This can be considered a game. I only reversed the rules. Because analyze the characteristics of a terrible game is only the reverse of analyze the characteristics of a good game.
In other words: have no “terrible features” in your game is what will make your game better.
I also do not know where this is going. It all depends of time and participation.
It is possible, for example, create a framework with the characteristics that your game should not have.
And the differential this is that, out of this competition, few will want to be part of that group - if this information is more widespread.
The question is that Terrible Games exist for lack of information, feedback and experience.
For example: only with two simple tips who I provide to author of Lotus Jump, he can increase dramatically your results if reflect more on this. So imagine with more time, and more participation, and case studies.
The point is that, add features and design of good games in your game does not settle the issue. As contaminated water does not improve with sugar, perfume or coloring. It is necessary removing what does not work before adding. And unlearn before learn.
And all of this is joke and fun. Or a gamification experience. Or dilly dallying.