Jump to content

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 13

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15→Archive 18

Orphaned references in List of video games notable for negative reception

I check pages listed in Category:Pages with incorrect ref formatting to try to fix reference errors. One of the things I do is look for content for orphaned references in wikilinked articles. I have found content for some of List of video games notable for negative reception's orphans, the problem is that I found more than one version. I can't determine which (if any) is correct for this article, so I am asking for a sentient editor to look it over and copy the correct ref content into this article.

Reference named "GR":

  • From The Ring: Terror's Realm: "The Ring: Terror's Realm for Dreamcast". GameRankings. Retrieved December 11, 2013.
  • From Lula 3D: "Lula 3D for PC reviews". GameRankings. Retrieved February 12, 2011.
  • From Infestation: Survivor Stories: "The War Z". GameRankings. CBS Interactive. Retrieved March 16, 2013.
  • From Charlie's Angels (video game): "Charlie's Angels for GameCube". GameRankings. Retrieved June 17, 2013.
  • From Syphon Filter: "Syphon Filter for PlayStation". GameRankings. Retrieved 25 March 2014.
  • From Duke Nukem 3D: "Duke Nukem 3D". GameRankings. Retrieved August 6, 2014.
  • From Universal Studios Theme Parks Adventure: http://www.gamerankings.com/gamecube/528160-universal-studios-theme-parks-adventure/index.html

I apologize if any of the above are effectively identical; I am just a simple computer program, so I can't determine whether minor differences are significant or not. AnomieBOT⚡ 21:07, 20 February 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of video games notable for negative reception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 23:58, 22 March 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on List of video games notable for negative reception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 02:59, 24 March 2016 (UTC)

No mention of Driver 3/Driv3r after all the controversy?

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

Is this because of the inability to find sources? This game was notorious for it's terribleness as well as the controversies surrounding it.

124.188.66.216 (talk) 10:18, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Because there's such a wealth of poorly reviewed games over the history of gaming, one of the inclusion criteria is to have a MetaCritic (or other aggregator) score of below 50. Most versions of the game scored well over 50, in the 60's and 70's...so I'd guess its not really bad enough to warrant inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 12:29, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Balloon Challenge

Has anybody ever played Balloon Challenge by Soleau Software? It's a 1993 DOS game that actually cheats! I know it's a small game by a small studio but that is no criteria to be included or not, am I wrong? Goal of the game is to send the balloons at the bottom of your screen as high up as possible. In the playfield you'll encounter rocks, where your balloon will get stuck underneath and so will not rise any further, and clouds with arrows in them (left and right). When your balloon hits one of these, the balloon will go by it in the direction where the arrow was pointing, and the arrow will turn in the other direction. These arrows make it possible to manoeuvre around the rocks. You play against the PC and that's where the troubles start... The PC's A.I. manages to skip it's balloons along the rocks instead of having the balloon getting stuck underneath. This never happens when it's your turn... Is there a chance this one gets included? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 17:40, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Up towards the top of the page is the article's inclusion criteria. It's hard to tell, since you didn't provide any sources for you're argument, but so far it sounds like it would fail pretty much all of the inclusion criteria... Sergecross73 msg me 17:48, 20 May 2016 (UTC)
I guess you're right, thanx... Still, (pure curiousity) has anybody ever played this one? OXYGENE 7-13 (TALKPAGE) 17:53, 20 May 2016 (UTC)

Mortal Kombat Mythologies: Sub-Zero Section is Repetitive

The last two entire paragraphs of this section are just slightly reworded repetition of what was already stated in the first two paragraphs. I was reading it aloud and thought I was going insane for a moment.2600:8807:8245:4500:84BE:96F4:F95D:E1CE (talk) 02:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I think I've fixed it. There was an editor who sloppily ripped large parts of articles and pasted then in their entry on this page, without doing a good job of actually working it in here (like not noticing he was adding duplicate info.) I though I had cleaned all that up, but it seems like I missed that one. Sergecross73 msg me 02:24, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Dungeon Keeper Mobile?

I wonder if this should be here. There are just enough scathing reviews from recognized sources (Jim Sterling's from back when he wrote for the Escapist is particularly spicy, and Forbes, Eurogamer, toucharacade and the Metro newspaper represent four other major publications featuring articles sharing his sentiments), and the Metacritic score sits at 42%, which is just low enough.

The real draw, however, is the controversy which surrounded the game. For those unaware, the game was incredibly poorly received by the public, largely for the unwanted introduction of microtransactions into a perceived classic. EA's supposedly rather patronizing press release attempting to save face from this, combined with some somewhat questionable practices regarding the submission of user reviews (see the series article), led to something of a PR disaster for EA. The whole affair is nicely detailed in this article.

However, despite this, there are also a reasonable number of reliable sources giving the game significantly less-negative scores on grounds that while making the game free to play was a controversial move, it is far from the worst of the genre, and the some of the original's appeal occasionally shines through. It even received positive reviews from a few mobile-specific publications.

The question I put to regulars of this site is: is the controversy surrounding this game sufficient to override these concerns and grant the game article on this list? Should this list include games notable for (reliably documented) poor public reception, or should only near-universally critically panned games be featured?

