Jump to content

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 12

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 5←Archive 10Archive 11Archive 12Archive 13Archive 14Archive 15

Sim City 2013

SimCity (2013 video game)

Does it belong on the list? On one hand, there were a lot of complaints about it requiring an internet connection, DRM, cut features, etc. On the other hand, it fails the inclusion criteria we just set up, as far as it has a Metacritic well over 50 (in the low 60s) and received a number of positive reviews from mainstream outlets. Thoughts? Sergecross73 msg me 16:34, 4 December 2014 (UTC)

@Sergecross73: I'm not an expert on this game, but isn't its notable negativity mostly related to its launch, and not due to the game itself? The negativity of its requirement of Internet connectivity was mainly because of the failure of the company's server infrastructure — which was alleviated, and is not unique, right? The concept of strict online DRM is universally reviled. It would seem that the inclusion criteria should involve some kind of retrospective over time from a WP:RS, though not just any "top 10 worst games" list, and look back upon mountains of signature negativity. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 02:21, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
"Will Wright, the original creator of the SimCity franchise, stated that while he liked the game itself and "understood the outrage" surrounding the issues, he called out EA for its "inexcusable" decision to make users to pay full-price for a game that they were ultimately unable to play." ha. BTW, I can't believe Action 52 isn't on this baby. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 05:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)
Gotta agree with Smuckola. There's more to reception than just metacritic scores, and user reception and media articles are both major parts of that. SimCity is currently the 20th lowest rated game on metacritic by user score for a reason. Also, Sergecross73, it is a bit disingenuous to say "see talk page" as the reason for your edit when the only posts on the talk page are your initial post asking if it should be included, and one post saying that it probably should be. 64.231.205.67 (talk) 09:49, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
I was thinking that Smuckola's response as being in favor of removal. Feel free to re-add if there's no consensus to keep it out, it's just a shame that it fails so many of the inclusion criteria... Sergecross73 msg me 12:25, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
@Sergecross73: To be clear, I was just inquiring, because I don't know. I only remember the big news of the game's launch disaster, with the unplayability and the Amazon refunds. Did the overwhelmingly negative reception continue past that, and did it encompass the game as well, even if the game's market viability didn't recover? If the game itself was panned, even if the game fell victim to its launch method and technology, there should be a clear delineation between the game and its launch. Online DRM "dead man's switches" and "phone home" and killswitches have been reviled for at least the past decade. Thanks. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 13:03, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
Smuckola, your thoughts were on the right track. Its launch and DRM set up made the game very unplayable at first, which itself received a lot of criticism. However, once that was smoothed out, (an initial problem was that servers/systems were overloaded all at once at launch), it was better received. It received a lot of positive reviews and has a positive Metacritic score. The game seems more comparable to the recent Assassins Creed Unity situation, where it's had a really bad launch that will probably hurt the namebrand, but the reception has still been more in the mid-range than "one of the worlds worst received video games of all time". Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
It fails one of the inclusion criteria that you wrote a month ago, and strongly meets the other 4. Also, as you yourself stated, 64 is not a "positive" score on metacritic. In addition, it was not received better as time wore on. Actually, many critics dropped their scores in response to EA removing features further down the road. As I stated, there is more to "negative reception" than just critic scores. Extensive media coverage about the failure, negative user reception, and things like Amazon removing it from sale all are parts of "negative reception". 64.231.205.67 (talk) 17:17, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. For the record, it fails point #2 and #3, unless you've got sources saying otherwise.
  2. A mid-60's MetaCritic, regardless on whether or not its "positive", is undeniably and objectively "not negative", which is what this article documents. Its past the halfway point mark of 50 - its closer to positive than negative. This article isn't "Games notable for mixed reviews". Sergecross73 msg me 17:34, 14 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. First of all, failing 2 out of 5 is not the same as failing "so many of the inclusion criteria...". Secondly, it definitely has more than 5 sources calling it bad, and while it may not be outright called "the worst game ever", there are numerous articles about how it was likely the worst game launch ever, about how the game continued to be broken long after launch, and it even reached as far as to be blamed for EA being rated the worst company in the U.S. that year.
@Sergecross73 and 64.231.205.67: "First of all, failing 2 out of 5 is not the same as failing "so many of the inclusion criteria..."" By the way, yes, that's literally what those words mean. "it may not be outright called "the worst game ever"" Then there you go. What you're describing of the game is "list of video games that aren't very good". So as far as this article is concerned, it's all about the launch, if anything. Right? The launch is definitely part of the game's reception; and notability is not temporary (WP:NTEMP). We would need a case for it being actually notoriously notable as having been one of the worst launches in history, which would go onto be a case study in phenomenally bad launches, to the point of having overshadowed and consumed or dwarfed the game itself. From your comments, it sounds like that's the case, and I applaud your thoroughness although I haven't read your sources on that. That's my best discernment so far; Serge, please correct me if I've misapprehended the connection between the launch's reception and the game's reception, because I'm thinking that the fulcrum of this article is reception, which combines the two under an umbrella. One should try to summarize it better for length, while adding what has just been said about contributing to the company's reputation. Please make a user account and sign your comments. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 06:29, 15 January 2015 (UTC)
  1. When the average rating on metacritic is 74 and the median rating is even higher, then no, 64 is not even close to being "positive". 50 is not the halfway point (it also is an increasingly useless category, as more and more critics are doing away with scores). More importantly though, this article isn't "Games notable for negative reviews", it is "Games notable for negative reception". There is a lot more to reception than critics scores, as I pointed out, such as extensive media coverage of the flaws, strong user dislike of the game, and retailers removing the game from sale due to how bad it is. 64.231.205.67 (talk) 05:41, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

