Jump to content

Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 7

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1←Archive 5Archive 6Archive 7Archive 8Archive 9Archive 10

Ping Pals

I would recommend that Ping Pals (2004) should be added to the list. It's commonly regarded to be the worst standalone title on its system, the DS, and a videogame which has been regarded as bad to that magnitude would be very suitable to include on this list. It'd also make sense because there is a Wikilink to this page on Ping Pal's page. SuperSonic (talk) 14:43, 24 January 2010 (UTC)

Actually, the reason Ping Pals's page has a Wikilink to this page is because it was at one time on this list, and it was removed due to a general consensus(see "List needs cutting" above) that it is not notable for its negative reception. Also, in general an unsupported claim that a game is "commonly regarded to be the worst standalone title on its system" is not sufficient reason to add a game to the list. I'll go ahead and get rid of that outdated Wikilink on the Ping Pal's page.--Martin IIIa (talk) 18:47, 25 January 2010 (UTC)

South Park

I'm telling you, this game was largely panned by GameSpot and IGN (mostily the PlayStation and PC versions). If you don't believe me, LOOK AT THIS!: [1], [2], [3], [4].

As for the Nintendo 64 version, it was not considered the worst, as it was praised for a intresting plot and nice graphics, despite its controls [5][6]. I want both the PC and PlayStation version on here. 72.145.72.222 (talk) 01:06, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Well, I won't be able to add it without a challenge. I'll need help. Railer-man (talk) 17:29, 25 September 2010 (UTC)

GoldenBalls (DS)

  1. Gamespot - User Score: (2.1/5) [7]
  2. "Team Teabag": (3/5) [8] Author of review: "I suppose that huge fans of the show might find some entertainment value here but I can’t see much merit other than it being a means to waste a small amount of time." --81.103.177.88 (talk) 22:44, 1 April 2010 (UTC)
Not much of a negative reception. The Gamespot score is based on just 4 user votes, and the Team Teabag review describes the game as pointless, but not as one of the worst games of all time.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:17, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Horrible "recent times" bias

There are lots of detailed entries listed for the 2000's, a few for the 90's and almost none for the 80's. It looks like this article was written by children who grew up with Playstations and Xboxen. This article needs lots and lots more entries for enormously influential systems such as the Commodore 64 and the NES. All the entries listed for the 2000's will be forgotten in 10 years, they are only notable because the recent gaming press puts them in Top X Crap Games lists, not because they are actually some of the most horribly bad games ever released.

Right now this article should be renamed to "List of video games notable for negative reception in contemporary media". —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.187.52.151 (talk) 14:54, 8 April 2010 (UTC)

It's simple. It's much easier to find reviews of said games when everything is online as games are released. A simple example of systemic bias. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 23:43, 8 April 2010 (UTC)
There being not nearly as many games released during the 80s contributes to it, too. Despite a lack of lockouts, even the most popular 2nd generation console(the Atari 2600) had only about 500 games for it. There was also much less gaming press back then, so even if a game was utterly repulsive to players, it was harder for it to acquire any notoriety.--Martin IIIa (talk) 21:58, 10 April 2010 (UTC)

If you ask me, it seems the editors on this page are more biased towards older games than newer ones. It's not that people don't add games that don't fit on this article, but, well, let's just say that every game on a current-gen console I've seen (besides Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust) has been removed from this article.

It's no secret that other games have bombed as far as reception goes. Rogue Warrior, Bomberman: Act Zero, Vampire Rain, Sonic the Hedgehog [2006], Jumper: Griffin's Story, Thor: God of Thunder, Hour of Victory, Stalin vs. Martians, Fighters Uncaged.

Now granted, not a lot of people are going to know of some of these games (except Sonic the Hedgehog), but then, I'm pretty sure that's why they're reading the article. To learn something. But you should only put the worst of the worst among those on the list (Stalin vs. Martians seems to have done the worst). Otherwise, the list really will be too long.

However, I refuse to believe that Sonic the Hedgehog [2006] is not notable for negative reception. It received negative reception, but it's also very notable for it. It's also notable for being part of a popular franchise. It may seem like a logical fallacy, but it's true.

Thoughts? Forsvaine (talk) 00:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Best Games Ever?