81.153.224.224 (talk) 15:08, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

If you read over the five points at the top of this talk page, that starts with "Notice - Inclusion Criteria" - that pretty well describes the approach to inclusion - usually we like it to meet the first 4, and it helps if point 5 could be applied.
So, taking that into account, it looks like the entry would fail inclusion criteria #1 for it not having it's own article. #3 is a bit iffy as well - while it's MC score is 42%, it has received 6 separate positive reviews higher than 50%, and another 3 at 50% even. While the whole controversy aspect about being f2p is a point in the right direction, the failure of points #1 and #3 would make me again inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 16:48, 16 August 2016 (UTC)

Mighty No. 9?

Anyone? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.187.96.166 (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

That's some fine advice for the dev team, but I don't follow your reasoning on why it should be put on the list despite failing the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 23:22, 18 August 2016 (UTC)

Hong Kong 97

Hong Kong 97 (1995) is somewhat (in)famous amongst the gaming community for being a very bizarrely-made game which has a one-hit-death character, a rather gruesome and shocking game over screen, and its strange setting based around on the transfer of sovereignty from Great Britain to Hong Kong on July 1, 1997. (It's also one of the very few Super Famicom/SNES games to have cursing.) The Angry Video Game Nerd recently made a video making fun of the game, as did Hardcore Gaming 101 with a humorous review. With all the ridicule it's getting, why isn't it on this page? --NovaBrunswick 03:01, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Check out the inclusion criteria at the top of the talk page. I imagine it fails a number of the requirements - the article itself only has 2 sources, and AVGN is not considered a usable source on Wikipedia - he's just a random blogger. Sergecross73 msg me 13:17, 21 August 2016 (UTC)

Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch: Make My Video

Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch: Make My Video was created as a video game by Digital Pictures in 1992. Game Informer gave Marky Mark 0 out of 10, the lowest score a game ever received from the magazine.[7] A 2006 PC World article rated the game as number 8 on their list of the 10 worst games of all time.[8] In 2011 Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch was named by WatchMojo.com as the worst launch title of all time. User:Jamster93 17:58, 20 February 2016

The game puts the player in control of editing the music videos for hip-hop artist Mark Wahlberg and his group Marky Mark and the Funky Bunch on the songs: "Good Vibrations", "I Need Money", and "You Gotta Believe"

Hotel Mario

Hotel Mario has been on and off this list in the past. I re-added it, but it was deleted (for a good reason). However, Gamesradar has put it on a list of 100 worst games ever, Watchmojo.com has said that "You know what they say" is one of the worst quotes of all time... I want to see it added again. Any suggestions? — Preceding unsigned comment added by TheJoebro64 (talk • contribs) 16:19, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't mind putting it on there if its got the proper sourcing and content, I just don't believe that we should copy/pasting large parts from entry's respective articles like that, as it leads to entries that discuss a lot of things that aren't really relevant to why the game is so negatively received by critics. Sergecross73 msg me 12:46, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

Crash Boom Bang & Day One: Garry's Incident?

Anyone?--66.87.121.10 (talk) 18:34, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree with Day One: Garry's Incident. That game is notable for being really bad. It was so bad that the company behind the game was censoring negative reviews of the game. --Death Mach!n302 (talk) 18:54, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

See the inclusion criteria. Do they meet them? I don't recall that Crash game having terrible reviews, just mediocre ones. Sergecross73 msg me 21:44, 9 October 2016 (UTC)
Looks line Gary's Incident only has 1 professional review on Metacritic, so it's not likely to be notable enough either. It's just an obscure indie game. Sergecross73 msg me 21:47, 9 October 2016 (UTC)

(I'm the same guy who opened this discussion. I'm just using a different IP Address.) Here are the reviews for Crash Boom Bang. Given how overwhelmingly panned the game is, I feel it qualifies.

As for Day One, I have to agree with Mach!n302. The game was so bad that the developers took down reviews panning the game.--66.87.121.227 (talk) 03:31, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

Looking at Crash's MC page, there's two reviews above 50%, and another at 50 exactly. That hardly puts it at the lowest of the low in the decades that make up the history of video games. Gary's Mod only has one professional review. At this rate, they both fail the inclusion criteria listed st the top of the page. Sergecross73 msg me 03:39, 24 October 2016 (UTC)
  1. ^ "Crash Boom Bang! (Nintendo DS) at Game Rankings". Game Rankings. Retrieved October 14, 2007.
  2. ^ a b c "Crash Boom Bang! at Metacritic". Retrieved October 14, 2007.
  3. ^ Lesley Smith (2006-11-19). "Crash Boom Bang! review at Eurogamer". Eurogamer. Retrieved October 14, 2007. It could have been an interesting title but the problems with control, weird gameplay style, terrible graphics and rigged, repetitive games just kill any joy that would be garnered from playing it. [dead link]
  4. ^ Frank Provo (2006-10-10). "Crash Boom Bang! review at GameSpot". GameSpot. Retrieved April 7, 2007. Although it lets you wander around a game board and participate in various multiplayer challenges as your favorite Crash Bandicoot characters, the game ultimately crashes and burns because the majority of its minigames are lifeless and uninteresting.
  5. ^ Craig Harris (2006-10-18). "Crash Boom Bang! review at IGN". IGN. Retrieved April 7, 2007. Crash! Boom! Bang! looks good, sounds pretty okay, and has had a decent amount of focus put into the multiplayer support of the Nintendo DS. It's just a terrible, terrible game with poor organization
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference PG was invoked but never defined (see the help page).

