Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 10

Archive 5

←

Archive 8

Archive 9

Archive 10

Archive 11

Archive 12

→

Archive 15

Why is Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles: Turtles in Time Re-Shelled on the list

It's clear just by looking at the section the person had very little idea what s/he where doing. Even in what s/he posted on the site says that the game received mixed reviews. Just look at the scores posted with the entry, IGN 5.9/10, GameZone 7/10, Metacritic 55/100 (PS3) 60/100 (X360). Does any of this sound like a game notable for negative reception. And just so everyone is clear, I have never play this game, I have no attachment to it, the only reason I want it off is because it doesn't belong hear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.50.126 (talk) 18:37, 5 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks for removal, apology, and suggestion

First, I would like to thank everyone who read my post and agreed with me. Second, I would like to apologize to the reviewers who I bothered by me posting entry's with out vitrifying or going through the proper channels. And third, I saw ninjabread man on the list and though that the other games by Conspiracy Entertainment were appropriate for the list, so i will point them out hoping they maybe added. They are:

Anubis II (Which was named the worst game of the year by gamespot in 2007) Myth Makers: Trixie in Toyland (Which IGN was quoted by saying "everyone should experience Trixie in Toyland just as everyone should experience throat cancer.") and Rock 'N' Roll Adventures. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.50.126 (talk) 02:49, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Mobile Suit Gundam: Crossfire

First released in Japan on November 11, 2006 and in North America 6 days later, was poorly received by critics due to problems including bland, outdated graphics, an underdeveloped story, bad voice acting, clumsy gameplay, and a slew of technical issues including (but not limited to) constant framerate issues, collision bugs, and frequent malfunctions of allied and even enemy AI. The scores are as followed: 33 on Metacritic, 35.26% on GameRankings, IGN gave it 3.2 out of 10, Gamespot 3.9 out of 10, 1UP 2 out of 10, Game Informer 3.75 out of 10, OPM 3 out of 10, Gamepro 1.0 out of 5.0, and X-Play 1 out of 5. Was considered the one of the worst games of 2006 on many public video game sites and magazines. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.116.196 (talk) 01:04, 3 August 2014 (UTC)

Battlefield 4

Would battlefield 4 qualify for this list do you think, given the legal mess and its receiption? JTdale ^Talk 13:45, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

I checked its ratings on GameRankings and MetaCritic and I don't think it qualifies to be listed here. GamerPro64 21:18, 15 August 2014 (UTC)

It's worth mentioning that Sonic '06's review scores weren't actually that bad; IIRC it's around 45-50% on Metacritic and GameRankings. (I personally don't think it's that terrible, either; I think much less of CD, Spinball, and Unleashed, but that's getting off-topic.) Even accounting for the Four Point Scale, there are bound to be many, many games that score worse. Rather, it appears here because, years and years after its release, its overall poor reception and infamy have been mentioned by numerous reliable publications. Battlefield 4 hasn't been out anywhere near long enough to be able to discern something like that, and I'd expect absolutely horrendous aggregate scores (like, below 30%) to make an exception. (FWIW, I haven't played any of the Battlefields other than a bit of 1942 a few years ago, so I have no cards on the table here.) Tezero (talk) 00:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

GameRankings and MetaCritic scores are usually a good indication if something belongs here, but is ultimately irrelevant. If there is a significant amount of reliable sources noting a video game for its negative reception at large (not just a reviewer or two giving a negative review), then it would warrant inclusion here. I'm not saying Battlefield 4 is one of those games, but a score on a website doesn't discount inclusion. - Aoidh (talk) 06:21, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Never played Battlefield 4 myself but; 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12. JTdale ^Talk 11:51, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Where's Back to the Future 1 NES?

Dear wikipedia users that run the worst video games ever.

How come the NES game Back to the Future 1 NES isn't on the list? I have read the article from [[1]] Back to the Future wiki website that says Bob Gale was upset with the LJN company and Beam Software for making the Back to the Future a crummy game. He said "the previous BTTF video games have all sucked eggs - particularly the Nintendo 8-bit cartridge made by LJN in 1989 - truly one of the worst games ever." He goes on saying "The LJN people did not want any input from the filmmakers, but they promise to show us the game when 'it was ready'. I was outraged when they finally showed it to me and had all kinds of things I wanted changed, but of course we were told it was too late to change anything. I actually did interviews telling the fans not to buy it because I was so ashamed that a product this bad would have our brand on it. Obviously, Telltale has the correct approach." Anyways do you think that it is possible to include it in worst video games ever? Let me know because even the Angry Video game nerd complained about how bad the game was.

Let me know your thoughts and hopefully it will be included in the worst video games ever. CrosswalkX (talk) 17:59, 9 September 2014 (UTC)

The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct

Doesn't Survival Instinct belong here, it received extremely negative reviews.

Websites GameRankings and Metacritic gave the Xbox 360 version 35.39% and 32/100, the PlayStation 3 version 33.33% and 34/100, the PC version 32.62% and 38/100 and the Wii U version 30.50%.

