Jump to content

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 16

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 10←Archive 14Archive 15Archive 16Archive 17Archive 18

Hatred (2015)

For crying out loud, could someone please change up the section? It only focuses on the controversy rather than post-release reception, it's incorrectly formatted, all the text is just ripped straight from it's main article, and it's been like that for too long. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sergei zavorotko (talk • contribs) 00:07, 21 March 2020 (UTC)

Feel free to suggest alternative text. -- ferret (talk) 00:14, 21 March 2020 (UTC)
Just delete the entire fucking section. It only addresses the controversy, ZERO reception, now that I look at it. Copypasting is within; it doesn't take a genius to find out that it's lazy as shit. And look at it. It's a fucking mess. It isn't even that notable for negative reception, only controversy. So out of the window with Hatred being on this list. And I cannot make any amendments to this, because some admin will undo it. -- Sergei zavorotko (talk) 20:51, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Under discussions from previously sections, there is a fair point here: it has a low MC score but it doesn't have the lingering effect that a "game notable for negative reception" we'd want to see have. Controversial? Yes. But I would consider removing it along with other games that are just low MC scores and nothing else demonstratable about being a negative reception. --Masem (t) 23:21, 23 March 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, it is not a household term for "bad game" in the gaming industry like Big Rigs or E.T. 2600. Could one of these people with power be useful for once and fucking delete the section? For fucks sake, I cannot stand how Wikipedia admins reject blatant fucking facts and common sense but will welcome a boatload of nonsense based on misunderstanding and biases. Sergei zavorotko (talk) 21:25, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
@Sergei zavorotko: If you don't chill on the incivility, you might see one of us be useful and block you. Cool it down. There's no deadline, and giving some time to see who else chimes in won't hurt anything. I suspect it'll be gone shortly. You're unwillingness to try removing it yourself is not our problem. -- ferret (talk) 21:38, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
Alright could someone just get rid of it already? You don’t see Super Columbine Massacre RPG on this list and you don’t see Rape Day on this list. The two are only known for controversy, not for how low quality they are. Hatred is only known for controversy, not for negative reception. There is in fact a Wikipedia article: List of Controversial video games. It better belongs on THAT, and not on THIS, so could someone withdraw Hatred from this list? Had to write it in a “civil” manner because apparently I’m not calm.Sergei zavorotko (talk) 18:36, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Descent to Undermountain

is Descent to Undermountain worthy to appear on this list? The game received very negative reviews and has been called the worst Dungeons & Dragons video game ever. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jetcold0 (talk • contribs) 02:51, 26 March 2020 (UTC)

Is it known by the gaming industry to be bad? Or mainly within the D&D community.?Sergei zavorotko (talk) 18:38, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

Looking to trim out

Given this is getting too long, I suggest we need to trim out a LOT of games from this list (probably close to at least 50% of these if not more).

  • Just being sub-50% is not "notable for negative reception", necessary. Poorly rated games can fade off into the realm of being unknown (as the case with most shovelware)
  • There's a fair number of games that are in the sub-50% MC that also end up on one or two "worst game of the year/decade/all time" list from a couple publications, but not universally like that. Because of the subjectivity of these lists, this also really doesn't help much for being "notable" in that fashion.

We really want games on this list that people go back and speak of over and over again in the industry. This is things like Custer's Revenge, Big Rigs, ET, Pac-Mac (2600), the CD-I Zelda games, games I don't have to search too hard in recent sources to know they are considered bad, if you know what I mean. We should not be going down lists of all sub-50 MC games and asking "but this isn't included!". A wholly separately list (and strictly a list) could be had for games with standalone articles on WP that are considered the worst based on the MC score, but that's a different concept from this list. --Masem (t) 18:44, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

I'll go through the list and put my findings here. JOEBRO64 19:02, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

List of games

1980s:

  • Beat 'Em & Eat 'Em—remove. No discussion about how it's notable; it's just a cheap porn game that had little to no impact.
  • Custer's Revenge—keep. Featured on a large number of worst-ever lists and there's enough commentary about how bad/offensive it is.
  • Pac-Man (Atari 2600)—keep. Caused a drop in consumer trust of Atari, contributing to the crash.
  • E.T.—keep for obvious reasons.
  • Jedi Arena—remove. Licensed game that had no impact or notability for its reception, other than being a Star Wars game.
  • Dr. Jekyll and Mr. Hyde and Friday the 13th—leaning keep. They both are licensed and obviously shovelware, but they are often featured on worst-ever lists.

1990s:

  • Action 52—obvious keep.
  • Night Trap—keep. Appears on a ton of lists and caused tons of bad publicity for Sega.
  • CD-i Nintendo games—keep. I'm more neutral when it comes to Hotel Mario, but all of them are staples of worst-ever lists, which is especially notable considering that they are from the two most critically-acclaimed franchises of the medium.
  • Plumbers Don't Wear Ties—neutral. It was for a forgotten system and had little impact, but it is on quite a few lists and has been cited as one of the reasons the 3DO failed.
  • Shaq Fu—I'm not too sure. It was actually quite well received when it came out, and as the IGN source notes, most of the negativity comes from the phenomena surrounding O'Neal rather than the game itself. But... it is on a few worst-ever lists.
  • Katsumi Ninja—leaning remove. None of the commentary seems to indicate this was a notably bad game.
  • Bebe's Kids—remove. It's a licensed entry that cites GameFAQs. There is some other commentary but none seems to indicate why it's notable.
  • Hong Kong 96—torn. It's unlicensed and was developed in only two days, but AVGN did bring attention to its poor quality which led to some sources talking about its badness.
  • Catfight—remove. None of the commentary indicates it's notable.
  • Bubsy 3D—keep. A staple of worst-ever lists, called the video game equivalent to Plan 9, has been disowned by its own creator, and killed the Bubsy series until 2017.
  • The Crow—remove. This was removed some time ago, but it's another cheap licensed game that had no expectations. My understanding is that Next Generation's review actually opens with a statement across the lines of "it's a licensed game so don't expect anything."
  • Mortal Kombat Mythologies—leaning keep. From a notable franchise and killed a planned series of spin-offs.
  • Spawn—remove. Licensed game, and the Next Generation review even mentions this.
  • Descent to Undermountain—leaning remove. Licensed garbage, but it is from a notable developer and they've joked about how bad it is in their other games.
  • Extreme Paintbrawl—leaning remove. I don't see any notable discussion; it seems just like another case of shovelware.
  • Trespasser—leaning remove. More mediocre and disappointing than poorly received, and it did have a positive impact on the industry in the long run...
  • South Park—remove. Licensed garbage.
  • Superman—obvious keep.

JOEBRO64 19:26, 28 March 2020 (UTC)

This is definitely along the lines that I was thinking of. --Masem (t) 04:36, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

2000s:

  • Carmageddon 64—leaning remove. The GWR thing is a pseudo-record: a double intersection of genre and console.
  • Spirit of Speed—remove.
  • Kabuki Warriors—leaning remove. It was extremely bad, but it doesn't really seem to be notable for that.
  • Universal Studios Theme Parks Adventure—leaning remove. Another licensed entry.
  • The Simpsons Wrestling—leaning remove, but I think this could be a keeper. It's licensed, but IGN calling it "the most horrific demolition of a license ever" surely says something...
  • Gravity Games Bike: Street Vert Dirt—remove.
  • The Simpsons Skateboarding—leaning remove. Licensed Simpsons entry again.
  • Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly—leaning remove. Reviews were more mediocre than negative.
  • Sneakers—remove. No commentary about why it's notable whatsoever.
  • Batman: Dark Tomorrow—leaning keep. Licensed but was an anticipated release and is often on worst-ever lists.
  • Charlie's Angels—remove. Licensed.
  • Tomb Raider: The Angel of Darkness—torn. Its reception wasn't necessarily negative, but it caused tons of problems for the franchise and resulted in it being handed off to another developer.
  • Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis—leaning remove. It's licensed crap.
  • Drake of the 99 Dragons—leaning keep, though the section could definitely use some work.
  • Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing—keep.
  • Bubble Bobble Revolution—leaning remove, though I could see a case for keeping it because of the glitch that rendered most copies of the game unbeatable.
  • Lula 3D—keep. Cited as a reason the industry doesn't take adult video games seriously.
  • Ninjabread Man—leaning keep.
  • Bomberman: Act Zero—unsure. I mean, it'd normally be non-notable, except that it's Bomberman.
  • Sonic the Hedgehog—keep. Gravely damaged the series' reputation, to the point that it's still sort of trying to recover to this day.
  • Vampire Rain—remove. No indication of notability.
  • Game Party—ditto.
  • Little Britain: The Video Game—another ditto. Also licensed.
  • Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust—leaning keep. Part of a generally well-known franchise, and the creator disowned it.
  • Stalin vs. Martians—unsure but leaning remove.
  • Ju-On: The Grudge—leaning remove, not seeing anything to indicate notability.
  • Rogue Warrior—leaning remove, same issue.
  • Tunnel Rats: 1968—another remove. Licensed and no indication of notability.

