Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

→

Archive 10

???

Why do you deleted some games such as Cassette 50 or Count Duckula 2?? Laughreach (talk) 22:36, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

For starters, Count Duckula 2 doesn't seem to have any notable sources (per Wikipedia policy at WP:N) as to its overall crapiness. Cassette 50 does, and probably deserves to be placed back on the list, but we're still discussing the future format of the list and the future of the list in general here, here and here. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 22:52, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

Um, WP:N doesn't say sources have to be notable (and WP:N is not a policy by the way). You may want to read Wikipedia:Policies and guidelines. And constructive criticism is much more helpful than terms like "overall crappiness." --Pixelface (talk) 11:43, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I apologize -- I was in a tinch of a bad mood when I wrote that. For starters, I should have linked to WP:RS (or WP:VG/S) which does in fact recommend that articles use reliable third party sources. And it's my mistake for using the term. Also, I do believe that guidelines are just as useful as policy, though they may not be as foundational to the site. Both WP:RS and WP:N are used daily to delete articles (see this deletion log), and as such, should be regarded seriously when it comes to using them.

Again, sorry for the incivility. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 17:24, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Okay, Nomader, but, I think The Simpsons Wrestling must be added because, in it's article says that is considered one of the worst games ever.

Laughreach (talk) 20:45, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

If you can give me a link to the article, I'd be more than happy to fully support adding it to this list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 02:21, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Add Awesome Possum too, Nomader. Laughreach (talk) 17:14, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

Awesome Possum

I think this can be added to the list. The game is generally disliked by gamers because of poor responsiveness to controls. It was notable for its time for having many lines of digitized speech, a feature which the game was marketed with, but the feature has been felt as annoying by most of gamers.

Laughreach (talk) 17:12, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked it up at both Game Rankings and Metacritic and found two reviews at Game Rankings and none at all at Metacritic. At the two reviews at Game Rankings, one was a 2.0 out of ten which panned the game. However, the other review from Electronic Gaming Monthly gave the game a 6.5 out of ten. The legitimacy of Sega-16 as a source is questioned here at the WikiProject and the consensus seems to be that though the reviews might be interesting to read, their policies to check them aren't up to the standard of other sources. As such, ignoring that review and only going by the score given by EGM, I don't think it should be added to the list. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:42, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

The Simpsons Skateboarding

This game is very poor than Simpsons Wrestling was. The game flopped due to chunky graphics, poor sound and music, lack of tricks, and poor controls. The dialogue got mixed ratings. The game currently has an average of 38% at Game Rankings. Add this horrible thing in the list, please.

Laughreach (talk) 17:25, 31 May 2008 (UTC)

I looked it over -- you're right. Overall, this game has bad reviews scores, but there are still games which are even more notable than Simpsons Skateboarding -- I'll get to work on them first, and I might add this in later. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 01:49, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. It was horrible. However, it should be left in the queue until we decide on the sourced entries, and then the unsourced entries, and finally, new entries. - A Link to the Past (talk) 02:27, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

Speaking of crappy Simpsons games, why not add the other terrible title The Simpsons Wrestling!? And I'll start it out.

1. According to Gamerankings, this game has a 41% with 28 reviews.
2. The game has a 32/100 on Metacritic based on 15 reviews.
3. Gametrailers placed this game as the 5th worst fighting game on the "Top Ten Worst Fighting Games".
And, though I'm just saying this, this and The Simpsons Skateboarding gave The Simpsons series a bad name!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 04:16, 7 September 2008 (UTC) 

Requested move

The following discussion is an archived discussion of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the proposal was no consensus. JPG-GR (talk) 02:43, 16 June 2008 (UTC)

Video games notable for negative reception → List of video games considered the worst ever — This is a request to move the article back to its original name, List of video games considered the worst ever. At its current location, the article is untenable and useless. The current title "notable for negative reception" is meaningless as it is so incredibly vague. A user can essentially place any game in here with one or two low review scores, we've even had users placing games here with high review scores, but classed as "disappointments". By returning the article back to its original name, we can keep the list succinct, easily verifiable, and with a clear sense of scope and criteria. I've previously voiced my concerns on the article talk page here and more recently here. A previous AFD suggested strong policy arguments for moving the article back to the original. Upon moving back to the original article name, the article will go from this to this. —hahnchen 00:12, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's naming conventions.

