What exactly makes a game "crappy" or "ugly"?

While it could be subjective in certain aspects and depend on the actual person playing the game, there also could be qualities shared by games that are considered "bad".

So what exactly makes a game "crappy", "shovel ware", etc?

Also, many people complain about the mobile platform as being some sort a wasteland, but I've played a number of mobile games there, of all varieties, and haven't found especially bad or off-putting things. Maybe suggestions here or there, but nothing entirely dismissive or mean-spirited.

Maybe this generation is more demanding and laser-focused on games having a certain look and feel that only large studios or indies with veteran game development experience can provide? Pac-Man, Asteroids, and Tetris would all probably be awful games for a lot of people these days?

 

Games look crappy for various reasons. Here is a short list from the top of my head:

• Poor art direction
  • Inconsistent style
  • General mistakes like not thinking your color-scheme through (color-theory)
• Poor execution
  • Blurry textures on large, prominent objects
  • Highly varying quality levels
    
  • Low view distance in games with large, open areas
  • Prominent objects modeled with too few polygons
  • Unnatural/lagging animations
• Laziness
  • Using Unity's default shaders
  • Using Unity's default shaders
  • Using Unity's default shaders

That should do.

For a game to be crappy it needs something more. Again, some examples:

• Difficulty level/Balancing
  • Unnecessarily frustrating
  • Unfair AI
  • Cheap insta-death-traps
• Gameplay shortcomings
  • Repetitive, monotonous gameplay
  • Lots of obvious bugs the developer has surely seen but couldn't be bothered to fix
  • A simply bad concept (some ideas are just bad, like a floor made of Lego-bricks)
  • QTE's
  • Microtransactions that aren't really optional
• Creativity
  • Trying to appeal to a "broader audience" by removing everything that would have stood out
  • Trying to play it safe by only using proven concepts
  • Following the latest fad (10 billion Slender/Flappy Bird/Minecraft/... clones)

Shovel-ware is crap by definition. It's pumping out a lot of games made with as little effort as possible, hoping that at least one will become The next big thing™ and make you rich. These games are neither created for the benefit of the player (fun) nor for the benefit of the medium (bringing gaming forward). They're just heartless pieces of software, made with the sole purpose of generating money.


Examples:
Looks crappy, isn't crappy: System Shock 2 - The spiritual predecessor of BioShock. Even for the time it looked like S***, but it's still one of the best PC games ever made

Is crappy: Ride to Hell Retribution - Just S*** in every aspect. Gameplay sucks, story is dumb, bugs, bugs, bugs and much more. It's the embodiment of failure.

Shovelware: <Probably +90% of the mobile market> - Just look at the app stores. For each good game, made with some heart, you'll find 10 games that rip-off other popular games or aren't even games. By that I mean "games" that hide what little "gameplay" there is behind a paywall (Dungeon Keeper Mobile comes to mind).

Hope this helps in this regard.


It makes no sense to ask yourself what would be if Tetris was released today. Those games are so old that they were severely limited by the hardware. Of course Tetris would suck, because nowadays there is just no excuse for releasing a game that looks and sounds like this.

 

Quick made games , pale copy of other games , or games made to be sold only. Games wihtout enought love behind, we can see lot of indie games , but not all are awesome with long playtime, replayablity,sometimes. Lot of simple copies of Minecraft survival, zombie games , lot of times not better than the original.
Games with copy and paste or assembly of models and characters baught packs sometimes that don't match a lot.
Simple texturing like using photo texture that don't match in color/brightness and theme.
Poor gameplay, borring repetitive game.

Good direction and design can make the difference, lot of amazing 2D games like Shovel Knight , 2.5D games like Limbo etc ... Sometimes no need for super graphics to have very enjoyable games. Wasteland 2 and Divinity Original Sin are among great ones and they shine because they have good enought graphics, but their interest is more on their gameplay, story and all stuff around.

I would say you should instead look for what works in success games, but like Mario Kart 8 , when a game is made with lot of details and love put in it, a game you really enjoy a lot yourself, it has good chances to work.

 

Crappiness and ugliness.

