Talk:List of video games notable for negative reception/Archive 14

Archive 10

←

Archive 12

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

→

Archive 18

No Man's Sky?

What do you think? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 168.137.100.23 (talk) 15:39, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

See [1], we've discussed before but the problem is that the game doesn't meet the more specific requirements (eg MC below 50%) for inclusion, though clearly there was a significant negative reaction from players. The same would be said of Mighty No. 9 which also had the same problem (decent MC scores, but loud negative feedback from players). We have to be careful with these as while both cases here, the negative reaction can be documented from RSes, this would open the door for any game with negative user feedback but that is not captured by RSes would be pushed to be added using weak sources to that end. As long as we can avoid this type of slippery slope, I do feel NMS + Mighty No 9 should be added, but we have to figure out the defining line better first. --MASEM (t) 15:46, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And that's the whole problem with this arbitrary requirement that weighs review scores as aggregated by a commercial website over anything else. I think it should be changed so that it either must be a certain Metacritic score or have received a notably negative reaction from the general public that has been significantly documented by reliable secondary sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:16, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

Feel free to propose new objective metrics and get a consensus in favor of using them additionally or instead. Its easy to complain, but few have proposed workable alternatives. The metrics, as is, aren't arbitrary though - its a conceptual thing. I don't see how a game can be notable for its negative reception when negative reception wasn't even the primary aspect of its reception. (ie games with 51 or higher MC rating, where reviews objective skew more positive than negative. Sergecross73 msg me 17:52, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

And to stress the difficulty of drawing a line, I would consider that we should be able to include NMS and Mighty No. 9 for notable bad user reception, but it is very difficult to apply the idea to Mass Effect Andromedia (70% MC) which I know personally had a large vocal outcry from players, but very very little outside of discussion of the facial animations that are repeated in RSes. This is the type of line we would need to find to allow NMS/#9 (which does have some negative reviews but not a lot, but with strong documentation of player disappointment) but avoid inclusion just because some subset of players were vocal about their disappointment. --MASEM (t) 18:07, 17 April 2017 (UTC)

A new criteria, again?

These comments and criticism over games failing the criteria of this page because they only had negative user reception rather than critical reception is taking the term too literally, as to imply that the assessment must be by a professional critic (read: video game website). But the definition of "critical" in this context, means to generally express an opinion about a work. It doesn't say who provides the reception; storefronts such as Steam and other online communities have made it easier for users to express their opinion about their favorite (or least favorite) games. Regardless of how people come to the conclusion, it is the consumer that ultimately decides how bad a game is; if they learn a game is bad, either from a professional review, or by diving in without any forewarning, they will eventually spread the word in whatever way they can. In some cases, the vocal criticism of actual users may impact the overall reputation of a game, and thus make it notable for negative reception. However, these cases need to be narrowly defined in order to maintain the spirit of core Wikipedia policies, plus some of the current criteria provide too many concrete requirements that are open to interpretation or consensus.

As such, I would like to propose a revision to the inclusion criteria for this page;

Whether a title is included on this list should be based on consensus and the following criteria.

• The title must already have an article on Wikipedia and meet the general notability criteria.
• The title must have received coverage from a large number of reliable sources considered appropriate for coverage of video games.
• The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception. A game notable for negative reception should meet as many of the following criteria as possible:
  • Having had a reasonable expectation of quality; budget "bargain bin" and/or licensed "cash-in" games generally do not have an expectation of quality, although there can be exceptions.
  • Having been covered very negatively in significant detail by multiple reliable sources. This includes low review scores (a Metacritic aggregate score below 50 is a strong indicator that a game has received significantly negative reviews), and its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever", either of all-time or within a specific genre).
  • Having a particular issue/controversy (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this). This also includes significantly negative responses from end-users, if they have been discussed in detail by multiple reliable sources.

I've added negative user reaction as an example of being a "particular issue/controversy", and I also made an explicit statement that consensus should ultimately decide whether a title meets this criteria in the event that it is challenged. ViperSnake151  Talk  02:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I wonder if the last bullet can emphasize the need that the issue/controversy must have been a subject in a good number of RSes (as defined by WP:VG/S, at least 3-5 different publications (which both NMS and MN9 fit). A case I remember is that it was either Civ IV or V that had no seemingly big problems from reviews, but there was some user complaints that only one source really picked up, that would not make it sufficient to add here. I also want to make sure we separate larger issues that may be involved that have little to do with the game: for example, I would not include Depression Quest due to the issues related to Zoe Quinn that resulted from GG, since little of that was actually about the game and more about the person. (it perhaps was controversial but that's a different list) It should be a fundamental aspect(s) of the game, and not the situation around the game that makes these notable for negative reception. --MASEM (t) 16:18, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

It hasn't been too hard to keep the controversial games since - usually we just point people in the direction of List of controversial video games and that's been the end of it. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Perhaps just adding that games that are considered controversial should be posted at that list instead of here, as part of the metrics? --MASEM (t) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree, that would be a good idea to actually mention/link to in the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 17:24, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

I guess I'm not sure how this would actually changes things going into effect? Negative user scores were also something that could be documented, if reliable sources documented it. Is this more about your prior concerns about there being an "or" condition, where you'd be using it as an alternate means for getting on the list, ignoring the MC score? If so, how do you propose handling situations like Mass Effect 3, Mass Effect Andromeda, or Street Fighter 5 - games that were generally well received critically, but have a vocal, upset fanbase rampantly complaining on the internet. I mean, I do understand the argument that No Man's Sky certainly received a negative backlash from buyers. But some of these other scenarios...we need to figure out where/how we draw the line. Sergecross73 msg me 16:50, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

That's what I was suggesting above, that the criticism from users is something documented in 3+ RSes in detail. (A source describing a game but in passing, mentions " and for some reason had a 2/10 in user scores", is not sufficient towards this count). NMS is easy to meet, and very difficult off the top of my head for ME:A. --MASEM (t) 16:54, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Oh okay, I see what you're saying now. Yeah, actually, I believe that would be a good metric to keep out more trivial user-complaints: 3+ RSes (non-review?) with dedicated coverage on the negative reception towards the game. I think Mass Effect 3 would still be eligible by those standards, with all the complaints about the end, though maybe the 90ish MC score would counteract it's inclusion? I like your idea though, I think it could be our best bet towards a consensus here... Sergecross73 msg me 17:32, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Mass Effect 3's end, I think, qualifies as a controversy, maybe? (I'm spot-checking gnews and it seems that was, as the ME:A devs talk about how the "controversy" on ME3's end influenced their work). As you note, the review scores for ME3 were really high, and it was more from players that "nothing I did mattered?" while everything else about the game was fine. Hence I'd chalk it up at controversies. --MASEM (t) 19:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, and just as well, game came and went about 5 years ago without much (any?) of a push to get it on this list, so its not the biggest deal I suppose. Sergecross73 msg me 20:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And maybe that helps on another point. In the case of ME3, it was 'controversial' as reviewers praised it, but fans disliked it for the ending, clashing with the review scores. ME:A falls into the similar vein, high review scores, but upset players due to things like the facial animations. In both NMS and MN9, on the other hand, we have decided low review scores (not below 50, but scraping it), and documentable low and negative user feedback. So maybe that's a key is that we are lookign when user feedback is negative alongside nominally low review scores, even if they don't meet the MC=50 mark, but as long as there's some alignment between these. Otherwise, its more controversial.