There are two articles talking about video game failures: this article and one talking about commercial failures. There should be one about video games that are considered the greatest ever. There is one about movies, games should have one too, as there are numerous sites we could reference.BlitzSage (talk) 20:49, 15 April 2010 (UTC)

Someone already created such a page just a month or two ago, and it was given a snowball deletion. The article about movies has itself been nominated for deletion twice, and I'm not sure why it hasn't been deleted. It does have a list of article guidelines to avert endless debate over inclusions, but the guidelines are pretty ridiculous. One is 'The film MUST be cited as THE BEST (or perhaps second best) in the category where it is being listed. It is not enough for a citation to say "one of the best"...' So a film being named "#3 Best Adventure Movie of All Time" is not considered notable, but being named "#1 Best Italian Stop-Motion Animation Film of the 1970s" is. It just goes to show how ridiculous an encyclopedic list of "greatest" or "worst" can get, and how lucky we are that we don't have a WP list of either of those for video games.--Martin IIIa (talk) 12:22, 16 April 2010 (UTC)
Perhaps, but wouldn't that mean that it is worthless to have a list of games with negative reception as well? Why not create an article citing games with positive reception as a mirror article for this one?BlitzSage (talk) 20:31, 26 April 2010 (UTC)
The trouble with that is that there are at least ten times as many games notable for positive reception as games that are notable for negative reception. This is because games that are very negatively received tend to sell poorly, and therefore tend to become obscurities rather than notables. The games listed in this article had to either sell fairly well despite overwhelmingly negative reception(e.g. E.T.) or become well-known despite poor sales(e.g. Zelda: The Wand of Gamelon), both of which are very unusual. Games that are very positively received, on the other hand, by definition sell well and become notable. So a list of games notable for positive reception would be too large to be, well, notable.--Martin IIIa (talk) 22:27, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

Sonic Shuffle....

...should be on this list! Can't you READ?? Sonic Shuffle was voted the THIRD worst Sonic game by sites, so KEEP IT! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 209.175.117.2 (talk) 13:17, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

What L-Zwei said. If we were to include every game that has ever been referred to as one of the top three worst games in a franchise, this article would be unmanageably large and of little interest to anyone.--Martin IIIa (talk) 20:05, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

Rogue Warrior

I think Rogue Warrior should be in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.167.172.73 (talk) 15:45, 20 April 2010 (UTC)

I'd agree if people actually knew about this game. Though granted, I'm sure not many people know about Elf Bowling, either... The nicest review I've seen rewarded it a 3.5/10. But it IS notable for its negative reception, but otherwise not a very notable game in itself. Not like Duke Nukem Forever or Sonic the Hedgehog [2006]. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Forsvaine (talk • contribs) 00:28, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Box Office Bust

I think I'll have to challenge Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust's inclusion on this list for a few reasons:

  • The Al Lowe source seems to be not really published well, thus likely failing it as a reliable source.
  • ScrewAttack is also not reliable, and it doesn't even meet WP:RS
  • A 2.0 score in GameSpot doesn't make it really bad, but it would have been called the worst if it was a 1.0.

-68.214.4.186 (talk) 19:22, 24 May 2010 (UTC)

Yeah, I'm inclined to agree. Another problem with the Al Lowe source, which right now is the only one up there, is that a quick look at Al Lowe's WP entry reveals that he is the creator of the Leisure Suit Larry series. One would be hard-pressed to find a more biased source. As for the Gamespot "flat out worst game" nomination, GS nominates five games for that category every year. So that nomination is really insignificant unless we have something else to show that the game got notable negative reception, which for now at least, we don't. As far as I can see, Box Office Bust is just another throwaway title that no one will remember in a year or two. I'll go ahead and delete the listing; since we have a topic for the game here, there's no threat of the issue of its notability being lost in the archives.--Martin IIIa (talk) 13:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Needs a Great Purge, especially for the 2000s

Games like Robocop are hardly really "notable for negative reception". Sonic the Hedgehog (2006) entry is very forced except the Screw Attack reference which is lone and not enough, Bomberman: Act Zero is a shitty game indeed but earned relatively high 34% (Kabuki Warriors too, 35%) and nobody remebers it now 4 years later, World War II Combat: Road to Berlin being supposedly notable as having the same score as 2 other games THAT ARE NOT HERE? Game Party, Deal or No Deal - come on. Ninjabread Man is simply horrible, I admit, but not simply enough ("nominated for 2007"?). Peter Jackson's King Kong: The Official Game of the Movie is just a very bad game, but that's all and here we need some real standards.

