The Best Thing to Come out of a Bad Game

Name something awesome that originated from a terrible game. I'll start with the Cheetahmen theme:

I would really like to know how the above performance came about by the way...

The Endurance Run that came from Deadly Premonition. There, I said it! What now!?

http://www.destructoid.com/review-deadly-premonition-165168.phtml

http://www.ign.com/articles/2010/02/23/deadly-premonition-review

We could do this for a while. That game is mad controversial.

@afabs515: IGN can eat a butt

@xalienxgreyx: At least there's one thing we can agree on.

That IGN review has it completely right.

Afro Samurai's slicing and dicing mechanic that got all but forgotten and will forever be credited to Metal Gear Rising.

The endurance run sucked compared to the SA LP.

The dialogue mechanic from Alpha Protocol. From the Alpha Protocol wiki:

Decision Stance System

One of the most notable features in Matt Rorie's Alpha Protocol is the Decision Stance System (DSS). When Thorton interacts with another character, he can take up one of (usually) three stances when responding. These three common stances are "professional", a by-the-book attitude, "suave", a more relaxed stance that sees Thorton smooth-talk, and "aggressive", where Thorton likes to get straight to the point without worrying about what anyone else thinks. Obsidian has likened these to the personalities of three fictional spies, the "three J.B."s: Jason Bourne, James Bond, and Jack Bauer respectively. From time to time, a fourth stance is available. For example, Thorton may be given the option to draw his gun or attacking the person he's speaking to instead of continuing the conversation.

In all conversations, Thorton only has a few seconds to decide which stance to assume. Different characters react well and poorly to different responses, which is vital in determining whether they end up trusting or disliking Thorton. Each NPC has a number that indicates Thorton's reputation to them, ranging from -10 (animosity) to 10 (friendship). Reputation determines their attitude towards Thorton, and dialogue is often altered as a result of this. In some cases, having a certain reputation with a character opens up an extra option. Maybe they will offer a deal that they wouldn't normally make or welcome romantic advances. Another example sees an informant, if he doesn't trust Thorton, alert the local Embassy that he's in the city, resulting in extra armed men in a following mission. Having a negative reputation with a character is not necessarily a gameplay disadvantage however. All the mission handlers have a unique perk, only available by antagonising them and in the example above the the increased guard at the local embassy can be persuaded to work with Thorton, providing more backup than the lightly armed staff otherwise present.

Bad games make me appreciate good games so much more.

So the best thing is that they still let me be impressed after seeing how bad things can get. It's why Game Informer's Super Replays of Overblood 2 and Cyberia are very important to me.

I enjoyed Assassin's Creed III -- for what's it's worth -- but I can agree that it was incredibly flawed.

That being said, the pirate ship sequences were the best part and I was happy to hear it would be a focus for the fourth game.

lol, this is a great example.

So... Resident Evil 6.

That game was El Terrible. It's just the worst in almost every aspect I can think of. Except for one: The co-op.

Every campaign in RE6 (There's 3 regular and 1 special that's 1 character only) have 2 playable characters. One character is the main character from a previous Resident Evil game and the second character is a sidekick. So the main character is the one that gets to do most of the heavy lifting and story stuff. This is the character the developers intended for you to play with. But you can play as the sidekick if you so desire. But RE6 is not like every other game with co-op, where both characters share the same experience. Here, the sidekick gets to do a lot of standing around waiting. You don't even get to fight most of the bosses! It's hilarious to watch the AI partner battle with the final bosses and you can mostly stand around and watch. No point in helping, since your partner is invincible! RE is all about conserving ammo anyways.

I don't think it's particularly good game design, but I love the commitment to making two entirely different characters a co-op. When Rockstar presented the 3 characters for GTA V, I was stoked. It sounded like Rockstar was going to apply this awesome mechanic to a good game. Imagine if you could play through GTA 5 without having to switch characters. Ever. Play as Michael the entire game and let Travis and Franklin do everything else while you're doing yoga or sunbathing. In the end, Rockstar forced you to switch characters and it basically plays like a game with a single character anyway.

Don't think anyone is going to attempt something like this again. It's a messed up way to make a game. But it's so dumb! I loved it.

Massively Open Online Racing from Test Drive Unlimited.

I'm pretty disappointed that nobody has managed to pick up that ball and run with it yet. Forza Horizon kind of tried, but their game sucked worse than TDU; it was more like Massively Restricted Invisible Wall World and they even came out and said they didn't do MOOR because it was too hard wah wah wah. Sissies.

A lotta people didn't like Mirror's Edge (I did). But Battlefield 3's vaulting animation was my favorite part of that game

The entirety of Deadly Premonition that spawned from Deadly Premonition.