As another test case towards this, I think this same aspect of alignment of poorer review scores and negative user feedback would qualify SimCity (2013 video game) for this list too. --MASEM (t) 20:31, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Reading all your remarks, I revised the proposal to narrow the specific cases where user response is relevant.

Whether a title is included on this list should be based on consensus and the following criteria.

• The title must already have an article on Wikipedia and meet the general notability criteria.
• The title must have received non-trivial coverage from a large number of reliable sources considered appropriate for coverage of video games.
• The title must have had a reasonable expectation of quality; budget "bargain bin" and/or licensed "cash-in" games generally do not have an expectation of quality, although there can be exceptions.
• The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception. A game notable for negative reception must meet one or more of the following criteria:
  • Having been covered very negatively in significant detail by multiple reliable sources. This includes low review scores (a Metacritic aggregate score below 50 is a strong indicator that a game has received significantly negative reviews), and its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever", either of all-time or within a specific category or genre).
  • Having notable issues that impacted its quality, which have been discussed in detail by multiple reliable sources. Games with controversies that are not related to their quality can be listed on List of controversial video games instead.
  • Having a notably negative response from end-users over its quality, that has been discussed in detail by multiple reliable sources (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this), especially in cases where such reactions affect overall reception to the title. A title is ineligible under this criteria if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the title or its background, or a "manufactured" controversy, rather than the quality of the title as a whole. This criteria applies especially in situations where negative user response impacts the reception by professional critics.

The bigger change is that the addition of a clause stating that, basically, the user response rule only applies if it is a notably negative response over its quality and the game did not otherwise receive "largely positive" reviews. I agree that we would need test cases for new games to add to this list that would qualify under the new criteria. ViperSnake151  Talk  01:22, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I like it, other than it appears to be stripped of an specific numbers. I like the hard numbers - like Masem's "3+ sources" example. When people are POV-pushing their way into getting a title on the list, they're very prone to these "Well what do you mean, an article by GameSpot and a tiny trivial mention by Kotaku isn't substantial coverage on the matter?" It's easier to objectively counter it with "its not 3 sources". We don't need to necessarily keep all of the current ones, but I'm definitely against dropping all of them. Sergecross73 msg me 12:53, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

The numbering did not work right with the subheadings. Furthermore, this is why I put in the specific wording of "significant detail by multiple reliable sources" and "non-trivial coverage from a large number of reliable sources that primarily cover video games". It is subjective but gets the point across better that we are demanding quality. ViperSnake151  Talk  15:31, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

It's in the right direction, but couple things:

• the reliable sources for a negative user section do not have to be those that primarily cover video games; I recall there was definitely coverage of NMS's negative reaction in mainstream sources too. It still absolutely right to like to VG/S and since this is a talk page, I would just be explicit to say "non-trivial coverage from three or more sources considered reliable by WikiProject Video Games, which include video game-specific and mainstream media.
• I think the controversy aspect, using ME3 as the ur example, might be better added under the negative user feedback. Something like: "If a game has received high ratings from professional reviews while having a documentable negative reception from users, this might be more indicative of a controversy on a portion of the game or on the background of the game, rather than representing a game with negative reception, and would be better classified at List of controversial video games or another page instead."
• I'm wondering if we should be explicit to mention that editors should be aware of so-called "manufactured fan outrage" as to avoid letting that type of opinion sway inclusion here. (Silly example because it is entirely tongue-in-cheek, but there has been coverage of "omg Overwatch vehicles have wheels totally breaking the universe" complaints, which is completely satirical from users and reports alike, and certainly not worthy to include). --MASEM (t) 16:03, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
• No, I'm not talking about numbering the bulletpoints, that doesn't really matter. I'm talking about how you've cut out the parts that require at least 5 exceptionally negative review/retrospectives, at least 10 reviews total, and did not add Masem's suggestion of there being at least 3+ sources documenting user related complaints. Like I said, things like "substantial" and "non-trivial" - we know what it means, . but its the type of wording that is susceptible to abuse in POV pusher's attempts to twist things in the favor of their argument. If there's not enough of a level of objectivity in the inclusion criteria, it's not going to work in actually limiting inclusion.
• I think we need the "3+" rule to make your suggestion of adding user related concerns to work, and we need some sort of quantification to how much negative attention it has received, because there are just simply too many minor negatively received games out there in the industry, in this era of cheap indie mobile phone and Steam games. We need a hurdle to cross to prove it was widely received as negative. "Multiple" is too vague and low. If you just keep it at "multiple", people are just going start flooding the list with minor Steam/mobile title a Kotaku contributor writes on a whim and some other minor website gives a mention to. This isn't a hypothetical, I've rejected and removed many in my last couple years maintaining this article. Its a much cleaner argument to say "not 5 sources" than "well its multiple but not really significant" or something. Sergecross73 msg me 16:51, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• In my opinion, that is too objective. The recurring theme is that it has to be non-trivial and from reliable sources. Plus, "minor Steam/mobile titles" would not have a "reasonable expectation of quality" by default. Plus, my definition of "significant" recommends around 4 to 5 major sources. ViperSnake151  Talk  17:56, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Normally, I would agree that as with all policy and guidelines on WP, these are meant to be take not literally/exact wording, and your language does cover all the points. However, I have seen here (and I'm sure Sergecross who has watched this page longer) as well as over at the list of commercial failures in video gaming that newer editors that really feel a certain title/system should be on the page will force it in claiming weak sourcing, and then complain that their sourcing meets the requirements when the item is removed. This is a case of being very exacting to avoid these types of issues where editors who really dislike a game try to force it on the list. As a compromise it might be better to say the general "non-trivial coverage in reliable sources", and following it up with the more specific "this is generally accepted as having 3+ more sources discuss the negative user response in depth", so that we do have just enough wiggle room for edge cases that we agree by consensus belong there but just might be missing one source, but at least have a hard number to properly remove those cases that don't clearly fit. --MASEM (t) 18:08, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

• Yes, what you're describing is precisely what I'm talking about. I'm once again open to your compromise wording though. Viper, considering your definition of significant is more or less equivalent to the type of numbers I'm talking about anyways, do you think you could meet me half way here? Sergecross73 msg me 18:23, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

In that case, let me just clear things up;

Whether a title is included on this list should be based on consensus and the following criteria.

• The title must already have an article on Wikipedia, and have established notability per reliable sources considered appropriate for coverage of video games.
• The title must have had a reasonable expectation of quality; budget "bargain bin", licensed "cash-in" games, or non-notable indie and mobile games generally do not have an expectation of quality, although there can be exceptions.
• The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception. A game notable for negative reception must meet either or both of the following criteria:
  • Having been covered very negatively in significant detail by multiple reliable sources; it is generally accepted that the entry should contain at least five of these citations. Examples of negative coverage include reviews with low scores (a Metacritic aggregate score below 50 is a strong indicator that a game has received significantly negative reviews), its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever", either of all-time or within a specific category or genre), and notable issues that impacted the quality of the title.
  • Having a notably negative response from end-users over its quality, that has been discussed in detail by multiple reliable sources (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this), especially in cases where such reactions affect overall reception to the title by professional critics. This is generally accepted as having at least three sources discuss the negative user response in depth. This criteria applies especially in situations where negative user response impacts the reception by professional critics. A title is ineligible for inclusion based on user response if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the title or its background, or one "manufactured" by its community, rather than the quality of the title as a whole. Titles with controversies unrelated to their overall quality may be eligible for inclusion on List of controversial video games instead.