Polygon were disappointed in the game and gave it a 3 out of 10 rating, stating that: "The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is the exact sort of lazy, cheap cash-grab that gave licensed games a bad name in the first place" and compared playing the game to "listening to a roomful of barely competent musicians, each of whom is playing a completely different song. And every once in a while one kicks you in the groin. Also, you have a sunburn."

Game Informer gave it a 5/10 stating that "Outside of these interesting narrative nuggets, Survival Instinct sinks its infected teeth into monotony and carelessly chews away at it to deliver a repetitious experience that lets a few cool ideas go to waste. This is an apocalypse you don’t want to survive."

Giant Bomb gave it 1/5 stars, stating :"Sadly, what's ended up on shelves benefited from no such factors, leaving players with an abysmally rushed game of barely connected ideas that brings the player little more than frustration and disappointment."

IGN gave it a 4.5/10, stating: "It has the actors from the show, it’s tied into a cool universe, and it mashes up Oregon Trail elements with a thinking man’s FPS. It just doesn’t do anything with this stuff. It’s a half-baked attempt at a game that can be fun in the occasional spooky part, but ends up under-delivering in every way." and "The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct doesn't live up to franchise expectations, and it's not worth your attention."

GameSpot gave it a 4/10, stating: "For a game that bears the word "survival" in its title, there's nothing life-threatening about this journey through the Georgia countryside. The whole thing is just so dull and tedious that it captures all the worst qualities of a road trip, but none of the exciting ones.

The Digital Fix gave it a 2/10, commenting that "The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct is an abomination on every level: a dull, cynical and irreparably flawed mess which is as mindless and soulless as its antagonists." and "any sane gamer should do themselves and the gaming industry a favour and stay well clear from this rotting corpse".

Official PlayStation Magazine (UK) gave it a 3/10,Official Xbox Magazine gave it a 4.5/10,Official Xbox Magazine UK gave it a 3/10, and Digital Spy gave it 2/5 stars.

It was even voted the second worst game of the year on thetoptens.com on their Worst Video Games of 2013 list.

While Yahtzee Croshaw of Zero Punctuation gave it a moderately good review, many other youtube channels touted how bad they believe it is.

Joe Vargas of the Angry Joe show gave it a 3/10 in his review, stating that he would have given the game a 4/10, but the bad ending and lack of extras combined with the already repetitive levels and gameplay, the completely uninteresting unnecessary story, and several broken mechanics easily make the game terrible. He also placed it at the number four spot on his top ten worst games of the year list, stating in the entry that it is "the opposite of how to treat a license with respect".

The ModernWarNegro named named it the third worst game of the year, stating that after only playing for a hour he just quit and hasn't played it since. GorTheMovieGod placed Survival Instinct at number nine on his worst games of the year, stating that he regretted giving the game as high of a score as he did in his actual review. Dreamon - The Belgian Waffle placed it as number eight on his list of the worst games of the year for it's poor AI, voice acting, and graphics.

Zoomin.TV Games named it the fifth worst game of the year, commenting that "In a predictable twist everybody saw coming, Activision's lazy cash-in on The Walking Dead ended up being really terrible. Made in less than a year this abysmally rushed game brought the player little more than frustration and disappointment. What a waste."

While not on the list it's self, WatchMojo.com gave The Walking Dead: Survival Instinct a dishonorable mention on their list "Top 10 Video Games With The Worst AI". Steven and Larson of Machinima's popular ten of the win video series placed Survival Instinct as number one on their list "Top Ten Worst Games Based On TV Shows" saying that "Playing the game actually makes the t.v. show worst" and "It takes a special kind of bad to make Michael Rooker uninteresting".

(Note: I'm sorry if my constant posts are starting to get annoying, but I'm very determined.)

(sources: Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia, youtube, IGN.com, Giant Bomb.com, Gamespot.com, thedigitalfix.com, thetoptens.com, and gameinformer.com). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.101.10.53 (talk) 18:27, 5 October 2014 (UTC)

Super Columbine Massacre RPG!

Listen to me this game is the MOST Worsted video game that it was been base of the school shooting of the same name that you play as Two Shooters and killing everyone like in reality. This game was gave a extremely negative amongst the mainstream media and those personally affected by the shootings. Upon revealing Columbine's identity as Ledonne, Kovacs said, "One of the girls who died [in the shootings] was a friend of mine, Rachel. We were in the same church group. Anyone playing this game can kill Rachel over and over again." (Despite Kovacs' claims, Harris and Klebold are the only non-fiction characters that appear in the game.) The father of one victim remarked to the press that the game "disgusts me. You trivialize the actions of two murderers and the lives of the innocent." — Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.164.135.9 (talk) 07:14, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