Back to the Future and Mighty No. 9

Well the former was off the list (despite the fact it's #1 on Watchmojo.com's Top 10 Worst LJN Games" and the latter was severely overhyped by the time of released — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jamster93 (talk • contribs) 21:25, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Back to the Future was on there for a while, but was removed by someone else due to lack of sources/evidence. I removed your Mighty No 9 entry. Entries need sources, and you didn't provide any. And the content you did add wasn't very convincing. Getting 5/10 or 6/10 review scores hardly puts it amongst the worst reviewed games of all time... Sergecross73 msg me 21:56, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Years of release

Shouldn't we add the year of release to every game on here, like at List of films considered the worst? --NovaBrunswick 13:47, 13 November 2016 (UTC)

No Man's Sky ?

I noticed the addition of No Man's Sky isn't exactly disscused before being added, I know it's conversational but no more so than Mighty No 9. It's fine if it's agreed upon to remain up, just though it'd be prudent to maintain this list more stringent as I'd personally put things like Mighty No 9 and the other comcept games from the last few years up there (Ninja Gaiden Z namely) more so than this game.-74.116.240.2 (talk) 00:18, 15 November 2016 (UTC)

Based on what metrics exactly? Sergecross73 msg me 00:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
Based on the metrics of both critical and public reception, if you go to their metacritic pages, steam pages and other aggregates based on both user and or critical feed back it's comparable if not lower than no man's sky in some cases. Which touch on everything from the gameplay polish not feeling up to snuff to horrible voice work and the gameplay not looking nearly as polished as "engine test" made in 7 days. Not to mention the very negative fan reception to the PR and kickstarter campaign(after funding) of Mighty No 9 from the delays, to the lying about delays by comcept, the horrible advertisement which used the words "Cry like an anime fan on prom night" though the game's style clearly takes it's inspiration from japanese animation which a lot of the people who backed it are fans of.Then there's the kickstarter backers not getting their codes to play the game at launch (some still haven't to this day though they paid several times retail price) and generally bad communication including the now infamous "it's better than nothing" found here, which was attributed to Inafune and not clarified until later that Mr. Judd added his own side comment. Overall imo Mighty No 9 deserves being here more so than No Man's Sky but if you're not in agreement it's fine.-74.116.240.2 (talk) 01:38, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I think you make a good point not in that MN9 should be added, but that No Man's Sky should be removed. It fails inclusion criteria #2 and #3. (Listed at the top of the talk page.) Another editor has removed it. I still think MN9 shouldn't be added though. It sounds more like a sloppy production than a wholly negatively received game. It also fails points #2 and #3 - the average review score hovers over %50, and I haven't seen any reviews calling it "one of the worst" or anything. We don't usually factor in "fan outrage" type stuff. If you haven't noticed, on the internet, there's fan rage about absolutely everything. Its not that uncommon. Due to that, and WP:USERG, we generally stick to what journalists say about it. Journalists seem to call it "5/10" rather than "worst all time". Sergecross73 msg me 13:34, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I didn't see that we had specific inclusion criteria when I added it (but agree we need that for this page in general) but that said, I do think there needs to be some IAR applied for NMS, because it is well known and documented for having a strong negative user reception; while its RS reviews are average, its the user reviews that have been most apparent in the post-release news. I agree we need to be careful on including games that only the user reviews are negative as opposed to RS critical reviews (since user reviews can be potentially rigged), but if the negativity of the user reviews are well documented by RSes, that should be a reason to include on this list, which appears to be both the argument of NMS and MN9. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I agree with the criteria, but I do believe we have a special case with NMS, one where "ignore the rules" would apply. --McDoobAU93 15:05, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
(ec) I actually came to look at this article after seeing it mentioned on the NMS subreddit, which I suspect is responsible for some of the anon traffic here. The obvious case for NMS is the complete PR disaster, the extremely low user ratings on Steam, and the notability of the development studio basically disappearing into thin air. However, many people continue to enjoy the game and there is a significant faction of "Hey guys, it's not really that bad!" I don't know that it will ever meet the inclusion criteria on this list because not many serious game critics have come out and called it terrible—most of the media circus has been around the undelivered features and the general customer/gamer bitterness. All that said, I think we should apply IAR here and include the game. --Laser brain (talk) 15:09, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm more of the mindset of PresN, who called it more divisive than outright negative, though the fact that its being formally investigated for false advertising would help it satisfy inclusion criteria 5 at least I guess. I just hate adding "iffy" entries like these when this article is so large and there's already so many game's that were unanimously considered the worst... Sergecross73 msg me 15:17, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
I do recognize that this list had previously been renamed from "worst video games", where then the use of the review scores/MC would make a lot of sense to justify inclusion. However, with the rename to "notable for negative reception", it might be argued that some of the former entries for games that hardly made a blip on the news scene aren't really "notable" for negative reception, they just happen to have bad scores, and thus themselves aren't really appropriate for this list as it is named now. Take, for example, Self-Defense Training Camp. Yes, it has bad review scores, but that's it. There's very little else about the game or its reception, so I would argue that it fails the nature of the new title of this list because its a readily-forgotten title. (Compare in contrast to E.T., Big Rigs, and both Sonic '06 and Rise of Lyric where the negative reception is a matter of discussion). --MASEM (t) 15:26, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
But to add one thing, I do agree that the less subjective inclusion criteria for this page, the better; while with something like NMS and MN9 we can readily see the negative user reception in RSes mentioned across the board, I can see cases of editors trying to justify other titles using one or two of the lower-tier RSes that might make something more out of bad user reviews whereas the main RSes (IGN, GameSpot, etc.) don't agree there's a negative user response, and/or don't cover it to any great degree. But how to capture that for RS-based discussion of negative user reception, I'm not 100% sure yet. --MASEM (t) 15:33, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