My issue with the use of exact numbers is that these new criteria are meant to be subjective, plus I am not sure whether it means 10 citations or 10 individual publishers, or whether they have to be present in this article. ViperSnake151  Talk  18:32, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, we do expect the citations to support any claims to be included in this list, and hence the need to stress WP:VG/S for checking on what are reliable sources; if you don't include citations, there's no way to check against these metrics, so inclusion of citations is absolutely required. The numbers are necessary , along with stressing WP:VG/S, to avoid gaming this list. We should be able to apply IAR if a title is "just" outside these after consensus discussion here, but we want to avoid cases that are far from the IAR edge.

A couple things I would change:

• The situation around ET/Atari video game burial is not so much due to user feedback, but due to the game and event's impact on the history; it got mediocre reviews at launch, but as it was tied to the VG crash in 1983, it has since become known as a very negative reception (why cash-grab games are generally ignored by the media at large nowadays), so it should probably go up into the "first" criteria.
• I would split that first criteria into three bullets as: 1) significantly negative reviews/low MC score 2) retrospectives or on "worst game ever" lists, and 3) negative reception associated with other events in the industry (the ET/ Atari video game burial). This would give 4 criteria, and the top then just has to say "any one of the following criteria:" instead of "either or both". --MASEM (t) 16:04, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Well, I felt like we were getting close, but if you are against any objective criteria, then I can't support this new proposal. If we can't come to a consensus on this ourselves, then we're going to be stalemated until we get more discussion going through other means, like polling WikiProjects, RFCs, etc. Sergecross73 msg me 17:53, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Break

Okay, you win. I unfortunately have to do this in order for it to pass, because you have affirmed that you reject all proposals that do not include an objective element.

Whether a title is included on this list should be based on consensus and the following criteria.

• The title must already have an article on Wikipedia, and have established notability per reliable sources considered appropriate for coverage of video games.
• The title must have had a reasonable expectation of quality; budget "bargain bin", licensed "cash-in" games, or non-notable indie and mobile games generally do not have an expectation of quality, although there can be exceptions.
• The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception, classified as meeting all or some of the following criteria as backed by a minimum of five reliable citations that negatively discuss the game or its reception in significant detail, and any other conditions listed:
  • Having multiple reviews with low scores (a Metacritic aggregate score below 50 is a strong indicator that a game has received significantly negative reviews).
  • Its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever" (either of all-time or within a specific category or genre).
  • Its reception resulting in a long-term impact on the video game industry (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this).
  • Having a notably negative response from end-users over its quality, especially in situations where negative user response impacts the reception by professional critics. In order to meet this criteria, at least three reliable citations must discuss such a response in significant detail. A title is ineligible for inclusion based on user response if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the title or its background, or one "manufactured" by its community, rather than the quality of the title as a whole. Titles with controversies unrelated to their overall quality may be eligible for inclusion on List of controversial video games instead.

I also changed the blanket rule to be that it has to be five citations demonstrating any of the four, but that the last one explicitly requires three to be dedicated to it. ViperSnake151  Talk  22:48, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

Hold on, I think we're mixing apples and oranges here. As Sergecross mentioned, there was wording I used that strongly hinted to an approriate # of citations that didn't hold a hard number as you were wary of.

I think if you take: "The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception, classified as meeting all or some of the following criteria as backed by a minimum of five reliable citations that negatively discuss the game or its reception in significant detail, and any other conditions listed" --> and reword this as

"The title must have demonstrated a strong negative reception described by one or more of the criteria listed below. This demonstration requires providing in-line citations for the entry to several published articles from sources that meet WikiProject Video Game's list of reliable works that describe in significant detail (not in passing) how the game meets the criterion/criteria; entries that fail to provide these citations will likely be removed without question. A minimum of three such sources is strongly recommended, and preferably at least five such sources should be provided. Note that you may reuse citations from the game's article to support inclusion here."

that hits the hard numbers but without making them too hard, compromising the positions and still allowing us to take a hard edge against bad entries. You then can remove the "three" source part for the negative user feedback bullet. --MASEM (t) 23:29, 20 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm fine with either Viper's new proposal or Masem's wording, though I'd think even Viper would prefer Masem's wording considering Viper's stance prior to trying to compromise. FYI, I did feel the "10 review minimum" part that's currently in the inclusion criteria was useful, though, if anything, that part was more frequently used to to discount game's with low Metacritic scores that only had a few review scores. (ie, it helped warrant removing those stupid M&M Kart Racing and Elf Bowling type games because they only had a handful of reviews, making the aggregate score less meaningful.) It might make more sense to include it as part of the bullet-point about Metacritic scores ("scores should be below 50% and based on at least 10 reviews" or however's best to word it.) I won't let it get in the way of achieving a consensus if no one else wants it, but I think its another thing that helps screen out these "bottom-of-the-GNG", low-scale Steam/mobile titles" off the list. Sergecross73 msg me 15:28, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

I agree, specifying the 10-minimum MC reviews should be kept and included in the bullet about MC for those reasons. We don't need all 10 in the article, just that we don't want games without wide attention. --MASEM (t) 15:48, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, they don't need to all be used or anything, it's just more to show that the aggregate was significant. In practice, no one, myself included, ever really counted them up individually or tried to use them all, it was really just about checking the number of reviews of the aggregate score was 10+. Anyways, if we add that, then I think we're finally at a three way agreement on how to move forward then? Sergecross73 msg me 17:17, 21 April 2017 (UTC)

Break 2

I did a few more tweaks to the presentation, and incorporated these final suggestions

Games are eligible for inclusion in this list if they have an article on Wikipedia, have established notability, and have demonstrated a strong negative reception described by one or more of the criteria listed below. This demonstration requires providing in-line citations for the entry to several published articles, from sources that are generally considered reliable for the coverage of video games, which describe in significant detail (not in passing) how the game meets the criterion/criteria; entries that fail to provide these citations will likely be removed without question. A minimum of three such sources is strongly recommended, and preferably at least five such sources should be provided. Note that you may reuse citations from the game's article to support inclusion here.

• Having low review scores; a game with an aggregate review score below 50/100. as determined by at least 10 critic reviews is generally considered eligible.
• Its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever" (either of all-time or within a specific category or genre).
• Its negative reception resulting in a long-term impact on the video game industry (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this).
• Having a notably negative response from end-users over its quality, especially in situations where negative user response impacts the reception by professional critics. In order to meet this criteria, at least three reliable citations must discuss such a response in significant detail. A title is ineligible for inclusion based on user response if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the title or its background, or one "manufactured" by its community, rather than the quality of the title as a whole. Titles with controversies unrelated to their overall quality may be eligible for inclusion on List of controversial video games instead.

"Shovelware" and non-notable indie or mobile titles are typically excluded from this list, barring exceptional circumstances, since they generally receive little media attention and do not typically have a reasonable expectation of quality (thus they would have negative reception, but not be notable for it).

