I think everyone should sit down and play at least a few hours of a really bad game once a month.
Why? because you can't truly enjoy the sunny days without a few rainy ones. I actually believe whole heartily that playing a bad game from time to time really increases your enjoyment of good games and vastly increases your enjoyment of average games. People that only play good games every time they play are so much spoiled as they are jaded. Everyone say terminator salvation and wet are to bad 3rd person shooters. I actually really like both of them because because I played an embarrassingly horrible 3d person shooter called damnation. Sometimes people that play to many good games without a bad game in there somewhere, will started to pick away and tiny things and turn good games into bad games (I've seen that happen about a dozen times.))
 
Your thinking this is stupid and crazy but trust me doing this really makes you more thankful or grateful of games and opens your eyes to alot more average games.
and if you really want to get into it you don't just play a bad game for a minute and say this sucks. you stick to it and you beat that bad game. I've beaten ever game I've ever bought no matter how good or bad it is, which has really opened my eyes to where the bottom of the barrel and the top of the mountain are.

Hour. Of. Victory.

" Hour. Of. Victory. "

I dunno, there are already so many good games to play that I could never finish them, why play an inferior one? I can understand the sentiment that good games will be relatively better after playing a bad one, but that's like saying you should cover yourself in a blanket on a really hot day and then take it off in order to feel cooler. Sure, you could do that, but why not just sit in front of the air conditioner instead?

No, from experience, I can tell you that it's a bad idea. Something like Panzer Dragoon Saga isn't worth playing through Paladin's Quest.

" I dunno, there are already so many good games to play that I could never finish them, why play an inferior one? I can understand the sentiment that good games will be relatively better after playing a bad one, but that's like saying you should cover yourself in a blanket on a really hot day and then take it off in order to feel cooler. Sure, you could do that, but why not just sit in front of the air conditioner instead? "

" No, from experience, I can tell you that it's a bad idea. Something like Panzer Dragoon Saga isn't worth playing through Paladin's Quest. "

A few hours a month? Heck, as much as I love games, right now I can usually only get in a few hours of a good game every week. But in my time I have played a very sizable amount of games which are considered on the whole bad or simply average. Most of this was as a kid but I do think the greater appreciation of truly high quality video games it gave me has stuck with me to this day.

I just bought Fracture for £5, is that a bad enough game?

That's like saying you should walk with crutches once a month, just so you can appreciate running. Your argument makes no sense.
 
There is enough mediocrity in mainstream gaming as it is. We don't need to go out and seek bad games just so we can enjoy the good ones.Besides, for almost everyone here, gaming is a hobby and we want to enjoy our time with it. Sometimes we struggle to find enjoyment even in good games, why would you go out of your way to waste your own time on a certified bad game (unless it is something that is hilariously bad) ? A frustrating experience with a bad product doesn't improve your time with another. 
 
Even if you're a game designer or reviewer, this doesn't make sense. There are a lot of good games coming out each year and you should be busy playing those to understand what others are doing right/wrong and why these games are good. There is no gain from playing a game that does even the basics like simple pathfinding wrong. As a professional, you already know these things are important.

" That's like saying you should walk with crutches once a month, just so you can appreciate running. Your argument makes no sense.
 
There is enough mediocrity in mainstream gaming as it is. We don't need to go out and seek bad games just so we can enjoy the good ones.Besides, for almost everyone here, gaming is a hobby and we want to enjoy our time with it. Sometimes we struggle to find enjoyment even in good games, why would you go out of your way to waste your own time on a certified bad game (unless it is something that is hilariously bad) ? A frustrating experience with a bad product doesn't improve your time with another.  Even if you're a game designer or reviewer, this doesn't make sense. There are a lot of good games coming out each year and you should be busy playing those to understand what others are doing right/wrong and why these games are good. There is no gain from playing a game that does even the basics like simple pathfinding wrong. As a professional, you already know these things are important. "

I can get behind this idea. I played through Rogue Warrior in it's entirety a few months ago for the lulz. It was actually pretty entertaining and it ended after a good four hours or so. Now, whenever Rogue Warrior comes up in conversation, I can say, "Rogue Warrior? Oh yeah, I beat that game." I'm still not sure what happened in the game as I was heavily inebriated throughout the duration of my play through, but I remember it being hilarious.
 

