Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception

Suggestion: CrossfireX

It received unfavorably reviews from critics and players and the servers shut down on May 18th of this year, similar to Babylon's Fall

Should we add it on the list or no? just saying Xstronomy007 (talk) 05:11, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Given how little this seems to be discussed (compared with Babylon's Fall), I think it doesn't meet the "notable" aspect. Masem (t) 05:31, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely - there is some more coverage not captured in the article, including a review by Edge, but not a lot. Even then, just because a game is agreed to be bad doesn't make it notable for its negative reception. There has to be an aspect of commentary that singles it out as poor. That doesn't seem to be present in the article other than Metacritic noting it had one of the lowest scores of the year. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:14, 3 December 2023 (UTC)

Proposed removal of Mortal Kombat: Special Forces

I like the state of the article and think the entries are largely worthy, but there are some I'm not sure should be in the list. If I had to make one suggestion, it would be:

• Remove Mortal Kombat: Special Forces: There are three Mortal Kombat games cited between 1997 and 2001. Whilst two do have listicle "worst game" citations, Special Forces is an uncontroversial remove to me. Its score is sourced from seven Metacritic reviews, and comments on its reception only cite one "worst games" mention in a 2011 listicle from GamesRadar. I also really question the value of saturating the article with poorly received Mortal Kombat titles when the franchise as a whole is not generally seen as low quality. No talk page discussion in favor either.

Some other titles that should be improved in their sourcing are those that don't have substantive metacommentary on their reception on the talk page or article, but just seem to be here because they're games with low scores attached to high-profile franchises or developers, such as Alone in the Dark: Illumination, Babylon's Fall and Umbrella Corps. Stalin vs. Martians is also clearly shovelware which is discouraged.

Let me know what you think. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:56, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Part of what we are looking for in games notable for negative reception is the impact that negative reception had on the developers, publishers, or the like. for MK:Special Forces, we've got that the series was paused to better refocus the next game, which is a reasonable but weak reason to keep.

To contrast, Babylon's Fall was a major title but its poor reception led to its servers being closed rather quickly, which is why that's on this list. Masem (t) 13:28, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your thoughts. I know I am agitating the point a little, but there's no sources or discussion on any impact of Special Forces to the franchise on the game or franchise page. It does not seem correct that Special Forces led to a pause in any development given that Deadly Alliance was already under development from 1998 and released in 2002. It seems true that there was a glut of low-quality spinoff games, but adding them all absent other games in the same period seems to be excessive. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:50, 6 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Day Before

With this game getting notable coverage for it's bad release state (overwhelmingly negative on steam), the highly suspicious marketing and now the studio's (Fntastic) closure due to the poor sales of this game, I strongly suggest that The Day Before be nominated for this list. Sirfalcon11 (talk) 19:42, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

This might fall better on the commercial failures list. TDB has no reviews from reliable sources, only the negative user reviews, but that sent the devs to close up. So we have no way to judge its normal reception, but can judge its financial performance. Masem (t) 22:58, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

It's worse than that. A paying customer can't even buy the game now while the studio is trying to disappear from the internet: https://www.ign.com/articles/the-day-before-steam-fntastic Sirfalcon11 (talk) 00:26, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Don't see what that has to do with negative reception. Someone not being able to buy it means no one is out any money, so them pulling it should be seen as good, not bad, if the game is as bad (or a 'scam') as people are saying. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:33, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree re. the conflation with poor performance and poor reception. If the reliable reviews don't exist, it falls short of the standard for this list, but good sourcing for the game's disastrous rollout could be a good case study for a commercial failure. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 01:06, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

The "Failed financially" part is not from the game failed marketing, but instead mass refunds on steam Xstronomy007 (talk) 01:36, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

All the statements from the dev say "poor sales". While that could include the fact they had a lot of sales that then got refunded, we don't know if that was the primary reason. The case clearly can be made for commercial failure, with noting being the worst reviewed game and many trying to get refunds (and then Steam now automatically allowing for all purchasers to get refunds).