ViperSnake151  Talk  15:48, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I like it. You have my support. Thoughts, Masem? Sergecross73 msg me 17:33, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• I'm good with it. We should be open if fine tuning may be needed if unique cases are presented, but I think this thus allows use to include NMS, MN9, and few others without opening a can of worms. --MASEM (t) 19:37, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

• Agreed. It'd be good to review a lot of the shorter entries too, and see if they truly fit. The list is so huge, I think few have reviewed it all. I think there's some that could stand to be removed under both sets of inclusion criteria... Sergecross73 msg me 19:39, 28 April 2017 (UTC)

One more possible tweak

This just came to mind, and it is more an addition to the user review part, not changing anything out there, but I think that we should consider the time since release as a factor as well. Not that that citing sources need to be from that time period, but that we can tell that the user review aspect is still recognized even if in just passing, say, 3 months+ after release. NMS clearly fits this: huge volume of material of negative feedback at the same, and still recognized for it today (9+ months since). The only reason to have a time frame is to avoid "game is broken on release, but fixed in a short-term patch"-type issues, where there certainly will be initial negative user feedback but that usually evaporates once the working patch is out. That negative user feedback may be documentable, but its not persistent. --MASEM (t) 14:05, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

I have no problem with that - people sometimes jump the gun and start adding titles a bit too soon sometimes. Sergecross73 msg me 15:10, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Would saying "notable, negative long-term response from end-users over its quality" be enough to work? ViperSnake151  Talk  06:11, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I'm not sure if we need "long-term"; user dislike for a game can be intense for a short-period of time and then seem to vanish, though still be recognized (which is arguably the case for NMS). We just want that the user dislike for a game stuck with it far enough past the point of release. And maybe here it is better not to attach a hard time frame, but establish something like: "Make sure that such user negative feedback is something that remains associated with a far some time after its release; negative feedback may occur for a game immediately after release but vanish after an early patch or other action is taken to address it, making that feedback shortlived, and inappropriate to document for this list." --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Why isn't GameRankings mentioned in criteria no. 3 above? It's defined as a reliable source, and a lot of entries here include the GameRankings score. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 17:02, 30 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it's implied that if MC works, GR also works too, just that MC tends to be the industry standard. --MASEM (t) 15:18, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Break 3

I modified the above from Break 2 to include the "longer-term" aspect of user-negative reviews.

Games are eligible for inclusion in this list if they have an article on Wikipedia, have established notability, and have demonstrated a strong negative reception described by one or more of the criteria listed below. This demonstration requires providing in-line citations for the entry to several published articles, from sources that are generally considered reliable for the coverage of video games, which describe in significant detail (not in passing) how the game meets the criterion/criteria; entries that fail to provide these citations will likely be removed without question. A minimum of three such sources is strongly recommended, and preferably at least five such sources should be provided. Note that you may reuse citations from the game's article to support inclusion here.

• Having low review scores; a game with an aggregate review score below 50/100. as determined by at least 10 critic reviews is generally considered eligible.
• Its quality having been acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns by reliable sources (i.e. being literally referred to as one of the "worst games ever" (either of all-time or within a specific category or genre).
• Its negative reception resulting in a long-term impact on the video game industry (see the story behind E.T. and the Atari video game burial as a strong example of this).
• Having a notably negative response from end-users over its quality, especially in situations where negative user response impacts the reception by professional critics. In order to meet this criteria, at least three reliable citations must discuss such a response in significant detail. This negative reception should be something of discussion some months after a product's release; short-term negativity towards a bug or flaw that is patched shortly after release does not qualify for inclusion on this list. A title is ineligible for inclusion based on user response if it received an otherwise positive response from critics, as it might be more indicative of a controversy surrounding a portion of the title or its background, or one "manufactured" by its community, rather than the quality of the title as a whole. Titles with controversies unrelated to their overall quality may be eligible for inclusion on List of controversial video games instead.

"Shovelware" and non-notable indie or mobile titles are typically excluded from this list, barring exceptional circumstances, since they generally receive little media attention and do not typically have a reasonable expectation of quality (thus they would have negative reception, but not be notable for it).

If there are no serious issues against this, then I would propose we make this the standard, and subsequentally establish consensus for the two principle cases driving this, NMS and MN9. --MASEM (t) 19:23, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I'm good with that. ViperSnake151  Talk  21:47, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Me too. I've just been waiting on either of you to finalize. Sergecross73 msg me 22:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and updated the header with that then. --MASEM (t) 22:38, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 20 external links on List of video games notable for negative reception. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added {{dead link}} tag to http://1up.com/do/feature?cId=3124081&did=1
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamepro.com/article/features/110028/the-52-most-important-video-games-of-all-time/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.seanbaby.com/nes/egm01.htm
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gametrailers.com/player/21160.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20140109200808/http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=Articles.Detail&id=376 to http://classicgaming.gamespy.com/View.php?view=GameMuseum.Detail&id=290
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.1up.com/do/feature?pager.offset=5&cId=3149883
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100714111501/http://www.ugo.com/games/the-worst-video-games-of-all-time?page=13 to http://www.ugo.com/games/the-worst-video-games-of-all-time?page=13
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/mortal-kombat-mythologies-sub-zero/reviews/mortal-kombat-mythologies-sub-zero-review-2544824/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/n64/adventure/superman64/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamedaily.com/articles/galleries/top-25-worst-comic-book-video-games/?page=26
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110604061453/http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/kabuki-warriors-review to http://www.next-gen.biz/reviews/kabuki-warriors-review
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/gamecube/action/charliesangels/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/review.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.gamespot.com/gamespot/features/all/bestof2004/day3w_12.html
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://uk.gamespot.com/pc/driving/bigrigsotrr/download_6086554.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100703095811/http://www.2404.org/interviews/4802/Stalin-vs.-Martians-Interview to http://www.2404.org/interviews/4802/Stalin-vs.-Martians-Interview/
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100226154511/http://www.gamespot.com/wii/adventure/kyoufutaikanjuon/review.html to http://www.gamespot.com/wii/adventure/kyoufutaikanjuon/review.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110721030746/http://screwattack.com/videos/Worst-Wii-Game-2010-SAGYs to http://screwattack.com/videos/Worst-Wii-Game-2010-SAGYs
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://runningwithscissors.com/main/index.php?topic=625.0
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130405052444/http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9117494 to http://www.1up.com/do/blogEntry?bId=9117494
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20130215062946/http://uk.gamespot.com/aliens-colonial-marines/reviews/aliens-colonial-marines-review-6403683/ to http://uk.gamespot.com/aliens-colonial-marines/reviews/aliens-colonial-marines-review-6403683/

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 00:52, 24 May 2017 (UTC)

Flappy Bird

Flappy Bird holds a score of 48.17% on GameRankings based on six reviews. There was a complete debacle about it when it came out, from it being plagiarism to its difficulty level. Does it meet criteria? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:38, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Just spot-checking, I found this CNN piece with 3 links to other non-VG RSes that speak of the game in a negative way (due to being too addictive); add how he pulled the game in response to some of these issues, and I think we have a candidate for inclusion. It's definitely not a "controversy" (that would be reserved to it being a target of video game cloning). I'd recommending drafting up something for inclusion here to review. --MASEM (t) 20:56, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

Only 6 reviews fails the inclusion criteria, and a GR score of 48% is just barely clearing the 50% requirement (and out of 6 reviews is far less significant than most aggregates.) I don't feel like that game's notability really came from its negative reception. It's hard to describe. It felt more like a viral meme or something. Sergecross73 msg me 22:05, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

How's this? (see below) ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:19, 16 May 2017 (UTC)

