Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 31, 2014 21:56:42 GMT -5
Does Pepsiman count? I find it's music to be damn catchy. Pepsiman isn't a bad game, though. It's basically Temple Run: Actually Fun Edition.
|
|
|
Post by ommadawnyawn2 on Sept 1, 2014 16:56:56 GMT -5
Waterworld (SNES, 90s), Diving, www.youtube.com/watch?v=0H5YoFv09uQ&hd=1Overlord (NES, 90s), Title, www.youtube.com/watch?v=YhDC-VStQmUTarget: Renegade (NES ver., 90s), Level 1, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ao8N53m4mGU&hd=1Sleepwalker (PC, 90s), Zoo, www.youtube.com/watch?v=81H8wuRuj4A&hd=1Lethal Weapon (AMI, 90s), Mission 1, www.youtube.com/watch?v=9yAGv-SkQMo&hd=1#t=0m5sProject S-11 (GBC, 00s) - Kenhull Badlands, www.youtube.com/watch?v=t6dvu6moOWE&hd=1Project S-11 (GBC, 00s) - Bern Jungle, www.youtube.com/watch?v=D6oYRW_a-Lc&hd=1Blaster Master 2 (MD, 90s), Stage 7 (1:15, www.youtube.com/watch?v=eP6nDOLhT7Y&hd=1TMNT: Tournament Fighters (MD, 90s) - April O'Neil, www.youtube.com/watch?v=SWI7Nn3UGE8&hd=1TMNT: Tournament Fighters (MD, 90s) - Ray Fillet, www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZgTuIB5wKio&hd=1Phantasy Star III (MD, 90s) - Main Theme, www.youtube.com/watch?v=iczgSz07uHg&hd=1Bayou Billy (NES, 80s) - Stage 1, www.youtube.com/watch?v=oJh8_p5ZvPg&hd=1Bayou Billy (NES, 80s) – Ending/From the Swamp to Your Sweetheart, www.youtube.com/watch?v=73t-g6sJyc4#t=5m56sSDI (ARC, 80s) - Track 1, www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxuX5NRLHQ&hd=1SDI (ARC, 80s) - Track 5/Satellite Attack, www.youtube.com/watch?v=EZxuX5NRLHQ&hd=1#t=6m43sBlackhole Assault (MCD, 90s) - Final Battle, www.youtube.com/watch?v=6M5fisKdZ3Y&hd=1Heavy Nova (MD, 90s) - Rebel Boss 2-1: Garo (SX-D07RR), www.youtube.com/watch?v=N5nezOhjc7g&hd=1, MCD ver.: www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z8Hcv8f6U1oHeavy Nova (MD, 90s) - Final Boss: Idarl (ME-F913), www.youtube.com/watch?v=s8Ct0uL73fcSonic Blast (SMS, 90s) - Silver Castle Zone (GBS), www.youtube.com/watch?v=gCUQaoY-ZVk
|
|
|
Post by Magma MK-II on Sept 1, 2014 17:33:18 GMT -5
Does Pepsiman count? I find it's music to be damn catchy. Pepsiman isn't a bad game, though. It's basically Temple Run: Actually Fun Edition. Well, Pepsiman is more of a guilty pleasure kind of game.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Sept 6, 2014 15:36:29 GMT -5
May I present for your aural pleasure "James Bond, Jr." by the maestro Neil Baldwin:
|
|
Startling
Banned
A better gamer than all of you plebs
Posts: 54
|
Post by Startling on Sept 30, 2014 3:43:59 GMT -5
Eh, a lot of the picks in this thread aren't bad games at all. "mediocre" is by no means bad, and in a way that term is up to opinion. "bad"... isn't. A lot of people seem to be trying to bash games they simply dislike, and that's not really fair; can't there be a separate thread for that? I really think this thread should focus on truly bad games, because there's not a lot of thread otherwise. On topic, SECRET OF MANA. Yes, I do very much mean that objectively, because SoM is not a well-designed game at all. These are all pretty decent to good: Silver Surfer, Mystic Quest, Crystal Chronicles, that particular Batman & Robin (SNES game is good too), Atomic Runner, Magna Carta especially, Master of Monsters, Midnight Resistance if I'm thinking of the right game, Devilish, SaGa Frontier 2 for sure, Jewel Master, Zero Wing definitely, Super Valis IV (the only people who rag on this game are people who are already familiar with Valis IV), PCE Batman, Castlevania: Dracula X (people rag on this game WAY too much just like with Super Valis IV, except everyone knows about the original game here), Earth Defense Force (one of the most tightly-designed late-'80s/early-'90s games I've ever seen out of this genre), Socket (it's as good as Daiginjou comparatively), Sword of Vermilion, isn't the 32X version of MKII actually the best after arcade?, Chrono Cross (it's 2014, can we please stop bashing the poor thing*), TMNT Tournament Fighters (this is like putting the Sailormoon fighters in here), Phantasy Star III (come on man) I'm tempted to defend Unlimited Saga; I see it more of a board game than an RPG, and I wonder if that wasn't the point. I get the impression MMX7 is unfairly criticized, and I know people give X6 a very unfair rap. Lagoon is getting a bit too hated, as the only real problems with that game are the cruel luck you can get during bosses and the change from Ys-like push-the-monster; I heard the original X68000 version doesn't have the latter, but this doesn't seem to be true? Gaia Seed isn't too bad, but it's kinda easy. I don't know why so many people rag on Yoshi's Story; I prefer it above Island sometimes and I just wish it had more levels. Mentioning Nier in a thread like this seems like heresy. SimIsle isn't too bad for what it is. Pepsiman is actually pretty decent. Renegade isn't really a bad game either, and not much more than Double Dragon (fun fact: I don't really like Double Dragon). SDI isn't particularly terrible. I do indeed detect some Genesis sound bashing; terrible shame, that. By the way, the N64 was little removed from the SNES functionally (never mind that the PS had the same basic chip), so make of that what you will. Those later sound chips are cheating anyway, they just let you use samples for everything and have no distinctive sound of their own aside from the actual sample sets. So, uh, crap games with awesome soundtracks. Umm...this is kind of controversial, but Metal Slug 5 is often viewed as a low point in the