However, I'd also like to see if there's more exploration of the question being raised if this was all a scam, and give some time for our RSes to determine if that was the case. As if it was a scam, it would not belong on either list. Masem (t) 05:50, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

Agree, we don't know if it was a scam or not nor the sales reasoning

But I do point out that Scamming is consider fraud Xstronomy007 (talk) 06:10, 12 December 2023 (UTC)

it's a scam that crashed hard with both players and games journalists hating it with IGN, GamesRadar and Rock Paper Shotgun giving it VERY negative reviews Sirfalcon11 (talk) 03:53, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

I think it bears noting that the three sources you listed seem to be the only major reviews of the game, for what it's worth. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 04:46, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Are we going to do the same situation as Babylon's Fall? Xstronomy007 (talk) 01:57, 14 December 2023 (UTC)

Update on The Day Before

They announce that they are closing the servers down due to Fntastic closure: https://twitter.com/playdaybefore/status/1738112110385914052 Xstronomy007 (talk) 07:02, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: The Simpsons Skateboarding

This game is as infamous bad as Simpsons Westling and argueable even worse @ 87.51.178.26 (talk) 17:49, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Typically falls under the "no tie-in or shovelware" category. What makes it standout? -- ferret (talk) 17:50, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It is as special and infamously bad as Westling. I know it got very negative reviews and are often paired up with Westling when talking about bad Simpsons games. I cant say what makes it specially standout, but i cant say that about Westling as well. They are both very bad games released close after each other. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 17:57, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article for Skateboarding gives 10 reviews for the game. Surely that are enough for being notable for the list? 87.51.178.26 (talk) 18:09, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

It have two 1/10 reviews. Also from said Wikipedia article

Andrew Reiner of Game Informer said: "Never before have I seen a developer put forth such an effort to secure the Worst Game of the Year award. I'll even go as far to say that this may very well be the worst PlayStation 2 game on the market." Kevin Murphy of GameSpy said that "The Simpsons Skateboarding should be a case study in bad game design."

Also while this is OR, Simpsons Skateboarding is one of the most bashed game on YouTube (just from the quality of the game, not for other reasons) and i believe it is one of the more well known bad games in general.

I believe this is enough for the list but i am not an expert on this. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 20:23, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Was there some significant result from how bad it was reviewed? Its not a game I see on all-time worst game lists, so there would need to be a more significant impact to include, not just a badly reviewed game. Masem (t) 20:34, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Unlikely but definitely sound reasons for nomination. Some reviews are promisingly notable in how negative they are: the "one of the absolute worst" games played, "worst of 2002", "worst" Simpsons game, (GameSpot [2]) "worst PS2 game on the market" (Game Informer). But most others are milder - consensus with most of the archived reviews is that it's a poor Tony Hawk "rip-off" or "clone" (i.e. "average skateboarding game with the Simpsons license plopped on top" - Electronic Gaming Monthly [3]). Given what makes this noticeably "bad" is its tie-in/shovelware imitation of another genre or brand, it might be a little harder to argue for inclusion. As raised earlier it also doesn't seem to have raised much post-release commentary outside of Simpsons circles. No issue with having two Simpsons games in there - there's three Mortal Kombat (!) games, after all. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:33, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Rise of the Robots

It got very bad reviews when it came out and it is on Gameradar top 100 worst games list in 2014. It is a rather well known bad game that deserves to be on this list. Was promoted a lot in magazines back in the day. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 18:06, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Forspoken

Mainly regarded as mediocre. 0GDuckyD00m (talk) 17:14, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Simply having mediocre reviews is not sufficient for inclusion. Masem (t) 17:32, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Cyberpunk is at a positive on Metacritic 2603:8000:6E00:4871:248E:71FE:8540:883 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

As stated in the Scarlet and Violet section, Forspoken is a valid suggestion, but the sourcing is not remotely comparable to the notability for the negative reception for the Cyberpunk article. If you think there is notable negative reception out there, you need to make the case for it rather than the angle that people saw it as "mediocre". ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:20, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Pokémon Scarlet and Violet

