"You can't call any one game design bad, really. Like all art, it either speaks to you or it doesn't. If it only speaks to a few, it's just niche."

Some friends and I were arguing about esoteric game designs and whether or not you can ever really classify bad design objectively when one made the above assertion. I'm curious if you agree or disagree and why. Is a game design good simply because it is popular and therefore enjoyed, or as with narrative art are there underlying elements that a game can hit or miss, rendering it good or bad? If you don't like it, are you simply not the target audience?

I'm of the mind that games make something of an aesthetic contract with players: Not simply 'this game is about shooting' or 'this game is about racing' but rather a series of promises that can be said to be embedded in all of the elements presented-- from the sound design to the UI to the mood and tone of the world presented and most importantly the interactions and responses given by the simulation itself. "I promise you the gritty, harsh reality of a Special Operator behind enemy lines" or "I promise you the zany, action-packed experience of rocket powered cars that launch balls into goals."

To illustrate this idea, consider a perfect, hyper-realistic modern military stealth game. It's balanced, the levels are interesting and the choices offered are consistently engaging. Now make the UI bright & cartoony. A bit jarring? Swap the enemies with big, red nosed, ridiculous clowns. Gameplay is still the same, it might be funny, but did you originally buy it for funny? I would argue that the implied contract with your player is stretched to breaking or outright broken, and that THAT more than anything else, without some kind of upfront warning or easing of sensibilities, makes for bad design. 

This breaking of the aesthetic contract with the player can extend right through the inclusion or exclusion and construction of gameplay elements itself. "Crafting is fun! Let's introduce wear and tear to weapons in our gritty Special Operator game and have the player hunt around the level for parts!" But you're a member of the best equipped, best prepared fighting force in the world. Doesn't this turn you into some kind of camouflaged, scavenging murder-hobo? I think it would break the contract, break the implicit expectations of everything that comes to mind when you think about "special forces" and thus blunder right into bad game design.

What do you think?

'Bad' or 'Good' are really labels that mean nothing without context. It's just what the game sets out to do(explicitly or not) and whether or not it achieves it.

This feels like the age old discussion, is bad art still art? (the answer would appear to be yes)

If your worldview is that good/bad are purely subjective, then it's impossible to make value judgments about much of anything. Individual relativism is one hell of a drug.

3 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

This feels like the age old discussion, is bad art still art? (the answer would appear to be yes)

If your worldview is that good/bad are purely subjective, then it's impossible to make value judgments about much of anything. Individual relativism is one hell of a drug.

I wouldn't say that it's impossible; it's only impossible if you think a value judgment is meaningless if it doesn't apply to everyone. That is clearly not the case - it may not matter to the universe at large that I have certain preferences, but it sure matters to me, the person making judgments. The world is full of activists with belief systems that contradict those of other activists; their beliefs look like they're pretty meaningful to those who hold them. I am one of those people convinced that there aren't "objectively-correct" value judgments; and in spite of this, as those of you who have interacted with me in the chat would know, I have some pretty strong opinions on what we ought to value and what some of the consequences of having those values are.

Some people are frightened by the prospect that there may not be a "universally-correct"/"objective" set of values and I'm not completely sure I understand why. I'd argue (as some of the existentialists did) that good/bad being subjective and derived from individual values is not only obvious if you think about this subject enough, but actually liberating. It means we aren't confined to some "one true" way of looking at the world; we are free from the imposition of an objective value system from external reality. We have the freedom to form our own judgments and can therefore pursue an authentically individualist life.

All that all of this means for the topic at hand, I think, is that the "value system" (ie. the axiomatic value judgments that drive an individual's worldview) may need to be made more explicit if you're trying to convince others to share your judgments. Beyond that, having a diverse set of values driving our industry is something that I value. I suspect our field would be kind of boring if everyone shared the exact same set of artistic values.

2 hours ago, Oberon_Command said:

It means we aren't confined to some "one true" way of looking at the world; we are free from the imposition of an objective value system from external reality. We have the freedom to form our own judgments and can therefore pursue an authentically individualist life.