JOEBRO64 16:09, 30 March 2020 (UTC)

Thank you very much for your work, Joebro, that was surely a lot of effort. I'm thinking very much along the same lines. The list definitely needs to get thinned out, especially the 2000s and 2010s entries. Not every game with negative reception deserves a spot on this list, the key word is "notable". The basic inclusion criteria should indeed be either be multiple sources that say it's one of the worst games of all time or make clear that it had a lasting negative impact on a franchise, developer or even the industry as a whole (E.T.). Any game that just has mediocre to negative general reception and does have no sources cited that say it's one of the worst ever (not just of the year or of a genre) deserves to be removed.Epomis87 (talk) 11:03, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
To add my thoughts on the 2010s entries:
  • Final Fantasy XIV: Remove. Negative reception, but no notable effect on the franchise, and the improved release got favorable reception.
  • Power Gig: Rise of the SixString: Tend to remove. Negative reception, but simply being compared unfavorably to other, similar games does make notable negative reception.
  • Fighters Uncaged: Remove. Not notable.
  • Doctor Who: Return to Earth: Remove. Licensed rubbish game without considerable effect.
  • Dude Nukem Forever: Remove. Mediocre reception, no one that says it's the worst.
  • MindJack: Remove. Again just a non-notable game with mediocre reviews.
  • Postal III: Unsure. Popular title, very negative reception and at least one source that calls it one of the worst ever.
  • FlatOut 3: Unsure. Rather negative reception, but no considerable effect.
  • Ridge Racer: Tend to Remove. Mediocre reviews, no notable effect.
  • The War Z: Tend to remove. General criticism of the game's concept and false advertising do not make a notable negative reception.
  • Call of Duty: Black Ops: Declassified: Tend to remove. Being compared unfavorably to other games in the franchise and most criticism coming from fans of the series do not make notable negative reception.
  • Final Fantasy All the Bravest: Tend to remove. Spin-off of a popular franchise that's criticized for being Pay2win, but no considerable negative effect on the franchise.
  • Sim City 2013: Keep. Was a disaster from the start and had considerable negative effect on the franchise and the publisher alike, even resulting in a studio being closed.
  • The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct: Remove. Licensed shovelware.
  • Aliens: Colonial Marines: Tend to keep. Licensed, but caused a successful class action lawsuit.
  • Star Trek: Remove. Licensed.
  • Ride to Hell: Retribution: Keep. Very negative reception and found on many Worst ever lists.
  • Ashes Cricket 2013: Remove. Small shovelware Steam release by a small, inexperienced studio.
  • Fighter Within: Tend to remove. Some saying it's one of the worst, but no considerable negative impact.
  • Double Dragon II: Wander of the Dragons: Torn. Small release, but got some notability as a spin-off of a popular 80s title.
  • Dungeon Keeper: Torn. Freemium cell phone games are usually omitted, but it had rather negative reception that resulted in the maker doing some changes.
  • Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal: Torn. Negative reception, hugely popular franchise, but debatable how large the effect on the franchise was after all.
  • Raven's Cry: Tend to remove. Very negative reception, but less-known game by a small developer.
  • Rugby 15 and Rugby World Cup 2015: Remove. Shovelware sports games without notable effect, at least outside the rugby world.
  • Alone in the Dark: Illumination: Torn. Very negative reception and called worst of 2015, but no considerable effect on the franchise.
  • Tony Hawk's Pro Skater 5: Torn. Was the last Tony Hawk game by Robomondo, that might make it notable.
  • Mighty No. 9: Remove. Mixed reception overall and the most negative criticism coming from fans.
  • Umbrella Corps: Torn. Negative reviews and some calling it worst in the franchise, but no considerable long-lasting effect.
  • Ghostbusters: Remove. Film tie-in.
  • No Man's Sky: Keep. Lasting negative reception and today being considered a negative example in game marketing.
  • Star Wars Battlefront II: Torn. Just a Star Wars game out of many, and mainly criticized for microtransactions, but the Guinness Book mention might make it notable.
  • Agony: Remove. Crowd-funded release by a small independent studio, and reception mostly mediocre.
  • The Culling 2: Tend to remove. Very negative reception that led to a quick shutdown, but it's only a small, rather unknown title.
  • The Quiet Man: Remove. Mediocre reviews and otherwise not notable.
  • Fallout 76: Remove. >50 Metacritic score and most negative criticism coming from gamers.
  • Overkill's The Walking Dead: Remove. Licensed and >50 MC score. Commercial flop, but there's a separate list for that.
  • Contra: Rogue Corps: Remove. Simply being disliked by critics does not make a lasting negative reception.
  • WWE 2K20: Remove. Licensed game with lukewarm critical reception.

Epomis87 (talk) 12:53, 6 April 2020 (UTC)

Of these suggestions, one I would leave are Final Fantasy XIV. While the original release wasn't exactly completely trashed in the reviews, it had bad enough issues that it literally resulted in the game being shutdown and completely relaunched. -- ferret (talk) 12:59, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
That's what I was thinking as well. Since we seem to all be in agreement, let's remove the ones we agree should be removed and leave the ones we're torn on. That should then make it easier to decide if they're keepers or not. JOEBRO64 13:39, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
I'm in full agreement on the outright removes, and while I have some reservations on the ones listed "torn" as long as we're going to keep these for the time being, these all seem like good first steps. But at the same time let's make sure we're addressing a key point in the instructions here: no longer is it just that MC <50 score the key reason to list. We want the enduring fact the game is known to be poor (or in the case of FF14 / NMS, have been poor at one point). And I'm going to agree that games that are more commercial flops or strictly controversial should be shuffled to those lists unless for some reason they have to be on here too. --Masem (t) 14:01, 6 April 2020 (UTC)
Totally agree with you. The introduction should make clear that not every game with negative reception deserves a spot on this list and that it is only for games with particular and lasting negative reception. The <50 MC score as an inclusion criteria is debatable, imo we can consider scrapping it altogether. Epomis87 (talk) 19:07, 7 April 2020 (UTC)
I think Warcraft III: Reforged should not have been removed, due to the fact that it has the lowest user score on Metacritic. --24.188.22.145 (talk) 16:34, 13 April 2020 (UTC)

Ghostbusters for NES

I think that Ghostbusters for NES should belong in this list. Although it is a licensed game, it became notorious for its ending, which featured many grammatical errors, and was overwhelmingly panned for its gameplay, graphics and sound, and difficulty. The ending was referenced in Ghostbusters: The Video Game, where it appears in the firehouse.--24.188.22.145 (talk) 14:28, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

NES Ghostbusters is one of those games that had a reputation with gamers but not well documented outside forums and fansites. You need to find sources to affirm this better. --Masem (t) 14:35, 24 April 2020 (UTC)

Edit the list

I think that a few games should come back to the list and some games should be removed.

Games that should come back:

  • Descent to Undermountain (although licensed, it was created by a well-known developer and was mocked in their other games)
  • Hong Kong 97 (AVGN brought attention on its poor quality and many sources say it's one of the worst games ever created)
  • Trespasser (despite being a licensed game, some of its elements reemerged in some of the best games ever made)
  • Spyro: Enter the Dragonfly (part of a well-known series, and the creator said handing over development was the worst decision ever made)
  • Universal Studios Theme Parks Adventure (although licensed, it often appears on many "worst games ever" lists and did not sell well)
  • Bubble Bobble Revolution (became infamous due to a glitch that makes every level past level 30 unplayable, and is also part of a well-known series) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.44.76.88 (talk) 14:38, 5 May 2020 (UTC)

Games that should be removed:

  • Mortal Kombat: Special Forces (considered to be a clone of Mortal Kombat Mythologies)
  • Stalin vs. Martians (negative reception is not as notable as other games, it was also developed by a team of obscure developers)
  • Rogue Warrior (negative reception is not as notable as other games)
  • Power Gig: Rise of the Six String (negative reception is not as notable, only compared unfavorably to other games)
  • FlatOut 3: Chaos and Destruction (negative reception is not as notable, and it is part of an obscure franchise)

--24.188.22.145 (talk) 14:13, 16 April 2020 (UTC)

Games to add to the list.