Has lowest review score of any game in the series with fan reaction being mostly negative. 0GDuckyD00m (talk) 17:15, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Review scores aren't low enough to consider, and just because fans were upset at how released does mean appropriate to include. Masem (t) 17:33, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Cyberpunk has relatively high scores 2603:8000:6E00:4871:248E:71FE:8540:883 (talk) 04:21, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

Look at the article for Cyberpunk and Scarlet & Violet. One has quite a lot to say about the reception of the game beyond its technical issues: the disastrous launch, the mismatch in expectations to the game's hype, a proposed class action, and the crunch culture of the publisher affecting the game's release. The other does not. I agree that Scarlet and Violet does have some notable comments around the technical issues putting refunds on the table like Cyberpunk, but the breadth and context of the sourcing for Cyberpunk is far wider than fans not liking the game. With respect to your valid suggestion, they're not comparable. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 06:18, 25 December 2023 (UTC)

What about Nintendo offering mass refunds on the Nintendo eShop, of which rarely happens, as the site/app does not usually offer refunds.

Enough people were upset to convinve Nintendo to do so. Cider621 (talk) 01:51, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

It would be good to get a sense of the coverage of this. A brief look at the news articles around that - of which there are admittedly quite a few - leads only to the key messages of "some people on Reddit said they've been getting refunds" and not really in-depth coverage on the technical issues and refunds. I imagine there's definitely more, but there is the "must discuss such a response in significant detail" hurdle to get through from the criteria above. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:22, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Metacritic says the reviews are mixed, so no Xstronomy007 (talk) 23:44, 24 December 2023 (UTC)

Coming around to this one but I think the supporting sources need to be much stronger than what's in the article or otherwise linked here. Is there significant, sustained coverage of the relationship between technical issues, negative review scores and fan reaction? I'm mindful the "what about this" approach with suggestions does endear one to the status quo maybe a little too strongly. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 02:43, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Suggestion: Cube World

Of course, I understand that this game is not particularly popular and not considered "enough legendary to be memorized as bad", but more videos have been made about it than Superman 64. Majority of Cube World's fanbase prefers to play alpha version or modified latest version rather than finished vanilla game because of "region-locking" that makes your game items disappear after leaving the region and many, many flaws... 188.163.69.27 (talk) 03:58, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I'd consider Cube World closer to "not notable at all" than "explicitly notable for negative reception" -- ferret (talk) 04:11, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Hoshi Wo Miru Hito

This very infamious game in Japan (not that much in the west because this game was Famicom exclusive) that created a term kusoge. Many years after it launched there are still articles talking about how bad it is https://www.destructoid.com/legendary-crappy-game-hoshi-wo-miru-hito-gets-completed-fan-translation/ From Wikipedia:

Reviewers noted the often confusing and highly difficult gameplay. Japanese gamers have dubbed it "Densetsu no Kusoge" (伝説のクソゲー, lit. '"Legendary Crappy Game').

http://www.hardcoregaming101.net/hoshi-wo-miru-hito/ 87.51.178.26 (talk) 15:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I've looked at sources for the origin of Kusoge and it does not appear to be tied to this game, but to Ikki (video game). (in part being the earlier-released game). We'd need a lot more sourcing than these two to support including either game here. Masem (t) 01:53, 28 December 2023 (UTC)

I always thought the origin of Kusoge was from Hoshi Wo Miru Hito. Now i learned something new. And from sources i believe there are a lot but they are japanese only, as this game is far more notable and known in Japan (as a Famicom only game would be) I also very much believe that this game DO have a lasting impact. I did find this source from 2017 where this game was listed https://www.famitsu.com/news/201703/11128780.html

Try using the japanese name for sources 星をみるひと 87.51.178.26 (talk) 18:34, 29 December 2023 (UTC)

M&M's Kart Racing

On one hand this is a shovelware tie in game, so some here might say that it is not notable for that alone (even with the fact that there are other tie in games on the list) But there are some reasons why it might qualify anyway, like being on several worst games list and being in Guinness World Records 2011 Gamers Edition as worst kart racing game on GameRankings