  • You make some good points regarding No Man's Sky. I'll concede that No Man's Sky could be re-added, though I think the entry itself could use some tweaking. (Lines like he game received a wide range of reviews and generally negative reviews from players. doesn't really capture a strong sense of negativity. People use lines like that when trying to add these mediocre "6/10" reviewed games - this may have been what has triggered its removal in the past.)
  • FYI, inclusion criteria #4 was written in aims to keeping some of the Self-Defense Training Camp type entries off the list. I've removed a bunch of entries of that nature, and I would fully support its removal from the list.
  • The renaming from "worst video games" to "notable for negative reception" was more to distinguish it from the "list of controversial games" and "list of commercial failure" lists. It's still essentially tracking the "worst games ever". Sergecross73 msg me 15:42, 15 November 2016 (UTC)
It might seem like only a small wording change, but there are lots of games that get released that get a handful of reviews and barely scrape by on general notability guidelines (for example, many games on this page [1] from metacritic, but I would argue very few of those are "notable for negative reception". I don't know if that was the intent of the change, but the way the title and this article's preamble reads now, it seems more geared to be less about the scores directly and more about commentary existing that notes that those scores are low/weak (which to me is a better encyclopedic topic and easier to maintain even if we have subjective metrics involved). Its the type of situation that NMS and MN9 clearly fit into even if their review scores don't reflect that.--MASEM (t) 06:49, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I'm open to tweaking the lead or the title, but the inclusion criteria itself has helped bring a lot of stability to a subject obviously prone to a lot of debate. A lot of inclusion criteria related to score is more to combat the flawed video game fan mindset that somehow a 7/10 is some sort of critical failure. Without it, the page would be flooded with all these Street Fighter V type entries - ones that are under-performing a bit historically critically/commercially compared to prior entries, and have plenty of disgruntled fans writing scathing user-reviews, but hardly make it a huge catastrophe notable across the history of video games. The article isn't perfect, and I welcome help in weeding out unworthy entries like that Self Defense title, but I feel like we need to focus on objective factors like review scores and placement on bad game retrospectives, or its going to degrade into arguments over which flavor-of-the-week title has the most "internet rage". Sergecross73 msg me 13:55, 16 November 2016 (UTC)
I fully agree we need strong, mostly objective metrics for inclusion here to avoid the situation you describe. I just find that on a list gamed "notable for negative reception" (without considering other factors) that the current metrics exclude the reasonable obvious cases of NMS and MN9. How we fix that to include them without weakening the metrics for inclusion as you are concerned with, and while also weeding out titles that do happen to meet the metrics but really aren't themselves "notable for negative reception", I don't have an easy answer yet. I'm more looking to see if there is a mindset that we should try to adjust these metrics to go in that direction, at which point it may be easier to brainstorm ideas. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I can see the case for inclusion of NMS and MN9, the point that worries me though is that this list has a 'set-in-stone' aspect to it, its based on solid sources all pointing in one direction. My worry for adding titles where customer outrage plays a major factor in inclusion, is that we end up in a Driveclub situation. At the moment there's the potential for NMS to be another Driveclub i.e. a game that does OK with reviewers, but causes a customer backlash for some reason. The point being, that shortly after release Driveclub was in a similar position to NMS (reviewed well but had core game problems for the user) due to constant work by the developers Driveclub has now blossomed into (to quote Eurogamer) a very good game that is bordering on greatness. The problem would be that there will be no re-reviews of Driveclub, there will be no articles covering the mass wailing of customers saying "actually this is great", we'll be left in a position where a game has been put on the list using good sources, but the sources to counteract that and show the new situation will never be written. - X201 (talk) 09:12, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is a very good argument and perhaps that means WP:RECENTISM has to be considered as an inclusion metric, that games shouldn't be added within a year of their first release, as to handle situations like this. --MASEM (t) 14:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Yup, good points. We've exercised a little it if control on this - Sonic Boom was held off for a while until it really got torn up for being the worst entry in the series. But it could be good to set up something more concrete - some sort of 6-12 months to pass to combat possible recentism. Sergecross73 msg me 14:47, 17 November 2016 (UTC)
Another idea would then be to have all new entries required to have been discussed before adding, removing those immediately that were added without discussion, so that, as was the case in some of the previous archives here, you can provide pointers to "This is why X is included/excluded." Those wanting to add a title should at least then produce sources that assure it meets the metrics given. That then allows for us to nix the entries like Self Defense before they're added. --MASEM (t) 14:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

No Man's Sky

Given the recent furor over NMS, I think it would make a fine candidate for this list. 67.242.171.29 (talk) 00:23, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

I agree. NMS is changing how previews are seen. 71.89.219.147 (talk) 10:41, 20 November 2016 (UTC)

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on List of video games notable for negative reception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:13, 30 November 2016 (UTC)

Rambo: The Video Game

What about this one. I've never played it but I've seen a lot of negative reception towards this title yet, it's not in this list. - ☩Damërung ☩. -- 13:57, 26 November 2016 (UTC)

Well, feel free to check it against the inclusion criteria and make a case for it on the talk page here, but I have a feeling it would fail #4 as s cheap licensed cash-in game that never had any expectation for being good... Sergecross73 msg me 15:45, 26 November 2016 (UTC)
Unfortunately, from the looks of it, your game does not qualify criteria #2 or #4. Rambo has only three professional review scores, one of which is over 5/10. While the Metacritic scores are around the 30s and 40s, without enough review scores, this game does not qualify for this article. 66.87.120.157 (talk) 00:57, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Making another case for user-base negative reception...