Reviewing this list and looking at some of the edits, I'm very surprised to see Mass Effect Andromeda is not on the list. I think it should be added, since it had terrible reception, and caused the team to abandon the series all together. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2601:285:500:7F40:8CA2:D2A7:CC23:3D4E (talk) 18:08, 18 May 2020 (UTC)

I don't think so. Reception was more mixed than negative.--24.44.76.88 (talk) 17:03, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
Exactly, it wasn't a bad game, just was more "meh" by critics than the rest of the series. Some fans had serious issues with it, but as we note with this list, we do not consider fan criticism unless that has a serious impact (which it didn't for ME:A). --Masem (t) 17:07, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Custer's Revenge (controversial, not conventionally bad)

If the aim of the list, as the lead text claims, is not to include games purely on the basis of controversy/putative ethical notoriety, Custer's Revenge would seem like a poor fit. All of the provided sources describe it as sociopolitically distasteful with only an obligatory throwaway mention of it not being a particularly good game. That is to say that it would be completely unremarkable, bog standard fare without the concomitant controversy, which means it's not notable for its poor quality. If quality is the key criterion of this list, Custer's Revenge doesn't fit. Elliott-AtomicInfinity (talk) 06:23, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

At present, this article seems to have a bit of an identity problem. The title says "negative reception", but the introductory paragraph is narrower, discussing reported low quality "low-quality or outdated graphics, having many glitches, or having poor controls", bad reviews, worst games of all time lists" etc. While bad reviews are certainly negative reception.
Buried in the second paragraph, we say "this list also omits controversial video games in which the negative reception for those games revolves around the controversies they started and is not related to the quality of the game itself". That indicates this is a list of games that received notably bad reviews.
Unless there's an intention to broaden the focus here, I think the name needs to be changed. - SummerPhDv2.0 22:35, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
@Elliott-AtomicInfinity and SummerPhDv2.0: The article itself states: The game was also poorly-received for its quality; it was listed as the most shameful game of all time by GameSpy, as the third-worst game of all time by PC World, and GameTrailers and the ninth-worst game by Seanbaby in Electronic Gaming Monthly. Games can be both controversial and criticized for their quality, as Custer's Revenge and Night Trap were. I don't see any identity issues. JOEBRO64 22:39, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
I have no problem with that. My concern is that the article's name is "negative reception" while its content is "negative reception for poor quality". - SummerPhDv2.0 22:52, 20 May 2020 (UTC)
That game is probably one of the few that it is near impossible separate the controversy and quality apart. The overall concept is obviously controversial but one could argue "oh, but its meant to be an interesting discussion..." but then at the end of the day the game was of crap quality so the whole thing is a complete disaster. But to the point you're getting at, perhaps a re-write of that section to be clear that the reason the game is here is the co-equally bad quality and controversy it generated, rather than as we have it presently as "it was controversal, oh, and it was also bad". --Masem (t) 22:56, 20 May 2020 (UTC)

Would we possibly include poorly-received hardware on this list?

Title says it all, but we definitely want to distinguish from hardware that just didn't sell well. I'm thinking cases like Ouya and the recently PlayStation classic. And if we'd go this way, we'd again exclude things like knockoff consoles, etc. --Masem (t) 21:03, 16 July 2020 (UTC)

I feel it would be scope creep. -- ferret (talk) 21:11, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I was thinking that too, and again, its a lot harder to differentiate a commercial flop from a poorly received hardware console. --Masem (t) 00:27, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

The Last of Us Part II

It appears my edit https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception&oldid=963893598 including the entry about the game is getting (in my opinion, not justly) repeatedly reverted on the basis that part of the negative reviews are from review bombing. I believe it should still be on the site, because it doesn't appear to me that it's just a few users using mean-spirited ways like review bombing, and they shouldn't overshadow the people voicing their genuine (albeit negative) opinions on it. Thoughts? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 89.78.66.206 (talk) 12:11, 22 June 2020 (UTC)

Content fails all inclusion criteria, including the fourth, which explicitly calls out review bombing. No reliable secondary sources are being used to support "heavy user backlash" that is independent of the review bombing. Forbes is not a reliable source for content like this, and even if it was, Forbes has lambasted the review bombing. Metacritic itself is WP:USERG for user reviews and a google search is the height of an inappropriate source. -- ferret (talk) 12:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
A couple points: Firstly, in that case, what constitutes a credible source for fan backlash? I will gladly add it. Secondly, both Warcraft 3 Reforged and Fallout 76 were confirmed to be review-bombed, and managed to get on this page, because a lot of the negative feedback was genuine. I firmly believe it's the same case here. 89.78.66.206 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
WP:VG/RS has a list of reliable secondary sources that have been vetted by the project. You need articles from them that explicitly mention legitimate user backlash without dismissal. That is, the review bombing itself is a notable thing covered by reliable secondary sources, which is why the game's article mentions it, when otherwise user reviews are WP:USERG and not included. You need a source that says "users are unhappy with x y and z, and these seem to be legitimate issues". Versus, for example, a recent Forbes article shortly after the game released (The game already had more user scores than the first game, within mere hours) that derailed the review bombing and essentially said "Almost none of this is at all possibly legitimate. People railing against pre-release spoilers and the social political aspects of the game who clearly have not purchased the game nor had time to play it." -- ferret (talk) 13:28, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Alright, I understand the notion and where you are coming from. Maybe this article from Kotaku (which is one of the sites that featured a critical review of TLOU2) will help https://kotaku.com/the-last-of-us-part-2-s-metacritic-page-shows-how-broke-1844106265 , as it does mention both genuine criticisms as well as the reviewbombing. Personally, I do not see an issue with people rating a game that they started playing but didn't finish, considering the fact that basically the most important aspects of the game were spoiled way in advance in what I believe to be hours-long leaks, so it does not sound like the people playing were missing a lot of information required to rate a game. I would also like to point out that people from WP:VG/RS do not possess better tools to assess user score credibility than any of us, for that reason I consider the need for their confirmation any better of a solution, but here it is. What would be perfect is if e.g. Sony allowed putting fan reviews from users who are verfied owners of the game, but currently it is not the case. 89.78.66.206 (talk) 14:00, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Wikipedia is built from sources. "Us", the editors, assessing things is what we call original research and it's not allowed. WP:V and WP:RS cover this further. Information on Wikipedia must be backed by reliable sources. -- ferret (talk) 14:22, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Fair enough. Is this article sufficient, then? 89.78.66.206 (talk) 15:12, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
As the criteria at the top of this pages notes, we need multiple sources, a minimum of at least 3, but even then a consensus to add it needs established here on this talk page. -- ferret (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
And knowing where this is going from the LOU2 page: three reviews that are negative (though unscored) aren't sufficient to say this game was notable for negative reception. First, as you can see from previously threads, we've already stripped out many games that were on here just for having low scores, and are making sure games have a "long term" view of being notable for having a negative reception. There is no way a week-old release can have that in the first place, but even then, say a month from now, we'd actually need "meta commentary" sources that describe the overall reception (not just a few critics) as generally being negative. I doubt that will change in the next month given the critical review scores on MC. But should that change, we can re-evaluate it then. --Masem (t) 17:36, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
That's a fair point, also. 89.78.66.206 (talk) 22:01, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The text you've written doesn't make it sound like negative reception, but rather the loud Gamer minority (note that important word) being overly offended and/or trolling. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:29, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
@Melodia, I am not the one to say what's constitutes being overly offended or not, but it appears to me that your comment is dismissing a group's opinions based on their identity. What I am saying is that those opinions exist even though you and I may disagree with them (if you want to hear my opinion, the game in no way deserves the low user scores based on the arguments given). And I think they are very present there and not a minority. 89.78.66.206 (talk) 12:47, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
The problem is that review bombing may or may not represent "legitimate" complaints or they may represent just piling on minor outrage using the only mechanism (review scores) that seem to be able to get attention from developers/publishers, and don't actually reflection proper reception. When there is such a large discrepancy between the critics scores and user scores, this is a pretty strong sign it is the latter. Now we do have legit sources covering this review bomb over at Review bomb. --Masem (t) 13:42, 22 June 2020 (UTC)
Agree with Masem. This has become a serious epidemic, pun intended, on the internet that has over reaching effects on how Wikipedia articles handle WP:RS. Journalism as a whole doesn't have the same standards it did nearly 20 years ago when Wikipedia came into being. In this case, we can't let mobs overrule the reliable sources simply because a group of people want to troll a game. And yes, that's exactly what is happening here, trolls are review bombing the game. We need to let the infected trolls move on so we can get some distance between the initial troll "player" reviews and the actual player reviews. I assume as people start finishing the game, better player reviews will start flowing in.--JOJ Hutton 22:38, 26 June 2020 (UTC)