Edit:
Actually the way I see it, there is an infinite number of things that can make a game bad, the key is just to get one of the few things that can make a game good.

 

Yes.

 

Dunning-Kruger.

 

It is ridiculous that you suggest games like pac man and Tetris could ever be considered terrible. The mechanics are great and classic.

We are lucky thanks to mobile devices and low cost of games mechanics are being recognised more as a key part of the game. I would much rather play a fun game like super hexagon than another ultra realistic FPS which is really just as bad as all the flappy bird clones with little alteration.

What makes a game bad depends on the game, but it is usually is it fun to play? If it isn't then it is probably bad!

 

You don't see the irony in this sentence, do you?

If Tetris/Pac Man were released today, they wouldn't have "classic status", because they wouldn't be classics. I agree with the OP: They wouldn't hold up at all.

 

I strongly disagree. Games like angry birds, flappy birds etc are based on mechanics not graphics.

People still clone pacman and tetris in different versions. I see people where I work play the pacman machines endlessly.

I strongly believe if there were no games like tetris and you released it now, people would still enjoy playing it.

 

What would you consider as competence in game development?

In your view, can people lacking competence make a successful game? Or that a competent person/team can make an unsuccessful game?

 

Actually that's my point, to question if this generation of game players wouldn't be able to appreciate games like Tetris, Asteroids, Pole Position, and label them as "shovelware". Many of these types of games are popular on the mobile platform and it seems a lot of people who are upset about mobile gaming consider mobile some sort of wasteland.

 

Thats because it where casual players are. If you have an xbox or ps4 you aren't really a casual player. But the casual players are the ones most attracted to those games.

The device itself is also perfect for playing those sorts of games. A game like pacman they are still updating which shows even now people are playing it despite the alternatives.

 

I'd disagree. Tetris is still immensely fun today and Pac-Man is good as well see the likes of Pac-Man
championship edition.

 

I'm not sure how Dunning-Kruger would apply here, or any more than in any other competitive field anyway.

 

You (perhaps intentionally ironically) misunderstand what Dunning-Kruger is, it is not a substandard level of competence, it is a delusion of greater competence than there in point of fact is.

If you lack critical facility then you cannot determine when your game (or any other endeavor) is of a sufficient standard to be acceptable for release.

Design, coding, project planning, budgeting, financing, attention to detail, "taste", are all skills that you can learn. If you delude yourself that you are more competent than you really are in any of these fields you will simply cease to learn the necessary skills for that field and your lack of critical analysis will hamper your ability to determine why, where or how your projects are failing and where your reach overextends.

You do not need to have great competency and unlimited funds to produce a competent or even great game, nor to avoid making a terrible or ugly game, you only need an understanding of your own (and your resource) limitations.

My original point is simply that this lack of critical facility and self awareness is what causes most ugly/terrible games, frequently manifested as overreach. It's not mere "incompetence" which can always be factored in when it is known about, but not being aware that there is a problem to begin with. Whether that's the critical facility of the developer/designer who could not deliver, or that of the management that either concepted such a poor idea or budgeted so terribly that they couldn't afford the "Good" part of the engineers triangle (Cheap, Good, Quick - pick two). There are rare exceptions where people set out to make a stinker, but that's an exception that proves a rule and is most frequently to do with legal brouhaha.

 

If the originals were released verbatim for the first time today, sure. But if the exact mechanics were made with modern presentation I think they'd do fine, at least as well as other games. (If you take the logic to its rational conclusion and assume that because it wasn't released until now there are also no clones or derivatives I think the mechanics would probably do exceptionally well, since they'd be new and original.)

 

It's what causes most crappy attempts at anything, I think, not just games. People who are aware of fundamental flaws in their work (regardless of where the fault lies) typically won't want to push things out into the public eye or any other arena where their work may be criticised. But if they're not even aware of the flaws...

 

Maybe, but you didn't provide any context - since the study also explores with the other side of the equation - for example when somebody is in fact competent, but plagued with self-doubt and misjudgment from others. Hence my questions on your specific views to this matter.

 

This subject doesn't even need discussion or analysis, it's governed by common sense. A turd is a turd. It's very obvious why something stinks.

If you can't figure that out, then you will probably make a lot of turds. No offence intended.