Previous discussions have highlighted Mighty No. 9 and No Man's Sky as games that would not meet the objective metrics for inclusion here as they were generally well-received by critics but both were known/documented in sources to have a negative reaction from players. With the dust settled, the same can be said of Super Mario Run, in particularly that while a critical darling, its user-based reviews have been lukewarm and has impacted Nintendo's financials as a result. It definitely should be on this list, at least by name, but again it would fail the current inclusion guidelines.

I think we need to set up a process that an entry that doesn't meet the inclusion guidelines based on critical reviews metric can be included. Each such entry should be discussed first here and some consensus reached before addition, obviously. To be considered there should be clear evidence that a large portion of user reviews were very low and likely in contrast to the critical reviews; this to me would be at least three reliable sources per VG/S that identity the low scores in depth. Any indication of resulting feedback from the user scores (as both the ccase in NMS and Super Mario Run) should be considered as strong support for inclusion. These two ideas should avoid inclusion of games that might just have a few user naysayers but otherwise not criticized by players in general. It's not as objective as the critical review approach, but it at least allows for inclusions of games that meet the spirit of this list. --MASEM (t) 16:32, 2 January 2017 (UTC)

I'm still unsure on how to go about doing this. Beyond adding a subjective element to a list that already requires constant maintenance, I think this would balloon the list out into an even larger size - there's a lot of games out there that could be argued for inclusion for this sort of scenario, whether it be your Street Fighter Vs more recently, or your Chrono Cross's of generations past. Hell, it almost sounds like its own separate topic, though I have no idea what you'd call such a concept of "critically praised, user-review panned" type situation we're talking about here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

Fight Club (PS2, 2004)

Given the infamous "We don't talk about Fight Club" meme and the fact that this game has 12 low scores (mostly under 50%), I feel it qualifies.66.87.120.157 (talk) 00:49, 5 January 2017 (UTC)

Eh, it seems like a pretty weak entry. There's a few reviews above 50 - all it takes to technically be "positive". Also, if you look at the inclusion criteria at the top of the page, you'll see that we try to shy away from these generic, cheap movie cash-ins that no one ever expect anything out of to begin with. There's literally 100s of games out there like this - lazily made and pumped out for a quick buck. It's kinda like trying to put American Pie 4 on the list of worst films, or a trashy romance novel on the list of worst books. They weren't well received, but they weren't really the noteworthy for their bad reception, with relatively low expectation or attention given to them really... Sergecross73 msg me 18:11, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
I don't know about that. That didn't seem to stop Ninjabread Man (as well as its clones) from making the list. I say you guys should at least consider it. A game doesn't have to be disappointing to be bad.
PS. While you're at it, another game I can think of for this list is Dark (2013). That game also has 12 low scores, with a lot of people criticizing it for its bad animation and gameplay, as I remember one guy saying that it was basically a ripoff another game called Vampire: the Masquerade. 66.87.121.236 (talk) 20:31, 6 January 2017 (UTC)
Maybe that's a reason to remove Ninja Bread Man - the list is not perfect. I had not challenged it yet because it hadn't received a single review above 50, and had a number of 1/10 ones. I wouldn't be opposed to its removal though. Now that I look it over, it does likely fail the inclusion criteria though, now that you mention it. It doesn't appear to have 10 dedicated reliable source reviews. MC only shows 6, and not all of their reviews are reliable sources either.
I don't think Dark is a good choice either. Yes, a MC score of 40 meets the requirement, but barely, and it's received 8 separate reviews that were above or at 50. That would be a failure of the second half of point #3. These games are more of the longs of "not very good" than the "some of the worst of all time" we're going for more-so... Sergecross73 msg me 20:46, 6 January 2017 (UTC)

What about Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde the NES game

That game sucks so bad on so many levels — Preceding unsigned comment added by Givertell23 (talk • contribs) 18:21, 13 January 2017 (UTC)

SQIJ! (1987)

The original Commodore 64 version was not very good, but due to a bug in the keyboard routines the conversion to the ZX Spectrum was literally unplayable.[1] // Liftarn (talk) 19:51, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

Hi there. While that's certainly a reliable source with some good content on why the game is bad, I don't think its quite ready to be on the list. Because there's such a massive number of (bad) video games that have been released over the decades, we've set up some inclusion criteria - basically to help make sure that we're really including the worst of the worst that are most notable for being bad. The inclusion criteria are listed on the top of this very talk page. This entry would fail a number of them. For example, we require that entries have their own article already, and have a multitude of sources covering why the game is so bad. Sergecross73 msg me 20:49, 23 January 2017 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Eurogamer: The story behind the worst game ever made

Should ET's reception be split into a separate article?