M&M's Kart Racing was critically panned upon release. It has a GameRankings score of 23% and 22% for the Wii and DS versions, respectively, earning it Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2011's award for the lowest-rated kart game. IGN cited that "commercial mascots make terrible video games" and that the game "barely uses the license at all". GameSpot opined that the game "could put you off M&M's for life". It also awarded the game "Flat-out Worst Game" award in its "Best of 2008" awards. GameZone also panned it, as did Nintendojo. Gameplay footage of the game was featured as Joystiq's "Today's most hilariously atrocious video", stating that the gameplay footage "is a true testament to the wrong way to build a kart racer". The game was chosen as one of GameZone's "most abysmal racing games ever", due to the sluggish pace of the game and the dialogue. GamesRadar ranked it 32nd on their "The 50 Worst Games of All Time." They criticized the Wii's motion controls making the karts impossible to handle and the absence of items to use in races, saying most Mario Kart rip-offs include the use of items. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 15:47, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

That really doesn't make it have long term notability for negative reception, just a bad game that didn't get much coverage afterwards. Masem (t) 16:18, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

It did get Guinness World Records Gamer's Edition 2011's award for the lowest-rated kart game. That must count for something? 87.51.178.26 (talk) 16:34, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also being the flat out worst Mario Kart clone in a list that counts many shovelware tie in Mario Kart clones must count for something. Mario Kart are one of the most ripped off game for shovelware tie in games and being the worst in a genre known for a lot of bad shovelware tie in games must count for something. Not just one of the worst, but flat out the worst rated Kart Racing game on GameRankings. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 16:37, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

You said with Simpsons Skateboarding that it was not in any worst games ever list. However 87.51.178.26 (talk) 19:27, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for your ideas. I appreciate that you've done due diligence on this one and brought some research to the table to help this time. The suggestions are great but it can take time to properly consider, and there's been four suggestions posted this week...

Generally I'm a no on this one again. I'd agree that it satisfies the general criteria that usually puts games on the list. There's two factors that I think limit this one:

(1) Shovelware and tie-in games are not included as they do not typically have a reasonable expectation of quality. Many publications relish in lambasting poor-quality games for entertainment value; it doesn't make the latest Barbie game notable. So the case is whether this one is remarkably poor in a way that makes it notable. The "worst game" retrospective sources are good, so maybe I would agree that this game is unusually a little more well covered than most shovelware in its negative reception.

(2) Most of the games on the list have long-term significance arising from their negative reception. The games are included because their negative reception prompted an unexpected critical or commercial failure, the collapse or hiatus of a franchise or publisher, that sort of thing. I think some of the outliers probably shouldn't be on the list, like Stalin vs. Martians. So in this case, yes, the kart racer game sucked and people pointed it out, but the reception itself wasn't notable - it was an expected consequence for a shovelware game and nothing really came of it. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:15, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I think Simpsons Skateboarding and M&M's Kart Racing are far more notable than Stalin vs Marines 87.51.178.26 (talk) 23:31, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

I agree with you there completely, although that's probably not the key takeaway. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 23:35, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

When a game is on both several worst games lists and flat out the worst rated kart racer,it meets your question if the case is whether this one is remarkably poor in a way that makes it notable. The GWR Gamers Edition award in 2011 over two years later also gives some later notably to this game. Also it says that shovelware and tie in games makes it harder to be listed, not that it automatically disqualify. There are other tie in games on this list 87.51.178.26 (talk) 23:36, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Also would be nice if you can respond to Rise of the Robots and Hoshi Wo Miru Hito above. I am very surprised both games are not listed in this article, given how legendary bad both games are. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 23:40, 26 December 2023 (UTC)

Simply being on a few worst games of year YYYY is not sufficient to include..it needs a lasting legacy or some impact. This might be reason for the Hoshi game, but not rise of the robots or this kart racer. Masem (t) 11:46, 27 December 2023 (UTC)

To play the devil's advocate of 87.51.178.26 and their suggestions, the above criteria are independent, not cumulative. A lasting legacy or impact would be a strong indicia to inclusion, but not necessarily essential. It's just that the other criteria - consistently negative reviews and accolades, notable reporting on user response, not a shovelware title - aren't clearly satisfied either. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:18, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Axie Infinity