 

Hand waving it away as obvious completely overlooks the fact that plenty of people can't tell, though. Furthermore, the people who can't tell are completely oblivious to the fact that they can't tell, so I think it's perfectly relevant to have some kind of self- or community-reflection on the matter.

It's perfectly healthy to acknowledge one's flaws and to be on the lookout for potential flaws.

 

Then that's fine they won't be successful commercially. In my books, that's actually OK and known as "leaving it up to the professionals." - I don't see how that's a bad thing. Look at dwarf fortress, it really sucks visually and in just about every manner possible except for interesting gameplay.

So if someone can do interesting gameplay then that'll more than make up for it. But if they can't do interesting gameplay, then they may well just be talentless at making games, and that's OK - so long as making games is still fun for them.

It's like Usain Bolt. You can spend your entire life training and training but you're not going to outrun him nor are you going to paint the mona lisa. You're nowhere near as smart as John Carmack, and you never, ever would be even if you lived a thousand years.

There's limits.

A lot of people think that you can overcome limits. And that merely putting it down to a spot of Dunning-Kruger is the cause. But ultimately, it's just some people are thick and other people just aren't anywhere near experienced enough and aren't willing to put in that level of effort (lets say decades) to improve.

Sometimes you just have to accept that what you're dealing with 9 times out of 10, is someone who really isn't cut out for making a game at a professional level. And I don't see that as a bad or derogatory thing, but the nature of things.

You can point out that they're the problem, but when you've grown up having a gold star for coming last, it's probably not going to work.

Welcome to try though

 

a dark room (i think that is what called) is a great example of mechanics first.

 

I tend to agree with Hippocoder; some individuals and small groups who attempt to develop games will find their abilities lacking at the end of the day.

Even with great graphics, if the game play is bad it will make it a bad experience for the player; and even IF great game play is there, it will not be helped by truly horrible graphics and players will again not be interested or swayed to buy or even give a good rating for it.

However I have to mention that games with good to great game play and simple but good graphics can always be popular whether to the masses or a small niche group.

 

Much agree - I'm quite happy to play a really good game but with simple yet effective graphics that do the job.

 

But tastes aren't necessarily governed by common sense, nor are many rational behaviors in the free market governed by it. For example, a lot of the games people here hate and criticize receive many Facebook likes, retweets, and 4 and 5 star ratings by hundred of thousands, if not millions thousands of players content with the game play, appearance, etc.

I guess then the millions of people who play "turds" have bad taste because they'll be as likely to play those as much as they would play a AAA studio offering?

 

Speaking as a hobbyist, and someone who has now made three 'crappy' games, I've come to understand a fair few of my limitations (time, money, fundamental lack of knowledge of holistic game design). While my current level of skill is a problem I'm working to overcome, it's also worth adding that you can't let your current ability level (not your personal limits!) dissuade you from training your abilities to their limit; reaching that limit is a key step. If you don't do that, there's nothing to stop you from going Dunning-Krueger all over yourself for decades to come, because you won't know where to just stop and shout for help when you need to.

I choose to interpret these 'limits' you speak of, as a sort of 'level cap'; in and of myself, there's a maximum limit to what I can achieve, going it alone; including another person in my process may help to circumvent this, because my most severely-capped skill is probably not my teammate's, thus improving the quality of my-rather, our work.

For instance, I would count myself as a reasonably strong coder (4/5 stars), passable musician (2.5/5 stars), but a really crappy 3D artist (1.5/5 stars)...on my finest day, doing my finest work.

When it comes to music, I should get someone to render, arrange, or even recompose something I write as possible; when dealing with 3D artwork, I should (and, have learned to) seek help as a matter of course. For most code needs, I'm probably going to be able to deliver with superior results.

As for the part in bold? I agree, limits can be overcome given time, practice, and more practice. It takes quite a bit of work, though - good thing I'm in this for the long haul, eh?

 

I have to agree with Hippo in many regards, you can tell when something doesn't look right and if you can't decipher what's right and wrong from looking at other games that are succesful than it might be the time to switch hobbies or careers.