ET's section on the page seems awfully long... Is is a good idea to make its critical reaction its own article? (Like the page Critical reaction to 24?) (TheJoebro64 (talk) 23:49, 24 January 2017 (UTC))

I just spot checked, and about 80% of that was copy&paste from the main ET video game article. I have trimmed that off to fix that. --MASEM (t) 23:53, 24 January 2017 (UTC)
Spotting a bit more, a lot of these entries (anything more than 2 para, and which include pointing to specific reviews), looks like copy-paste from the games' respective reception sections. These descriptions should probably be trimmed to establish the parameters for inclusion on this list, and a brief statement of why it was bad, leaving the details to the individual game articles. --MASEM (t) 00:00, 25 January 2017 (UTC)
Agreed, I've trimmed down some of the very worst offenders over time, but there's still much to be done. I don't mind having specific reviews, but it's been a constant battle to eliminate/trim back a lot of poor content regarding reviews, including:
  1. Excessive hyperbole that really doesn't say much of worth about the actual game (Nonsense like "The game was as bad as a panther ripping off your testicles over and over again for a decade!")
  2. Positive reviews (Comments like "Despite the bad reviews, IGN still gave the game a 7/10, stating it "wasn't all that bad.")
  3. As Masem pointed out, people ripping content straight from other articles, leading to excessively long and redundant entries. Sergecross73 msg me 01:53, 25 January 2017 (UTC)

Grand Theft Auto

Why is grand theft auto not on this list given it received widespread negative reception ??? Is this page run by the violent video game industry or something ? Trump supporter 1776 (talk)

Because controversy isn't the same as negative reception? The GTA games have all received positive reception, so putting any of these games on the list wouldn't make sense. JudgeRM (talk to me) 12:04, 30 January 2017 (UTC)
This article is about how games were received by mainstream video game critics. We have a separate page for controversial video games - its at List of controversial video games. You'll see that it's not only on that list, but there are separate articles written around various controversies about the games (like Controversies surrounding Grand Theft Auto V.) So please, assume good faith, and don't jump to ludicrous conspiracy theories. The game isn't on this list because it doesn't fit the article's scope or inclusion criteria (listed at the top of this talk page.) Sergecross73 msg me 13:30, 30 January 2017 (UTC)

Does Waterworld belong?

Only two sources are there for Waterworld. One is a review from a VB fansite. I don't think belongs here, does anyone else? (TheJoebro64 (talk) 12:03, 30 January 2017 (UTC))

Yeah, I've never removed it because I feel like I've read about it being pretty bad in the past, but in its current state, it doesn't have the best argument. Even if it was deemed worst VB game, that's not saying much considering its small library and userbase. It could also be considered a cheap licensed game that no one ever had any expectations for. If no one can find any better sources, I'm fine with removing it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I think we could add something about movie tie-in games should not regularly be included on this list as there's a perception they are already shovelware and generally do not get any rigorous review treatment as other games. Exceptions like ET stand out because of its lasting impact. --MASEM (t) 16:22, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
I agree - that would be easy to add into point #4 on the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 16:26, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Looking around, I discovered it did get a "Poor" rating of 4.5 from GameSpot (that was the PC version though), and Cracked claimed that "Waterworld on Virtual Boy is now how you tell a computer to fuck itself in machine language". Nintendo Life did give it an "Abysmal" rating of 1/10. It appears as if it did get extremely negative reviews from these sources, but we might need to dig a little more.(TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:38, 31 January 2017 (UTC))
Considering what the Virtual Boy was, I assume the PC version was a completely different game though, right? Sergecross73 msg me 20:48, 31 January 2017 (UTC)
Just compared some gameplay footage, and they are completely different. So we can throw out the GameSpot review for now.(TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:01, 31 January 2017 (UTC))

Additonal pictures

I feel like there should be more pictures in this article, there's only one (for ET). Like "You're Winner", a screenshot of a Hotel Mario cutscene, etc.... (TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:27, 12 February 2017 (UTC))

Most of those are non-free images and thus need to have critical commentary, not just to show off an element. Like, the "You're Winner" is easily explained in text and needs no image. --MASEM (t) 01:07, 12 February 2017 (UTC)
Yes, but the page seems sort of bare. As for "You're Winner", there's not a mention of it in text, and, assuming we put a picture, we could put as the description something like "When a race is finished, a trophy with the words "YOU'RE WINNER" is shown. This has received much ridicule from critics and gamers alike, showing a typical lack of proper grammar". (TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:59, 13 February 2017 (UTC))
NFC does not allow us to just add images because an article seems barren of images, particularly for lists. And the YOU'RE WINNER example is the type that doesn't need an image to explain what happened: it can be explained in a sentence and the visual aid doesn't help further. --MASEM (t) 14:32, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
FYI, JoeBro, Wikipedia's Image Policy is rather strict and complicated for people not familiar with it. (I'm not even an expert myself - I generally don't really mess around with it much, partially due to its restrictive nature.) While I understand your stance conceptually, and would agree if we were out there blogging or something, but in the realm of Wikipedia, I believe what Masem is saying is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 14:41, 13 February 2017 (UTC)
OK, I get it now. Thanks for explaining it to me. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:13, 13 February 2017 (UTC))

Some type of source to watch for

In the comparable list for films, it is clearly possible to identify shows like MST3K that helped to highlight some of these obscure films, which brought new critical commentary towards their negative reception. This can be done with sources there.