I think it’s a little more complicated than just review bombing. There is clear evidence of review bombing, yes, but there are also a lot of very angry fans. It’s easy to tell which reviews are just typed by trolls because the “review” just say something along the lines of “this game is garbage”, “worst game ever”, or some form of insult directed at the Neil Druckmann or the developers. The game is also the only game the user has reviewed on the site, which is a pretty obvious sign of a troll. From what I have seen, it also seems that some people are guilty of the opposite of review bombing. A lot of recent reviews are basically just “Haters are stupid”, “I Loooooooooooooooooooovvvvvvvvvve it”, “Best game ever. Screw haters”, etc. A look at the user profile of these reviewers also shows that TLOU2 is the only game they’ve ever reviewed. It appears that there is plenty of both going on. The review bombers and their opposite number also usually give the game a score on one extreme or the other, with bombers usually giving a 0 and their opposite giving it a 10. I agree with Jojhutton about the standards of video game journalism. I don’t think it is as reliable as it was 20 years ago. We need to be extremely careful finding reliable sources, and we can’t use original research. As for whether or not TLOU2 belongs on this page, however, I think we should leave it off the list for now. I think the only conclusion we can reach based on the evidence and sources we have is that it is a very divisive game among fans, and that on it’s own isn’t sufficient to include it on a list of games with notable negative reception. So, for now, I don’t think it needs to be added. Anasaitis (talk) 20:01, 11 July 2020 (UTC)

We have a possible new developed on TLOUII that MC is changing its user-scoring policy due to this game [1]. I want to see how that's picked up on, but assuming this is noted by multiple outlets and all attributed to TLOU2, now we have a case like SW BFII, negative review drivers affecting beyond the game. --Masem (t) 15:32, 17 July 2020 (UTC)

WWE 2K20

Should we put WWE 2K20 since this game is notably for mainly negative reception? --Stephen"Zap" (talk) 04:13, 13 June 2020 (UTC)

I agree and was wondering why it hasn't been included yet. I came to the comments to see if there was previous discussion, but so far not a whole lot.--JOJ Hutton 13:46, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I think the issue with this one is that it's a licensed game. It wasn't expected to be great in the first place, and as the inclusion criteria at the top of this talk page outlines, licensed tie-in games are almost always seen as shovelware even before they come out. JOEBRO64 20:05, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I wholeheartedly agree with that assessment in theory, but this game isn't just bad because it's shovelware. This game was released before it was ready for primetime and had serious glitch issues that made the game completely unplayable, according to multiple secondary sources. The inclusion criteria states that The list mostly omits licensed tie-in games. "Mostly" as I understand it means that there will be the occasional notable exception. I believe that this is one of those exceptions, given how massively poor this game was, expecially in the begining.--JOJ Hutton 20:14, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
There are two issues I can see, one in its favor and one against. One in favor of inclusion is the fact that the next year's iteration of the game was canned so they could spend that year to "fix" the game, and that's the type of influence of negative reception that we like to see. But at the same time, I don't really see the attention to the game to make it "notable" for that purpose, if that makes sense. It'd be helpful if we can cancel out that last point with more source beyond just initial bad reviews to show the notability of being a bad game. --Masem (t) 21:00, 16 July 2020 (UTC)
I completely fail to see how it's a 'licensed game' any more than, say, NBA 2K or other sports games. This isn't some movie tie in, it's CERTAINLY not shovelware, it's a yearly sports release by a major publisher. There's no "assumption of crappiness" here in the broad strokes. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:06, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
I think we can include this one. While "licensed" in a core technical way, it's from 2K and Visual Concepts, and as Melodia points out, is more akin to the yearly iterations of NBA 2K and other sports games than it is licensed movie/film shovelware. -- ferret (talk) 15:29, 17 July 2020 (UTC)
Someone readded WWE 2K20 and given this, I've basically took the time to carve that to an entry that would make it right for inclusion on this page (the fact that it was the first title in the series Yuke's wasn't on, and thus it was laden with glitches despite one of 2K's long-standing studios behind it; its cancellation in favor of the arcade-y Battlegrounds). --Masem (t) 14:15, 28 July 2020 (UTC)

Daikatana

Should we include the game Daikatana on this article? I have the impression that the game meets a few criteria. Mainly visible persistent negative reception and it was listed with one of the worst games of all time (apart from the controversy of advertisement for Daikatana). Additionally, one of those who gave birth to the first-person shooter genre, John Romero, has contributed to it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeephare (talk • contribs) 20:07, 11 August 2020 (UTC)

It's been discussed numerous times in the past; the issue is that the negativity comes more from the fact it was controversial and not from its quality. Most of the actual critical reviews are in the 5 or 6/10 range, which is something we try to avoid with this list. JOEBRO64 19:18, 16 August 2020 (UTC)

Splitting proposal

I propose that this page should be split into a separate page called List of licensed video games notable for negative reception. I have looked through the archived talk and titles that used to be on the list. I have found a lot of controversy stems from games that were licensed for an existing franchise. This has caused a lot of trouble; many games that are tied to a movie or TV show often are low quality shovelware. It would be unreasonable to mention every game that was a cheap cash grab for an existing franchise and was not hailed for its quality. While this has brought up a lot of helpful discussion of poorly made franchise games, it also has made it difficult to determine which licensed games deserve to be on this list. This has created two awkward standards as for what 'negative reception' means.

I propose splitting this into a new page separate for licensed games. While games based on movies, TV shows, comics, etc. are usually low quality, I think it is still justified to list somewhere the licensed games that are exceptionally low quality. This list is already fairly long and it would be easier to manage without having to constantly debate whether a game is bad just because it was a low effort promotion for a movie or if it was bad even by that standard.

Items I propose moving include (but are not limited to) include:

E.T. - One of the first poorly received games based on a movie. Notable to this day for being partly responsible for the video game crash and confusing gameplay.

Star Wars Battlefront II - While not released along with the movie, it is still part of the Star Wars franchise. Still very controversial for its negatively received monetary policy.

Superman 64 - Based on a TV series/comic series. Very well known for its unforgiving gameplay and lack of control.

The Simpsons Wrestling - Based on a TV show. Infamously one of the worst Simpsons games by a long shot.

Please call me Blue (talk) 21:52, 19 August 2020 (UTC)

We have recent removed a lot of games on this list that were just low MC scores, which is where more of the other licensed games would fall. The ones that remain are not just poorly scored but had a long-term impact (ET part of the 83 crash, BF II with loot box boxes, etc.) The recent WWE game is on here for that recent as well, as they are skipping a year because of the bad reception. There is no need to split off this list. --Masem (t) 22:34, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Opposed to split. The inclusion criteria are used to help shepherd this list towards meaningful noteworthy content, per WP:LISTCRIT. The rule about licensed shovelware is that while they have negative reception and low scores, they are not notable explicitly in that regard. Creating a new list just to have a place to put them is somewhat missing the point, and is may also not pass WP:LISTN (Yes, I know LISTN is wishy washy about Lists of X of Y). Are any reliable secondary sources explicitly discussing poorly received shovelware games as a group? -- ferret (talk) 22:58, 19 August 2020 (UTC)
Oppose. That's just an arbitrary distinction. Who is "constantly debating" why it was a bad game? soetermans. ↑↑↓↓←→←→ B A TALK 08:00, 21 August 2020 (UTC)

Madden nfl 21

Hi,

Is it okay to edit madden nfl 21 on the list because despite reviving mixed reviews, its user score is so low and it recieved an overwhelming negative response I feel like that it should be on this list like what battlefront 2 and no mans sky did. Is it okay for you to put it on the list please. Thanks. Crowkid555 (talk) 09:30, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

It's critics score is average (69 and 64) so too high to be on this list. The user reviews are the negative side, and unfortunately, at least at this stage, we can't add because of that. If there's some serious changes that EA makes due to that, maybe (that would be the BF II situation) but nothing yet has happened. It's just a mediocre sports game from a critical view, and one that fans are speaking negatively about. --Masem (t) 13:51, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Didn't you do that to battlefront 2 because that also got a mediocre score between 65 and 68, and a negative response from fans before improving on later years. Crowkid555 (talk) 20:57, 31 August 2020 (UTC)