@IP

  • Not sure what your hang up is with "so many". "Multiple"/"2 out of 5"/"40%" is a lot. But its largely irrelevant to this discussion, the point is that it fails 2 of them.
  • MetaCritic literally classifies its score as "mixed or average reviews". Not negative. It's simply not going to meet that criteria. Your thoughts on the MetaCritic score is simple original research.
  • Look at the list here. There are over 20 reviewers who gave this game an 80% or higher review score. Over 25 if you lower the standard to 75%. These positive review scores are not merely a few small outliers and flukes here and there. 25 reviewers had generally positive classifications for this game. A game like that doesn't belong in an article documenting the worst received video games.

@Smuckola - Most of your points are correct (I don't think I'd apply NTEMP here, as that's more for deletion discussions and whether or not the subject is notable on a whole, which I don't contest), I just believe that, when looking at the overall picture, the critical reception (of which Wikipedia focuses much more on) brings the subject out of "worst ever" territory that this article documents. Its notable for a bad launch, but not for being a bad game on a whole. (Much like Assassins Creed Unity.) Maybe I could be swayed otherwise if new information/sources were presented, but no actual sources or suggested rewrites have been proposed by the IP thus far... Sergecross73 msg me 17:50, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

FWIW this game has a unique issue surrounding Metacritic and its scores. Most of the scores were for the game as it was given to reviewers, before the server issues, before they nerfed content. I know some sites even changed their reviews but MC kept the original score per their policy. Not sure how much that's worth considering. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 01:17, 16 January 2015 (UTC)
True, though even still, reviews were usually just dropped a few points. Polygon went from 9ish to 6ish for example - still not a negative score, let alone one of the most negative ones everone this list aims to document... Sergecross73 msg me 02:43, 16 January 2015 (UTC)

Rise of the Robots

RotR was released in 1994. It had been announced early and received considerable hype during development. When released critics agreed that the rendered characters looked great but that the game played terribly. You can win the game by only mashing the Fire button while holding up diagonal. The game does have its own article https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rise_of_the_Robots. It has an average score (out of 167 votes) of just 3.7 on Gamespot http://www.gamespot.com/rise-of-the-robots/reviews/ it was a lousy game, has multiple independant reviews calling it lousy, and deserves a spot on this list.Gustavail (talk) 14:56, 1 February 2015 (UTC)