I know some of the more obscure games on here, like Plumbers Don't Wear Ties or the Zelda CD-i games can be attributed to new popularity due to people like AVGN, Game Grumps, etc. in the same manner (once out of obscurity, then more common sources will re-review and thus provide those sources). However, I've not been able to find any type of sourcing to support that, but I think it is worth if it we can find it. (note we can't use, say, AVGN's video directly, we need someone saying that AVGN helped to uncover these games, for example) --MASEM (t) 17:13, 16 February 2017 (UTC)

the worst video games of all time

try this source:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NYt3B9lcUm0 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.72.210.21 (talk) 23:03, 31 December 2016 (UTC)

Hi there. Unfortunately, WatchMojo.com fails at Wikipedia:NPOV. Really, generally speaking, you should avoid using YouTube as a source; try places like IGN or GamesRadar. (TheJoebro64 (talk) 01:45, 22 February 2017 (UTC))

Carmageddon 64?

Carmageddon 64 has a 28.50% rating on GameRankings, based on 10 reviews. IGN gave it a 1.3 out of 10, while GameSpot gave it 2.1 out of 10. It seems to have received a lot of negative reception; it holds the Guinness World Record for lowest-rated N64 racing game. Should it be put on this list? TheJoebro64 talk, 20 February 2017 (UTC))

The inclusion criteria at the top of this page says "Title must have own article". Carmageddon 64 fails that test. - X201 (talk) 12:34, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
Carmageddon 64: X201 it does — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.239.237 (talk) 13:09, 20 February 2017 (UTC)
I'd already seen that. It doesn't have its own article, it has two lines in an article about a game that it's not like, it actually says "...more similar to Carmageddon II." - X201 (talk) 09:17, 21 February 2017 (UTC)
Yeah, I'm less concerned about the article aspect, I imagine in this case it's just because its a port and pretty similar to the other versions of Carmageddon. The "must have its own article" part is really more for addressing stuff like these obscure, low-budget broken Steam or web browser type garbage games, created by one guy in his basement over the course of an afternoon. I think there could an argument for inclusion. The GameRankings % isn't all that meaningful considering it's just out of 6 reviews, but it does seems like reviews were probably pretty consistently low to have that Guinness World Record status, which seems like a good point for inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 13:29, 20 February 2017 (UTC)

Inclusion criteria - and a list of shovelware games

Is there a list of shovelware video games? I have at least one in mind (Air Control (video game)), but I would guess we've got others that are notable but which don't qualify for inclusion on this list's page. --Izno (talk) 23:26, 23 February 2017 (UTC)

There isn't a page with that exact title, but I fully support and would contribute to the creation of the page. It would be really helpful to shave off some debate over including games like Waterworld or Nickelodeon Party Blast. TheJoebro64 talk 07:22, 24 February 2017 (UTC)
While the media side recognizes shovelware as a term, I rarely see them use it to describe a game (in part as it is insulting to a game and its publisher and that can lead to blacklisting). It makes for a difficult list to compile. --MASEM (t) 14:36, 24 February 2017 (UTC)

Takeshi no Chōsenjō?

This game's section doesn't appear to have much negative reception; it seems to fit better on the List of controversial video games rather than this list. The Famitsu rating is unsourced, which brings up the fact that it was a Japan-only game so there are few reviews. TheJoebro64 talk, 06:18, 27 February 2017 (UTC))

I'll have to do some digging, because I have read quite a bit about how poorly the game was received in the past. Not sure why it would belong on the controversial games list though? Sergecross73 msg me 13:28, 27 February 2017 (UTC)
The reason I think it belongs there is because of all the complaints Taito received about the game, due to its unusually difficult minigames and tasks. (I mean, staring at a blank screen for an hour?) TheJoebro64 talk, 09:38, 27 February 2017 (UTC))
Which would be negative reception, not controversial. --MASEM (t) 14:43, 27 February 2017 (UTC)

Removal of Bubsy 3D

Bubsy 3D has a score of 51% based on 5 reviews on GameRankings. 5 reviews is really the bare minimum needed for this page, and a lot of its reviews appear to be over 50. I have seen a lot of negative reception in the past for this game, but there may be a problem with its inclusion on this list. TheJoebro64 talk 07:05, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

The game was reviewed pretty widely (and consistently negatively) back in the day, its just that, like most games from the 80's and 90's that were never re-released on your various Virtual Consoles or PlayStation Networks, most reviews are trapped offline because they were done before the era of the internet. GameRankings just doesn't have an accurate collection of reviews. Keep in mind that this released in a time where platformers were one of the most popular genre in video games too, and Bubsy wasn't quite so negatively viewed before this game's release. It wouldn't have made sense for it to not have been reviewed. It'd be the equivalent of the media just randomly not reviewing the newest open world Assassins Creed or Fire Emblem this year - unlikely due to trends. Sergecross73 msg me 13:44, 2 March 2017 (UTC)

Ghostbusters (2016)

I thought this looked good and had accepted but I see there's disagreement. Ignoring the use of Angry Joe, the MC scores for the game do not look good (and thus meet the metrics at the topic). That leaves the question of being a movie-tie in and thus whether it was to be shovelware which I agree we'd normally discount for this list. Outside of reviews, there clearly was some sign this was on the radar (something most shovelware doesn't get), but not anywhere close to an anticipated title. Also, in trying to evaluate if this was a commercial failure for that page, I see that the studio itself was already under a lot of debt and lawsuits, so to use the sign of the bankruptcy of the company to say this had negative reception is not a proper step (nor could I use that to say the game was a commercial failure).