" I can get behind this idea. I played through Rogue Warrior in it's entirety a few months ago for the lulz. It was actually pretty entertaining and it ended after a good four hours or so. Now, whenever Rogue Warrior comes up in conversation, I can say, "Rogue Warrior? Oh yeah, I beat that game." I'm still not sure what happened in the game as I was heavily inebriated throughout the duration of my play through, but I remember it being hilarious.   "

I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I can appreciate a great game without being exposed to many terrible games.

I think people should play bad games every now and then, but for different reasons.
 
 
...Because they're hilarious.

I couldn't agree more. I posted something similar on another site before, and it seemed like just about everybody disagreed. But it's true, if you just scroll through a list of games that got high scores from reviewers, you're really limiting yourself. There are lots of so-called "bad" games that, in some way or another, I enjoyed playing. And it does make you better appreciate the good ones.  
 
Also, when you only play games that get high praise, you're removing one of the most fun aspects of game selection: the random pick. Just go to the rental store or to gamefly or whatever and pick a game. That's the beauty of renting. Sure, it's a waste most of the time, but it's a part of the consumer process that's been left behind. And it makes it all the better when you score a good one. The whole process of selecting a game, or a movie or a book, has become way too sterilized. If you're looking for a car, an apartment, or a good doctor, yeah, ask around, and make sure you get a good one. But with a form of entertainment whose appeal is largely subjective, sometimes you should just spin the wheel. 
 

" I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I can appreciate a great game without being exposed to many terrible games. "

I also want to just say this (I'm not discrediting this or trying to trash your opinion):  A truly good game will make you really enjoy it no matter what bad games you have played.  If a game is only good relative to another game, that doesn't always mean its a great game.  This is kind of like Jeff's thoughts on The Conduit, sure, it is good for a Wii FPS, but it's still not that great of an FPS compared to PC/360/PS3 FPS games.
 
Again, I'm not trying to prove you wrong or anything, because I enjoy bad games and "bad" (as in it gets rated 70 on metacriti and everyone is like "oh, this game must suck").  Many games can be enjoyable if you're willing to look past their flaws.  An example would be the new Aliens Vs. Predator game.  It has quite a few problems, but I still greatly enjoy the game, because I am willing to look past the problems.

" I couldn't agree more. I posted something similar on another site before, and it seemed like just about everybody disagreed. But it's true, if you just scroll through a list of games that got high scores from reviewers, you're really limiting yourself. There are lots of so-called "bad" games that, in some way or another, I enjoyed playing. And it does make you better appreciate the good ones.   Also, when you only play games that get high praise, you're removing one of the most fun aspects of game selection: the random pick. Just go to the rental store or to gamefly or whatever and pick a game. That's the beauty of renting. Sure, it's a waste most of the time, but it's a part of the consumer process that's been left behind. And it makes it all the better when you score a good one. The whole process of selecting a game, or a movie or a book, has become way too sterilized. If you're looking for a car, an apartment, or a good doctor, yeah, ask around, and make sure you get a good one. But with a form of entertainment whose appeal is largely subjective, sometimes you should just spin the wheel "

i 50% agree with u... i just beat dante's inferno, and will be playing god of war 3 in 2 weeks. so im doing what u asked for....

" i 50% agree with u... i just beat dante's inferno, and will be playing god of war 3 in 2 weeks. so im doing what u asked for.... "

" @spankingaddict said:

" i 50% agree with u... i just beat dante's inferno, and will be playing god of war 3 in 2 weeks. so im doing what u asked for.... "

so if my theory is right you should go "damn this game is so much better" but it's GOW3 so that would happen anyways "

" I just bought Fracture for £5, is that a bad enough game? "

I've played my fair share of terrible games, and let me tell you, they do not change my opinion in the slightest of a mediocre game. Obviously I'm going to like Wet much more than Onechambara. However it does not mean I'm going to enjoy Wet (which I didn't... at all.)   
 
I understand where you are coming from and do agree that people SHOULD play at least a few bad games, but I disagree on the whole idea of a great game being percieved as greater due to playing the worst games you can find. It would really just make you appreciate that the mediocre game you might be playing isn't a steaming pile of shit. 
 
It seems to me that you are basically saying that we should lower expectations. Instead of trying to play games that are above the relative mediocre line and considering those games good and the mediocre bad, that we should go further down the food chain and play fucking awful games until the next mediocre game comes out (which is pretty much every week). 
 
