A Feature by Paul Harrington
What is a "bad" game?
Since the release of the Arfenhouse
games so many years ago, the OHR community has had an interest in
making intentionally "bad" games. The popularity of joke games and
intentionally bad games can be seen in the fact that the community has
hosted several Terrible Game Contests, where the goal of the
participants is to make the "worst" game possible. Of course, the
definition of "worst" varies massively. There are games like Fenrir's BLB, a well drawn, competently scripted game with abhorrent plot content. There are also games like SDHawk's Final Fantasi XXX, whose main objective is to obliterate the player's senses through the use of horrific colors.
For the purposes of this article, I will be talking about games that are intentionally "bad" in at least some capacity. Some of these are also terrible in unintentional ways, but we won't be discussing games that are simply bad because of the author's lack of testing/patience/competence.
For the purposes of this article, I will be talking about games that are intentionally "bad" in at least some capacity. Some of these are also terrible in unintentional ways, but we won't be discussing games that are simply bad because of the author's lack of testing/patience/competence.
BLB vs Final Fantasi XXX, showcasing the range of "bad" games
Why make a bad game?
There are many reasons for someone to release an intentionally bad game. The most obvious would be to win a contest where producing a terrible game is the objective to begin with. Another good reason is that releasing a quick, terrible game allows you to blow off steam and frustration from working on more serious titles. This is something I've personally practiced for years; when work on a complicated OHR game is getting me down, taking a few minutes to throw together something like Zoidberg: A Musical relieves a lot of stress, gives me a good laugh, and makes game design fun again.
There are many reasons for someone to release an intentionally bad game. The most obvious would be to win a contest where producing a terrible game is the objective to begin with. Another good reason is that releasing a quick, terrible game allows you to blow off steam and frustration from working on more serious titles. This is something I've personally practiced for years; when work on a complicated OHR game is getting me down, taking a few minutes to throw together something like Zoidberg: A Musical relieves a lot of stress, gives me a good laugh, and makes game design fun again.
Another reason to release a bad game is to play a joke on your audience. Zoidberg
is an example of this. It doesn't feature terrible graphics or
objectionable content. It's a "bad" game because there's barely
anything to it, and because no matter what the player does, he loses.
The objective of the game is to select whether or not an image you're
shown is a picture of Futurama's
Zoidberg, but regardless of what you select, the player dies. This is
the game's punchline, and more comedy arises from the fact that a
couple of people kept playing this non-game over and over to try to get
different results. Rolling Stone's Super OHR Monetary Battle II Champion Edition operates along the same line.
Releasing a "bad" game can also be an effective means of satire, as long as the author has a clear view of what he's doing. With Walthrus: Return of the Crystals, I satirized one of my own games for the intention of addressing people's complaints about the original Walthros' story and graphics being terrible, as a way of saying, "It could be worse; it could have looked like this!"
Releasing a "bad" game can also be an effective means of satire, as long as the author has a clear view of what he's doing. With Walthrus: Return of the Crystals, I satirized one of my own games for the intention of addressing people's complaints about the original Walthros' story and graphics being terrible, as a way of saying, "It could be worse; it could have looked like this!"
Of course, Walthrus grew into more than just a Walthros parody, but the point stands.
What makes a good bad game?
Now, I am assuming that the reason people upload OHR games to public download sites is because they want people to play them. If you want people to enjoy your game, you have to give them a reason. Don't think for a second that "bad" games aren't enjoyable, because the best ones are incredibly entertaining. There's a distinct difference between a good bad game and a poor one. Even Final Fantasi XXX, which has no redeeming features within the actual game, is enjoyable to a degree, because it demonstrates in a remarkably strong way just how badly bad graphics can affect a game. While playing it is no fun, the "Good God, this is horrifying" moment that occurs when you open the file makes the experience worthwhile.
The player should never be completely bored, whether you're designing a bad game or a good one. There can be stretches of time where nothing happens, or where you're cruel to the player (In Walthrus, I force the player to fight the same battle with Woo about three times in the course of one set of dialogue just to grate on his nerves), but these must be carefully controlled and must never last so long that the overall experience is hurt.
BoHobo is a good example of a bad game done right. It doesn't go on for too long, which is a mistake many "bad" games make (I myself am guilty of this with Gato Sucio, which should have only included two of the five episodes I wrote). Its graphics have style to them, in spite of being really ugly. This is important; if your bad game just looks like a generic game made by a new OHR user with no experience or skill, it will be boring. It has to have something that sets it apart. BoHobo looks like an old Atari game, and animates like one too. The hero's animation reminds me of the classic, terrible E.T. Atari game, and I get a kick out of it.
What makes a good bad game?
Now, I am assuming that the reason people upload OHR games to public download sites is because they want people to play them. If you want people to enjoy your game, you have to give them a reason. Don't think for a second that "bad" games aren't enjoyable, because the best ones are incredibly entertaining. There's a distinct difference between a good bad game and a poor one. Even Final Fantasi XXX, which has no redeeming features within the actual game, is enjoyable to a degree, because it demonstrates in a remarkably strong way just how badly bad graphics can affect a game. While playing it is no fun, the "Good God, this is horrifying" moment that occurs when you open the file makes the experience worthwhile.