Cartoon Network: Battle Crashers

This game got very poor reviews. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHeers2001 (talk • contribs) 23:27, 23 August 2020 (UTC)

The game is simply a type of shovelware, as a result, we don't need to add it (unless it has an impact on the industry).--24.44.76.88 (talk) 15:33, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Some fans consider CN:BC to be an insult to Castle Crashers, the game that CN:BC is considered to be a rip-off of. They also consider CN:BC to be an insult to CN:BC's characters. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHeers2001 (talk • contribs) 00:01, 31 October 2020 (UTC)

Given the newish approach we're taking for this list, just to avoid every low-score rated game and focusing on those that have a reputation of being a low-score rated game, there's almost no sourcing beyond the few RS reviews for CN:BC that we can use to expand on this title to include here. That fans may be upset with it is one thing but this isn't documented by reliable sources that we can really use, and add that it is basically close to shovelware (licensed properties), we pretty much can't add it without much more stronger sourcing. --Masem (t) 16:05, 2 November 2020 (UTC)

Some people, especially Jed Whitaker of Destructoid, noted that the game significantly deviated from its source material. Whitaker was especially harsh towards the treatment of Steven Universe material in the game. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHeers2001 (talk • contribs) 18:43, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

Fast & Furious Crossroads

A lot of critics and players alike found various issues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ChrisHeers2001 (talk • contribs) 22:17, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

See the inclusion criteria. We do not generally include film tie-in games. -- ferret (talk) 00:02, 12 October 2020 (UTC)
Licensed tie-in games are only included if their reception is bad enough for the developers to officially respond, or if a controversy spawns from it (see Aliens: Colonial Marines and Star Wars Battlefront II (2017). Shadowboxer2005 (talk) 00:48, 4 December 2020 (UTC)

Putting on the "to watch" list: Cyberpunk 2077

While it clearly was well received from critics, it has been getting a lot of reported problematic coverage for poor performance and other factors from players. Far too soon to judge if this will be enduring to be that much of a negative (this would make it the same vein as No Man's Sky or FFXIV placement here) but would like editors to keep watch on this. --Masem (t) 15:40, 14 December 2020 (UTC)

To add at the present state of CP2077, it would definitely fall only to the "controversial games" due to the poor performance on last-gen consoles (which CDP didn't appear to talk much about) and the troubles ppl have with refunding the game. What would need to be more is the part I've seen more on user threads and some reviews that the game is generally "boring" compared to Witcher 3, to some making it a very bad game, but I've not seen this thread picked up in RSes yet. --Masem (t) 07:16, 15 December 2020 (UTC)
Just recently CP2077 was pulled from the Playstation store. This would definitely push it towards the negative reception list. 65.175.172.26 (talk) 07:36, 19 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree. The scores for last gen consoles are definitely terrible. Even if the game is improved in the future, it's worth including in the list for it's buggy history. Enjoyer of World — Talk 08:35, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
Agree. This falls into the No Man's Sky category of reception. 2001:8003:CD66:B701:D0E8:55CD:953B:BF3B (talk) 12:14, 27 December 2020 (UTC)
Dropping this ref that I've used elsewhere as a key supporting one if we add this. I'm not yet sure if this has passed from "Controversial" to "negative reception" yet. Isaac, Mike; Browning, Kellen (December 19, 2020). "Cyberpunk 2077 Was Supposed to Be the Biggest Video Game of the Year. What Happened?". The New York Times. Retrieved December 20, 2020. --Masem (t) 15:01, 20 December 2020 (UTC)
We've now had one class-action lawsuit drop for how bad (or more specific unready) the game was at release. [2]. At this point, I would say CP2077 qualifies; this is not a mess that is going to disappear over time; at best CP2077 will have a NMS rebound, meaning these release problems will not be forgotten. But I'd like some more input before adding it. --Masem (t) 22:25, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
Go for it. I cannot see how the release cannot be taken as negative. While it may, like FO76 and NMS, crawl it's way back, it's a disaster of a launch. -- ferret (talk) 22:31, 24 December 2020 (UTC)
This came up in a Discord discussion, but I'm skeptical of the recent addition. It's still too early to say that this will be a game enduringly remembered for the backlash, or if it was a flash in the pan (similar to Fallout New Vegas release bugs). If the criteria for this list are simply "there was a big negative hubbub once", then it should be 5 times as long, and include things like the Diablo III server overloads in its first two weeks of release, the Hearthstone / Hong Kong controversy, and so on. (And yes, this means that No Man's Sky is kind of suspect on this list, too.) SnowFire (talk) 02:00, 25 December 2020 (UTC)

Proposal to Remove Friday 13th Game

I recommend we remove the Friday the 13th listing as there's only two references, plus it's licensed and we generally don't include licensed games unless they have a 'legacy' of sorts.2001:8003:CD66:B701:5163:E0A6:FD5F:5518 (talk) 12:44, 29 December 2020 (UTC)

Daikatana PC/N64

It has been repeatedly cited as one of the worst games of all times, yet it's absence on this list seems strange. I suggest it's addition, not only because of the game itself but also due to the marketing and reception. Cheers. Sirfalcon11 (talk) 23:58, 12 January 2021 (UTC)

I just added this to the top of this talk page today. See the archives: it is known for the controversy it stirred, but it has a generally average reception, and thus fails to meet the mark for this list. --Masem (t) 00:07, 13 January 2021 (UTC)

On the Sonic: Rise of Lyric issue

Might I suggest either 1) leaving out "the worst selling Sonic game" or 2) phrasing it as "one of the worst-selling Sonic games", either case leaving in the 400k sales figure (which is easy to see as a very low number for a major title) and leaving the IGN source that sources that? We don't need to nitpick the exacting position compared to the various edugames or the like, just that it didn't sell well as a result of its poor reception. --Masem (t) 16:21, 28 January 2021 (UTC)

I favor option two, FWIW. JOEBRO64 20:10, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
Support option 2. TarkusABtalk/contrib 23:17, 28 January 2021 (UTC)
'One of the Worst' works pretty well yeah. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 00:52, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Neither. Leave it as is. The editor who's removing "Worst selling" is simply wrong. A reliable secondary source tells us it's the worst selling in the franchise. For context, they provide 3-4 other examples. The source claims, "worst selling". That they don't include the sales figure of every Sonic game ever is irrelevant. That they cited the immediate financial report that was relevant to Boom's sales, which also didn't cover every Sonic game ever, is also irrelevant. The point of reliable secondary sources is that we trust them. Baring some conflicting source, we trust that the reliable secondary source did their homework before making the claim. That would include perhaps reviewing older financial reports that they did not explicitly link to, among many other possibilities. It's WP:OR to twist that "IGN didn't list every game so this is false." -- ferret (talk) 01:14, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Go with option two. IGN being a generally reliable source doesn't turn everything they magically into true information. The Sonic franchise has 150+ entries, including games like J2ME mobile games or Sonic Jam for the Game.com, a console that by itself moved less units than Sonic Boom by itself. Other articles from the time make more reasonable claims, with it being one of the lowest-selling games of the franchise in recent times (https://www.polygon.com/2015/2/12/8029245/sonic-boom-sales-sega-losses) or one of the lowest-selling MAJOR Sonic titles (https://www.eurogamer.net/articles/2015-02-12-sonic-boom-games-shifted-just-490-000-copies). Cortador (talk) 10:07, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Went ahead and added two articles from the same time that make a more reasonable assessment of the sales report i.e. the games being the worst-selling major Sonic game around the time, avoiding absolute statements like it being the single worst selling Sonic game ever.Cortador (talk) 10:20, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
Thank you. So annoying when people argue for clearly false/bad data just because it's in a 'reliable source' as if they are infallible. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 13:34, 29 January 2021 (UTC)
  • FYI, Cortado's edit warring spilled into its actual article too. I'm okay with either "one of" or just "the worst" - I only oppose Cortdo's whole-sale removal of the statement. It's without a doubt at least one of the worst selling Sonic games. But at the same time, I'm sure some obsessive fan can point out how Waku Waku Sonic Patrol Car sold 10 units and is technically the worst too. Anyways, I don't usually follow this article anymore, so this is really just a request to apply the same wording at the article once we have consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 13:42, 29 January 2021 (UTC)

Pubg is the worst

Listen to me pubg is the worst and the most violent game Hasnain is writing (talk) 04:05, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Please see your talk page. Sourced games may be added in the proper place in this article, but you keep replacing the Metacritic website in the lede. LizardJr8 (talk) 04:07, 15 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Mighty No. 9 Eligible For This List?