Now talent isn't as easy to decipher, most "talented" people are talented due to hard work and commitment. Or taking chances and putting the work in, the attitude can't do is the stumbling block of many so is lazyness.

Biggest issue is time, I don't believe a 40 hour work week is anywhere enough time. Never mind doing bits and pieces in your spare time.. Obviously this is all situational, but still game development eats aways hours like no tomorrow.

I suffer from another issue, which is perfectionism. Whilst it sounds great, it's probably more detrimental to game development than being lazy or untalented. End of the day, finely tuning grass for days on end and messing around with lighting / shaders until it suits your standard doesn't get games released. It leads to a lot of procrastination and starting from scratch over and over, creating goals unreachable by any means gets one nowhere.

I know it's a problem and something I'm working on..

 

To be fair, the reason games have faults is mostly down to time and time management (or just project management).

If a game is S***ty, it's because no one spent time with it. If a game is a masterpiece, it's because people spent a lot of time with it.

Between not being given enough time and rushing steps (usually pre-production or building on top of systems that aren't finished), that's where most major flaws set in.

 

A lack of time as you said, or a lack of skill.

 

Lack of time is a lot of the reasons for flaws but that's again, an obvious case. You can tell when something needed some more time or was mismanaged.

You can't really define what makes a game crappy with a ruleset, but if you must then it comes down to if it's fun or not. If the game simply isn't fun then its time to make a new game.

 

A game isn't simply "fun" or "not fun." It's a set of rules that enable the potential for a good, bad, or neutral experience, which is going to different wildly from person to person. And even the same person could have different experiences based on what mood they happen to be in. That can't be easily quantified by one person simply checking the game out.

What you see as ugly and broken, another could see as their favorite game ever. I'm reminded of this Hellgate: London fan:
http://images.mmosite.com/news/2007/10/13/hellgate1545570698.jpg

 

I suppose I see skill as a coefficient to time. I can make good art, it just takes me far more time than I want to spend.

 

Bad games..

Bad usability.. stuff not being intuitive and obvious, clear and easy to `use`, text easy to read in an easy font, good color contrast etc

Bad control systems - poor responsiveness, horribly slow movements

Ugly graphics - the `downloaded this texture on the web and slapped it on a triangle` look

Parts that don't look right amongst the rest, inconsistency

Bad level design that's not stimulating enough

Not being able to do stuff you would assume you can do

Taking forever to load

An attempt to make realistic graphics but falling far too short of that goal and looking majorly artificial

Stupid unnecessary steps and user inputs imposed on the user, too many clicks etc

Ugly color schemes, no appreciation for subtlety

Beauty is in the details.. lack of attention to detail

 

For some things and many people that's definitely true. Going with what hippo said, though, I don't think it's necessarily true of everything... at least where some prerequisite knowledge or experience exists.

For instance, if I have zero awareness of graphic design principles, it doesn't matter how long I play with Photoshop and how technically proficient I become with it as a tool, my stuff will probably still have a crap design. If I'm not even aware of the concept of the area in which I'm failing there's no way that investing more time will allow me to fix it, because I don't know there's anything that might be broken to be fixed. Time isn't a factor until some other influence has made me aware of the issue.

 

I'm a coder, but I hack away at art until it looks good. Artwork can be learnt as much as anything else, sure I find it more difficult than coding because of the sheer amount of tools needed to do good artwork and secondly because it's not second nature like coding.

Doesn't mean with enough time spent I can't make AAA quality artwork, I'm just far slower at it than dedicated artists. But again that's practice.. Which comes down to situation again, I have some artwork experience and a small team therefore I'm forced into doing it daily to help out. In a big AAA environment a coder would never touch artwork and generally they are useless at it (unless they are hobby artists).

So for me it comes down to perception, I think games as a whole is all about what looks and feels right. You need that foresight to make games, the rest is a learning process. I'll borrow this witcher picture from another thread:

You should able to decipher if this looks good or not (in which for me it looks beautiful), secondly you need to decipher how you could do it yourself. From the shapes of the mountain, the color gradient and bends of the trees. The atmospheric clouds, the light bounce off the river, the far distance planes giving a grandoise feeling.. The small raises in the river the peaks and troughs of the near valleys etc. all the fine detail pleasing to the eye.