The player should never be completely bored, whether you're designing a bad game or a good one. There can be stretches of time where nothing happens, or where you're cruel to the player (In Walthrus, I force the player to fight the same battle with Woo about three times in the course of one set of dialogue just to grate on his nerves), but these must be carefully controlled and must never last so long that the overall experience is hurt.
BoHobo is a good example of a bad game done right. It doesn't go on for too long, which is a mistake many "bad" games make (I myself am guilty of this with Gato Sucio, which should have only included two of the five episodes I wrote). Its graphics have style to them, in spite of being really ugly. This is important; if your bad game just looks like a generic game made by a new OHR user with no experience or skill, it will be boring. It has to have something that sets it apart. BoHobo looks like an old Atari game, and animates like one too. The hero's animation reminds me of the classic, terrible E.T. Atari game, and I get a kick out of it.
BoHobo
also, smartly, does not contain battles. If your bad game is going to
have battles, they should either be better than those in an average
game, or part of the joke.
Thanksgiving Quest is an example of the former. The story and graphics are terrible, and the game never takes itself seriously, but it remains compelling because the gameplay is great. Every battle is well balanced and many require genuine strategy to survive. This is something that is rarely found in OHR games, even the most serious ones. If you just hold down the space bar and mash FIGHT in Thanksgiving Quest, you're going to lose. This, to me, is what makes TQ funny; fantastic game design, masked by bad jokes and ugly visuals. My initial reaction to the game was, "This is terrible, and Hitler jokes on the internet have been done to death and beyond," but as I started fighting the game's bosses, my opinion changed quickly, and it's now one of the more entertaining games in recent years.
I Made Dis is one of my favorite "bad" games, and takes the direct opposite approach that TQ took. Battles are extremely quick and effortless to win, but that does not make them any less entertaining. The characters in IMD are well drawn, and the attacks are funny, making its battles a good time even though you're not really doing anything. IMD is only a "bad" game in the sense that it's a series of non-sequitur jokes with no real gameplay. The graphics are nice, it's well scripted, and the writing is some of my favorite in an OHR game. I would recommend it to anyone.
What should I avoid in a bad game?
This is probably the most important part of this article, because we've seen several bad games lately that have completely missed the point.
The recently released SoupMan hits a lot of points that should be avoided in making a bad game. The graphics are surprisingly well drawn (its author is actually a good artist to begin with, judging from his art threads on Castle Paradox), so when I started playing I expected something interesting. The problem with the game hits you the second you load up and are attacked by an inescapable enemy:
Thanksgiving Quest is an example of the former. The story and graphics are terrible, and the game never takes itself seriously, but it remains compelling because the gameplay is great. Every battle is well balanced and many require genuine strategy to survive. This is something that is rarely found in OHR games, even the most serious ones. If you just hold down the space bar and mash FIGHT in Thanksgiving Quest, you're going to lose. This, to me, is what makes TQ funny; fantastic game design, masked by bad jokes and ugly visuals. My initial reaction to the game was, "This is terrible, and Hitler jokes on the internet have been done to death and beyond," but as I started fighting the game's bosses, my opinion changed quickly, and it's now one of the more entertaining games in recent years.
I Made Dis is one of my favorite "bad" games, and takes the direct opposite approach that TQ took. Battles are extremely quick and effortless to win, but that does not make them any less entertaining. The characters in IMD are well drawn, and the attacks are funny, making its battles a good time even though you're not really doing anything. IMD is only a "bad" game in the sense that it's a series of non-sequitur jokes with no real gameplay. The graphics are nice, it's well scripted, and the writing is some of my favorite in an OHR game. I would recommend it to anyone.
What should I avoid in a bad game?
This is probably the most important part of this article, because we've seen several bad games lately that have completely missed the point.
The recently released SoupMan hits a lot of points that should be avoided in making a bad game. The graphics are surprisingly well drawn (its author is actually a good artist to begin with, judging from his art threads on Castle Paradox), so when I started playing I expected something interesting. The problem with the game hits you the second you load up and are attacked by an inescapable enemy:
The background is pretty funny, and
fighting an Eevee attached to celery works too. I would point out how
decidedly unfunny naming an attack "homoerotic" is, but I think that
speaks for itself.
The biggest problem with this game isn't apparent in a screenshot, and that problem is that this battle is terrible for the wrong reasons. It's extremely slow, attacks do little damage, and there's no strategy of any sort. A battle like this should be over in one turn; just enough time to get a laugh out of the enemy/backdrop, but not long enough to bore the player. SoupMan does the worst thing that a "bad" game can do; bore you.
Another problem with this game is the reason it was made. To quote the author, from a forums post on SlimeSalad:
"The OHR community seems to have directed its attention toward producing crap, non-game games instead of trying to maximize the capabilities of the engine. SoupMan, (and to a lesser extent "The Darkest Planet," which also targets horrible political satire,) was a play on this trend.