So I've read that indie games aren't eligible for this list unless they are under certain circumstances. The game had an experienced director (Keiji Inafune), earned more than $4M in funding and had extremely promising stretch goals reached but got panned in reviews as the worst Kickstarter ever made. However, it also got up to 55/100 on Metacritic on Xbox One yet as low as 48/100 on Wii U. Is this game eligible for this list? — Preceding unsigned comment added by VideoGameMovie (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 February 2021 (UTC)

The issue with MNo.9 is that while it did have that low reception, and there was definitely a strong negative fan response, it didn't seem to have a lasting one in reliable sources. I know on gaming forums its a known "bad game" but not on the sources we can use. --Masem (t) 05:29, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Would Diablo III be appropriate ?

I was just doing some edits for the Diablo series and reminded myself of when this game hit, it was hit with criticism about its changes from D2 , the always-on Internet requirement, and the auction house approaches. But the MC scores are high-70s/low-80s, and after some years, Blizzard addressed most of these criticism (eg another FF14/NMS idea). Given that this starts with high MC scores, I can see this might not be as great an entry here, but I'm just putting this out there for food for thought. --Masem (t) 05:31, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

I lean towards it not quite passing the bar. It certainly was viewed in a less positive light than Diablo II and many changes were criticized, but I don't know that it rose to the level this list needs. -- ferret (talk) 18:23, 25 February 2021 (UTC)

Is Fighter Within Eligible For This List?

Fighter Within was a critically panned fighting game with a 2.7/10 on IGN and 23% on Eurogamer and Metacritic. It was hated for its horrible kinect-based fighting controls, shallow gameplay mechanics and a lacklustre story. I just don't know if this game is well known enough to be put on here. VideoGameMovie 21:57, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

It is possible with that score as well as being known as one of the worst launch products for the Kinect, but I'd want to get more input for that. --Masem (t) 23:00, 26 February 2021 (UTC)

Cyberpunk 2077

While I understand the reasons for adding it, given the pre-release hype, the game (as presently described in the subsection) does not meet the criteria defined in the lead. According to the previous discussion here, it fits the No Man's Sky category (negative reception ... at their original launch). But the review scores (PC: 85, PS4: 57, XONE: 61) do not show that, the scores cited in the subsection are not supported by the refs, and the subsection is focused on delays and crunch time, and only a little is said about it being a "bad game". Also it seems to me the subsection is non-neutral, omitting the awards and sales, for example. I wonder how a game that sold "over 13 million copies" 10 days after the "botched" release can be on the list. WikiHannibal (talk) 19:24, 23 March 2021 (UTC)

"Negative reception" need not be a "bad game" but that there was documentable criticism against the game. Which there was, by way of the poor last-gen performance in addition to conditions around how the game was released. This would fall more into the SW:BFII reasoning (the game wasn't bad but its loot box model was criticized). --Masem (t) 20:22, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

Page move

@IceWelder: Please repair the page move you performed without discussion and against consensus, which has been reiterated during the AFD. The main page and talk have been restored but all the subpages need corrected. -- ferret (talk) 13:09, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

Requested move 11 April 2021

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review after discussing it on the closer's talk page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The result of the move request was: Withdrawn. Given forgone (non-)consensus in three cases (1, 2, 3) that I forgot to check beforehand, it appears unreasonable to hold a fourth move discussion on the topic. IceWelder [✉] 16:28, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

List of video games notable for negative reception → List of video games considered the worst – The current title was deemed an editorialization by some editors in the recent AfD discussion. Instead, it was floated that the page should be renamed to "List of video games considered the worst" to improve attribution. This move would also be analogous to:

Alternative names suggested include "List of video games known for negative reception" or "List of video games noted for negative reception". IceWelder [✉] 15:50, 11 April 2021 (UTC)

  • Opposed One editor at the AFD (the nom) was primarily concerned with the title. No real rationale given to rename the article from it's current name, which tightly defines the scope. "considered the worst" is essentially an entirely different topic/scope that would require the entire list to be re-evaluated and the listcrit re-worked. The AFD indicates there's a strong consensus for the article as is. -- ferret (talk) 16:10, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Is The Last of Us Part II eligible?

Many consumers discussed at length how every aspect of the game was weaker than the previous installment, and as this article is not taking sales numbers into account, could TLOU be added?

  • I'm not sure that "weaker than the first installment" is enough. I'm not that familiar with either game, I've heard of them in passing and it sounded like there was a good bit of hype and expectation surrounding the release, but was the reception truly negative, or just slightly disappointed? What do the actual reviews say? Hyperion35 (talk) 00:04, 13 April 2021 (UTC)
The game had some critics comment negatively on how much violence, but it wasn't at a level to completely wipe out overly positive scoring for the game. There were user score review bombs, but unless that had direct long-term impacts on a game, we don't consider those (they didn't for TLOUII). So no, not really, TLOUII is very much no where close to appropriate to include here. --Masem (t) 00:13, 13 April 2021 (UTC)

Balan Wonderworld?

If you know about recent video games, you might know that Balan Wonderworld has been heavily panned, would it perhaps qualify? Gavin the Otter (talk) 20:39, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

See the section earlier on this page. While it definitely has a panned reception, we're also looking for more longevity or something more significant (as there are lots of games with bad reviews). There's not yet that indicator for Balan though there's a hint there may be something and we are watching for it --Masem (t) 21:07, 25 April 2021 (UTC)

Balan Wonderworld

Despite the game's mixed critical reception, it should be on this list not only due to the fact that many gamers were upset about the demo as well as the game, but it also became infamous due to a positive score review bomb on Metacritic.--24.44.76.88 (talk) 19:43, 31 March 2021 (UTC)

It is far too soon to add it since we're looking for long-term effects of the negative reception, and not just having it. If there's a review bomb that can be documented that can be added to review bomb. --Masem (t) 20:20, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
I was going to post that I think this is one we should at least put on the watchlist. The Switch and PC versions are currently tanking review-wise (27/100 on Switch and 46/100 on PC), and aside from the PS5 version, all the other versions aren't looking like they're faring much better. Given the talent behind this game (Yuji Naka and Naoto Ohshima are household names), the fact that it's a major first-party Square Enix release, and that Naka has said it'll probably be his last platformer (the genre that made him a household name), this is definitely one we want to keep an eye on. JOEBRO64 22:12, 31 March 2021 (UTC)
Everything aside from the PS5 version is now below 50/100 on Metacritic (in the cases of the Switch and Xbox Series X/S, well below—it's among the top four worst scores for a Switch game), FWIW. I think we should give it some time but I can definitely see this getting a spot on the list. JOEBRO64 14:15, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Remember that from the latest major purge, we want more than just sub-50 scores. That said, given this was meant to be a big impressive game from the Sonic devs, that might speak to that. But definitely we need time to assess that. --Masem (t) 14:20, 2 April 2021 (UTC)
Regarding your "we want more than just sub-50 scores", I have to say again that Cyberpunk scores were 86, 55 and 54. ;-) So the list (still) seems a little too arbitrary to me. WikiHannibal (talk) 06:37, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
CP2077 getting pulled from the PS Store (and still not back several months from release), and potential lawsuits, are parts of its long term impact/notority as a bad game. That's not to say Balan doesn't have it - as more comes out, I am seeing scathing reviews and its definitely a title to watch. --Masem (t) 22:54, 11 April 2021 (UTC)
Another update: the game has reportedly bombed commercially. JOEBRO64 03:25, 7 April 2021 (UTC)
The game also received negative reception due to seisure issues in final boss fight at launch, which has been patched later; has been accused of including knock-off Ghostbusters song; and developers are gonna remove the game's demo at 23:59 JST on 14th April and a few hours later on Steam. Zeephare (talk) 18:39, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
It's *almost* there for listing here, its just that I'd personally like to see a few more reputable sources than Nintendo Life be talking about this after affect. (The pulling of the demo is a bit of evidence but its not the back-breaking straw) --Masem (t) 18:50, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
More sources here: https://gamerant.com/balan-wonderworld-massive-sales-flop/ https://kotaku.com/a-song-in-balan-wonderworld-sounds-a-lot-like-a-song-fr-1846615614 https://www.nintendoenthusiast.com/balan-wonderworld-accused-of-using-music-from-ghostbusters/ https://www.pcgamer.com/balan-wonderworlds-seizure-inducing-effects-will-be-fixed-in-a-launch-update/ https://www.playstationlifestyle.net/2021/04/05/balan-wonderworld-poor-sales/ https://www.destructoid.com/stories/the-hits-keep-coming-square-enix-is-taking-down-the-balan-wonderworld-demo-625909.phtml Zeephare (talk) 18:58, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Keep in mind, here's how Balan would get on this list if the trend I'm seeing continues: It was posed as a major Switch title from Square, produced by members of Sonic team, so it was supposed to be all that and a bag of chips. It clearly was nowhere close to that (though this statement right now is mostly original research and why we can't post yet), nowhere close to what one would expect for a $60 game. The game thus is selling poorly and Square is pulling the demo, all signs that Square is trying to hide the game under a rock (again, original research). The sources are trending that way, but no one has said it from an RS in a way we can use explicitly. But I fully agree this is a very likely title and just needs a handful more sources to make it. --Masem (t) 19:04, 14 April 2021 (UTC)
Adding a possible piece but not yet enough to go on, Yuji Naka reportedly has been let go from Square Enix with the media speculating it is due to Balan. We need firmer confirmation that's the case though. --Masem (t) 12:59, 4 June 2021 (UTC)
This will be a better source to discuss his departure from Square Enix [3] but again, we don't yet have any confrmation this was directly tied to the poor reception of BW. --Masem (t) 15:48, 5 June 2021 (UTC)
Still not enough but another piece that can be used [4] --Masem (t) 15:16, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I think this game is pretty much destined for inclusion on the list at this point, so I'm going to take a crack at writing something that we could put up. JOEBRO64 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Drafting

