How would one create a game that's so bad it's good?

You don't get it. You are completely lost. For a game to be bad that is good. It has to be bad before it is good. You were saying EDF is bad. There is not a milimeter of bad in EDF.

Not at all. You're more off than I thought. Regardless of camp or camping as you call it.

Let's explain using your definitions.

Let's say Camp is just bad because you said by definition it fails.

Under your definition Camping can be both. Like you said it is intentional so there is no failing. Failing is what would make it bad.

Am I saying camping cannot fail? Of course not. Again only using your definitions.

For example E.D.F. is awesome and beyond amazing. It doesn't fail at doing what it tries to do.

Now let's look at Agents Of Mayhem. Also an open world game that tries to be EDF but fails miserably at providing that run and gun experience.

Agents Of Mayhem comes from the people that make Saints Row. They have tones of experience making open world games, and yet they still failed trying to do their own version of EDF.

Both are camping, one excellent, one trash.

Now EDF is so good is awesome. Agents Of Mayhem is just bad, but it has the potential to be good with mods. Mods are nothing else than a way to brake a game. A broken game is bad because is broken.

Agents Of Mayhem is a bad game that by making it worse (broken) it can suddenly be fun, which makes it good. So that game would be so bad (and broken), that it will be good, because the broken stuff will make it good.

And PeeWee Herman is just bad. I saw it. Nothing good on it. The people that say it is so bad that is good are inhaling some powerful stuff.

When I think of EDF or Musou as "so bad it's good" games, what I mean is that when you look at each of their individual parts, they have everything that would be bad in most games: terrible AI, bad graphics, bland art design, gameplay with no depth at all (button-mashers), repetitive gameplay, no variation between levels, abysmal writing, completely unbalanced charaters and abilities, dozens of sequels that all look and play the same, generic music...

These games are literally made of terrible parts. They should stink as a rotten egg fart. So, why the hell are they fun? I say the reason is exactly because they are so unbalanced and trashy (I think it was unintended at first, but by now the developers are doing it on purpose); I can't stop laughing at the terrible and absurd ideas for cutscenes, ridiculous enemy designs, unreasonably overpowered characters and bad excuses to put them together. See, Musou games are basically bad versions of something like Ninja Gaiden, but instead of just being bad (as, let's say, Ninja Theory's DMC...), they are so broken that end up being a blast to play.

Some games are made entirely of good parts, but are just boring (I was bored by Bioshock, though I can't say it's really a "bad" game); some games are bad and uncreative and annoying to play (what I thought about Sonic Unleashed, at least half of it); but some games are so broken that you have fun doing unintended things or laughing at what the developers tried to do and just couldn't - one of the quintessential examples would be Jurassic Park: Trespasser. It's a mess, but it's a very funny mess - though I don't think the developers were trying to make we laugh (which is precisely what camp is, as Susan Sontag defined and Dan E. Kool is saying).

Can't apply the same standards to interactive media as passive media. Game is game. Movie, is movie. Peoples is peoples. Is frog gone? Yes. Is peoples worrying?

That reads more rudely than I'd like. But I think we're just repeating ourselves at this point.

Maybe your sense of humor just doesn't extend to Camp. And that's fine. We don't all have to laugh at the same things or even enjoy the same things for the same reasons. You like EDF for whatever turns you on and I'll just sit by the fire and enjoy the camp.