series (I do not actually view it that way but it could definitely be counted with MS4, after all, the same developers made both) and had one of the best soundtracks I have ever heard in my life. I think MS5 was actually made by different people but they had Noise Factory come in and help again. That's why 4 just reuses backgrounds and 5 has mostly original content. KOF03, MS5, and SvC were all proper SNK games, last I checked. BlazBlue, Vimana, Thunder Force III-VI and all Touhous after the PC-98 era with the exception of PCB & IN which also suck music-wise. Mmm... a bit too trolly for my taste... No games are bad or good for a fact, no matter what any rankings say, it's just a matter of opinion, and with this topic, it's obvious that they're "bad games" only in the opinion of the poster. Oh no, there are very real standards for "bad". This is why the opposite of bad is "average" and not "good", and why "good" and "average" really should be synonyms. welp looks like this is that "games i'd defend" post i wanted to make oh look another topic disected*you know i find it pretty hard to take seriously someone who thinks that chrono cross was "mediocre", that castlevania the adventure was anything but nearly-unplayable, but that haunted castle was "sloppy"
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Oct 2, 2014 20:37:06 GMT -5
No games are bad or good for a fact, no matter what any rankings say, it's just a matter of opinion, and with this topic, it's obvious that they're "bad games" only in the opinion of the poster. Oh no, there are very real standards for "bad". This is why the opposite of bad is "average" and not "good", and why "good" and "average" really should be synonyms. welp looks like this is that "games i'd defend" post i wanted to make oh look another topic disected*you know i find it pretty hard to take seriously someone who thinks that chrono cross was "mediocre", that castlevania the adventure was anything but nearly-unplayable, but that haunted castle was "sloppy" what I'm sorry but that's one of the most perplexing and silly arguments I've ever heard in regard to games. The opposite of "bad" is "average"? "Good" and "average" should be synonyms? Again I say: what Truth be told, "average" is a dumb word for gamers to throw around. The average of what? These aren't assignments to be graded by teachers. There isn't some textbook example of what an "average game" is supposed to be. What is "average" gameplay? storytelling? art? music? etc.? But because gamers tend to be young, either yet to have graduated high school or still in college, their brains are stuck in that mode, and the media only reinforces that by using words like "average", assigning games letter grades, or using 10 or 100 point scales that only use 30%/40% of the scale for everything that ranges from so-so to phenomenal (that is, 7-10 or 70-100, while everything below is varying degrees of bad; a very, very stupid way to assess games, needless to say). What people REALLY mean when they call a game "average" is that it's mediocre, and that is definitely not the same thing is "good". And I can't believe there is a need for me to say this, but "good" is the opposite of "bad". The only objective "bad" in games is if the code is flat-out broken. If there are detrimental glitches, I think most people would agree that that is unarguably bad, but virtually everything else is up to interpretation. If you want to come on this board and try to police what people can or can't call "good" or "bad" because you're convinced that your opinions are objective fact, well, I don't think you're going to have a very pleasant time here. Also, if you're expecting people to reply when you're quoting stuff from 2+ years ago, I think you'll be disappointed. In my case, you're just fortunate/unfortunate enough that I happen to still visit this board. Finally, I don't very much take seriously people who don't take other people seriously for reasons as frivolous and childish as differing tastes in video games.
|
|
|
Post by bakudon on Oct 3, 2014 2:23:26 GMT -5
Well, good and bad are obviously subjective, but only to an extent – there still exist criteria for quality that are shared by a reasonably large amount of people as to make them at least ”semi-objective”. Like how you’d be hard pressed to find anyone with a significant understanding of fiction who would call the writing on soap operas or reality shows ”good”. A plot, for instance, may have glaring holes, or be clichéd, or otherwise predictable or implausible, all which are commonly considered bad qualities. So it’s not all just a matter of taste – if it were, critics would be out of a job.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Oct 3, 2014 3:09:41 GMT -5
Uh, critics are all about sharing their tastes; that's what they do (and for what it's worth, I actually do professional criticism myself). If it was a matter of objective fact, every critic would have the exact same stance on whatever they're critiquing. People generally choose which critics they pay heed to by how closely a critic matches their own tastes. But critics generally offer a mixture of facts and opinions (summarizing what a product does and then assessing if it does what it does well or not). There is such a thing as poorly founded or well-founded opinions, of course, so people take into consideration the critic's experience/knowledge level with the type of product, if they appear biased against or in favor of anything, and if they provide any kind of backing to their opinions.