So I do say that while it is shovelware, it is a more visible example of such in today's gaming society and may qualify but also see why it would not too. --MASEM (t) 01:48, 22 February 2017 (UTC)

Honestly, part of the reason I contested it was due your comments earlier, that in general licensed movie junk shouldn't be added. If someone could create a better entry not referencing "Angry Joe", and more centered around it being a special case, I suppose it could be re-added. Sergecross73 msg me 03:21, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I do think you're right in the current time, but I haven't spent a great deal of time to see how much more there is to say about it. Maybe there is, but until that can be verified, lets keep it off the list. --MASEM (t) 03:41, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
I think that if a game is considered shovelware but still gains a good amount of media coverage and recognition, it should count. I've removed Waterworld since there weren't many reviews for it. I think the Ghostbusters game looked good on the list, although we should try and avoid stuff like Angry Joe and WatchMojo.com. TheJoebro64 talk 15:13, 22 February 2017 (UTC)
(I am the same guy who added Ghostbusters to the article. If my IP Address appears different, I am using a different one to remain anonymous.) I get that movie tie-in games are not really expected to be amazing games, but even with that in mind, I saw a lot of reviewers give the game low scores and/or rank them high on "Worst Games of 2016" lists. The reason I cited Angry Joe is because I saw another article cite his review of Ride to Hell: Retribution, but after further examination, I will admit that he unfortunately does not count. WatchMojo, on the other hand, had been cited on numerous articles, and even have their own article. While I guess the reference to Angry Joe may have to be removed, I still think we can include WatchMojo (and IGN) as credible sources. Personally, I still think this game should be on the list for the reasons I cited, and if it the section were to be modified to fit the criteria and explain the game's reception and quality better, I think it could be added again. If any of you have anything you want to ask or address, please let me know and I'll see if I can work anything out. 66.87.121.241 (talk) 03:11, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
See talk:WikiProject Video games/Sources#WatchMojo.com, WatchMojo fails at WP:NPOV since it's mostly opinion-based rather than factual. If it is used in other articles (I do recall seeing it once in the Batman Beyond article), we should remove it. I also advise you to create a Wikipedia account if you wish to remain anonymous. TheJoebro64 talk 11:44 PM, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

The Crow: City of Angels (video game)

@TheJoebro64: Can you self revert the re-removal of The Crow: City of Angels (video game) please (to avoid me falling foul of 3RR). The game's article has seven reviews from reliable publications. I think entries shouldn't be removed based on the references in this article. The judgement should be made on the actual game article and The Crow meets the criteria - X201 (talk) 11:57, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Sorry, I've just been trying to make sure the stuff here meets criteria. The main reason I was removing it was due to prior talk page discussions concerning licensed games; they're rarely expected to be like GoldenEye 007 or Batman: Arkham City. TheJoebro64 talk 12:03 PM, 6 March 2017 (UTC)
No problem. I think we need to nail down the film/tie-in/product tie-in thing down to something. As ever (but not through lack of effort or desire) its a "nailing jelly to the wall" problem with setting the criteria in to a workable rule/guideline. - X201 (talk) 12:23, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Bubble Bobble Revolution

This game has a 38/100 on Metacritic based on 19 reviews, thus meeting the criteria for inclusion. One common point of criticism for this game was a game-breaking bug on the 30th level that prevents the game from being completed. TheJoebro64 talk 11:17 AM, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

I have no objection to this entry. Especially since the game-breaking bug stuff sounds like it kind of went unresolved too, if the article is correct. Sergecross73 msg me 13:48, 6 March 2017 (UTC)

Final Fantasy 14 (Original)?

Given how the game had to be taken down completely and redone from scratch after its overwhelmingly negative reviews, does anyone think it should it be included? 66.87.121.134 (talk) 00:03, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

Given the scores with an MC rating (on the released version) at 50, it meets the criteria to be included, though I would definitely make sure the post-release fixes and improved reception is covered in this too. --MASEM (t) 01:23, 14 March 2017 (UTC)

FNaF world

This had to be taken off steam, updated, and rereleased for free. Could it be added? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.189.239.237 (talk) 18:38, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

It all depends on whether or not third party reliable sources discuss its poor reception. How were its reviews? Does it have a low Metacritic score? I can't look it up myself, as you have linked to what you're talking about, and that doesn't look like it's the game's actual name? Sergecross73 msg me 18:52, 6 April 2017 (UTC)

Ultima 9

What qualifies? I see a lot of console games but almost no PC games and no arcade games. I'm shocked to not see U9 on this list. One of the infamous notes on the game is it was the first major release to have its forums wiped due to so many negative posts. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:205:4101:E8F0:6DFC:C8E6:CCFA:DC92 (talk) 15:20, 12 May 2017 (UTC)

See the box at the top of the page that reads "Notice: Inclusion Criteria". Sergecross73 msg me 00:28, 13 May 2017 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_13&oldid=1079705638"