I have a question for the online community of Game informer Magazine, and hopefully the editors as well. I want to preface this question by saying I love big budget triple A games, and While I play every well rated game, some of my favorite gaming experiences have been in games that receive, less than stellar scores. For instance, Medal of Honor: Vanguard for Wii got a terrible, atrocious, abysmal score, yet I find that one of my favorite gaming experiences ever. It is laughably bad, and impossible to control, however it provides a uniquely terrible experience only found on the Wii. This game drove me to try other 4.5 and lower games, and found many of them to be quite enjoyable, and while I absolutely agree with every deduction form the review, and realize it is a terrible experience when compared to other games, I still love them, because I love to laugh at the annoying mini games, and predict the next repeated QTE fight. I love watching my "helpful" AI teammates sprint full on, off of a bridge, and watch the "puzzles" solve themselves, or do the frustrating opposite that is sit there taunting you with a super obscure solution hidden by ugly textures, and glitches walls. So my question is this: What does the community think about the bad games? is there fun to be had, or does the fact that the campaigns are frustratingly confusing, convoluted, and terrible detract from the experience? I believe I have made my stance clear but leave a comment telling everyone what you think.

Until Next Time,

Volete Omnes, Master of Unlocking.