No offense, but it's written like a rather mundane reception section. Direct quotes like "it's not a good game" is hardly an indicator of especially negative reception. This is supposed to be covering why it's part of the worst of the worst... Sergecross73 msg me 00:41, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

I'd recommend going back to that CNN, and use like the CNET and the Atlantic articles it uses, as well as more from other non-VG sources. Some to help Wired, BBC, Esquire. I think if you think less about its VG reception (though that's part of it), and focus more on the broader picture and that the negativity towards the game led to it being taken down (despite its popularity) will help. --MASEM (t) 00:51, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

To help, look at current criteria #5 at the top of this page and think about showing that, and less about the MC/GR score or # of reviews. --MASEM (t) 00:52, 17 May 2017 (UTC)

@Masem: I've taken your comments and suggestions and fine-tuned the piece I came up with. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:33, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

The information steming from these sources above do not go over negative controversy, but rather how it was pulled off the stores just after a few days, its short-lived extreme popularity, and addictivenes. None of these sources considers the difficulty, which is noted though, as controversial negative feature. And even if it did, criteria #5 specifically says it it should help inclusion, not grant. And, yeah, with a MC score of 52, of which five publications rated 50% or higher, I don't think an inclusion in the article here is justified. Lordtobi (✉) 21:09, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Which is why I listed the GameRankings score instead of Metacritic (the GR score is below 50%). And your assessment on the sources not being about negative reception is incorrect. Also, note how many non-video game reliable sources covered the game in a negative way (such as The Huffington Post and Philadelphia Daily News). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:19, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

Note the discussion above: while an MC/GR below 50% is a good measure for inclusion, there are alternate cases. Flappy Bird's critical reception is on the edge, but there's more to that when you consider non-scoring critical analysis sources like CNN/Atlantic/Wired, meeting other criteria on here. --MASEM (t) 22:32, 19 May 2017 (UTC)

I agree with Masem. Considering the fact it made such a splash in the media, and that reviewers gave it poor reviews (including USgamer's 1/5), it meets criteria. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 00:00, 20 May 2017 (UTC)

Hello @TheJoebro64:@Masem:@Sergecross73:@Lordtobi:. I was notified about this squabble and I am here to give an opinion, as an active Wikipedia video games editor. I have looked thoroughly at this issue and thus I will pit it against the criteria, one by one, until I come to a conclusion. The first criteria states that the game should have low review scores. This criteria also details that aggregate review scores with scores below fifty out of one hundred and considering ten critics should be used to identify the criteria's status. Both Metacritic and GameRankings have seven and six critics included in the Flappy Bird page's algorithm, respectively, so the aggregates are not reliable enough and therefore should be dismissed as a factor that could affect this matter. The second criteria is whether it was referred to as a bad game or not by the media, journalists, the public, etc. I believe this isn't true because a lot of critics, while saying the game isn't that great, stated its addictive nature as praise of the game. Criteria the third does not match up with Flappy Bird's inclusion either, because it most certainly did not have a long-term impact on the industry like other games on this list already did, and was not covered by major critics completely (like Ride to Hell: Retribution or Drake of the 99 Dragons were). Criteria the fourth is not true because the game was popular on the App Store (holding the #1 spot in downloads), positively received by players (through user reviews), and spawned a lot of clones due to its immense popularity. I do believe this is a bad game. Yet, I oppose its inclusion because of the details listed above. Thanks for hearing me out. Manfred (talk) 01:17, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

I've reverted its inclusion, as I didn't feel like we had a consensus. LordTobi and I have actively opposed it, and I'm reading Masem's comments as more like "it's conceptually possible" than "let's use this entry". Please wait for an actual consensus, Joebro. Sergecross73 msg me 14:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

Well, it's a two versus two situation... I'm going to say the argument for including it is a bit stronger though. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:54, 21 May 2017 (UTC)·

That's terrible reasoning. Everyone thinks their own personal reasoning is better. That means nothing coming from the person making the proposal. Beyond that, 2 versus 2 is the literal definition of WP:NOCONSENSUS, which means the change isn't made. And 2v2 would be a generous interpretation of what's going on here. Again, Masem hasn't stated any specific support of your entry in particular. He just believes it's possible. A more accurate read on the situation would be 2 against inclusion, 1 for inclusion, and one saying it's possible. Either way, not a consensus. Sergecross73 msg me 17:18, 21 May 2017 (UTC)

So... do we have a resolution here? I would say three against inclusion plus strong evidence would give a pretty reasonable and fulfilling conclusion. (I don't mean to offend the nominator, either. Bringing this up means this doesn't have to be discussed again) Manfred (talk) 08:30, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

Alright, that settles it (for now, at least). ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 10:20, 27 May 2017 (UTC)

The inclusion of Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal

Is it really worth mentioning Shattered Crystal here? It is presented here along with Rise of Lyric... are there really any reasons for its existence in this article other than being the unlucky counterpart to Rise of Lyric? Let's discuss. Manfred (talk) 09:18, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

Also a note: The discussion for its inclusion mainly talks about Rise of Lyric, rather than Shattered Crystal itself. [Discussion currently present in Archive 10]. Manfred (talk) 09:20, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I added Shattered Crystal there, since it meets the individual criteria for inclusion. I was sort of in a rush to add it, but I do plan to improve upon it. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 19:32, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I could go either way. Much of the focus is on the Wii U game, but Sega's response on the poor sales focuses more on both. I guess it could depend on what Joe plans on adding... Sergecross73 msg me 20:57, 29 May 2017 (UTC)

I think it's fair that due to Rise of Lyric died hard critcally, that SC got caught up in the same negative cycle to be noted, making that to be mentioned as part of the Rise of Lyric's entry; it definitely isn't notable on its own as a separate one. --MASEM (t) 16:44, 30 May 2017 (UTC)

No Man's Sky's lack of placement on this list

Hello all,

I realise this has been discussed previously, except no actual conclusion was made to whether they should be placed on the list or not; rather, the criteria of inclusion for the list were changed... I do believe the game should hold a spot in the list, for these criteria:

No Man's Sky

As for the first criteria, Metacritic gave an aggregate score of 71% for the PlayStation 4 edition and 61% for the PC edition, while GameRankings gave the same score for the PlayStation 4 edition, but 55% for the PC edition. This does not pass the criteria, however GameRankings' PC edition aggregate score comes pretty darn close. Yet, as stated before, public backlash is more important than critical reception, in which I will note later.

As for the second criteria, a lot of the public presence absolutely tore this game to pieces. To name a few:

• The Jimquisition - Sky Hype
• Zero Punctuation - No Man's Sky
• The Jimquisition - A Video Discussing Whether Or Not Hello Games Lied About No Man's Sky
• AngryJoe Show - No Man's Sky
• Dunkview - No Man's Sky
• Gamezone - No Man's Sky has now become the worst game available on Steam

I really don't have to continue on the ultimate amount of response it got.

As for the third criteria, one could argue that the never seen before amount of hype for the game and the game's utter disappointment of a release, plus the multitude of lies that stemmed from the pre-release interviews (such as the multiplayer, live battles, etc.) had an effect on not just the industry, but gamer culture and hype culture itself.

The fourth criteria needs zero explanation.

• Steam reviews are "Mostly Negative", used to be "Overwhelmingly Negative".
• Plethora of user complaints
• Pressure on Steam to have No Man's Sky an exception to the Steam Refund rule so that purchasers of the game could refund it
• Media uproar
• Game is known in gamer culture as terrible

I really don't have to go on for this one. The sheer amount of backlash is pretty much record-breaking.