So what have got to stay for the 2000s? Big Rigs: Over the Road Racing, of course, it's legendary. Elf Bowling 1 & 2 sounds like a good idea in my opinion. Daikatana due to its epic hype and then infamy, but it should be rewritten (of how it was about exceptations vs the finished product, also John Romero will make you his bitch and the associated lolocaust). That's 3. Now, Charlie's Angels and Aquaman: Battle for Atlantis, MAYBE (there's actually only one real source of so-bad notability for each of them, the rest if really fluff).

Now, 1990s and 1980s. White Men Can't Jump - nobody remembers or even ever HEARD ABOUT this Jaguar game (srsly? Jaguar?), so I think it got to go. And I think Waterworld needs an additional reference. Custer's Revenge gained a great notoriety in the early gaming era but it needs to be rewritten too (explaining why it shines so much in the sea of the other Atari 2600 crap).

This, or we just include every "worst game of the year" according to someone (and this including the nominations, Ninjabread Man I'm talking about you). --Asperchu (talk) 13:41, 25 July 2010 (UTC)

Sonic 2006 seems to be perpetually added in by one or two people, for whatever reason, so I imagine it'd never going away... ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:02, 25 July 2010 (UTC)
Done. --Asperchu (talk) 13:39, 2 October 2010 (UTC)
I pretty strongly disagree with this purging. There have been many discussions over what should be included; Sonic 2006 is notable for its negative reception because it is considered one of the worst games in a series that has received at least decent reception for its main titles. As for Bomberman Act Zero, it's effectively the same - there may be a few that bring its score up, but otherwise, the only noteworthy thing to say about it is that it is a bad game. - The New Age Retro Hippie used Ruler! Now, he can figure out the length of things easily. 21:28, 8 November 2010 (UTC)

ET

Hi there everyone. I was just wondering if this counts as a bad review. On the australian show Good Game: Spawn Point , ET was called the worst game of all time. If not, ignore me. Thanks! 124.189.98.189 (talk) 03:40, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

This article should be so locked for the new users

Anyway. I decided to remove Daikatana after all, the game has relatively high 54% / 42.34% average and belongs more in List of commercial failures in video gaming (where it is alright). Maybe Duke Nukem Forever would fit more, given it's basically the gaming world's laughingstock and was given a lot of vaporware-type awards in its almost-one-and-half decade development so far. --Asperchu (talk) 15:47, 16 October 2010 (UTC)

I don't that that is the best choice. The negative reception of DNF seems to be more based around it release schedule and the attitudes of some of the developers and not the actual content of the game itself. NOw if the game is actually released and it criticised since it can't meet the hype it may be a better choice.--76.66.180.54 (talk) 04:49, 24 October 2010 (UTC)

It should be locked anyway because some person changed the "Worst" awards given by reviewers (e.g. Good Game on Leisure Suit Larry) into "Best". I changed a few back, but it still would be worth locking the article to avoid people giving a lot of readers a wtf moment.--115.64.124.141 (talk) 13:19, 20 November 2010 (UTC)

So I came here to ask if Limbo of the Lost would be okay (there was a link here in "see also" section), and noticed Sonic etc were back again, so I reverted it. Anyway, how about Limbo of the Lost? ("In June 2008, discovery of plagiarism in the game led to its withdrawal from sale.") --94.246.150.68 (talk) 11:29, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

I give up

Let the IPs keeping adding stuff. I won't be changing this page any more. ♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 19:13, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Dragon Age 2 should be added

This is a wiki page for games with negative receptions and boy has this game garnered some

Do any of those articles show that it is notable for negative reception? I see an article and a forum post about BioWare banning somebody and it affecting their purchase of the game (it is already in the Dragon Age II article). Another about one of the developers reviewing his own game. Again, nothing to show that it is notable for having negative reception. Especially since it still holds an 82/100 on the metacritic reviews which are done by critics. ScottSteiner (talk) 01:12, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Yes they do, it's not negative reception from the critics tohugh, it's from the user base which should also be considered specially when it gains such a massive coverage