• Support: Per Hahnchen's nomination, I fully support this move. A tighter list would mean standards that would be placed for games on the list, and it's something that's desperately needed here. No one can continue to edit two different version of the same article (as is currently happening), and a move would eliminate any discussion regarding which version of the article is correct. -- Nomader ^(Talk) 15:48, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

• Support: I agree with name change since previous AfD. L-Zwei (talk) 05:13, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose Still only two of these games have more than one reference as"worst game ever"; E.T. and Big Rigs. We can't be claiming things are worst ever simply because one website such as Netjak or Xplay says so, and even if we did, that would still only be four. I don't think it's practical to have an article with such a narrow title simply because we're dealing with videogames (as opposed to books or films), the overall quality which has been steadily rising over the years due to the increasing time and resources devoted to development. Anyone who played games in the 80s will know that, directly comparing some of the crap released on home computers of the time, Big Rigs isn't actually that bad. In short there simply isn't sufficient sourcing to sustain a "worst ever" article. Sure, editors need to keep an eye on it to make sure undererving games aren't added, but that's true of any article. Miremare 11:24, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with having entries on the list if they've been declared the worst by any notable publication. Magazines such as Nintendo Power, are limited to Nintendo games, but if they have (and I believe they have) published a "worst ever" list, then I'd be OK with that appearing here. There is enough sourcing to maintain a "worst ever" article, I'm fine with a list having only a handful of items if the criteria and scope are clearly defined.

The problem with keeping it at this name, is because no one has stated what "notable for negative reception" means, and no one is in a position to dictate this. Everyone can list off an entire reel of crap games, which is what this article was, and what will become unless the scope is narrowed back to its original intentions. Iron Man, Lair, Haze, Sonic the Hedgehog, Turning Point: Fall of Liberty could all make the list, they're all notable for negative reception, and that's just titles for the PS3. When you factor in the ridiculous amount of dreck for the casual market on PC, PS2 and Wii, then the list goes on forever.

On a side note - I've not played Big Rigs, but it isn't actually that bad has to be a lie. The game is fundamentally broken, there is no game, there are no objectives, there is no clipping, there is no AI. - hahnchen 17:47, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Regarding your first point, that's just the problem I have with the "worst ever" title. How can something be considered the worst ever if only one source (no matter how notable or reliable the source) thinks so? IMO, it can't. If something really is the worst ever it's going to have more than one source saying so. You're right about games such as Iron Man, Lair, Haze, Sonic the Hedgehog, and Turning Point: Fall of Liberty. They're not notable for negative reception, they're just bad games and there's nothing notable about that. The games currently on the list are notable for negative reception because they are very bad, and have sufficient sourcing to prove it. As to who decides what counts as "notable for negative reception" - we do, by consensus. There's always going to be someone trying to add an undeserving game to the list because unreliablewebsite.com says it's the worst game ever, so we're still going to have to maintain the article whatever the title is. I really believe the broader title is in the interests of the article; I'd rather, as a reader, have a longer, broader article than one listing two or three games. I mean, let's not be needlessly restrictive. Lastly, regarding Big Rigs, I'm making a direct comparison between it and some of the worst home computer games from the 80s, to illustrate that the worst commercial releases nowadays are nowhere near as bad as the worst from decades past, therefore it's unlikely that we'll ever see a new "worst game ever", and we're pretty much stuck with what we've got. Expectations are higher now due to higher retail prices, massive development budgets, and computer hardware that makes so much more possible than the likes of Big Rigs deliver, so when something like Big Rigs does turn up, people notice it and, really, go a bit overboard in their condemnation. Not that I'm saying it isn't an awful, awful game, and an insult to the game-buying consumer, but in a direct comparison it's nowhere near as bad as some of the dross I remember having played on my Amstrad CPC... hm, nostalgia ain't what it used to be. Miremare 19:42, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

What's the difference between the titles I've just mentioned and the ones greenlighted below? We could just wholesale dump the 50 or so games that have received 30 or below on Metacritic. How is there nothing "notable" about Sonic the Hedgehog's negative reception, given that the only thing it is notable for, is that? Yet, Elf Bowling 2, a game not notable for anything gets the thumbs up?

If we stuck to a system where only games derided as "worst ever" got in, it wouldn't just be a list of two or three. There are loads of publications out there. Have Crash! never published a worst of list? Nintendo Power? PC Gamer? And if someone does add in a game using unreliablewebsite.com, it's a lot easier to remove than if we have a ridiculously vague and shifting criteria. At least the user actually knows he can add games to the list, rather than having to resort to the talk page cabal. - hahnchen 22:33, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

The difference in those games is what I said in my last post. Sonic 2006 got a lot of stick because of expectations, not because it was a truly awful game, whereas the ones Link has listed below are truly awful. I see what you mean about the only thing Sonic 2006 being notable for is its undoubted negative reception, but that's not, at least as far as I can see, what the phrase means in this case. If it were, we'd have to include the likes of GTA and Manhunt for stirring up much negative reception in the tabloids. The "reception" in question has to be regarding the end quality of the games, not whether games were below people's expectations, or whether they pissed people off for whatever other reasons. Maybe something like "video games notable for poor quality" would be clearer. Anyway, yes, those magazines have probably all done lists of the worst ever games, but probably all of them were limited to the platforms for which they cater. A "worst ever" Nintendo game or worst ever PC game wouldn't qualify for inclusion under your proposed title unless it was specifically described as the worst ever video game regardless of the platform it's on. Miremare 22:55, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

