Pretty much all gamers have an example of it in their own lives. Try to picture this—you buy a game that looks really cool on the shelf, go home, and realize that it’s actually not as awesome as you initially thought. When I was younger, this usually meant getting an N64 or GameCube game based on recognizing a character or knowing a license (THQ!), and I was burned a few times on some games I expected to be a lot better than they turned out to be.
40°
30°
30°
30°
Ad 
30°
With which account, because you created this one 62 days ago?
On topic: I enjoy some crappy/mediocre games, but I would never argue a technical mess. If a game is technically broken, their defense is not legitimate.
you will always find people who love games that other people find it bad and the other way around
like they say
"One man's trash is another man's treasure"
those who would see fit to call good games bad. Its just personal taste.
Not all games a re good and not all games are bad but we can all agree to disagree. There are some games which many proclaim is the best thing since sliced bread and I feel differently.
There are games many feel suck hard and I feel differently. But i am not one to chastise another person for their opinion on something because we are human and are not designed to agree on everything.
/s
People defend objectively terrible games like DNF because they have awful taste.
another man's trash is another man's treasure. simply as that. Some will be pleased with just having fun with a game while some will bash a game till the earth's end.
We can't do that in a society where people are pressured, either directly or indirectly, to conform or be an outcast to one extent or another. We've created a sick system and the symptoms can be seen all over the place.
1) Some of the people who got hyped, swore the game would be 10/10 material, shelled out $60 on a brand-new game and then found out it sucks don't want to openly admit that they're stupid for betting on the wrong horse
2) Because "terrible" is subjective, just like "amazing". Personally, I think Bioshock Infinite is average. A lot of people think it's "amazing". Who is right? Both of us, and neither of us. It's just an opinion.
And for me, story is whats most important.
It's the sad reality.
While fanboys do exists (well the meaning given to these people), not everything opposing an opinion is fanboyism.
The first is when people want a game to be great so much that they don't even want to entertain the thought that it might not live up to the hype. An example from my own life would be the time I was watching a livestream of Duke Nukem forever before it's release and the chat box was flooded with talk about how it looks amazing, I casually mentioned that while I wanted to like it I just wasn't seeing anything special and got spammed with 'Gtfo troll'. Or to throw myself under the bus, way back in the day I have to admit to getting a little butthurt about some of the poor reviews the first Assassin's creed was getting before I played it myself. It's a weird subconscious thing we all have to some extent where we think as long as we don't entertain a thought for more than a second or two it won't be true.
The second is when people don't want to admit, even to themselves that they were suckered. I'm pretty careful when buying games but I used to do this all the time with music. You'd buy a terrible album and sit around listening with friends saying, 'it's......pretty good. Quite different to their last album but I...I like it'.
The third is when people find something in an objectively poorly made game that just hits their personal taste just right. For me this would be the first Kane and Lynch game which I will always admit was objectively pretty terribly made but I just loved it's style. On the other hand, Kane and Lynch 2.... Yech, there's a time I got suckered and didn't even bother trying to pretend I didn't.
Question: Based on what you said about why folks would defend a bad game.
What then constitutes a good game? In your opinion.
First of all I think 'good' and 'bad' are a little too simplistic to properly rate games but then I'm not one of those people who thinks its all completely relative and that everything is as 'good' as everything else when personal taste is taken out of it.
I think there are games that are objectively more well made than other games. Crysis 3 is an objectively more well crafted game than Mirror's edge. It controls better, it runs smoother, it has higher quality graphics. This is all assumed on my part because I never actually played Crysis 3 but if I'm wrong just replace Crysis 3 with some other well crafted but generic game. The point is that this is not a matter of opinion. There are games that can objectively be shown to be more well crafted than others. Uncharted 2 is objectively a more well crafted game than Deadly premonition.