I dont know if it should be listed here or in the List of controversial video games, but there are to me no doubt it should be in one of them. Both the crypto/play2earn model and the gameplay itself have got a lot of negative press. The negative press is not just a flash in the pan, but something that lasts for several years.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Axie_Infinity 87.51.178.26 (talk) 15:10, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I don't think it goes on either list. Crypto-based games are broadly controversial and discussed at Blockchain game (but there is room for expansion), and I don't see a lot of long-term notability for this game. Masem (t) 15:23, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Have you seen the sources on the Wikipedia article? It ranges from 2020 to 2023. That and the fact https://akjournals.com/view/journals/2006/11/3/article-p716.xml exists that have quiet a bit focus on Axie, the fact that a lot of sources call it a Ponzi or pyramid scheme plus the fact that North Korean hackers founded by the DPRK gov stole 630 million usd from this game. With those two things i found it really weird not to see it in this or List of controversial video games. And this is a game that a lot of sources talks about each year, this is a very notable game.

Longevity of the project

Researchers have questioned the game's longevity, as there have been repeated accusations that Axie Infinity is a Ponzi or pyramid scheme. Per this accusation, Axie Infinity lacks long-term economic durability since it has to rely on players continuing to invest in the game. The in-game economy depends on the existing number of actively involved players:

Like the majority of P2E models, [Axie Infinity] relies on players financial input/output to regulate the value of the in-game currency. In other words, the games [sic] economy is influenced by the number of players investing into [Axie Infinity] (...)

— 

Axie Infinity's basic economic design has been described as a speculative bubble since the game creates a gig economy where they have to invest more and more to make a profit. Andreas Hackethal of the Goethe Business School has referred to the concept as pump and dump, maintaining that players are only willing to spend money and time playing the game because of their hope that the prices will increase and speaking of a pay-to-earn rather than play-to-earn game. Bernd Richter of Fidelity National Information Services considers the game a pyramid scheme.

Potential negative psychological effects

Games like Axie Infinity are often associated with psychological problems on the part of their players. In this context the main point of argument is the suspicion that players might play the game primarily for monetary reasons rather than for the purpose of entertainment: The extrinsic motivation to play outweighs the pure entertainment factor. According to critics,[neutrality is disputed] this leads to a sunk-cost-fallacy where players primarily play the game due to the fact that they have already invested a lot of money and time into it. Furthermore, the combination of financial speculation and videogame is said to potentially worsen the condition of gambling addicts involved in the game. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 17:32, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

Going on a limb here to say I do actually think controversial games could be a good fit. However a source analysis needs to confirm that the academic analysis of the P2E model cited in the Axie article is talking specifically about the design and impact of Axie Infinity and not more broadly about P2E of which Axie is used as an example. Otherwise it's a lot of fluff that should be in the article for P2E. As for negative reception, academic criticism is not the same as critical or player reception, which is not covered in the article. ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 22:21, 30 December 2023 (UTC)

I guess this belongs on the controversial games list rather than this one? It is easily a very known controversial game and you cant get more controversial than North Korean hackers founded by the DPRK gov stole 630 million usd and a lot of sources call it a Ponzi or pyramid scheme. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 08:00, 31 December 2023 (UTC)

Redfall

Generally negative reviews from a majority of outlets. Terrible fan reaction. Loads of technical issues and many many more aspects of criticism. IGN gave it a 4 and its metacritic score is 56 on Xbox and 53 on PC with a user score of 3.5. Opencrtic is at a 57 average with 14% of critics recommendeding it. 0GDuckyD00m (talk) 23:55, 3 January 2024 (UTC)

However, nothing has happened with Arkane or the like. We're avoiding filling this list with games that have only gotten mediocre scores and no ultimate outcome that can be discussed at length. Masem (t) 01:16, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

At least i post games that have very NEGATIVE reviews. I dont understand why people post mediocre games, this game dont even pass the sub 50 metacritic critia. I think this list is very lacking (i also want Sonic Genesis GBA port and Crash Boom Bang here) but even i would not include this on the list. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 08:07, 4 January 2024 (UTC)