Balan Wonderworld is a platform game co-developed by Balan Company (a subsidiary of Square Enix) and Arzest, and published by Square Enix. The development was led by veteran Sega developers Yuji Naka and Naoto Ohshima, who co-created the Sonic the Hedgehog franchise and worked on other critically-acclaimed games like Nights into Dreams (1996) at Sonic Team in the 1990s. Prior to the game's release, Naka stated it was his "one chance" to make a platform game at Square Enix. While Balan Wonderworld was well received when it was announced in July 2020, reception turned negative after a demo was released in January 2021. Square Enix created a day-one patch that attempted to address some of the demo's problems, though producer Noriyoshi Fujimoto stated it was too late to make major adjustments.

The game was released in March 2021 for Windows, Nintendo Switch, PlayStation 4, PlayStation 5, Xbox One, and Xbox Series X/S. Square Enix did not provide advance copies for critics, and the game received strongly negative reviews. Critics panned the presentation, story, gameplay, controls, level design, and technical issues. An aspect of particular criticism was the decision to use a one-button control scheme similar to the original Sonic the Hedgehog (1991). Many reviewers criticized the game as outdated, with some likening it to an early 2000s PlayStation 2 platformer. Balan Wonderworld also shipped with a bug in the final boss that contained flashing lights, raising concerns about epileptic seizures; this caused Square Enix to warn players to install the patch before playing.

Due to the negative reviews, Balan Wonderworld was a commercial failure, selling less than 2,100 copies in its opening week in Japan, and it failed to make multiple sales charts. Shortly after the game's release, Square Enix delisted the demo. In April 2021, Naka departed from Square Enix, and two months later announced he was considering retirement; although he did not provide any reasons, many publications assumed it was due to the failure of Balan Wonderworld.

(no sources just yet, but this is all based on what I've read in RSs so it's going to be pretty easy to source.) JOEBRO64 17:54, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

I want to say there might be attention to the QTE sections and if there are comparisons to a poorly-made Super Mario Odyssey but I haven't reviewed the reviews to know if those stand out. But I would still say we need something a bit "harder" here. It's right there at the edge to be added. --Masem (t) 18:51, 7 June 2021 (UTC)

Name change

Hi, quick question. Could this article have its title changed to “Video Games Considered the Worst”? I don’t care who came up with “Video Games Notable for Negative Reception”, but why not title it as above? Besides, doesn’t the title, as it is now, sound vague? I understand that the second paragraph of the page differentiates what this article is saying and “controversial video games”, stating that “for those games revolves around the controversies they started and is not related to the quality of the game itself,” but controversy, regardless, is still a form of negative reception—-not about the game’s actual merits, sometimes, but still a form of negative reception. Would you not agree? (BlueBlurHog) 25 June 2021, 17:45 (UTC)

We obviously don't agree. This has been argued repeatedly, see the move discussions listed at the top of the page and the Article for Deletion. "considered the worst" and "notable for negative reception" have subtle but very different meanings ultimately. One is subjective while the other is objective. We can show that a game had notable and sustained negative reception with relative ease, and the inclusion criteria is built around this. -- ferret (talk) 18:50, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
We're be more exclusive (less inclusive) about "worst games", of which one would just have to crawl through the bottom of Metacritic or the like to find. Many of those are bad but are not notable, and hence as Ferret says, we use a more detailed wording to reflect that we're talking about games that their bad reception had had a long tail on the game or the industry to a degree. That "Hastily Made Movie Tie-In" that got a 16/100 at MC but zero coverage isn't helpful for WP. --Masem (t) 19:34, 25 June 2021 (UTC)
By that logic, wouldn’t “Video Games Considered the Best” be subjective in that sense? If this page is supposed to be as objective as possible, why not do the same for one of its counterparts (considered the best)? Isn’t that inconsistent? (BlueBlueHog) 02:19, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
Irrelevant to the purpose of this list. The article "considered the best" is tied very tightly to reliable sources and top 100 lists to provide objectivity. This article simply doesn't have the same scope. It's not about the "worst games". It's about those games that explicit strong negative reception, notably so. A low score isn't enough to be on this list, it has to be widely reported and hold significance. -- ferret (talk) 02:33, 26 June 2021 (UTC)
I think this article's name should be changed so it is called "List of video games known for negative reception" to be more consistent with the other worst lists that end in "negative reception".--24.44.76.88 (talk) 14:52, 30 June 2021 (UTC)
Just as a recent for instance, Cyberpunk 2077 is on the list. I don't think many people would ever claim it to be among the worst games, but for sure got plenty of negative reception. To a lesser extent, No Man's Sky as well. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 05:21, 26 June 2021 (UTC)

Should "Spore" be on this list?

Was doing a few touchups at NMS, and realized that Spore is one of those games that, while its critical score were fine (80-ish% range), it had gained a reputation of missing expectations set out, and unlike NMS, never really recovered from that. (I also know there was player controversy over the DRM, but this isn't like the SimCity debacle). That said, while I think it's common knowledge that Spore failed to meet expectations, I'm not finding good sourcing to really push that. I won't be adding it until those sources exist, but this is one of those games to think about on the back burner. --Masem (t) 15:12, 6 August 2021 (UTC)

Artifact

I'd like to put up Valve's Artifact for consideration since it's debatably one of the biggest bombs in modern gaming. Critical reception was actually quite good, but the game went from lots of hype from mass marketing, big cash tournaments, paid twitch streaming, and over 60,000 players on launch to more or less completely dead in two months. So dead that Valve would later decide to completely abandon any plans for "Artifact 2.0" and give up on the game entirely. Newell would later say Artifact had been a "great disappointment", and that Valve planned to learn from its mistakes. Seems potentially worthy of inclusion. Thoughts? --Primecut (talk) 15:27, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't feel like it quite belongs here, as the general reception was quite good. Perhaps the list of commercial failures though? -- ferret (talk) 15:44, 23 August 2021 (UTC)
My impression too, but that would even require sources for that. Its the same boat Anthem (EA's) is in. It's not quite a bad game critically, lacks the clear evidence of a commercial failure, but the odd development pattern (following the same path of a rebooted dev sequence like FF14) makes it unusual but neither fitting either list easily unless we can source it. --Masem (t) 15:48, 23 August 2021 (UTC)

Sonic Colors Ultimate

Even though it's a port of a critically praised game, this should still be added because of all the glitches that players have found in the game, with the Switch version in particular being infamous for having long loading times and a bug that can cause potential epileptic seizures.--24.44.76.88 (talk) 01:25, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Doesn't meet the criteria. Review scores are in the mid-70s, and it's hardly a Cyberpunk scenario (games release with bugs like this all the time, it's pretty common)—especially considering that the worst issues are confined to a single version of the game and some may be the result of people using emulators/modded Switch consoles. JOEBRO64 01:52, 9 September 2021 (UTC)

Hunt Down the Freeman

I can understand why this has been added, but I'm not sure it quite actually passes our inclusion criteria. Despite some news flurry about how bad it was and controversy around it, it received zero actual scored reviews from any reliable sources, with zero reviews listed on Metacritic. I think this falls into the hole of shovelware and other indie games that had low expectation from the start. -- ferret (talk) 12:50, 20 September 2021 (UTC)

