempt omething that is achieveable and results in a fun, polished product. What's the point of going through with it and making a terrible game that no one will play? Will that get you get you somewhere in the industry? Why are you wasting your life on this crap?

Obviously people want to make great games and not shovelware, but it's a small industry that's really hard to break into. Sometimes you have to take what you can get, and try to work your way up to making better stuff. Not everyone can work for Naughty Dog, and not everyone would want to either. A lot of people enjoy what they do regardless of how high of review scores they get, or whether someone on the internet thinks they're "wasting their life".

Same goes for movies and any other medium really.

Movies, music, and other entertainment industries have a lot of the same problems as the games industry. A lot of people are desperate to break into it and are passionate about what they do, and a lot of companies actively exploit these people to make lots of money. Also like games they are very hit-driven, and a select few will hit it big while the rest remain in obscurity.

It's to cut losses of course. Come on man, the publisher calls the shots, not the developer. They hand out the money and the deadlines. You think any artist/creative person wants to put a crappy game on the market- that has their name on it? Absolutely not. But, thats the business end of things as always.

It's to cut losses of course. Come on man, the publisher calls the shots, not the developer. They hand out the money and the deadlines. You think any artist/creative person wants to put a crappy game on the market- that has their name on it? Absolutely not. But, thats the business end of things as always.

Shmiity

Actually, I personally feel very differently about this issue as compared to 99% of people out there.

I believe that there's no such thing as a bad game. Just a mismatch of expectations.I believe that inherently, every game has a development story to tell; and that as long as there's someone behind that game who has spent precious time and energy programming and designing the game, it does not deserve to be called a 'bad game'. I am sure that every game is innately a beloved product of the developers' blood, sweat and tears, and that gamers need to be more appreciative of what is out there; to enjoy what has been offered to them and to make the most of their purchases.

I'm sure that no developer wants to make a bad game. It's the various factors that make them not as good as they hoped. Sometimes a game could be bad because of a bad idea that shouldn't have been greenlighted (e.g BMX XXX).

Like others have said, bad games get released anyway because the publisher wants to recover as much as possible, knowing that the game is a bust. If I were a publisher, I'd probably just eat the loss and scrap the game, and not waste more money on distribution. It's not right to release a poor game to unsuspecting consumers. I'd like to know how many games get scrapped on average annually. Sometimes we hear about upcoming games getting cancelled, but how many more get scrapped behind the scenes?

I have the same thought, TC.

I wonder games like Rogue Warriors, Legendary, Turning Point ... are made.

Actually, I personally feel very differently about this issue as compared to 99% of people out there.

I believe that there's no such thing as a bad game. Just a mismatch of expectations.I believe that inherently, every game has a development story to tell; and that as long as there's someone behind that game who has spent precious time and energy programming and designing the game, it does not deserve to be called a 'bad game'. I am sure that every game is innately a beloved product of the developers' blood, sweat and tears, and that gamers need to be more appreciative of what is out there; to enjoy what has been offered to them and to make the most of their purchases.

disneyanime91

No, some games simply suck. Mismatched expectations have nothing to do with it. Superman 64 is an atrocious piece of ****, I don't care what people were expecting. Doesn't change reality, it was terrible on its own merits.