| 09-10-2005 01:14 AM | ||
| marko river |
I agree with Seb. Fiasco could be very interesting to players. Actually, you'll be surprised to know that it is no big deal to determine which game could fall into the category. Games voted under 2.0 are NOT fiasco games. Fiasco games are so easy to determine since they are amaizingly bad. 1. You probably all know that Barbarian (Mastertronic) is EXTREMELY bad although it has good idea. Everything is poor, but the biggest drawback are controls. 2. Diplomacy was original strategy on C64, very interesting and fun. PC version is very poor, incredible drawback are controls. 3. Commando was huge hit on arcade machines and was transfered to ALL computers and made HUGE success on ALL computers, except PC. Biggest drawback: just about EVERYTHING. It is not good idea starting fiasco wit h3 games, but after approval there will be more since Seb and me will take care of it  And we already have punch's review for Barbarian. so, bad games are not for fiasco. Fiasco is veeery promising game that turned out to be a COMPLETE disaster. |
|
| 05-10-2005 07:10 PM | ||
| Sebatianos |
Quote:
and I agree with FPJ about the Crypt, but it's already done, so if the Crypt is here, why not the Fiasco? So far the only real argument I heard against it was the lack of an objective criteria (reviews and editor's score can be very subjective). |
|
| 05-10-2005 05:50 PM | ||
| Reup |
Alternatively, you could put all games that get a public score of 2.0 or less into that category... but then again, you could just make a top 10 of bad games, similar to the top 10 of good ones. Easy to implement  k:Seb, you're probably thinking that it is a shame to waste the effort someone took in reviewing a very poor game. Writing a quality review and good shots of a game you then rate a 1 makes it a poor candidate for a daily update. A category like 'Fiasco' could harbor those awful games... |
|
| 05-10-2005 05:49 PM | ||
| Fruit Pie Jones |
Quote:
|
|
| 05-10-2005 05:40 PM | ||
| mouse31e |
If the problem is trying to appear excited about adding awful games - is it possible to add a few at a time so they didn't need a whole article on the front page of the site? The problem with a new category would be that the games wouldn't appear in the correct genre and would be a little harder for people to find (if they really wanted to). |
|
| 05-10-2005 02:15 PM | ||
| Sebatianos |
Well, I don't want to move the games we have there. It's just for the games, that are so bad, we didn't even want to consider updating them. Those would be the games, that the reviewers would give the mark 1 to. A perfect example would be Barbarian from Mastertronic. There are some other games I'm sure would get the review of 1. Those should be seperated. But like I said before - they would make people apreaciate other games so much more. |
|
| 05-10-2005 01:55 PM | ||
| Tom Henrik |
Quote:
 Edit: The idea is a good one, but I think it will be very difficult to manage. Do you have an idea of how to decide if a game sucks so much that it should be placed in that category? |
|
| 05-10-2005 01:54 PM | ||
| Sebatianos |
Quote:
Zorro is a quite playable game. It's not nearly bad enough to make it to the list! I said because of which games I made the list. There really are some games, that only have one interesting feature - they're really bang-your-head-against-the-wall (  ) bad.
|
|
| 05-10-2005 01:40 PM | ||
| Tulac | Hehe a game for that list is Custer's Revenge... | |
| 05-10-2005 01:20 PM | ||
| TheChosen |
We dont need a category for bad games. Instead, we could use a "Bad game" badge or something. @Seb-You made this topic because Zorro is so horrible,right? |
|
| This thread has more than 10 replies. Click here to review the whole thread. | ||