No, it isn't notable for having a negative reception. Such things aren't described with "the graphics are excellent". It just has a mixed reception, and is on some lame list. Also, you just linked to the very depths of inadmissible links, a page of user-submitted content with the heading "not reviewed". Please read the inclusion criteria very carefully. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 19:36, 1 February 2015 (UTC)
I agree. Doesn't sound like it went over well, but it doesn't seem like "one of the worst of all time" bad. They even made a sequel too...so it probably didn't fare that bad considering it was a new IP. Sergecross73 msg me 01:10, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
it doesn't have a mixed reception. There are no positive reviews of the game anywhere. All the reviews of the game are, apart from the graphics, overwhelmingly negative. I mention the "lame list" because that's inclusion criteria for this article. Did you even read the linked wikipedia article? Quote "On release it became notorious in the video gaming industry for myriad crippling gameplay problems. Today it is generally considered one of the least successful and most critically reviled fighting games of its time" - most critically reviled fighting games of its time is not "mixed reception". Gustavail (talk) 21:27, 2 February 2015 (UTC)
Maybe try finding more negative reviews/retrospectives on it? I think the main problem is establishing it as being more than just "Poor", and more like "one of the worst of all time". Like the EGM review. 4.4/10 isn't a good score...but it's not "absolutely terrible" either. The article's reception section is pretty small, and some of it's unsourced. User scores, like your GameSpot link, usually aren't considered noteworthy unless reliable sources write articles about it. (Like how a bunch of websites wrote articles documenting the terrible user scores after the release of Mass Effect 3, for example.) You might just need to make a stronger case...although my gut tells me it didn't rack up a bad rep comparable to something like Bubsy 3D though. Sergecross73 msg me 21:39, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

Error on this page

Someone use the Brick-Force on this wiki and destroyed this page someone please fixed it.

--60.231.73.187 (talk) 04:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

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 "allgame":

  • From Plumbers Don't Wear Ties: Plumbers Don't Wear Ties Overview, Allgame.
  • From Superman (1999 video game): Marriott, Scott Alan. "Superman [N64] - Review". Allgame. Retrieved October 23, 2013.
  • From Interactive movie: "Astron Belt". AllGame. Archived from the original on 2014-01-01.
  • From Kasumi Ninja: Williamson, Colin. Kasumi Ninja - Review, Allgame.
  • From Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em: Michael Schwartz; Joan Dykman. "Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em - Overview - allgame". Retrieved 2010-04-26.

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⚡ 13:41, 24 March 2015 (UTC)

Airport Simulator 2014

Airport Simulator 2014 seems to be the worst game on Steam

NatoBoram (talk) 20:45, 7 April 2015 (UTC)

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 "MCPC":

Reference named "GRPS3":

Reference named "MCX360":

Reference named "GRX360":

Reference named "GRPC":

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⚡ 04:31, 28 April 2015 (UTC)

Depression Quest, Gone Home, and other Pro-SJW games should be on here

Games like Depression Quest led to the Gamergate war, and since then much controversy happened. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.65.34.146 (talk) 22:12, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

That's not grounds to put those articles here. Besides, Gone Home got positive reviews when it came out. GamerPro64 22:20, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
This list has inclusion criteria now; it may be more suited for List of controversial video games, but this list is about negative critical reception (maybe the title needs a change?) ViperSnake151  Talk  22:30, 5 May 2015 (UTC)
Yes, as Viper alludes to, all of those titles would fail multiple inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 22:40, 5 May 2015 (UTC)

RAVEN'S CRY

WORST GAME OF 2015 BY TOPWARE INTERACTIVE — Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.241.150.42 (talk) 02:32, 31 July 2015 (UTC)

Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival section?

Can someone take the time to add a section in for Animal Crossing: Amiibo Festival? It has been garnering some of the lowest review scores of any game this year. Jdcomix (talk) 2:20, 18 November, 2015 (UTC)

It's only been released less than a week. I think we wait a little longer. Heck, it could make it to end of the year lists of Worst games. Gotta wait and see. GamerPro64 02:22, 19 November 2015 (UTC)
Agree that it's too soon. Not all reviews are even in yet. We went through the same thing in the opening days of Sonic Boom being out. Also, take a list of the inclusion criteria at the top of the page. There's no way it's meeting them yet... Sergecross73 msg me 02:56, 19 November 2015 (UTC)

"Daikatana"?