Now, I would argue that Mirror's edge is an objectively better game overall than Crysis 3 because it is objectively more creative and takes more risks. I don't think this is just a matter of opinion. I think it's an objective fact that a game like Mirror's edge is much more original and creative than a game like Crysis 3. I would argue that this makes it a more important game. I doubt I could say Mirrors edge is 'good' and Crysis 3 is 'bad' but I could say that if for some reason 90% of all the games in existence had to be destroyed and we had to decide which ones to save, Mirror's edge deserves to be on that list somewhere above Crysis 3.
I'm suggesting that creativity and originality is more important in gaming but of course there are cases of super creative original games that are just so poorly crafted they are less enjoyable than well made generic games and cases of games that don't exactly reinvent the wheel but are so well crafted and have just enough little dashes of creativity that they become very important 'good' games (Uncharted 2 would be a good example of this I think).
It's been scientifically demonstrated that experiencing more diverse and original art is better for a human being's mental development. This is why I think imaginative, creative games are objectively more important than generic games. They're just better for you, same way eating an apple is objectively better for you than eating cardboard. Of course nobody is going to play games that are poorly made just because it might make them smarter or more culturally aware in the long run. This is why we should judge games on both how creative they are and how well crafted they are. I believe it's a fact that creativity is almost twice as important as craft but both are important to some degree. Phew, okay I'll stop there before I use up all the letters in the Universe but there ya go. I did warn you it was gonna be a crazy rant.
I liked the game myself and as I read your reply I immediately thought about this game.
Stripping any bias towards it. I mention it to you.
Or do you feel it does not qualify?
Cognitive dissonance - psychological conflict resulting from incongruous beliefs and attitudes held simultaneously
They believe the game is great. The world tells them it is horrible. They are confused so they can do one of two things; agree with the world, or keep their own opinion of the game.
Normally the latter is more prone to happen when a person spends their own money on a game, so they are more likely to make themselves feel better about their purchase and will say the game is great, or try to defend it.
Opinion
Take Super Mario Brothers or The Legend of Zelda. Those two games were regarded as two of the greatest video games ever created. And while I agree, there are many people (more than just the Sony trolls) who don't think those games are all that great.
Everybody has their own opinion based on their own personal tastes. You can't please everyone, so you just hope to please more than you piss off.
Too often we feel we need to justify our purchases, so we tell ourselves that the games are better than the others because it makes us feel better with our decision. Is it always true? No, but that doesn't stop us from doing it.
Really wish the multiplayer had more than 5 people online. :(
I have a friend that will forever defend Duke Nukem Forever, he freaking loves it.
Opinion plays a part as people have suggested but I personally don't agree with the consensus view that we should let bygones be bygones and allow people to have opinions without making criticisms. (as you can tell by my bubbles disagreeing with the consensus view doesn't bring popularity, rather resentment, but hey doesn't bother me)
//rant//
For example Metal Gear Solid. Possibly my least favourite game of all time and that is no exaggeration. For me the 15 min long text conversations, ridiculous plots and characters and the casual homage's to Americanism really annoyed and frustrated me and the gameplay was nothing so special to entice me to ignore these flaws in fact they had flaws of their own(prone camera in MGS 2). a lot of these flaws are global flaws within Japanese games of course but that doesn't excuse anything.
\\rant\\
Anyways back to my point i'm sure MGS fans will probably be tracking me down as I type this but i'm not going to sugar coat this because they want to defend what I perceive to be a bad game.I mean defend it sure but with actual arguments not just angry fanboyism.
P.s. bubble system prevents new thoughts it is a flawed system whereby accepting the norm liberates you further. In a way it is anti-free speech and ultimately predates modern civilization and democracy
But why even bother with petty things like this? i really don't care if that guy hates it or not.
In end we are bored and talk about it just for the sake of it.
I think both of them aren't worth the time and money. They are playable, but they aren't games I would recommend. What I notice is that sometimes people will defend their purchase despite the overwhelming majority saying it's not good. They want to believe that what they bought was worth it. That just seems to be a vocal minority, though.