I wonder sometimes when a really crap game is released, what the devs actually think about their game and sometimes it makes me wonder why they'd release it.

I'm talking about games like Naughty Bear which is flatout boredom, Lair for crappy controls (how did the Lair Devs play their own game?), Haze for being so buggy (didn't they realize that it was buggy?)

What do Devs actually think of their own such crap games?

Hope that it still sells.

they'll blame the publisher for rushing it.

Obviously, THEY don't think it's crap. They designed it, so it has to be good. And with that mindset, they look past all the flaws and see what they want to see. (For the record, this goes for pretty much every developer.) A few will sometimes step back and get a 3rd party's input on how it really is. Otherwise, things like play control are written off as "we're not as good of gamers", graphical jaggies are ignored for the "look at the detailing on this", and story hiccups are glossed over as "well, they know what we mean."

Occasionally, you'll have the game that is instead rushed by the publisher, so they will see some of the flaws in it. And that's the worst case of all- it harms the developer's reputation for putting out a sub-par game, and even they consider it to be so. But many times, they still expect it to sell like gangbusters. I find it interesting how all the crap games this gen are finally starting to weed out the crap developers; costs are high enough (especially on HD) that it's bankrupting some.

I beg to differ. I would think they could tell their game was crap. I mean it is their proffesion. I work at a pizza place and if I make a crap pizza, I know it. But I am sure their are things out of their control. How much dev time they have, their cash flow, their managment and leadership could have problems. But I think dev teams are getting so big alot of devs probably do not feel as connected with their work, and probably do not take as much pride in their work since they do not get as much credit. So it would be easier to overlook simpler flaws, or they just may not have a choice in what they can do and they feel it is the best result for the time and money they invested.

they probably try to disown it like a bad kid

i actually looked if the makers of Superman 64 where ashamed of their game, but despite investing 1 hour I couldnt find anything about it just some speeches before the release how awesome the game will be.

It's completely dependent on the developer, publisher and game. A lot of developers probably do recognise their games faults but hope they'll be accepted due to the awesome features they've worked on. Othertimes they may feel rushed by the publisher.

What also seems likely is that they get so deep into their work for so long that it becomes very difficult to notice the faults. It's like writing a massive report/essay; you're less likely to see the faults yourself when you read through, but to others it's obvious. Games are obviously far more complex so a lot could go wrong at different stages of development.

This thread makes me think back to when the new Prince of Persia was released. The developers were taken aback by the criticisms of their game and thought not enough was made of the positives and unique stuff they acheived (the relationship with Elika and the lack of loading screens due to not being able to die etc.). They appeared to concentrate on set areas, gotten deep into development and not identified the faults in the game before release resulting in a shock at the average reception from critics.

well, when Action Girlz Racing Wii port appeard in the credits there was a :

"thanks to everyone who made this project happen!!!"

I know many developers who have worked on terrible games and first off, they all know it's bad for one reason or another.  I don't think I've met anyone that's so arrogant that they can't admit their game had no mistakes (I even know people that have worked on things like Uncharted and they too readily admit their mistakes).  I also know someone who worked on the Iron Man game and while they know it was a stinker, they got valuable work and experience from it.  Depending on the game, some are proud of their work, others just want to move on to their next project.

I have a loooooong laundry list of mistakes or things I things I didn't have time to fix in Ghostbusters (some people know about, some, like a game breaking bug, people haven't found or at least don't know how to reproduce :-p) but I'm still pretty proud of my work.  I may cringe every time I see that laundrymat sign not be there, truck explosion fires at the wrong time, or people don't get my weight puzzle, but I'm still pretty damn proud of it with its mistakes.  That was a few years of my life, blood, sweat, and tears, and I love it.  Mistakes and all.  You can say what you want about Ghostbusters: the Video Game, I know the mistakes are there and I know why they're there, but it's still me in those levels and I love it.

The reasons they give for the bad game range anywhere from publishing issues, poor management, no time/money, and/or it just wasn't a good game.

I don't think most developers take it too personally when people tell them their game is bad as long as they aren't bashing it for the sake of bashing it (and then those people are generally ignored).  Most take it as experience and just move on.  A bad game will always be a bad game, but at least you have one more shipped game under your belt.