Gaming Opinion - Okay Games Worse Than a Flop

@EquityArcade Jess March talks about why an okay game is worse than a flop.

At least with a boring, poorly made, or otherwise weak game it's your prerogative to move away from it and onto something new. Usually backed by a strong fan consensus of poor ratings and feedback, a unanimously labeled "bad game" finds itself in the used and discount bin, and ultimately garage sales across the world. But not always. Sometimes, the only thing worse than a flop of a game is a mediocre game.

We talk often about the games we love, and just about as much about the games we can't stand. The games that fall between the two, however, are often forgotten. The 6.5, 7, and maybe 8 out of 10's; the dust collectors that sit on your shelf that you can't bring yourself to part with because you'll finish it someday. If you suddenly remembered a laundry list of titles, do yourself a favor. Get up from your computer, and take a good, long look at yourself in the mirror. You're lying to yourself, and it is doing you no favors. Dark Souls 3 and Wasteland Workshop just came out. You are not moving backward anytime soon.

[…]

An okay game might have flawless graphics, but an unlikable protagonist. It may have a well-crafted story but have less-than-perfect physics. Sometimes it's too long, sometimes it's too short. Without running the risk of sounding too Goldilocks and the Three Bears, a hit game fits the wants and needs of its players just right.

That fact is, no one tries to find the World's Most Average Hamburger. There are no awards for being in an all-around okay band. The focus of attention is polar in nature, more often than not, regardless of an individual's opinion. Being great, awful, or just okay is a subjective opinion, but an opinion that grows stronger by the numbers. If the numbers aren't backing the game, it's likely to fade away into obscurity. Let us have a moment of silence for the games lost to time, for being neither great nor terrible; for the ones that brought us joy for 12 or so hours before retiring to a shelf for the rest of eternity.

More information.

As far as CRPG's go, we've mostly had ok games. When you look deeper you identify too many problems with any of them to get too excited. So, I'm just fine with ok games.

I disagree with the article….

Many times I have played games which are considered ok or mediocre and enjoyed myself.

I don't play games looking for the best of the best but things that entertain me and relax me.

Drakensang. An "okay" game almot no bugs at all (at least no really serious ones), but now it's an fairly obscure game.

Vampires : The Mascerade : Buggy, as far as I've read about it, but still "culty", so to say.

If I'd only play and enjoy "great" games, I'd have alot of spare time on my hands.
So… is that good or bad?

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
but still "culty", so to say.

A very german way of putting it. ;-)

I agree, I think more people should try Drakensang: Rivers of Time. I'm sure more will over the years by word of mouth, but I seem to recall they botched their release marketing in the USA, by years… . Well, I knew an awful lot of titles before coming here and I only found out about it once I'd arrived here, and this site is hardly top 100 gaming web sites…

Drakensang is a great game. I drove 80 miles on release day here in the US to the only place that had a copy. A GameStop and they had only 1 copy. They were dicks too, said they wouldn't save the copy for me so I could have driven 80 miles for nothing. Fortunately it was there.

As for ok games, most games I play fit in to that category so they're ok.

Generally I enjoy games for what they are. The only exception for me are games I expect great things from due to the license. An okay game is okay but disappointing in that instance.

What I consider a great game and what anyone else does are often oceans apart.
So much for this author's "point"…

I guess, by this article's reasoning:

Sacred 3> Sacred 2
Heretic Kingdoms II > Kult: Heretic Kingdoms
Dungeon Lords > ALL

Well I beg to differ as I played & enjoyed more Average European RPGs that were much better in my opinion then some AAA RPGs. So I can't agree with the article writer.

I'll throw in my own bizarre example: Evil Islands. I really enjoyed that obscure RPG that almost no one played. Crafting spells was integral to gameplay and so much fun. I also really enjoyed Nexagon Deathmatch - even though it got horrible reviews.

This is a really nothing article. One big difference between an indie studio releasing an okay game and a bad game is that typically one bad game is all it takes for the company to tank and go out of business.

I think the authors point was that any game where your expectations are high is more disappointing when average than if it outright failed because its like being teased without the payoff.

A bad game is bad and you can mentally discard it but if its mediocre you think about what it could of been but can never be. Its not about the latest AAA game failing to meet expectations but getting hyped on a game with no payoff.

if the author's focus is on the hype and the letdown aspect of gaming, then the article is not titled correctly. and even then, the focus should have been about how people should not allow themselves to get "over-hyped" about a game.

many games disappoint and many games are pleasant surprises, and the only way to judge is first hand. so there is no reason to make assumptions until you have played it.

but if you are not happy with okay games, then you will be a generally unhappy person these days.

I think this is the phenomenon Jess is talking about is this:

A big game comes out and you've been riding the hype train for weeks, maybe months. If the game is great then you get it and have a lot of fun. If the game is bad, you either hear about it ahead of time and don't get the game at all or, at the very least, you only spend a few hours in it and maybe even re-sell it for a decent price. But the "OK" games you buy, play for a while, then put down intending to come back. Those take more time and money than the bad game without giving you all the joy of a great game. Thus they are the worst of the three.

The problem is the answer to the article, namely: "yeah, so?" You do the best you can to try and find those great games. As you get older you'll get better at doing so but you'll still get games that just aren't worth your time. The publishers sure can't do anything about it since one person's great game is another person's OK game. So what are we supposed to do with this information? I guess it's just a curiosity post.

Articles like this make me ponder the strange fate of the professional editorial writer -- they have to know that they're very, very lucky to be getting paid to write about what they love with current journalism being what it is.

But at the same time, having to produce a regular column whether you have anything at all to say or not must be a pretty bleak feeling.

Originally Posted by Zloth
I think this is the phenomenon Jess is talking about is this:

…you've been riding the hype train for weeks, maybe months.

If Legends of the Sword Coast taught us anything, it is that a hype train is a train wreck waiting to happen. If you want to avoid disappointment, don't be an early adopter. Let someone else try the game first.

I'm not saying you need this advice. Clearly you do not. But to me if they had a point to this article it ought to be "what does this teach us" rather than "life sucks sometimes." That's why this article is getting so much flack. For one, the title suggests that okay games are bad, and number two, it's real point is that disappointment sucks, which is a given.

The article seems a bit of a random thought - I wish everything that isn't brilliant was crap, to make life simpler.