Unfortunately, only a few people got the joke, which was that there was no joke. "Newbie games" have not been an interesting or enjoyable concept since the original Arfenhouse was posted to RPG Online years ago. To be as direct as possible: Please, everyone, let's all stop making them."
Trying to say that something (in this case, joke games) is bad by poorly replicating it isn't very effective satire. There's also the issue that no, the community has not directed its attention to towards making "bad" games. A quick look at the games released in 2007 shows only three or four, and two of those are by SoupMan's author. While a lot of these games certainly are popular, with some of the better ones showing up in the Top 30 Games polls, there is certainly not a flood of them being released, and serious, complicated games are still very well received.
If the game fails as both a satire and as a fun experience, the author has completely missed the mark.
A second example of how absolutely not to make a bad game is Hamburgerman RPG. There is one thing that nearly every popular bad or joke game has in common; they have clever dialogue, and a variety of jokes. Hamburgerman RPG presents a half hour of this instead:
The biggest problem with this game isn't apparent in a screenshot, and that problem is that this battle is terrible for the wrong reasons. It's extremely slow, attacks do little damage, and there's no strategy of any sort. A battle like this should be over in one turn; just enough time to get a laugh out of the enemy/backdrop, but not long enough to bore the player. SoupMan does the worst thing that a "bad" game can do; bore you.
Another problem with this game is the reason it was made. To quote the author, from a forums post on SlimeSalad:
"The OHR community seems to have directed its attention toward producing crap, non-game games instead of trying to maximize the capabilities of the engine. SoupMan, (and to a lesser extent "The Darkest Planet," which also targets horrible political satire,) was a play on this trend.
Unfortunately, only a few people got the joke, which was that there was no joke. "Newbie games" have not been an interesting or enjoyable concept since the original Arfenhouse was posted to RPG Online years ago. To be as direct as possible: Please, everyone, let's all stop making them."
Trying to say that something (in this case, joke games) is bad by poorly replicating it isn't very effective satire. There's also the issue that no, the community has not directed its attention to towards making "bad" games. A quick look at the games released in 2007 shows only three or four, and two of those are by SoupMan's author. While a lot of these games certainly are popular, with some of the better ones showing up in the Top 30 Games polls, there is certainly not a flood of them being released, and serious, complicated games are still very well received.
If the game fails as both a satire and as a fun experience, the author has completely missed the mark.
A second example of how absolutely not to make a bad game is Hamburgerman RPG. There is one thing that nearly every popular bad or joke game has in common; they have clever dialogue, and a variety of jokes. Hamburgerman RPG presents a half hour of this instead:
Whether you find this funny or not, be
aware that this is the only type of joke you'll find in the game. This
is an example of an intentionally bad game gone as wrong as possible,
for the reasons that I stated in my review in volume 11.
There is no variety, there is nothing clever, the graphics are just
standard-bad instead of funny-bad, and worst of all, it's full of ugly,
joke-free enemy encounters that take forever to beat and are far worse
than what you'll find in an average, unintentionally bad game. If your
bad game is going to have battles, make them either 1) strategic or 2)
funny. No one wants to level grind for an hour so that they can see a
hamburger curse again, they can turn on Adult Swim and get far more
satisfaction much quicker.
I'm a fan of good, stupid games. I'd like to see more that are genuinely funny. Unfortunately, most of them are neither playable or funny, but I'm hoping that this article inspires someone to make something worthwhile the next time they release this type of game.
In Summary:
-If your game is longer than three minutes, make sure to use a variety of jokes.
-Play the games that people consider "good bad games" before trying to make your own.
-Unless you're making a three minute gimmick game, at least one aspect of your game should be solid underneath the intentional crap. Thanksgiving Quest has good battles, Arfenhouse 3 has impressive scripting, I Made Dis has solid writing.
-Battles: Either make them good, or make them extremely brief. Either way, make them funny.
-Characters: Have them. Too many joke games have personality-free blobs swearing at the player for a half hour. Every character should have a distinct personality, even if your writing is intentionally terrible.
-Don't throw a fit when someone tells you that your bad game is bad.
I'm a fan of good, stupid games. I'd like to see more that are genuinely funny. Unfortunately, most of them are neither playable or funny, but I'm hoping that this article inspires someone to make something worthwhile the next time they release this type of game.
In Summary:
-If your game is longer than three minutes, make sure to use a variety of jokes.
-Play the games that people consider "good bad games" before trying to make your own.
-Unless you're making a three minute gimmick game, at least one aspect of your game should be solid underneath the intentional crap. Thanksgiving Quest has good battles, Arfenhouse 3 has impressive scripting, I Made Dis has solid writing.
-Battles: Either make them good, or make them extremely brief. Either way, make them funny.
-Characters: Have them. Too many joke games have personality-free blobs swearing at the player for a half hour. Every character should have a distinct personality, even if your writing is intentionally terrible.
-Don't throw a fit when someone tells you that your bad game is bad.