Let's discuss this. If there aren't any objections, I'll submit a proposal of the addition to the article. Thanks for hearing me out! ~ Manfred (talk page) 09:05, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

The change in the criteria was specifically aimed around how to allow for NMS to be included on this, because it fits the idea, but if we were not careful, would allow for any fan backlash to be included. I think now that we have accepted this, we can restore what we've had had for NMS before. --MASEM (t) 10:28, 4 June 2017 (UTC)

Ok, I'll get to work on a draft soon. Thanks. We should also consider the same for Mighty No. 9. ~ Manfred (talk page) 04:06, 5 June 2017 (UTC)

References

YouTube As A Source

Is it okay to use a YouTube video as a source. For years, YouTube has been considered not a reliable source. 2605:E000:2E42:A3F0:49E3:8B78:2EA1:1DB2 (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

You're talking about the Youtube link for GameTrailers. Youtube itself is just a host. What matters is the channel. GameTrailers is a reliable (albeit now defunct) source. -- ferret (talk) 01:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

If it's a random Youtuber or random person who uploaded a video that is not theirs? Not reliable. But if it's the official YouTube channel of a reliable source? That's usable, as it's an extension of the reliable source, just distributed through Youtube as a medium. Perhaps that's what you're confused about here? Sergecross73 msg me 02:05, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

It's self-published content that is the issue. Not nessecarily where it's hosted. ViperSnake151  Talk  03:10, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Flappy Birds opinion

the problem is guys a lot of people like flappy birds. It is repetitive crap I know but it is technically sound and fully functional such as it is as a game. This list should be games universally panned. I personally hate flappy birds. But I also hate COD but I wouldn't recommend that either Vin 86.15.128.219 (talk) 21:07, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Uh, sort of. Please look at the top of this talk page, where it says "Inclusion criteria". That's generally what we're going for on this list. Sergecross73 msg me 12:44, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

A second argument for Flappy Bird

With the new criteria, could Flappy Bird be added again? I mean, it was covered much more than No Man's Sky, and received significantly more negative reviews. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 11:36, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

[...] and received significantly more negative reviews.

Did it? The new criteria changes specialize the inclusion of user-side negative reviews, which are, however, not the case for Flappy Bird either. The game held a 4-star rating on both the App Store (see image) and Google Play, wherefore it fails the fourth criterion. The game furthermore fails criterion one"—a game with an aggregate review score below 50/100"—as it has a score of 52 (slim, but still...), criterion two—"acknowledged in relevant retrospectives and columns"—as there are now such retrospectives for a four-year old game, and criterion three—"negative reception resulting in a long-term impact on the video game industry"—as news on the game ceased together with the year 2014, which goes hand-in-hand with above criterion two. Specifically, the latest source present the article, dated December 2014, says "The doodle playfully pays tribute to Flappy Bird, the simple but addictive game which became a global sensation." ... I wouldn't quite say that "global sensation" is connoted that negatively. With Flappy Bird failing all four criteria, I still oppose its inclusion. Lordtobi (✉) 12:26, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

(edit conflict) :The criteria changes were largely about factoring in reliable-source-documented fan outrage/disappointment from their expectations. How would that factor in to Flappy Bird - that wasn't the case with that game at all. There was no sense of fan expectation or fan backlash - it was developed by a no-name developer on the App Store. No one knew the game was coming before it was released.

Beyond that, I still feel the bigger issue with your proposed entry didn't really say anything especially noteworthy about the game. It was all "Newspaper X said "This game, it is not good. It was bad.". It said nothing of substance. I still feel the game is more "a mediocre game that went viral for being simplistic" than "notable for negative reception". Sergecross73 msg me 12:38, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Just found two reviews: ArcadeSushi, who gave the game 2/10, and USgamer, who gave it a 1/5. Also, the GR score is below 50. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 14:31, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

First of all, singular reviews do not cut for this list, and we go from aggregate scores only. Coming to that, GameRankings is not the best source for such reviews, as Wikipedia considers Metacritic to be superior and better-maintained. (which is why we only include Metacritic scores in articles), but yet, we can try: I see here that GR scroes it 48.17%, which stands in contrary to the 52/100 from Metacritic. If both were notable for this case, we would have a half-fulfilled criterion one, however, said criterion also states "as determined by at least 10 critic reviews", MC holds 7 reviews, while GR only holds 6 reviews for aggregation, wherefore neither is egible to give Flappy Bird its point on this one, still leaving all criteria unedged. Lordtobi (✉) 14:52, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

Keep in mind, the criteria are not meant to be used as a hard exclusion line, but to at least avoid pointless discussions about games that a user may personally think is bad but clearly has a decent reception. Flappy Bird doesn't exactly meet the criteria but it is not like way off from it, and we do have RSes here in place to at least discuss its inclusion further.

And I'm still on the fence in this specific case. The programmer released it to no fanfare, it was a commercial success and spawned zillions of clones, but RSes commented that the game itself was poor, looked like a SMB ripoff, and was too addictive, and the developer, based on that, decided to pull the game. That seems to be a game that would qualify as being known for a negative reception, even if it does not ping any of the criteria exactly. It's also a very unique case that, unlike the negative userbase feedback we just added which can apply to several games, we shouldn't be asking how to morph the criteria to fit. I'm still not 100% sure about inclusion, but it's not a open and shut case against it. --MASEM (t) 15:32, 7 June 2017 (UTC)

I think the above observations really lays out the problem with adding Flappy Bird to the list. It's just too unique of a case. I mean, the game is notable for negative reception, but not in a way like the other games on this list. I'd like to say that Flappy Bird could be a proposed exception to the criteria, but I know that an argument like that is incredibly weak. I feel the game would likely fit into the List of controversial video games, though. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 21:25, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Controversy on the game is definetly there, so that'd be the next logical step. Lordtobi (✉) 06:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Flappy Bird should easily get onto List of controversial video games. I just disagree with its placement here because it wasn't revered as that poor of a game. In my opinion (and probably most people's here), it's a poorly designed game that shouldn't have gotten the media attention it did. Yet, (and I find this fact quite sad), a lot of publications and a lot of users seemed to really enjoy the game. This is why I still strongly oppose its inclusion on this list; I believe it's a perfect fit for List of controversial video games. ~ Manfred (talk page) 07:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

(delurk) Personally I think it's more like that Flappy Birds got negative reception about the popularity, not the game itself. It was more a backlash against the hype, plus (going with the issue of controversy) the fact that it used Mario assets.♫ Melodia Chaconne ♫ (talk) 14:18, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

That's why I do think there's argument that it can be included, as long as we recognize it is a very unique case that doesn't exactly meet any of the criteria but is certainly pointing to that. But the writeup needs to be more direct towards this. --MASEM (t) 16:20, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

Also, one of the arguments against its inclusion was that it received positive user reviews. As a matter of fact, one of the sources I used stated that the "positive" reviews were actually mostly satirical. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:34, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

@TheJoebro64: Are you going to trust a media outlet's opinion or the actual source? -- the preserved Google Play page for Flappy Bird's reviews at the WayBack Machine show that most users either enjoyed it or quoted it as "addictive" in a positive way. Yeah, there is a negative side of reviews who quote the game as "addictive" in a negative way, but, for the purpose of a point, I've calculated the Google Play reviews, and out of 548,132 reviews...