 

Look at something like fancy skulls, no idea how it got onto steam, but people like the genre and it's hot right now, it'd one ugly looking game but sold on steam for 8.99
http://store.steampowered.com/app/307090/

 

To answer the question with one word.

In-experience.

 

Fun is too nebulous. As I can't guarantee 'Fun', I researched why games work instead. For the better part of a decade I studied psychology, learning theory, engagement, motivation, play, and of course, games, games, and more games. Until, over time, I began to see a relatively simple rule set that showed up in ALL good games, the same way certain things tend to show up in great companies. So, flipping that around, here's what Crappy games do wrong.

Crappy Games IGNORE:

• Flow - which needs: (1) Clear Goals, (2) Immediate Feedback, (3) No Distractions, and (4) Balanced Difficulty
• Simplicity - (1) Core, (2) Limited Choice, (3) Intuitive, and (4) focus on Player's Perspective
• Motivation - Focus on Intrinsic (inherently enjoyable) vs Extrinsic motivation (gamification, coercion)
• Story - (1) Challenge/Question, (2) Emotional Struggle, (3) Galvanizing Conclusion (with a twist)
• Interest Curve - initial interest spike, with an slowly increasing series of intensity spikes.
• Squares, Circles, Triangles (google that plus Art & Gamasutra)

Crappy Developer's IGNORE:

• Deliberate Practice - Practice almost beyond your ability
• Try, Fail, Improve
• Golden Circle - Start with Why, then How, then What
• Understanding Free (read Andersen)

That's a rule set for how NOT to make a crappy game. Good and Great are another topic.

Gigi

 

Never having seen or heard of the listed concepts before, I did a little research. In service of this topic:

Squares, Circles, Triangles (GamaSutra)
The Golden Circle (TED)

I think what really got my attention most was the Golden Circle (Asking Why? leads to a philosophy, which forms guidelines for formulating a How? which determines What? you will make.)

What's funny is last night, I actually set about writing out my design philosophy for Zombies vs. Knights II, because just building a prototype wasn't doing much for me, and I needed to give myself a direction to go. It seems that was an even better decision than I took it for at the time, especially seeing that TED talk.

Thanks again Gigi et al!

 

Agreed. Fun it a horribly subjective metric. There is a reason all the books that try to explain fun start by trying to define it, and all of them come at completely different definitions.

If I've played a game for over two hundred hours, chances are I don't find it fun, but instead it's engrossing. It's a game where I spend fifteen minutes with it and end up with a checklist of forty things to do.

Mediocre games (not the complete steaming piles, but the base line "meh" ones) can definitely be guilty of not being engrossing. They don't control pacing well enough, or don't control the difficulty and learning curve well enough, or just don't keep an engaging flow. It's just going through the motions without any real thought.

 

Have you played Spec Ops: The Line? It's a great game that's really not fun at all.

 

Just added mine to the lot but pretty proud because shipped!

 

It's a hard question because you could be a terrible artist and yet make a brilliant game if your aesthetic is "terrible art".

On the other hand it could be argued that it takes a lot of time to make a game look that bad. And that's the key. Does your game look like there's been a lot of thought and effort put into it? Or does it look like a load of clip-art with bad visual artefacts that have been ignored?

Take Flappy Birds as an example. It isn't high end graphics but it is all consistent and clean and the timing and game-play is just right. Compared with some of the clones which do look slapped together.

Or that Fancy Skulls game above. Yes the art won't win any awards but people appreciate the time it must take to create all the different monsters and not just have the same monster in a randomly generated maze.

That's not to say a good game will take a lot of time. A good artist can create amazing work that *looks* like it took a long time to make. And if you can fake that you're sorted!

 

I actually kind of liked the art style in the skulls game.

 

I think you mean "style". (aesthetics and terrible art are contradictory).

But you are very correct. A lot of times (whether graphic/tv/games) a "crappy" looking style that is endearing is actually created very skilled artist who crafted it in specific way. A buddy of mine helped create the squidbillies. (ugh..). He is a phenomenal artist, and they worked pretty hard to achieve that style.