My understanding of this page is it's not for controversial games but games that are notable for being considered particularly bad. While SCMRPG absolutely received a lot of negative mainstream attention, it also attracted a lot of praise from people in the industry, art, and academia. I don't think many, if any, of the negative reviews talk about its quality as a game but rather that it's a game about Columbine. Perhaps someone who frequents this page more often can clarify this, though. If SCMRPG is added, we could probably add every GTA game, for example. Moved the section here for now: --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:13, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I've removed the section for now -- if I'm wrong about the inclusion criteria please revert. --— Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 13:17, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) You're correct. The context of this article is about games that are simply awful, not good games depicting awful events. As an example, I personally do not play the Grand Theft Auto series because, to me, it's a crime simulator. While I find the content distasteful, I will say that Rockstar has developed one of the most complex and immersive games ever. Put another way, I despise the content, but I won't say it's a bad game. If SCMRPG was poorly executed, then it would belong here. But apparently critics said basically the same thing I did about GTA: I hate the content, but it's actually put together well, all things considered. Another example would be Call of Duty: Modern Warfare 2 with its controversial "No Russian" optional mission that broke the unwritten gaming rule about killing innocents as a win condition for the game; people found the idea offensive, but never said MW2 was a bad game. --McDoobAU93 13:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

But if that's the case, why is the article not called "List of games considered the worst"? This says "notable for negative reception", and indeed, PC World's definition of "worst" (which also gave E.T. the obligatory nod as the worst game) did cover this game. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:57, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

I would agree that the context of the article would prompt a re-name, which isn't a bad idea. I also wouldn't be opposed to a List of controversial video games that discusses games that are good (or at least not awful), but have controversial content. There would be some crossover, such as Custer's Revenge, perhaps. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

SIDEBAR: it appears that content already exists, but in table form. It could be rewritten in prose, I think. --McDoobAU93 17:31, 15 October 2014 (UTC)

Incoming

Maintainers of this page, you may be in for a twofer: Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal are tanking in the critics' wing of town, without a single review score over 50% so far. I swear, I don't know what happened; everything was so polished in the previews and the demos I played at a convention in October. Some have even taken side-by-side shots to show the noticeable degradation of quality... Aagh, this is just hideous from all angles, without any winner here. Anyway, I don't know whether consensus here allows Metacritic and GameRankings scores to stand in for explicit coverage of widespread and lasting negative reception, but either way, you'll be in for one of these kinds of sources soon. Also be prepared for fans like myself to take issue with the games being listed here because we don't think they were so bad (well, I do think that about Shattered...). Tezero (talk) 23:36, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

@Tezero:You just posted a game review in the form of a grief-ridden personal rant, whereby you framed Wikipedia as being a discussion forum for video game reviews. As for this article, you have suggested the idea that some vaguely automated score being below 50%, qualifies a game as being primarily known amongst the whole world as having the worst possible professional reception. None of this is true (or even remotely touches the idea of what notability is), nor has it even occurred. This thread should be deleted. WP:NOTFORUM And I'm sorry for your loss. — Smuckola (Email) (Talk) 01:42, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Smuckola, I rather take offense at the idea that I'm using this to push my own views. In fact, I thought Rise of Lyric was fine - but most people didn't. (And even if I didn't, what I said wouldn't be a review at all; it doesn't even talk about specific aspects of the game.) If you actually look at this list, plenty of these games have no dedicated coverage to their negative reception - rather, there are simply castigating quotes from reviewers and Metacritic/GameRankings scores. I'm not saying that we should immediately add these to the list; it very well could be too early to say. I'm saying that anyone who maintains this page should be prepared for a lot of vitriolic back-and-forth about their presence.

Oh, and for future reference, off-topic threads (which this isn't) are typically closed, not deleted. Tezero (talk) 01:54, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Oh, I think I see what might've been confusing. When I said "fans like myself", I meant "other Sonic fans"; I wasn't implying that I was going to create a stir about it. Tezero (talk) 02:05, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Well, either way, we have people, myself and others, keeping an eye out for this page. We've been playing this game for a while. GamerPro64 02:06, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that most previous games listed here haven't come from franchises with nearly the passion of this one. I suppose only you know how it goes, though. Good luck. Tezero (talk) 02:18, 15 November 2014 (UTC)

Are there any inclusion criteria to making it to the list? If not, then I'm starting to think we may as well create a sourced version to maintain rather than having to remove these sloppy unsourced versions. Sergecross73 msg me 15:04, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

I guess we can set up a a sourced version. Looks to be getting a worse reputation than Sonic '06, which is already here. GamerPro64 15:14, 17 November 2014 (UTC)

Bébé's Kids (SNES)

Bébé's Kids is been rated as one of the worst from the critics that it loosely based on the film of the same name which GameSpy ranked #8 in the "Top Ten Shameful Game", GameTrailers ranked #10 Worst Movie Game, and Nintendo Power is gave a #1 in the "Top 10 Worst Games Of All-Time" list (At that point it was the only game to ever receive a review score of zero from that magazine. ) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.185.244.168 (talk) 22:23, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm not sure. I'm not familiar with the game, and the game's article is largely sourced by unreliable sources. It doesn't sound like it was very well received, but it does seem to fail #4 of our inclusion criteria (see very top of this talk page) where its a cheap license game that was relative obscure and passed over... Sergecross73 msg me 16:45, 4 December 2014 (UTC)