It may be easy to say that something is factually good or bad based on sales or popular sentiment, but it still doesn't make it genuine fact. If that was the case then, to pull a random example out of my ass, that'd make Oreos factually the best cookies. It just doesn't work that way.
All those flaws you listed, "glaring holes", "cliched", "predictable", "implausible", are still a matter of opinion as far as what deserves to be labeled as such. I could definitely think of some game plots I would apply those criticisms to, yet somebody else could come along and say that they don't feel that way at all about it and they're no less right or wrong than I.
I think it's a pretty easy concept to grasp since I doubt there's anybody who can't think of one highly popular thing that, to them, is bad and one unpopular thing that, to them, is good. So unless you like to beat up on yourself and tell yourself that you're wrong when your feelings on something don't match most other people's, it's pretty easy to realize that what's "good" and "bad" in entertainment is all a construct of the mind, short of basic product failure (games failing to load, crashing, etc.)
|
|
|
Post by cambertian on Oct 3, 2014 17:59:26 GMT -5
So would a game that has bugs and glitches be just as good as that same game without those glitches?
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Oct 6, 2014 1:14:19 GMT -5
No? I'm not sure how you're drawing that conclusion when I basically said the exact opposite. Unless the bugs and glitches were actually beneficial to the player and people like them in there (which is also up to interpretation because it's still a failure on the developer's part to do what they set out to do and some people don't like glitches even if they can be helpful), there's no reason why a buggy game wouldn't be inferior to the exact same game minus the bugs.
|
|
|
Post by cambertian on Oct 6, 2014 15:48:02 GMT -5
No? I'm not sure how you're drawing that conclusion when I basically said the exact opposite. Unless the bugs and glitches were actually beneficial to the player and people like them in there (which is also up to interpretation because it's still a failure on the developer's part to do what they set out to do and some people don't like glitches even if they can be helpful), there's no reason why a buggy game wouldn't be inferior to the exact same game minus the bugs. Doesn't that contradict what you said earlier, though? Not only that, but your current argument about glitches is subjected to the same faults you were pointing out earlier. Wait, so you're saying it can be objective now? What if I really like game crashes? What if I like my games to be unplayable? All of a sudden it's inferior, even though I call it superior? This is a weird debate. I don't like it.
|
|
|
Post by Scylla on Oct 7, 2014 9:50:31 GMT -5
Uh, if you don't like this discussion, why are you participating in it?
Anyway, first of all, you're comparing posts I made this week to a post I made over 2 years ago.
But it doesn't contradict anyway because a "bad game" is not the same thing as an "inferior game" or a game that contains "bad" things. I said that glitches, when truly detrimental, can be considered objectively bad, but I never said that those glitches automatically make the game as a whole bad. Star Ocean: The Second Story has a well-known glitch that causes it to randomly crash at the end of a battle from time to time. I think you'd be hard-pressed to find anyone who's played the game who doesn't think that's a bad aspect of it, but I still think it's one of the best games ever made. In fact most people who play it have a pretty favorable view of the game. The glitch is annoying but it's not so frequent as to completely impede progress, so people can still play and enjoy the game.
So going back to your question, if you have two of the exact same game but one has glitches, and if the game is good without glitches, it's very possible that it's still good with glitches, even if it's slightly worse off for them. Conversely, the game could be bad to begin with, and the inclusion of glitches doesn't really make a big difference because it already wasn't any fun. Really, the only way for the glitch-free game to be good and the glitch-containing version to be bad is if the glitches are so extremely severe that it prevents the player from experiencing and enjoying the good aspects that are buried under those glitches.
And yes, it's still ultimately up to interpretation how good or bad a game is or how much of an impediment glitches are, short of something that crashes 100% consistently or whatever.
|
|
|
Post by Terrifying on Nov 9, 2014 5:54:47 GMT -5
One that directly comes to mind is Virtuoso.
Also, Pyrotechnica, a PC game published by Psygnosis.
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Jun 14, 2015 6:15:59 GMT -5
The music that plays during most stages in RAMBO for the NES is really excellent, even fits the game well imo.
(I actually do like this game tho...)
|
|
|
Post by kyouki on Jun 15, 2015 8:22:48 GMT -5
This is a crazy bump, but I too love the soundtrack to this game. My favorite track is Syoh's stage:
|
|