During its development it missed almost all of its deadlines. When it finally came out, it had outdated graphics, lots of glitches and the sidekicks terrible AI made it almost unplayable (they were removed altogether in the Nintendo 64 version). This was the leading factor in Ion Storm's bankruptcy, and it effectively ended John Ramero's career. It became notorious because of the "John Ramero is going to make you his bitch!" poster. Screwattack ranked it 7th on Top 10 Biggests Busts in gaming; Gametrailers ranked it 2nd in Top 10 Dissapointing Games of the Decade. While there have been worse games, the level of publicity this game got from the adverts makes it eligable for the list in my opinion. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.168.232.57 (talk • contribs) 12:31, 19 March 2013

Yes I was just thinking the same thing before I clicked the Talk section. This game must be included. It's one of the biggest bombs ever! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.121.22.10 (talk • contribs) 00:59, 3 July 2013

Fast and Furious: Showdown

It is a horrible game that has graphics that look like an early PS2 game and was made in 2013. Has poor game play, physics, story, etc. It has a metacritic score of 23 for the xbox and is hated on every platform. http://www.metacritic.com/game/xbox-360/fast-furious-showdown/critic-reviews Nintendo Life, http://www.nintendolife.com/reviews/wiiu/fast_and_furious_showdown and IGN http://www.ign.com/articles/2013/05/24/fast-furious-showdown-review gave it low scores. Meristation called it "One of the worst videogames in recent years. Bad as a driving game, worse as a shooter. A short game, boring and awful OST." http://www.meristation.com/xbox-360/fast--furious-showdown/analisis-juego/1854168 — Preceding unsigned comment added by JohnMadden2009 (talk • contribs) 19:35, 18 June 2013

Ride to Hell: Retribution

Currently sitting on a Metacritic score of 20, this game was panned by critics. It recieved a 0.5 (out of 10) from EGM; 'Don’t play Ride to Hell: Retribution. Don’t think about playing it. Don’t think about thinking about playing it. Forget it exists, and continue your life as though it never did.' Popular Youtuber TotalBiscuit called it the worst game of all time. (He was probably exaggerating, but anyway). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.180.6.165 (talk • contribs) 11:00, 2 July 2013

This game is on the list so can this section of the Talk page be removed

Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde.

That game was released for the NES in 1989. The Angry Video Game Nerd called it the "worst game he has ever played". Something Awful gave it a -37. The game was critizized for having way too many enemies on screen and a useless weapon. As Hyde your fireball goes in random directions and your punch is short ranged. Watchmojo.com called it the 4th worst video game of all time. Brett Alan Weiss of the website Allgame declared that the "music and graphics are tolerable, but the controls are sluggish and the action is exceedingly dull, rendering Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde almost unplayable." The controls were also criticized for being stiff and unresponsive. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:b:9e80:8cf:88c9:26c0:4b51:d614 (talk • contribs) 01:57, 28 June 2014

Angry Video Game Nerd and Something Awful are comedy shows, hence not reliable for critical reception. Watchmojo.com's videos are produced daily, so their notability is dubious.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:44, 22 January 2016 (UTC)
Yes, pretty much this. Sergecross73 msg me 03:45, 22 January 2016 (UTC)

Removal of old threads

Ride to Hell: Retribution, Daikatana, and Fast and Furious: Showdown have been added to the list some time ago; so the talk threads should be removed or at least archived.Professor Chaos 56b

Done. (I think the automatic archiving systems messes up when people don't sign their posts, so that may be why they were still there.) Sergecross73 msg me 17:39, 31 January 2016 (UTC)

Thank you.Professor Chaos 56b

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 to let others know.

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 07:38, 14 February 2016 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_12&oldid=1083523035"