• 75% enjoyed the game (5 or 4 stars)
• 7% were mixed about the game (3 stars)
• 18% disliked the game (2 or 1 stars)

The fact that three quarters and thus the majority of Google Play Flappy Bird players enjoyed the game shows without any doubt that the public received the game positively. Also, read the reviews; very, very few of them are written satirically. ~ Manfred (talk page) 00:21, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Pretty sure they were referring to the App Store on iOS, though. I'll see if I can find an archive on that. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 09:53, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

A LOT OF THESE DON'T HAVE PLATFORMS? :/

CAN SOMEONE GO THROUGH THIS AND PUT THE PLATFORM OF THE GAMES PLEASE?

SOME VERSIONS SUCH AS THE C64 VERSION OF FRIDAY 13TH ARE ACTUALLY GOOD GAMES. PLEASE BE SPECIFIC. THANK YOU Vin 86.15.128.219 (talk) 21:03, 8 June 2017 (UTC)

Unless the platforms have some sort of significance to the negative reception, they probably don't need to be mentioned. There's a link to each individual game's dedicated article in each entry here - if you want know what platform it was released on, just click on the the link to check the game's article. Sergecross73 msg me 12:30, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue it wouldn't hurt to include "one" platform name (if it was for multiple, then "multiple") before the year in the header line. It's lightweight info that helps rapid identification. --MASEM (t) 16:19, 9 June 2017 (UTC)

I'd argue that it's not required as each paragraph already states what platform it's available on in the first few starting sentences. I think the platform the game is on should only be specified if a port of a game is in question, like Pac-Man for Atari 2600. ~ Manfred (talk page) 00:25, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

@86.15.128.219: You need supporting factors if you're going to make a statement like "(...) THE C64 VERSION OF FRIDAY 13TH ARE ACTUALLY GOOD GAMES (...)". If you have some evidence that the Commodore 64 version of Friday the 13th was not panned upon its release, that aligns with the criteria listed above, then we can discuss its exempt from the list. I myself couldn't find any source that saw the Commodore 64 release any worse than its counterparts, but maybe there's something that I don't know about. ~ Manfred (talk page) 07:17, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I trimmed out a lot of the unnecessary platforms back in the day, because it was 1) irrelevant to reception 2) prone to example bloat on an already massive article and 3) often erroneously added platforms not relevant to the reception (for example, editors kept on adding "PS3" to the platforms for Tony Hawk 5 in a time when the PS3 version was unreleased and unreviewed.) Sergecross73 msg me 15:16, 10 June 2017 (UTC)

An example of what is not negative user-based reception

This might be worthwhile of the type of thing that would fall under a controversy rather than a negative reception, but the whole mess around the OpenIV mod takedown for GTA V, with users flooding Steam reviews with negative votes as a way to petition against Rockstar. I would consider potentially adding this as a representative example of what we don't want to include on this list. --MASEM (t) 14:14, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Seconded. Sergecross73 msg me 14:24, 19 June 2017 (UTC)

Entries on multiple games

Shouldn't entries on multiple games have a "both" if they were released in the same year? This is done on the Zelda CD-i and rugby games, but it was just removed on the Sonic Boom games for some reason... ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 22:02, 11 June 2017 (UTC)

If two games are listed, and only one year was listed, wouldn't it be assumed both were released in the same year? Sergecross73 msg me 00:14, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

But, consistency. We should decide whether having "(both 2017)" or "(2017)" is the better option. I go for "(both 2017)" as there is zero remaining confusion. ~ Manfred (talk page) 00:35, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Right, I agree on that. I'm saying the "both" is unnecessary. If I removed it in one place, but not the rest, it's because I didn't notice it elsewhere. Sergecross73 msg me 01:31, 12 June 2017 (UTC)

Can we get a proper consensus on this? This stuff is prone to edit warring, and so far it's a 2-versus-1 situation; I think we need another opinion. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 15:21, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

What is the argument in favor of this, beyond "consistency" with the other entry, which, in my opinion, is also unnecessary. Sergecross73 msg me 16:17, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

My belief is that just (2017) is a bit unclear, and could be confusing (it might make it look like it's just one game). Saying "both" is really clear and there is no confusion. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 16:22, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Adding both is unnecessary. You're dating the section, which happens to cover two games. Unless there's a difference, it's unnecessary to add more text. -- ferret (talk) 16:30, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Why in the world would people think its one game? The section title "Sonic Boom: Rise of Lyric and Sonic Boom: Shattered Crystal" does not read like the title of a single game (why would a single game title have the words "Sonic Boom" in the name twice?) There's also the fact that the "and" isn't italicized, showing a clear break between the two titles. Sergecross73 msg me 16:42, 29 June 2017 (UTC)

Text for SimCity (2013) to preview before adding

Because this does not immediately fit the criteria beyond user feedback, I'm seeking consensus before including:

SimCity was the 6th major game in Maxis and Electronic Arts (EA) series of city-building games. Among major changes from the past single-player experiences of previous SimCity games was to enable online features that would allow players' cities to interact with one other. Maxis developer Ocean Quigley said that this had been a choice made by EA, wanting the game to be more of a platform than a single title. Additionally, the developers had offered significant improvements in the artificial intelligence of the "sims" (simulated population). The game was released in March 2013, but players found immediately that there was no offline mode, and the servers for online connectivity were over capacity, requiring players to wait upwards of thirty minutes to play for several weeks following launch. EA and Maxis eventually resolved server issues by expanding capacity and disabling certain "non-critical" features. Users also found that the promised improvements to the artificial intelligence were not present, and that the available land for city building was much more restrictive than previous iterations. Users were further critical when it was found that the game could be run in an offline mode using special debugging commands, to which Maxis responded saying that they opted against an offline mode as "it didn't fit with our vision". By October 2013, EA and Maxis discussed the possibility of adding an offline mode, and a year atfer release, the game was updated to support this.

The game received lukewarm reviews from critics, with an aggregate score of 64/100 from MetaCritic, but was hit hard with several negative user reviews. The initial server issues created enough negative user reviews at retailer Amazon.com that the retailer temporarily halted sales of the game for a few days. While some users that purchased retail editions of the game were able to get refunds, those that had purchased it digitally through EA's Origin service could not get refunds, and instead EA offered users a choice of one free game from eight offerings as to make up for the server issues. EA was named as the "Worst Company in America" in a 2013 Consumerist user-voted poll, with the debacle over SimCity's service launch as part of the reason some voted this way.

As a result of the poor reception to the game, Electronic Arts shuttered Maxis' main Emeryville, California studio by 2015, transferring Maxis' other projects like The Sims to other EA studios. Separately, Colossal Order, a studio under Paradox Interactive, had been wanting to make a city simulator for some time, but Paradox had been hesitant of SimCity's influence on the market. When the 2013 version SimCity was released and faltered under its reception, Paradox greenlit Colossal Order's Cities: Skylines, which since its 2015 release has since taken over SimCity as the representative city-building game.

