I've actually never played DQ/DW 1-3. I have 4-8 on DS/3DS and now 11 on Switch but I haven't played through all of them yet. I know they're remakes but it was more convenient for me to have them portable and I snapped them up to avoid paying eBay prices later on.

That segues into a good point you bring up though. Time and game length. As a kid I was allowed 1 hour of screens (tv, games, computer) a day and that was it. TMNT was 30 minutes so that cut it down to 30 minutes for games. I played a lot more Mega Man and Contra instead of RPGs back then. Now I'm an adult and I have job/school/relationship that takes up the majority of my time. I could bang out SNES era RPGs over two weeks maybe since most are around 20-30 hours. I can't fathom 80+ hour games that are the BASE game but I've been told that's what DQ11 is. I hope I make it through but I don't anticipate multiple playthroughs.

That got me wondering, how much does length play into our definition of "bad"? I mentioned Final Fight earlier. It was a hit in arcades where you played for a few minutes. It sold on consoles where it was $60 or something for 6 or 7 levels(I don't recall). If it had 200 levels would we feel it's badly designed because of the repetitive structure and lack of depth across those 200 levels? People tend to use the word "grind" in a negative way but I feel like with enough variation it can actually be wonderful by focusing on the strongest aspects of the games design. Darkest Dungeon has no real exploration and focuses heavily on it's battle system, but there are so many variables it doesn't feel terrible to me. I think tilting to far into repetitive or "it does EVERYTHING" can make a game bad for not using my time in a way that's entertaining. I don't want to spend 100 hours fighting the same 10 enemies and I also don't want to spend 100 hours feeling like I'm doing a list of chores (collect herbs/ fetch quests/find hidden doodads).

30 minute sessions are not enough for a casual player to beat any of the later NES Mega Man games (4-6), as there's more than a half hour of gameplay after the last point that a password can take you; it's my biggest complaint about those games. (They *really* should at least have had a password to take you to the second castle.)

Just a summary of the gameplay in these games:
* DQ1 is rather unique. It's open world, but if you go too far at a low level, you'll encounter enemies that are too strong for you to handle and that you can't easily run away from. You only control one character, and the focus really is on getting experience points and leveling up, with a few items that have to be collected in order to access the final dungeon. This game, in a way, feels more like a simplified Ultima game than a JRPG. (It even has single-use keys!) The remakes significantly increase XP gains.
* DQ2 is the first game in the series to have a party. It's also the hardest game in the series (not counting post-game content, which didn't even appear in the series until DQ5). DQ1's battles were simple, but in DQ2 they're more complex, to the point where you'll be using status ailment spells (like Sleep) more often than in most RPGs. It's also one of the few games where I feel relief when I finally reach town after a dangerous overland journey. (Note: Avoid the Japanese Famicom version. In addition to having to write down long passwords to save the game (and enter them in again to load), recovering from a party wipe endgame is extremely annoying; fortunately, the US version fixed this, as did all the remakes.) Also, the first ship in the series appears in this game, so you can now sail the seas. The game starts linear, but once you get the ship, it becomes less so.
* DQ3 introduces a class system. You always have the legendary hero (whose gender you can choose), but you can recruit up to 3 allies to help you. There's also a shrine where you can change the classes of your companions, keeping spells (only) from previous classes (if they're at least level 20), and there's even an advanced class that requires meeting one of two special requirements to access. For this game, I prefer remake versions, due to some of the poor mechanics (notably HP/MP increases at level ups) being fixed; it also adds a personality system that affects stat growth. (By the way, my preferred versions are Game Boy Color if playing in English (just reload if somebody gets a stat loss while playing Pachisi, as that triggers a bug), or Super Famicom if playing in Japanese.)

By the way, in Dragon Quest 4, if you want to get something closer to the original experience, try not using the "Follow Orders" tactic, as it wasn't in the original.

A game that got a lot of mediocre reviews when it came out, but I enjoyed it immensely was Rise of the Argonauts by Liquid Entertainment (they also made great Battle Realms). I really liked the story and characters in it and had no problem with repetitive gameplay.

Zero the Kamikaze Squirrel (SNES & MD)
Phantom 2040 (SNES & MD)
Ka-blooey (SNES)
FireStriker (SNES)
Blaster Master: Blasting Again (PS1)
The Divide (PS1)
Growl (ARC)
ExoSquad (MD)
Greendog (MD)
Flicky (MD)
Doraemon: Yume Dorobou to 7-Jin no Gozans (MD)
Trampoline Terror! (MD)
Alex Kidd ItEC (MD)(besides the janken mini-game)
Wonder Boy III: Monster Lair (MD)
Chuck Rock II (MD)
James Pond 2

Oh, that reminds me, RYSE: Son of Rome was another game I enjoyed even though it was not that great. I liked what I've seen of Rise of the Argonauts, but it kept crashing, so I dropped it.

This is a bit of a tough question to answer because bad games can't be enjoyed in the same way bad movies can. Are we talking about potentially good games having major problems here?

You'd be surprised.

I believe the Awful Games block at AGDQ is actually quite popular.

Not to mention that, in a game like Big Rigs, it can be fun (at least for a little bit) to see how fast you can go backwards, or to drive "over" a bridge (there's a reason I put "over" in quotes here).

Ahhhh, okay. Now that you mentioned Big Rigs, I now know what you mean by "bad" games.

Bad on topic, none yet. But I have heard Gothic 3: Forsaken Gods is so bad, it's hilarious. One of these days, I might check that game out eventually.

This is not in any way a bad game.

I'd go with Alpha Protocol as well, because let's be honest: it's bad.
Largely the same with Vampire The Masquerade Bloodlines - many will hate me for this, but for every good idea there are 3 awful ones.
Both still have their charm, so much in fact that their awful parts can even be overlooked!

In terms of dialogue/writing/story, yes it's pretty dumb and bad (just like Unreal 2). It's like a glorified 80/90's cheesy movie with simple one-liners that you can still enjoy and have fun with. In terms of combat/gameplay/replayability and graphics it's much better than Serious Sam 1 at least (which is a game I simply can't enjoy like I used to) :D

But I agree, it's probably the last enjoyable game that came from them...

Agreed, however it's not that highly rated at gamefaqs for example.

I can't imagine a game that fans of the series refuse to refer to by the proper capitalization (Unlimited) and has a 43 on Metacritic can be that hot.