Charlie's Angels

The page says it is considered one of the worst games of all time, and it has a decent (10+) amount of reviews to back this up, but for some reason, it’s not on the list. I think it should be added. 2600:1006:B060:A58F:2596:73F3:DDC7:FAC (talk) 20:38, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Low scoring but also would fall into shovelware (as a movie tie-in game). --Masem (t) 21:05, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article says it is the lowest rated Gamecube game and it also on the worst ever game list on Gameradar. It also have a lot of reviews, so it is clearly notable for negative reception. Being the lowest rated Gamecube game do give it an legacy. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 23:20, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Family Party: 30 Great Games Obstacle Arcade

Pretty much the same reasons as my last suggestion. 2600:1006:B060:A58F:2596:73F3:DDC7:FAC (talk) 21:02, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Simply being a low-scoring game is not sufficient. It needs to have a legacy related to being a low-scoring game, and this seems like something that few people know about. Masem (t) 21:04, 6 January 2024 (UTC)

Skull Island: Rise of Kong

I know movie tie-in games are usually not considered for the list, but Skull Island: Rise of Kong I believe is a different case. There are plenty of negative reviews to back this up. Games like this would usually go forgotten and recieve little to no attention, but the extreme negative reception to this game caused it to recieve notability and attention throughout the industry in articles from various news sources due to just how bad the game was. (see this article for example) - Huntergem1 (talk) 14:49, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

Both this and The Walking Dead: Destinies got a lot of negative criticism, but as both were tie ins, neither seem to have created any type of impact on the industry (conpare to the Gollum game that caused that studio to shift back). Masem (t) 15:26, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

See this discussion: [4] I think the barrier here is that very few outlets actually reviewed the game upon release. Has this changed over the last few months? ＶＲＸＣＥＳ (talk) 21:07, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

There is a 1 out of 10 review here in Danish https://www.gamereactor.dk/skull-island-rise-of-kong-1252143/

Personally i think super low reviews like below 3 on Metacrtic should be an auto include, as long as there are a good number like 10 of said reviews. Said reviews or other articles that are very negative of said game (like a top x worst games list on a notable website) means that it is notable for negative reception. Most tie in games are at least mediocre or just normal bad. The truly god awful ones that gets on worst games ever lists are rare. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2024 (UTC)

It's only up to 5 reviews on Metacritic, but I can instead point you to numerous articles that are reporting on the disaster and extreme negative reception outside of the critics, I think proving that this game was notable in some way beyond that typical of a tie-in game.

https://gamerant.com/skull-island-rise-of-kong-gameplay-graphics-bad-reaction/

https://kotaku.com/skull-island-king-kong-worst-game-2023-gollum-switch-1850933945

https://www.techradar.com/gaming/skull-island-rise-of-kong-was-apparently-made-in-a-year-which-is-why-it-looks-so-questionable

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-bad-king-kong-game-is-part-of-a-vicious-cycle-of-licensed-titles-devs-say

https://www.ign.com/articles/the-internet-is-already-roasting-worst-game-of-2023-skull-island-rise-of-kong

https://www.theverge.com/2023/10/20/23925326/skull-island-rise-of-kong-development-gamemill-entertainment

I'd also like to argue that this potentially will have an impact on the industry, because many artciels I've found in researching the reaction to this game are highlighting the working conditions found at the company and Gamemill partners, especially because the company was only given a year to make the game. Huntergem1 (talk) 15:45, 11 January 2024 (UTC)

Cassette 50

Infamous bad game collection almost as bad as Action 52. It sold really well back in the day

The games, almost without exception written in BASIC, were deemed to be of poor quality. They have been described as "so bad it caused physical discomfort", "beyond awful", and "a piece of crap collection". The poor quality of the games inspired the annual Crap Games Competitions (for example the comp.sys.sinclair Crap Games Competition and the C64 Crap Game Compo) and a now-defunct site reviewing bad games. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cassette_50

It belong on the list 87.51.178.26 (talk) 16:52, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

