Looking at every single video game in existence, do you think that most of them are good? I personally find that only 1% are good, and the remaining are not. Too many sports games, movie games, and games that are just bad. Why are developers making games that almost have to be bad? Instead of there being 10,000 or more video games in existence, most of being below average, why can't there be just 500 good ones? If developers took their time, and thought less about money, I'm sure we could be getting far better games. If you go to www.gamerankings.com, there aren't very many games that get reviews of 80% or more, especially when compared to the ones that don't. I think that most of the games out there are just garbage. Very few interest me. Superman 64 is a perfect example. Just because it's a Superman game doesn't automatically mean it's good. Developers, especially third-party developers, seem to be lacking the potential to make good games. Mistakes are constantly repeated, like camera problems in 3D platformers. You would think once one game gets it right, all other games would get it right too. Games, as a whole, could be so much better, and I wonder if it's just me that can walk into a video game store, and find almost nothing good, or it's the majority of video games that just aren't that good. I understand that different people have different interests, but I know it must be possible to make games that everyone enjoys. What do you think?

I think you are correct that the vast majority of games released are either mediocre or just bad.  There are a lot of poorly-made games, cash-ins where most of the money was spent securing a license, or hurried games to meet a deadine like releasing at the same time as a movie or for the holiday season.

Unfortunately, this phenomenon has always been with us.  The Atari VCS' glut of terrible cash-in games is what caused the console side of the industry to crash in 1983-4.  There are plenty of terrible games on every system in existence, even a machine like the Neo-Geo.  If you were to ask me personally, I believe the original Playstation is the worst offender in this regard (lowest percentage of good games to mediocre/bad ones).

That, I believe, was part of the reason Nintendo had implemented their Seal of Quality (or whatever the official name was) and limited the number of games that could be released during the NES and I think even the SNES times. I'm not sure it's only 1%, and it depends on personal preferences, but I would probably agree that the majority of games aren't so great, but must be profitable enough otherwise more companies would probably have stopped. Just have to hope that the fewer gems shine brightly enough to not repeat the problems of the crash.

Most of everything isn't good. You do hope when something is being done professionally that there is some sort of filter, like editors at publishing houses, that can keep complete and utter amatuer shit from reaching the public. But once you have the ability to self release - independent films, internet publishing, and often games - there wil be lots of shit out there.

basically companies release a really good game, and can then afford to make other games, to experiment with user's tastes. it is really hard to make a focus group to see whether people like the game or not, because you have already spent a year making the game, lol.

I'm surprised there isn't one person who doesn't agree with me. Usually, there is always one person who doesn't agree, or at least pretend that they don't. Well, I guess it's safe to say that it's a fact that most video games just suck.

 Nintendo got a pretty nasty reputation amongt third-party developers in the 80s because they were being charged with being pretty abusive with the Seal of Quality.  They turned down a good deal of the really early 8-bit games because they didn't "pass" for a good game.  Granted, it was a wise move on Nintendo's part, because the ability of anyone and everyone to legally develop games for the system then sell it without licensing it is a fair chunk of what killed Atari (and almost the industry itself).

Most games that are made are shit.

Most games that get licensed are good.

That's true WiteoutKing. I have seen many arguements fought over if it is truly a good model or not, but I'd rather not see/cause that happening in this thread.  Of course, there are always two sides of an arguement, so I should've mentioned the feelings of the third parties but I do like the way you said it.

I'm not sure I would really say that 99% of games are bad. If so...then why are you still playing them? I think you have to consider that games are made for many audiences, not just a select few.

Every game has its share of flaws, some more than others. But if you had to choose between reading a book and playing a bad game I'm sure most of the people on here would be going for 100% in Superman 64.

We have high standards and we should. But that doesn't really make bad games terrible. It just means that you don't have enough time to waste playing bad games because there's only so much time to finish all the good ones.

...I'd read a book rather than play a POS like Superman 64. I like reading anyway, but still.