• Oppose echo what miremare said. Now if you had said List of video games notable for negative reception... RC-0722 ^361.0/1 13:07, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

• Support the idea but I think the name should be just List of video games considered the worst. No need to go overboard and slightly non-neutral with "ever" added. There is already List of films considered the worst for instance. Kariteh (talk) 07:26, 4 June 2008 (UTC)
  • I agree with that, remove ever does make it abit less harshy, and make more sense. L-Zwei (talk) 14:43, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

What about Captain Novolin?

We never said anything of Captain Novolin, it was ranked 4 on Seanbaby's 20 worst games of all time and it is impossible to avoid enemies without taking damage.

Laughreach (talk) 00:18, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't mean to be rude, but please, can we worry about fixing the list before we add to it? - A Link to the Past (talk) 00:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Captain Novolin is extremely stupid and the worst game of all time, but is better than E.T and Pac-Man for the Atari 2600.

Laughreach (talk) 16:31, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Daikatana

How come this game is is impossible to add on this list.

1. Daikatana is the worst game famed game maker John Romero ever made!
2. It closed down the Dallas office of Ion Storm!
3. And, combined with the dated Quake II game engine, pared down graphics, large amounts of fog placed in levels to obscure detail, and blurriness, the N64 version is the worst.You can't even the sword even though it's called Daikatana!

Even with all that, it can't be put on the list of Video games notable for negative reception!!! —Preceding unsigned comment added by GamerPro64 (talk • contribs) 22:16, 20 August 2008 (UTC)

Edit warring...

is not the way to do things on Wikipedia. I'm going to ask for admin intervention (which could lead to the page getting protected on the 'wrong version' for some people.) Continually reverting between two very different versions is counter-productive. Exxolon (talk) 21:48, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

Already done and someone has been blocked for breaking 3RR. Kariteh (talk) 21:52, 4 June 2008 (UTC)

That seems to have killed the edit warring. If it happens again, you can ask me directly. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 09:08, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Either use the long version or delete the article

It's current state is pathetic. We should either use the longer version, or just delete this article. And the movie article is just as poorly sourced. Either we have them both drastically shortened or both kept long. Knowitall (talk) 21:47, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Um, you are going to have to explain what the "longer version" you are thinking about. Can you provide a link to a version? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:53, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

And can you provide any example of an article being deleted for being in development? And can you explain why reverting to a version that was mostly unsourced and highly POV has LESS chance of being deleted than the well-formatted, 100% sourced version of the article? - A Link to the Past (talk) 23:23, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Using box templates

I am strongly against using Template:FFtitlebox to put the movies in. It makes the article extremely difficult to edit and doesn't add much. I am going to remove it and reorganize so that it can be more easily edited. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 22:52, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

There's no movie here... Kariteh (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry about that, but you get my point. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 20:25, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Few entries that should be worth add back

Digging the older version, I found following gem...ehh...crap that quite well cited.

Spawn: The Eternal

(1997, PlayStation) Spawn was described by IGN as "one of the worst games ever" and "a disappointing game that sullies the fine Spawn name." It got a 1.8/10 rating from GameSpot

Extreme Paintbrawl

(1998, PC) GameSpot gave it a 1.7 / 10 . IGN gave it a 0.7 / 10 , the second game in the website's history to receive lower than a one, (losing out only to Olympic Hockey Nagano '98). PC Gamer gave it a 6 / 100.

L-Zwei (talk) 06:25, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

• Re-add Spawn: The Eternal already. L-Zwei (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Add both back. They fit the criteria. Knowitall (talk) 21:25, 9 June 2008 (UTC)

Why was Sonic 2006 taken off

Why was this taken off almost every review (from fans and critics) gave this game bad revews so why take it off. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.229.230.251 (talk) 14:37, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

You can't just add games to the list. - A Link to the Past (talk) 16:15, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

What Link means is that potential additions have to be discussed here on the talk page first to gain concensus. :) Miremare 17:06, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

In fact, I looked it up on GameRankings. This game does not have low enough scores to be on the list (only 47%). mattiator (talk) 02:28, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

A Link to the Past's suggestions

Elf Bowling 1 & 2

(GBA, DS)

The highest score it received was a 2.0/10, the lowest a .05/10. GameSpot gave it a 1.4/10, and IGN gave it a 1.0/10.