Also the game's negative reception amongst the public eye does warrant an article based on your notibility standards

  • "Significant coverage"

Kotaku, and Escapist Magazine, two highly regarded videogame jorunalism webpages have actually actively covered the fiasco over the bioware scandal caused by the game's heavily negative user reviews in metacritic. They are only two of many who have but I don't want to clutter up your talk page so I'll just post these because there's other things that has signifcant coverage

Another thing that has had significant coverage is the user who was banned from his game and the message boards for making the snide remark towards EA and Bioware's business relations

Two of these reports are from the highly esteemed PCGamer and Bit Gamer

  • "Reliable"

Reliable? Kotaku, Escapist, PC Gamer and many others who have covered this fiasco is as reliable as it gets in videogame journalism beats

  • "Sources"

AS you can see there are many that can be used and quoted

  • "Independent of the subject"

No I don't work for any of these magazines or critics

  • "Presumed"

There is nothing to be presumed other than the public is astonished at the unprofessionalism —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.54.111.123 (talk) 01:20, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

None of those show negative reception for the game itself. BioWare/EA's policies sure, but not the game. ScottSteiner (talk) 01:26, 21 March 2011 (UTC)

Except they do,because they would not be in this mess had the game garnered favorable public reviews

75.54.111.123 (talk) 01:36, 21 March 2011 (UTC)


Tomorrow or maybe Friday I will add DA2 to the list due to the fact it got heavy media coverage and bad public reception then 75.54.108.226 (talk) 06:26, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

It has an average user review score of 7.63/10 on EBGames/GameStop, 6.55/10 on Amazon (Xbox 360: 3.3/5, PS3: 3.7/5 PC/Mac: 2.7/5 and PC Download: 3.4/5). If we add every game with a low user score on one website, it's going to be an awfully big list and luckily this list doesn't seem to have such a low threshold for inclusion.
Couple that with the mostly positive critic reviews (81.3% Metacritic, 81.77% GameRankings) and at best you might include it on List of video games notable for mixed reception if such a list existed. Also, so far as I know, it is not in the running for any worst game of the year/decade/ever made lists either which is the only specific attribute most of the games on this list doshare.
Finally, considering this addition seems to have been part of vandalism by 4chan users (Archive of thread, which goes down quite a bit. But it shows a person using the name "Sage01" posting screenshots of the edits by 75.54.111.123 that I reverted), the user who apparently edited it (Sage01 in that thread) stated his desire to "encite major drama" on my talk page for not helping him vandalize this page... I think most of us could agree that this addition was/is being done in bad faith by 75.54.111.123 in addition to the fact that it just isn't notable for negative reception (mixed at best). ScottSteiner (talk) 22:48, 24 March 2011 (UTC)

Cosmic Race

Im really surprised that Cosmic Race is not here. From my view (watched a full commentated run of the game), its rather unfinished, CLEARLY not intended to sell outside Japan, and only thing it does good is to waste time. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.22.88.141 (talk) 06:18, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

I seem to recall that it was in the article at one point and was removed. Looking at the article for the game, I can see why: even the game's own article doesn't have any references showing negative reception. I'd suggest getting the game's article - which is in absolutely terrible shape in general - up to code first, then seeing about trying for putting it on this list. Any game notable enough to be listed here should at least have a halfway decent article of its own.--Martin IIIa (talk) 01:57, 27 July 2011 (UTC)

Action 52

I mean come on, this article is worthless without mentioning the worst ripoff game of all time. $ 200 for barely functionable "games" that were programmed in like an half-hour each. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.115.111.65 (talk) 20:33, 14 August 2011 (UTC)

I sympathize with this argument, but keep in mind, this was back in the day when not many review outlets existed other than Nintendo Power (and I don't even think they did reviews at the time, correct me if I'm wrong). It's pretty obscure, so that's why it's not on the list. It's a bad game (opinion), but there's no negative reception to go off of. Forsvaine (talk) 00:25, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

Original research

The majority of content in this article has an WP:OR problem in that all included games are said to be notable because of negative reception, a claim that has to be supported by reliable sources. Citing low scores and scathing comments from critical reviews is wholly insufficient for this purpose.