That's fine and all, but you can only hold a discussion in so far as all people involved in that discussion are willing to countenance the view points of the others involved. As soon as someone pulls the "all art is subjective" card, discussion is basically over.

There's generally very little disagreement that Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing is a terrible, terrible game. But if someone wants to be that arsehole in an art discussion... they can make the case for it being a spectacularly ironic take on the state of the games industry, and as such a work of art to those that have the vision to appreciate it.

Disclaimer: I spent a lot of time kicking around the art world in my misspent youth, and then I went and obtained a philosophy degree. May contain traces of cynicism.

24 minutes ago, swiftcoder said:

2 hours ago, Oberon_Command said:

 

That's fine and all, but you can only hold a discussion in so far as all people involved in that discussion are willing to countenance the view points of the others involved. As soon as someone pulls the "all art is subjective" card, discussion is basically over.

Indisputably so. But I'd suggest that by that point the discussion was already over, anyway. If you have to fall back on "all art is subjective", there's probably not much to discuss. Just as "I have the right to do x" is an incredibly weak justification for doing x.

3 hours ago, swiftcoder said:

Disclaimer: I spent a lot of time kicking around the art world in my misspent youth, and then I went and obtained a philosophy degree. May contain traces of cynicism.

[Insert grinning smiley emoji here.]

Tic-Tac-Toe is the classic example of "bad game design".  Neither side can win, it's always a tie.  And there is no dynamic too it.  I go, you go, until we tie.

Another example might be "Table Top Horse Race" with no rules beyond spaces to move once space per turn, and an equal number of spaces per horse.  With alternating turns whoever moves first will always win in the end, with simultaneous turns it will always be a tie between all horses in the race.

It's easy to design a game that is not actually a game, and that will always qualify as "bad game design".  

Many might also point to Atari's classic disaster "E.T.".  Bad game design definitely exists, these are just some very easy to see examples of that.  

I think a better question would be "at what level of complexity does a game design reach the point of becoming a matter of subjective opinion".  Because, at a simple enough level like Tic-Tac-Toe or Table Top Horse Race it can be seen pretty clearly by anyone that "bad game design" does exist as a basic concept.

23 minutes ago, Kavik Kang said:

Tic-Tac-Toe is the classic example of "bad game design".  Neither side can win, it's always a tie.  And there is no dynamic too it.  I go, you go, until we tie.

See, I'm not sure if it's true that it's objectively bad design. It's certainly not an interesting game for most adults, but Tic Tac Toe is an excellent game for younger children who haven't experienced much formalised play yet.  It's very simple, and I was able to teach it to my four (now five) year old, where a "better" game such as Go or Chess would still be well beyond her grasp.  She hasn't yet discovered how to always force a draw and so still finds it fun, and as it's a very small problem space she is able to reason about it quite well.  It can also be played without any special equipment - just a stick in the sand will do.  Also thanks to the small problem space, it's easy for an adult to "throw" (intentionally lose) the game sometimes without suspicion when playing someone who doesn't get grasp the nature of the game.

If you consider it a learning game for youngsters, it could be considered very well designed.

That is, of course, the classic purpose of Tic-Tac-Toe and why it endures even though, between adults, it will always end in a tie.  But it is also an example of a game that isn't really a game.  Like the horse racing example that I also used.

I do not know the games of other cultures very well, just the most famous ones like Go and Mankala.  I am sure there are many games that are similar too this in other cultures.  But, in western civilization, to answer my own question of "what level of complexity does it become a matter of subjective opinion", Checkers is probably the best example that I can think of from the games of western culture.

Checkers is the simplest game I can think of that is actually a game.  It is also the next step  up from Tic-Tac-Toe for you to teach and play games with a child.  The difference is that Checkers is actually a game.  It doesn't always end in a tie, or whoever goes first winning.  Checkers is also a game that a child can fairly quickly learn well enough to beat an adult.  You can only become so good at Checkers.