I agree, it also doesn't have any type of long term impact of its negative reception. Just because it was talked about negatively by fans (discussed through RSes) doesn't mean it fits here. --Masem (t) 13:12, 20 September 2021 (UTC)
For now, I will agree as well, due to the fact that the game is from 2018 (only three years ago), so it has yet to receive any real retrospective coverage determining whether it's the worst. Although I do not quite agree with the above reasoning.
(1) As you can see on the inclusion criteria, having a negative Metacritic score only guarantees the game will be on the list, not that it affects it eligibility.
(2) For aggregates and reviews, I at least have to start the talk on this somewhere on here. A lot of you may not know (I would hope at least some of you would), but gaming aggregates are very imperfect and miss a lot of hq reliable reviews. Reasons include
(2a) a publication (online or print) does not list some of its review as part of their review column, and thus is not considered a review by an aggregate
(2b) The aggregate is not aware of publications at the time a game at release, and normally critic reviews are added to a score only upon release. Even if a source like GameSpot reviews the game a year or even months later, it is sometimes not counted in because that's past the time Metacritic adds scores to the game.
(3) Not having specifically scored reviews upon release does not mean there were not any professional reviews at the time of release (Hunt Down the Freeman was negatively reviewed by Rock, Paper, Shotgun, for example) and (do not take this at WP:CRYSTALBALLing), retrospective coverage still can come down the line stating the game is the worst, which I would imagine would be the biggest overrider of other parts of the criteria.:
(4) Just because a game is indie does not automatically mean its shovelware (there's lots of shovelware developed by professional companies as well as lots of notable indie titles).
(5) I'd also need evidence that expectations for the title were low in the first place. 👨x🐱 (talk) 16:17, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not really going to reply to this point by point, as I think you've read more into my statements than I intended. It was just a snap summary of the inclusion criteria highlights. On one point though, I'm well aware of aggregator issues, and I also reviewed the sources used, but most did not seem to actually be reviews. Hence... no apparent scored reviews. -- ferret (talk) 16:31, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
One of the things we've been trying to cull on this list are games that simply have a negative reception and then get lost to the annuls of history, and instead list games that their negative reception is infamous for various reasons (like Big Rigs or Superman 64) or have had a significant impact as a result (SimCity 2013, FF XIV). Taking into account of Hunt down the Freeman, its a game that fails either of these higher-level aspects (not well known so not infamous outside of the small modding community, and has had no effect). That said, it may qualify as a controversial game due to the questions about copyright issues, but that's a separate matter. --Masem (t) 16:48, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Thanks for the responses. I just wanted to make sure user on here knew the specifics of things. I agree with making sure we have a criteria that makes the list not look like a directory, as other list articles do. 👨x🐱 (talk) 20:04, 27 September 2021 (UTC)
Exactly - if you go back to this article's history say around 2018 or so, you'll see the problem we had with the directly like nature of any game that just had low reception. We're being more discriminate on purpose, but we do want editors to be thinking of cases that would make sense as long they can be justified. --Masem (t) 20:14, 27 September 2021 (UTC)

Should Cyberpunk really be on this list?

It was notoriously glitchy, but it also has a [5] 86 on metacritic combined with a 7.1 user score. It's reviews aren't fantastic (especially for the non-pc versions) but they're definitely not "worst games of all time" level, they're pretty normal. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 07:33, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

This list isn't "worst of all time", it's "negative reception". I think "so buggy that even Sony allowed refunds" is pretty negative. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 12:32, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

I think Cyberpunk 2077 should be on the list, especially if games such as No Man’s Sky are going to stay up despite the otherwise positive reception it’s getting now. Freerey (talk) 17:20, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Another to potentially watch/add - Nintendo Switch Online's N64 games

While its only been a day, there's clearly problems reported by multiple RSes in how well the N64 games via the Nintendo Switch Online work - coupled with its added cost. Nowhere near enough time and/or sourcing right now to add, but I'm throwing this out there as a potential addition in the future. --Masem (t) 22:35, 26 October 2021 (UTC)

The Softwork Toolworks Mario games.

These games have arguably received more negative reception than Hotel Mario.JYmasktape (talk) 03:57, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Find some sources for that claim then go for it! ― TaltosKieronTalk 13:55, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
Given these were education games, I would argue they fall into the category of "games expected to be of poor quality" to start. To iterate how we've been handling this list nowadays, we want to see lingering considerations of having negative reception, not just being given low scores at release and then never really talked about again, and that's where the fact they were educational games, they were given this "pass" compared to, say, "Hotel Mario" which was meant as a legit game. --Masem (t) 14:01, 28 October 2021 (UTC)

Konami's eFootball

I haven't followed this enough but seeing a few articles today about the mess of its launch [6]. I'll look more but this might fit. --Masem (t) 16:38, 1 October 2021 (UTC)

Another good point for reference [7] and [8] I think we have enough from these and a few others that this is worth it, when put in like that eFootball was meant to be Konami's revival of Pro Evolution Soccer, but unless it gets an NMS-type turnaround quickly, it likely will be DOA and cede the pitch football crown to EA's FIFA (per these articles, not OR). --Masem (t) 00:24, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
I'm good with your judgement on it. -- ferret (talk) 00:26, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Proposed text
Konami's eFootball 2022 is an association football simulation game that is based on their previous Pro Evolution Soccer series (PES, also known as Winning Eleven in North America). Prior to the 2010s, the PES series had generally been considered the superior simulation series over the FIFA series from Electronic Arts (EA). In the 2010s, EA was able to secure licenses away from Konami to use team and player images in game, as well as develop a game mode called "Ultimate Team" which allowed game players to collect athletes from various monetization routes to build their own teams and compete with other players. Konami shifted gears with the PES series in 2020 with eFootball PES 2020, aiming the title toward more online and competitive play as a potential esport game. Konami held back on the seris in 2021 to prepare for the eFootball 2022 release, announcing plans to make it a free-to-play title. On its release in September 2021, players discovered the game had numerous visual glitches and sub-par graphics for the current generation of gaming systems. Few official teams are represented in the game due to the limited number of league partnerships Konami had obtained, and even some players such as Lionel Messi who were licensed to appear in the game were placed on teams they were not part of in the real world. There were also problems with online play as well as in-game mechanics that had not been present in previous iterations of PES titles, a change that was partially attributed to the first use of the Unreal Engine for the series. eFootball 2022 was highly negatively reviewed on Steam that it became the worst-rated game by the service's users of all time within days of its release. Konami apologized for the problems with the game and said they would be rushing to issue fixes, but journalists stated that unless the game has a No Man's Sky-type redemption, it would be likely that FIFA will remain the dominant football simulation game for some time.
(This is all citable from the above links and a few others). --Masem (t) 00:47, 7 October 2021 (UTC)
Go for it. This game effectively killed what was once arguably the biggest sports gaming franchise in the world circa 2005. What a mess of a release, it's been compared to Cyberpunk. Worth pointing out the monetization schemes that have been criticized by fans of the series.2601:642:4580:49A0:68C2:104F:4E5B:1C71 (talk) 05:05, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Support inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 23:55, 9 October 2021 (UTC)
Given that Konami says they anticipate a major patch to fix issues by the end of this month, I think waiting for that patch and its reaction will be better, given that we still don't have many professional reviews on this. If the patch leaves things in a bad state, then we can post, but if it does improve it, then this is just a bad first month and may not be long-term problems. --Masem (t) 14:56, 11 October 2021 (UTC)
Updating that this patch has been pushed off into November, so still in holding on adding this until that patch is out and we can judge it. --Masem (t) 14:02, 28 October 2021 (UTC)
And now been delayed until early next year, which some are taking as a bad sign but still a reason to hold off adding unless things change. [9] --Masem (t) 12:47, 5 November 2021 (UTC)
[10] Fallout 76 syndrome much? Still too early. 2601:642:4500:F1E0:DCDE:D1F9:C70B:F5C4 (talk) 23:40, 6 November 2021 (UTC)

Friday the 13th for the C64, Rise of the Robots

I suggest adding these two to this article. Friday the 13th for the Commodore 64 has nothing to do with the franchise. Rise of the Robots got bad reviews and ratings in many magazines back then. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 46.253.186.82 (talk) 14:58, 1 November 2021 (UTC)

I don't really think that C64 Friday the 13th should be on the article. PC games at the time had no quality control, so developers would just make whatever they wanted. TwilightKid53 (talk) 16:35, 30 November 2021 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_16&oldid=1068764288"