It was suggested years ago that this article should be moved to something like List of commercially and critically unsuccessful video games and I think such a move may be necessary. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 06:08, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

I think that title is supposed to be a neutral sounding version of "List of video games considered the worst", why not re-name it in line with its film counterpart? ViperSnake151  Talk  20:08, 26 August 2011 (UTC)
That's certainly one way to fix it. I especially appreciate what they did here. Of course, some games ARE notable because of their negative reception, so it's not like the present title is completely without merit. I guess we should put it to a vote somewhere. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 20:42, 27 August 2011 (UTC)

Nominating Kane and Lynch

I am nominating the game "Kane & Lynch" to the list, it has a score of 2.8 on metacritic. Averagejoedev (talk) 16:10, 7 September 2011 (UTC)

That makes it a game that received negative reviews, not a game notable because it received negative reviews. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:32, 8 September 2011 (UTC)
On the other hand, one of it's negative reviews got a veteran reviewer fired, which decimated the editorial staff of major game review site following his dismissal and revealed a harsh reality of games journalism that journalists and reviewers are at the whim of publishers and advertisers, who seek to filter out negative reviews. For a few months after that, you couldn't go to a site that wasn't talking about it. Giant Bomb ended up getting founded because of it. 38.122.38.26 (talk)
We do not know the actual reason why Gerstmann was fired, and we probably never will. Reach Out to the Truth 04:52, 5 December 2011 (UTC)

The article says "notable"

At one point, I saw someone place Duke Nukem Forever on the article. I felt it was fitting because a lot of people know about Duke Nukem Forever, and how it was almost universally panned by critics. But it seems once again, Wikipedia lives up to the tagline "the free encyclopedia that anyone can edit." Sarcasm intended, by the way.

inb4 "That's just your opinion," but last I checked, the nicest score Duke Nukem Forever got was an 80/100 from PC Gamer, and they were the only ones to give anything higher than a 7/10, whilst most outlets gave it around a 5/10. The game wasn't as bad as something like, say, Leisure Suit Larry: Box Office Bust, but I refuse to believe that this game isn't notable for its negative reception. A 5/10 can still be negative.

Maybe the game doesn't deserve to be on this article because of scores, but it's no secret that this game was a huge letdown to the gaming community. Something like MindJack wouldn't belong because although it had tons of negative reviews (more than Duke Nukem Forever), the game isn't very well known amongst gamers.

Games notable for negative reception should include ones people know about and know didn't receive good reception. Granted, Elf Bowling and Superman [64] did terribly, and they're known for how bad they are. However, last I checked, the word "notable" meant "distinguished, prominent," and "worthy of note," meaning that it stands out among other games that did poorly like MindJack.

Sonic the Hedgehog [2006] was also a notable game because Sonic is a very popular name, and it received very poor reception.

I can see why people would want to weed out only the worst of the worst, because granted, if one were to put games like Sonic the Hedgehog and Duke Nukem Forever, what's to stop from placing a few other games on that list? It would certainly become larger, but keep in mind that people actually know Duke Nukem and Sonic the Hedgehog. Few people actually know Jim from MindJack.

Thoughts?

Forsvaine (talk) 00:21, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

If a game is notable because of negative reviews and there are reliable sources that directly support that claim, add it. Anything without such sources is original research. See the original research section above. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 00:43, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
May I have an example? Of a direct source that provides evidence on how a game is notable for negative reception? Forsvaine (talk) 00:55, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
Read #42. Sources don't have to be so explicit, but they must establish notability arising from the negative reception itself. Saying that a game is notable or hyped or whatever and that it also got terrible reviews is not enough. ButOnMethItIs (talk) 01:13, 16 September 2011 (UTC)

I think the name should be changed into something along the lines of "list of video games considered the worst ever", which would better reflect the content of the article. --194.145.185.229 (talk) 12:32, 19 September 2011 (UTC)

We've had the name change discussion several times over already. "Worst ever" is extremely subjective and much harder to have reliable references for beyond opinion pieces. "Notable for negative reception" is much easier to find reliable references for, and as ButOnMethItIs already alluded to Wikipedia's requirements on establishing notability on something and reliable references already adequately cover the original poster's concerns. --Marty Goldberg (talk) 12:40, 19 September 2011 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:List_of_video_games_notable_for_negative_reception/Archive_7&oldid=1083523040"