Trash or Treasure: A proposed typology of bad videogames

Although critically maligned and popularly derided videogames are a persistent part of gaming culture, scholarly work has scarcely acknowledged the different ways in which games are understood as bad. This article disambiguates bad videogames by providing a critical overview of the various manifestations of badness in games. Through examining a series of case studies, we propose a framework for understanding how a videogame can be perceived as bad, focusing on presumed developer intentions and reception by players and game journalists. We chart four distinct yet interconnected categories of bad videogames: So-Bad-It’s-Bad, So-Bad-It’s-Good, Bad-in-Context, and Intentionally Bad. Rather than identifying specific sources of badness, these categories aim to clarify how badness impacts audience understanding and appreciation of videogames. At the same time, by focusing on the bad, uninspiring, and ugly side of videogames we take a political stance against the typical game studies canon by expanding the archive of what games and play experiences are conceived as legitimate and worthy of scholarly attention.

Authors

Institutions

Publication Details

Journal
Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
Published
2026-03-14
DOI
https://doi.org/10.1177/13548565261431144
Primary Topic
Digital Games and Media
Type
article
Field-Weighted Citation Impact
0.00
Controls
|||
ALL TIME
JAN
FEB
MAR
APR
MAY
JUN
JUL
AUG
SEP
OCT
article

Trash or Treasure: A proposed typology of bad videogames

David Antognoli, Hollie Wistow
Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
Digital Games and Media
article

Trash or Treasure: A proposed typology of bad videogames

David Antognoli, Hollie Wistow
article en

Abstract

Although critically maligned and popularly derided videogames are a persistent part of gaming culture, scholarly work has scarcely acknowledged the different ways in which games are understood as bad. This article disambiguates bad videogames by providing a critical overview of the various manifestations of badness in games. Through examining a series of case studies, we propose a framework for understanding how a videogame can be perceived as bad, focusing on presumed developer intentions and reception by players and game journalists. We chart four distinct yet interconnected categories of bad videogames: So-Bad-It’s-Bad, So-Bad-It’s-Good, Bad-in-Context, and Intentionally Bad. Rather than identifying specific sources of badness, these categories aim to clarify how badness impacts audience understanding and appreciation of videogames. At the same time, by focusing on the bad, uninspiring, and ugly side of videogames we take a political stance against the typical game studies canon by expanding the archive of what games and play experiences are conceived as legitimate and worthy of scholarly attention.

Convergence The International Journal of Research into New Media Technologies
University of Nottingham (GB), US Night Vision (United States) (US), Columbia College Chicago (US)
Openalex Percentile: Top 26%
Digital Games and Media
AI Navigator

Ask Laika to Summarize, Analyze, and Connect papers live on the map.

Summarize Papers & Methodologies

Extract key findings, datasets, and comparative methods across publications.

Benchmark Rankings & Visual Analytics

Rank top research institutions, authors, funders, topics, and journals by Field-Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI) and paper volume with instant charts.

Connect Distant Disciplines

Bridge topological clusters on the map to find hidden collaborative intersections.