Excerpts from IGN's review:

• "Asking me which Elf Bowling game in Elf Bowling 1 & 2 is better is like me asking you if you'd rather eat a spoonful of rat turds or hamster turds. They're both god awful and have no right ever being pressed to a Nintendo DS cartridge."
• "And then we've got Elf Bowling 2, which contains some of the worst sprite effects in any videogame featuring a first-person perspective published after 1989. The elves slide along the alley at a different speed as the scrolling of the surface. This lack of attention flew on the PC because it was free. On the Nintendo DS it looks absolutely retarded and the laziness borderlines on insulting."
• "And once that laugh is expelled, you're left two of the crappiest games ever developed on the Nintendo DS platform. Merry Christmas."
• ""Who let the elves out" and "Elf elf baby" not only date the product back to the last decade, they're almost embarassing to hear blurt out of the DS speakers."

Excerpts from GS' review:

• "You'll find plenty of elves in Elf Bowling 1 & 2, but not much in the way of bowling. In fact, both of the games on this budget-priced Nintendo DS game card are so devoid of gameplay, fun, and flair that you'd be equally entertained by just tapping the stylus on the screen while the system is off."
• "Elf Bowling 1 & 2 isn't a two-game set. It's a cruel holiday joke that preys on the ignorant and uninformed."

I'd say that the two biggest review sites (arguably) despising the game is enough to get it on the list, combined with two more review sites giving it abysmal scores. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:22, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Drake of the 99 Dragons

(Xbox)

Decided to throw some more games onto the suggestion list. Highest score is 3.1/10 from Xbox Impact, lowest is 7/100 from Game Rankings. IGN gave it a 2.9, TechTV gave it a 1/5, GameSpot gave it a 1.6/10, Game Informer gave it a 1.25/10, EGM gave it a 1.17/10. Its average GR rating is 20.5%.

Excerpts from GameSpot's review:

• "To simply call Drake bad would be a major understatement."
• "As far as third-person action games go, they don't get a whole lot worse than Drake of the 99 Dragons."
• "Drake is just an absolutely broken mess of a game. Its story is derivative in design and is nonsensical in its delivery; its graphics consist of a jumble of uninspired cel shading and ugly animations; its sound design consists of a cacophony of terrible effects and voice acting; and its gameplay features some of the worst controls and horrendous targeting ever found in a third-person shooter."
• "All of these factors combine to make Drake one of the most atrociously unplayable games to come along in quite some time."
• "Drake is simply an out-and-out failure in every single discernable category. Whatever style or pizzazz that Idol FX has tried to create for its comic book world is buried under a pile of cheap graphics, a lame story, awful audio, and an abysmal gameplay system that would still be painful to play even if it weren't as decisively broken as it is. There's nothing stylish or interesting about Drake, and, to be quite frank, any time spent playing this game is an absolute waste. If it isn't clear up to this point, let us sum it up with one simple statement: Don't play this game."

And I can't get excerpts from the lower major reviews since they're print mostly, but the scores clearly indicate a similar opinion to GameSpot's. - A Link to the Past (talk) 17:59, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

X-Play has called it the worst game they've ever played (surpassing Aquaman, which is on the list) and they named it the worst X-Box game of all time. It defiantly should be on the list. TDS18 (talk) 03:10, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

It was number 2 on GameSpot's "Frightfully Bad Games", losing only to BROTRR. http://www.gamespot.com/video/919220/6111952/frightfully-bad-games mattiator (talk) 02:36, 6 July 2008 (UTC)

NRA Varmint Hunter

(PC)

Average score of 17.6%, highest score is 1.5/5, lowest score is 7/100. IGN gave it a 1/10, PC Gamer gave it a 7/100, X-Play gave it a 1/5.

Excerpts from IGN's review:

• "The biggest objection I have with the game, aside from it being roughly on par with a facial performed by a living urinal, is that you can't even move."

There wasn't much to take from the review, since a lot of it was joke text, but that should be enough to sum up their feelings of the game. - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:28, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Little Britain

(PS2, PC)

PC version received an average of 11.7%, with the highest score being a 2/10, and the lowest being a 7/100. PS2 version received an average of 16%, with the highest score being 24/100, and the lowest score being .05/10.

Excerpts from Eurogamer:

• "this abysmal collection of tenuous, far, far-below-average mini-games is quite frankly the worst thing to enter my PS2's drive since that raw-chicken and gin incident."
• "It is irredeemably awful. It's an affront to licensed videogames. It's a title that needs to be placed in a trebuchet and slung directly into the heart of the Daily Mail in order to teach them a thing or two on what kind of vile game they should really be campaigning against." - A Link to the Past (talk) 18:39, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

Excerpts from PALGN:

• "Seven minigames. Not seventy. Not seventeen. Seven. A paltry amount by any stretch of the imagination. Especially when a great number of favourite characters don’t even make an appearance."
• "If you make it through the game without hearing the same three sound files repeated back-to-back, consider yourself lucky."

This definately deserves it. mattiator (talk) 03:04, 6 July 2008 (UTC)