Basically, all this rambling is leading to me saying, I think it's good to know what utter crap is, but there is not enough time and simply too many actual good games to play to legitimize plowing through the shit. Many games are under-rated, but there is usually a reason as to why they were under-rated in the first place; there are much better games available.

huh? but i already played fallout3. 
 
*cover*

Yeah...nooo...I just don't have the disposable income to do that. I pretty much only have money for maybe one game every other month and I wouldn't say that my experiences in gaming are somehow lacking. Because of my money problems my games have to be long and top notch otherwise I'm going to have to wait another two months before I can even think about a new game.

" Yeah...nooo...I just don't have the disposable income to do that. I pretty much only have money for maybe one game every other month and I wouldn't say that my experiences in gaming are somehow lacking. Because of my money problems my games have to be long and top notch otherwise I'm going to have to wait another two months before I can even think about a new game. "

" @Aus_azn said:

" Hour. Of. Victory. "

did playing that improve your thoughts on other games of that type? "

Saying no to bad games means you have more money toward good games. I don't need to know how bad games are to compare to good games to figure out how good, good games are. I know how good they are and that's why I try to put my money towards those games instead. I can't buy every piece of trash that is released.

The only problem I have with this is that I would only be willing to buy a old, cheap, crappy, game because there is no way I would buy a crappy game on purpose new.

The thing is, some bad games can be really enjoyable in their own right.  Certainly not to a wide audience, but if a game is horrendous (or maybe just not very good), but scratches that right itch, it's alright to play it. 
However, I don't know if I could ever play a game that I hated and/or felt was really bad on purpose.  That stuff seems kinda incidental.

"I can kind of see where you are coming from, but I can appreciate a great game without being exposed to many terrible games. "

hey dude. just finished assassin's creed ii, sent it back to gamefly.
 
eat lead: the return of matt hazard is on it's way.

Nothing truly gets you to appreciate the good like the abysmal.  Think Timeshift was bad?  Go play Legendary.  That game was fucking horrid.

To all the people who are bringing up money and time as issues, I feel you; I am completely broke and time-crunched myself. But I don't think anyone is suggesting that you need to do this regularly to get the effect. Just every now and then. Go out and rent a piece of crap, or just a game that you know nothing about. No reviews, no recommendations. Rent it, play through as much as you can, then hang it up. I think what trophyhunter is getting at is that people often play absolutely nothing but primo, well-received games, and that can dull your appreciation of those games, a little. It's about balance. A lot of the responses are saying things like, "I don't have the time to play all the bad games in the world," or, "I don't have the money." W/ho said anything about playing all of them? And if you're finding the time to play something like Fallout 3, you can squeeze in a shitty little game here and there for a cheap rental fee.

once a month? no way, once in a lifetime is enough. truly.

i do not think i will do that. i kind of think it would be horrible to do that.

" I dunno, there are already so many good games to play that I could never finish them, why play an inferior one? I can understand the sentiment that good games will be relatively better after playing a bad one, but that's like saying you should cover yourself in a blanket on a really hot day and then take it off in order to feel cooler. Sure, you could do that, but why not just sit in front of the air conditioner instead? "

For as much as I see the logic (Playing bad games will give you a better sense of appreciation for the ones that don't suck), I actually disagree. A game that is truly good is enjoyable regardless of perspective, and playing a bad game really doesn't change that.

well. i could pop in my Cd of Big rigs over the road racing again if i want..

If I play a bad game and don't stop immediately I'll be too frustrated to play anything

I agree with the OP's idea. Look at all the internet reviewers who exclusively review bad things from the Nostalgia Critic to the Angry Video Game Nerd. All they do is talk trash about bad games and movies. For what reason? Humor, of course is the prime reason. But it can sometimes give you a new appreciation for games or movies that you might not have thought that much about. "Well that game wasn't so bad, considering it could have been much, MUCH worse, like this game." 
 
Another example would be with "Married With Children," (stay with me on this) consider Al Bundy's life and how miserable it is. During it's running season, Ed O'Neil got a letter from a fan that read "I always thought my life was terrible, until I started watching your show. Now I know that no matter how bad my life gets, it's not nearly as bad as Al Bundy's." This is the exact same concept as described by the OP. 
 
It doesn't matter if you agree with the idea, but that doesn't change the fact that it's true.