I kind of have mixed feelings about bad ends.
There are many games where the design is fairly “flat and wide”; that is if you were to draw out a graph of the choices you make each individual path (whether good or bad) is on the short side leading to an ending, but there are many endings. An example would be the various versions of “Hill House”. It’s like the author has tried to add as many changes in as possible, but isn’t prepared to deal with the resulting combinatorial explosion, so each ending rapidly shows the result of whatever happened. Having said that, they can be fun short games, and finding all the endings is often rewarded.
A variant on these is time-limited games, maybe you have a fixed number of days before the end; and after that time the end kicks in depending on what you’ve done.
Let’s but rogue-likes to one side as well; it’s player vs. dungeon, and you are going to die, a lot. It’s mostly bad ends, but that’s the whole basis of the game. It wouldn’t be a rogue game if those weren’t there. Over time you can learn about the rules of the game, and developing strategies to survive longer is the essence of the game. I’ve no issues with bad ends in these.
Then, there’s the rest. And this is where I’m less fond of bad ends. Sure, if it’s well signposted, and I did dumb thing to see what happens, then that’s on me. But if it isn’t well signposted, then I really don’t like them. There’s the famous cruelty scale. For me, anything beyond “tough” is likely to put me off continuing. I play games to relax, not to get wound up.
All this is generic stuff. Specifically for WG games, for me, any bad end has to be well written enough to be a reward, and not seem like a get-out for not writing more. Also, unless there is a goal for the best ending set out at the start, it seems judgemental on the author’s part to say which ending is the best one - better to just call them endings maybe?