I like paragraphs 2 and 3 - they do well at showing the special circumstances we look for in including entries on the list. (The dev company closing, the "worst company in US" title, etc) The first paragraph is fine, though slightly heavier on the intro stuff than I personally prefer, with the overall article's massive size. (Like the fact that it's the sixth entry - not particularly important to the negative reception.) But even with that, it doesn't make me oppose its inclusion. Sergecross73 msg me 17:09, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

That can be trimmed, I'm just making sure we agree this checks all the boxes for being a game known for negative reception that relies on the user feedback issue more than critical scores. (But now that I wrote this, the fact it killed Maxis and enabled Cities: Skylines are historical industry changes too, so technically meets that.) --MASEM (t) 17:17, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I agree. We're on the same page with all that. Sergecross73 msg me 17:54, 5 July 2017 (UTC)

References

Mighty No. 9

Due to the new criteria, I think Mighty No. 9 could be added to the list now. Should we draft something up? ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:35, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yes, at least for me, the "user review" stuff was all geared towards what should be obvious cases like NMS and MN9 that didn't fit the other criteria at that time. --MASEM (t) 13:41, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

I think it could, but I think it's another that should be worked through on the talk page prior to being added, because it would largely hinge on being written in a specific way that meets the inclusion criteria. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Yeah, thats why drafting up something here first would be good to make sure it highlights the right parts. I'm certain it can merit inclusion. --MASEM (t) 13:58, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

The Slaughtering Grounds

@Falco12351: had attempted to add The Slaughtering Grounds to this list. For those that don't recall, it was a game that Jim Sterling found used a lot of stock assets and a bunch of other stuff, and other users follows with more negative reviews, leading the studio Digital Homicide to try to sue these people.

Is it a game known for negative reception? Yes, though there are zero RS reviews of the game (I think it got pulled). Falco's version lacks sources, but sourcing the issues around the game aren't a problem. The question is more is this a game known for negative reception, or a controversial video game due to Digital Homicide's following actions? It belongs on one of these lists for certain, I'm just not sure if it falls on this one or not. --MASEM (t) 00:53, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

I would say personally (this is original research here) that the game garnered most of its attention from the bad reception on the part of Digital Homicide, rather than just being a shitty game. Therefore, any notability this game gets will most likely involve the meltdown which happened after the game was published. Also, while the YT channel of Jim Sterling would not count as a reliable source, The Escapist (which Jim Sterling's video was published to) would. Morphdog^flames 12:55, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

• I'm against inclusion on this list. Sounds like it could have an argument for the video game controversy list maybe, but it fails too many of the inclusion criteria here. (And every version added so far that I had noticed was unsourced altogether anyways...) Sergecross73 msg me 13:02, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
  • If we deem inclusion is acceptable, sourcing is not an issue, the mess is well-covered. But I do agree this is less about the game and more about Digital Homicide. --MASEM (t) 13:35, 14 July 2017 (UTC)
    • Yes, true, I don't follow Sterling or DH, but I've seen the headlines on my newsfeed - surely sourcing exists. I just meant the entry proposed so far wouldn't work because it didn't use any of them. But my main argument is that it doesn't really meet the inclusion criteria or concept for this article. This is more negative critical reviews and getting "worst game" type coverage. This particular scenario started out about the game, but really grew more into the dispute between a reviewer and the company than the game itself. Sergecross73 msg me 15:07, 14 July 2017 (UTC)

References

RollerCoaster Tycoon World

Is there a reason why RollerCoaster Tycoon World is not in this list? It received heavy criticism and negative reviews. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 06:03, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

I think it could be added, but its MC rating is only based upon seven reviews. At least ten should be present. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 11:55, 5 August 2017 (UTC)

Night Trap

GamesRadar, Computer Gaming World, and EGM have called Night Trap among the worst games of all time, and Game Informer named it among the worst horror games. The game is also infamous for being involved in the Senate congressional hearings over violent video games in 1993. I'd say this is a candidate for inclusion. ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 20:40, 29 July 2017 (UTC)

Given that this is about to get a re-release, it might be worthwhile to look at it again. However, it should be at the controversial games list, certainly. --MASEM (t) 14:50, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Requested move 19 August 2017

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. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: not moved - early closure due to clear consensus and backlog DrStrauss talk 19:29, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

---

List of video games notable for negative reception → List of video games considered the worst – Per WP:CONSISTENCY, since other articles about this kind of judgements have that suffix. Gaioa (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Yes, I know. This issue was discussed earlier, and I am knowingly reviving it. But. Consider the articles List of films considered the worst, List of music considered the worst, List of television shows considered the worst, and so on for the best ones also. Therefore, to keep with the (procedurally) established consistency among article titles, I beg my friends to reconsider.
Yes, I know that the other name redirects here, so some might say "no harm done". But this issue is not about ease of finding, but rather ease of pattern. A reader might be confused that this article has a title that differs from the articles of similar topic, as I mentioned above.
And yes, the new title might change the topic of the article. But not necessarily. A notably overwhelming dislike of a game can easily and uncontroversially be translated to that the game was "among the worst [the reviewer] has ever seen". If a "bad reception" is "notable", it is clearly "uniquely" and "outstanding" as well, and could very well be "historically". (And by the way, I believe it even could change the article topic to the better, since it right now feels like it is too long. But that's another discussion.)
Gaioa (talk) 11:11, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

Link to last discussion. -- ferret (talk) 12:06, 19 August 2017 (UTC)

• Oppose. Not all of these games are considered "the worst". ~ TheJoebro64 (talk) 13:44, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose - a ton of debate and careful wording has gone into the inclusion criteria. Even a small change in scope will throw that out of whack. Consistency is not more important than the work gone into its current status. Sergecross73 msg me 13:47, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose The entire discussion around user-reviews of late (and thus inclusion of No Man's Sky and SimCity which by no means have the lowest scores ever) is to identify games that are simply known for being of poor reception, not necessarily being the worst reviewed games. --MASEM (t) 14:49, 19 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose Per the editors above me, but this edit highlights the issues. Misguided, but if the article was actually titled "the worst" this type of rationale for removing entries would be even more common. -- ferret (talk) 00:13, 21 August 2017 (UTC)
• Oppose – Just because a game carries negative reception does not mean it is considered the worst. While such an article could be created, it's possible it might result in WP:FANCRUFT. jd22292 (Jalen D. Folf) (talk) 22:32, 22 August 2017 (UTC)

---

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

Mass Effect: Andromeda

Given the double whammy of news this week that there will be no single player DLC for ME: A, and that EA has said they'll shelf the series until they feel its ready to return, I'm seeing enough articles to suggest this should be on the list, eg [2]. (Even though I think some of ME:A's failings could be seen as controversy, overall the game did get negative reception and had some downstream impacts) However, like NMS and other games in this, I would suggest we write out the blurb before we add it. --MASEM (t) 23:59, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

I really have a hard time adding a title with an MC score on the mid-70s as one if the most notable negatively received games. Seems like more of a commercial underperformer to me... Sergecross73 msg me 00:05, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

I do recognize it faired critically okay, but I also don't think its commercial performance was bad (apparently it buoyed EA's Q2'17 profits). It's an odd case, and definitely we need to figure out if it fits first. --MASEM (t) 00:10, 24 August 2017 (UTC)

That's...even worse then. If it wasn't considered a critical or commercial failure, I'm fairly against its inclusion at this point. Announcing "no DLC" and essentially "no plans on a sequel yet" isn't nearly enough to put it on the list. (Full disclosure: I've never played a Mass Effect game in my life, so this isn't some "fan defending the series" case either.) Sergecross73 msg me 14:40, 24 August 2017 (UTC)