This has a lack of sourcing to support it, at least compared to Action 52. Masem (t) 17:11, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It is not as known today as Action 52, but this is still rather known. There are some legacy for this game as shown in the Wikipedia article. It also was promoted a lot in game magasines and it sold really well. It is not a tie in game but it is shovelware, but nobody used this term much in 1983. I will say that i think Cassette 50 deserves to be on the list far more than several other games on said list. This game was infamous when it came out back in the day. Today it is going to be hard to find sources on a game from 1983. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 19:33, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

https://www.theguardian.com/games/2023/jul/06/people-competing-to-make-the-worst-computer-games-possible

Here are the legacy of Cassette 50. This should clearly meet the list criteria now 87.51.178.26 (talk) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

The sourcing in WP's article on Cassette 50 are very weak, and I would question its notability from those alone. Mind you, that likely can be improved, I just found this that would help there. But we need more sources like that. Masem (t) 19:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

(Just found that same source) Masem (t) 19:37, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Just in looking at sources, this is going to be tricky because this appears to be a very UK-centric product and did not get much traction in the US. And that likely means we're going to need to have more print sources to include for it. Masem (t) 19:42, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

It have the same issue as Hoshi Wo Miru Hito where it is very infamious in one place of the world (UK with Cassette 50 and Japan with Hoshi Wo Miru Hito) Both games also have the issue of being in a time where internet was not really a thing and sources being way harder to find. Also gaming reviews was not a big thing like it is today, today you can easily find reviews on Metacritic. But finding sources is much harder where magasines are the only way to find them. I will say that there are rather few games from the 80s on the list (only 4) so i think the critia for 80s games should be a bit lower just for the fact that video games reviews was a very small thing back then. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 20:02, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Which unfortunately is a limitation we can't make exceptions for under WP's sourcing requirements. At least for Cassette 50, a possible route are the print magazines of the time but that's going to require work to find those print sources. Masem (t) 20:13, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Both games does meet the general notablity guideline and have a Wikipedia article. I personally think the Inclusion Criteria for this list are rather vague and very harsh, since none of the games i suggested got listed. And i did put a good faith effort for arguements for inclutions. It dont help that i think there are games on this list far less known and noteable than those games i suggested. Also with far fewer reviews and/or far less legacy. I still dont understand how being in GWR Gamers Edition for M&M's Kart Racing dont meet the critia for inclution. But something like Stalin vs. Martians does. SimCity with the 64/100 Metacritic rating also dont belong on the list in my option, same with Star Wars Battlefront II. Those are controversial games, not bad games. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 20:36, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Both games does meet the general notablity guideline and have a Wikipedia article. I personally think the Inclusion Criteria for this list are rather vague and very harsh, since none of the games i suggested got listed. And i did put a good faith effort for arguements for inclutions. It dont help that i think there are games on this list far less known and noteable than those games i suggested. Also with far fewer reviews and/or far less legacy. I still dont understand how being in GWR Gamers Edition for M&M's Kart Racing dont meet the critia for inclution. But something like Stalin vs. Martians does. SimCity with the 64/100 Metacritic rating also dont belong on the list in my option, same with Star Wars Battlefront II. Those are controversial games, not bad games. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 20:43, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Should the criteria for early 80s and 70s games be lower?

As said above stuff like having low review scores; a game with an aggregate review score below 50/100, as determined by at least 10 critic reviews is generally considered eligible but not guaranteed a spot on the list. Is impossible to meet with those really old games that predates the internet era. Like when you say that The sourcing in WP's article on Cassette 50 are very weak, and I would question its notability from those alone then it is because there finding sources on early 80s and 70s games are very hard with rare expections like Pong, Space Invaders, Asteroids and such. There are only four games from the 80s on that list, something i found really weird with the number of bad NES games and Atari games there are. 87.51.178.26 (talk) 20:16, 12 January 2024 (UTC)

Key is notable for negative reception. There are probably a lot of stinkers from that era, but at the same time, there were a lot of stinkers from that era to a point that few stood out as terribly bad (knowing what caused the crash of '83, and Nintendo's heavy-hand in the NES era is why post '85 the rules of what was bad changed significantly). I see no reason to change the criteria, just that the sources are not likely to be online works and would need to be found through print. Masem (t) 20:23, 12 January 2024 (UTC)