I don't think any game developer intends to make a mediocre game and especially not a bad game. From its humble beginnings as a one-man project, video games have grown into a multi-billion dollar global entertainment industry. Despite the efforts of developers, some games inevitably flop, both in terms of sales and critical reception. Although there is argument over the "best" game, good games are determined by gamers and game reviewers and the mysterious outside forces that also play an influence. On the other hand, bad games are painstakingly played by the Angry Video Game Nerd and anyone else who has been duped into playing the game. Good games enjoy praise while bad games are treated with scorn, but both are memorable - bad games in particular enjoy the limelight as the latest internet meme. The real loser is the mediocre game. They are more or less forgotten and occupy the bargain bin at your local blockbuster video. Even bad games have the last laugh by selling for huge sums on eBay.



Ideally, all games would be good but games of all quality serve a critical function, especially for the game reviewer. Video games are highly derivative. Video games are playable on only a select few consoles and for the most part use standardized controls are are restricted by the parameteres of the console's hardware. Many of the variables are anchored (a dream for any laboratory scientist) allowing the gamer to focus on what's important - the game. This means that games can be evaluated efficiently. Furthermore, good games are helpful because they inform the reviewer on the strenght while bad games help reviewers focus on the mistakes and failures. Not all games use comparison, which I think should be used sparingly anyways: each game should stand on its own. However, the gamer behind the review should have played a good games, bad games, and mediocre games.



Video game journalism has come under heavy criticism, both internally and externally. You know that the state of video game journalism is bad when a gamefaqs user review is written in the narrative voice of Professor Oak. The most notable critic of video game journalism is Chris Buffa from Gamedaily. As he puts it, game reviews are uninteresting, too verbose, poorly written, and unengaging. Playing mediocre and bad games is espeically important to game reviewers. Most of us can go on for days and days talking about their favorite game - presumably a game that falls in the good category. But to be able to write a compelling argument on a bad or mediocre game - now thats a challenge. You don't have suffer through Superman 64 to understand what makes a game bad, but you should be able to intelligently articulate what make a bad. I have to give James Rolfe (the AVGN) a lot of credit. Although his videos made to be funny, they are remarkably entertaining and critical of the games he plays. Just because a game is mediocre or bad does not mean the review should be.